HC Deb 09 September 1909 vol 10 cc1617-23

(1) All Excise Licences for the manufacture or sale of intoxicating liquor which are to be taken out annually and are in force at the time of the passing of this Act (in this Section referred to as existing licences) shall cease to be in force on the thirtieth day of September next after the passing of this Act, and the Commissioners shall repay or allow to the holder of any such existing licence (except in the case of a licence which would have expired on the tenth day of October) an amount of duty proportionate to the time by which the period of the currency of the licence is diminished under this provision.

(2) Where any licence granted under this Act in substitution for a. corresponding existing licence expires by virtue of the provisions of this Act on the twenty-eighth day of May or thirtieth day of June next after the passing thereof the duty payable on the licence shall be proportionately reduced.

Mr. GRETTON

moved in Sub-section (1) to leave out the words "thirtieth day of September" ["in force on the thirtieth day of September "], and to insert instead thereof the words "first day of January."

As the Clause stands the date for the commencement of the tax is 30th September, and they have to take out a licence which expires on 30th June. The Government have altered that, and have extended the duration of manufacturers' licences to twelve months instead of nine months. The original intention of the Government when they introduced this Bill was that the period should only be for nine months. The hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. James Mason) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 4th May:— If he will state at what date the new brewers' Licence Duty will become payable; and if the whole of the duty will be payable on the specified date. To that Question the Chancellor of the Exchequer replied:— The new duty will come into force on 1st October, 1909. It is proposed that the licence shall be granted, not for a full year, but for nine months to expire on 30th June, 1910. The duty therefore, will be proportionately reduced. That was made quite clear in answer to a supplementary question. They now propose to put back the date of 30th September to 1st November. It is not quite clear what they mean by that, and if the twelve months is now to be reduced to ten months, I take it they only mean to charge ten months because there is an Amendment in the name of the Solicitor-General-which would make it clear that they only intended to charge duty for the period which would elapse to the 1st November. If not, I think it should be clearly stated. The Government ought also to explain why they intend to make an increased charge on manufacturers. We know that the Government have made what they call' "concessions" in various directions, and they may intend to recover from the manufacturers some increased amount to pay for their generosity in those matters. That, however, is a peculiar kind of generosity, and one which ought to be fully explained to the House and the country. There is this remarkable feature about it. In the case of the distillers the amount of duty involved would be very small—about £4,500; but the amount involved in the present alteration of date would be £100,000 or more. That is a considerable sum, and the alteration ought, not to be smuggled through without explanation. I take it that the Government do not intend to go back on their statement in May last, that only nine-months' duty should be charged in the case of manufacturers. For the purpose of making that clear, and to insert a date which would bring the duty on to a nine-months basis, I beg to move the Amendment.

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

The intention of the Government is, and always has been, as was expressed earlier in the Session. As. the Bill stood originally, any licence granted after July? this year was to pay on the new scale for 12 months from the time at which the licence was granted; that is to say, if a manufacturer was granted a licence on October 10th he would be charged either at the moment of granting of subsequently at the increased rate from October 10th this year to October 10th next year. But an alteration was made in consequence of previous discussion in. respect to the very exceptional licences, small in number, which are granted between July 1st and September 30th on-account of some misunderstanding owing to a statment of the Secretary to the Treasury. That point is dealt with in a subsequent Amendment. I cannot see any case for Postponing the issue of new licences until January 1st. Why should a brewer who takes out a licence on October 10th have his licence at the old rate until January 1st next? I can understand that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gretton) would prefer it; but nothing the Government have said, or which has appeared in the Bill, would give the impression that he was to get his licence at the old rate from October 10th. All that was made clear was that he should not be charged at the new rate as from July 1st, and that is the effect of the Bill. September 30th was the date fixed in this case, because a sanguine Government anticipated that the Bill might become law by that date; but at present it seems somewhat doubtful whether that expectation will be realised. Consequently, it is proposed by the Amendment, which I shall move in a moment, to alter the date from the 30th September to 30th November.

Mr. GRETTON

The right hon. Gentleman has stated his case, but he really has not taken the trouble to make any reference to the date which I have given him—a very explicit statement of a date which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave on May 4th, in reply to the hon. Member for Windsor. Let me give it:— Mr. JAMES MASON asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state at what date the new brewers' Licence Duty will become payable; and if the whole of the duty will be payable upon the specified date? Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The new duty will come into force on 1st October, 1909 It is proposed that the licence shall be granted, not for a full year, but for nine months, to expire on 30th June, 1910. The duty, therefore, will be proportionately reduced. Mr. JAMES MASON asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if the new brewers' Licence Duty of 12s. per 50 barrels will be calculated upon the output of the brewery during the 12 months prior to the payment of the duty? Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The answer is in the affirmative. Clearly the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended in May to charge for only nine months' and not for twelve months' duty. The Government now come down to the House—perhaps the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will cast his mind back to the date I have given—with their proposal, whilst their original intention was that manufacturers' licences and wholesale dealers' licences should expire on 30th June.

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

Quite right. They began on the 30th June, and now they begin on the 10th November, so that obviously the licence will be charged for that period.

