HC Deb 05 August 1912 vol 41 cc2845-7

Where the licensed premises are held under a lease or agreement for lease made before the passing of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, which does not contain or import any covenant, agreement, or undertaking on the part of the lessee under such lease or agreement for lease to obtain a supply of intoxicating liquor from the grantor of the lease or agreement for lease, the lessee under such lease or agreement for lease shall be entitled, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, to recover as a debt due from, or deduct from any sum due to, the grantor of such lease or agreement for lease so much of any increase of the duty payable in respect of the licence under the provisions of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, as may be agreed upon as proportionate to any increased rent or premium payable in respect of the premises being let as licensed premises, and, in default of agreement, the amount proportionate to such increased rent or premium shall be determined in manner directed by rules of court, by a county court in England or Ireland and by a sheriff court in Scotland.

The words "lease," "leased," "agreement for lease," and "lessee" in this Section include sub-lease, sub-leased, agreement for sub-lease, and sub-lessee, respectively.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

Sir G. YOUNGER

In moving the Second Reading of this new Clause, I may say it is an old friend, and ought to have been accepted in 1909.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I did promise to accept it.

Mr. WEDGWOOD

I want first to know the meaning of the Clause.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

This is a Clause applying purely to the duty in the case of free houses. I promised it to the hon. