HC Deb 12 December 1911 vol 32 cc2284-5

Notwithstanding anything contained in The Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, the duty of excise chargeable in respect of a publican's licence shall not in any case exceed the sum of two hundred and fifty pounds, and the duty payable in respect of a beer-house licence shall not in any case exceed one hundred and sixty-six pounds thirteen? shillings and fourpence.

This is of the greatest possible interest to the licensed trade in London. The Government themselves fixed a limit which was in fact in practice for two years. A maximum was fixed of £500, and beyond that no Licence Duty was charged. It is admitted by those at any rate who have the advantage of the advice of the officers of the Crown that in those cases where the licence exceeds £500 annual value there is an enormous charge far beyond the value of the trade done on the premises to which the licence is attached. That is very serious. I think an unanswerable case is put forward by the very condition of the licensed trade in London. And it is not altogether confined to London. There is also the same condition, and the same charges are made in regard to the larger premises in county towns. This argument has been used very effectively, and I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the remarks he made to the House last night admitted that there was great force in it. The charge on a valuation of £500 is almost a charge on the sum expended by the owner of licensed premises in fitting them up for the purposes of the trade. The House agreed last night that it was not in the interest either of the licensed trade or of the public that licensed business should be done in small inconvenient premises. It was better that in connection with premises entirely devoted to the exploitation of the sale of drink, there should be facilities for reasonable recreation and rest. I do not want to expand this argument unduly at this late hour of the night, but I do venture to press on the Chancellor of the Exchequer the fact that if he would accept this proposal he would very sensibly relieve the licensed trade, and at the same time would not get beyond the point which he originally fixed himself for the extra Licence Duty.

Sir G. YOUNGER

I beg to second the Motion.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I do not know that I can add anything useful to what I said in a discussion on practically the same subject last night. The hon. Gentleman proposes, before we have a revaluation, to impose a maximum limit on the duties fixed by the Bill of 1909–10. By the first part of his proposal he would reduce the duty on about 200 public houses. I am not aware of a single case where the duty does exceed £166, and therefore that part of his new Clause would be practically inoperative. But the first part would have the effect of reducing the Licence Duty considerably in about 200 cases, and it is quite impossible for me to agree to that. We discussed this point at very great length yesterday on a kindred question to that raised in this new Clause.

Mr. GRETTON

I fully appreciate the arguments used by the right hon. Gentleman, and in that part of my speech I was stopped by Mr. Speaker.

12.0 M.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

At any rate, when I made that speech I was replying to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Austen Chamberlain). For the reasons I stated then I do not think it is possible at this stage, and before we get the revaluation, to lop off different parts of the scale. I hope the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied with his protest.

Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and negatived.

Sir G. YOUNGER

I beg to move that the following new Clause be read a second time:—