Mr. GRETTON

I am afraid I have not made myself quite clear, though I think I have proved the ambiguity of the Government. The effect of the alteration of the date in the sub-section, if not amended, will be that the Government will charge from the 30th September to the 30th September instead of from the 30th September to the 30th June. That is as clear as day-light. It is the difference between 12 months and nine months. The Government are going to calculate a quarter more duty this year than apparently they intended in May. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that it would only be a fair and just thing to amend the sub-section, making the duty payable on 1st January; that would put the matter back to the state contemplated by the Government. At present they are going back upon their plain statement and former speeches.

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

Do I understand the hon. Member to say that the Government are going to charge 12 months for a period of nine months?

Mr. GRETTON

No; what I say is that that is exactly what they will do unless they alter the Bill.

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

No, Sir, that is not so.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

I do not know whether the Chancellor of the Duchy has quite appreciated the point of my hon. Friend. He does not suggest that the Government are going to charge twelve months only for nine months, but in this sub-section they have apparently inadvertently made a change that they did not intend to make. My hon. Friend points out—I think he is correct—that by the change in the Bill the Government will now collect twelve months' duty. Of course twelve months' duty will cover twelve months. If you project yourselves into the future the licensee will not pay less than he would under the Government scheme, but the effect will be that, instead of being called upon the first time the new duty is levied for nine months, and then beginning his (twelve months' series he will be called upon at once to pay twelve months. Therefore, you will take immediately more out of his pocket. What is equally important from the point of view of the House of Commons is that you will get a fourth more revenue into this financial year than you profess to be taking, or even, I think, you have any desire to take. The answer given was quite explicit, and I do not understand the Chancellor of the Duchy to desire to go back upon it.

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

What is the date?

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

May 4th. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said the new duty would come into force on October 1st, 1909, not for the full year, but for nine months, and the duty, therefore, will be proportionately reduced. Therefore in the present year you are only going to collect nine months' duty, and all my hon. Friend asks is that you should adhere to that proposal, and that you should not collect this year a twelve months' duty. He does not ask that the licensee should get off with a nine months' duty, but that for this year you should only collect the duty as stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked, as this will allow only for the issue of a nine months' duty, are you going to charge a duty proportionately reduced, and he answered "Yes," but I do not gather from that pledge that he would not issue a twelve months' licence and charge a, twelve months' duty. The point is a very complicated one, and perhaps it will be better that the hon. Member should allow us to consider it.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

The words of the answer given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not, I think, bear the interpretation put upon them by the right hon. Gentleman, having only heard them read. They form a clear statement that only nine months' duty would be taken this year, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer estimated upon that. The Government cannot propose by the accident of the changes they have made in their Bill to get a quarter's more revenue than they estimated for, and a quarter's more taxation out of the ratepayers' pockets than the Chancellor had intended to take. I quite understand the difficulty the Government are in. They have not had their attention drawn to this before, and they are trying to interpret words read to them across the floor. The Chancellor of the Exchequer's expression is quite explicit, and of course we may take it from what the Government have said that if that be what they meant they will make whatever Amendment may be required to bring the matter into conformity with the declarations made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. GRETTON

I wish to explain how this difficulty has arisen. The old licences expire on the 30th of September—I mean the manufacturers' licences—and the new ones are taken out in October, so that after 1909 the licences taken out in 1908 carried manufacturers by statute free from all Licence Duty until the 30th of this September. This Bill will not probably become law, but in that event some provision must be made for carying on manufacturers' licences. It is provided in the Bill that the old system should go on and the old licences are to expire this year on the 30th of November, whilst the new licences will be taken out on the 1st of December. If this is not amended they will pay not 9 months' duty, but 4 months' duty. The Government will see that this is a new point. I am satisfied with the statement of the Chancellor of the Duchy that the Government have no intention of going back on any pledge they have given to the House. I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made:

In Sub-section (1) to leave out the word "September" ["the thirtieth day of September next"] and insert instead thereof the word "November"—[Mr. Herbert Samuel.]

In Sub-section (1) to leave out the words "except in the case of a licence which would have expired on the tenth day of October."—[Mr. Herbert Samuel.]

At the end of Sub-section (1) to add the words: "After deducing in the case of licences granted since the first day of July, nineteen hundred and nine, any additional sum which the licence holder may be required under the provisions of this Act to pay as duty for the period since the thirtieth day of September, nineteen hundred and nine."—[Sir Samuel Evans.]

In Sub-section (2) to leave out the words "on the twenty-eighth day of May or thirtieth day of June next after the passing thereof," and insert instead thereof the words "before the expiration of a full year."—[Mr. Herbert Samuel.]

The CHAIRMAN

The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Kingswinford does not come within the scope of this Clause.

Colonel WALKER

This Amendment was intended to give the Solicitor-General an opportunity of explaining—

The CHAIRMAN

I have already ruled that the Amendment is out of Order.

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

I move "That the Chairman do now report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next (13th September).

Mr. ARKWRIGHT

May I ask who will be in charge of the next part of the Finance Bill?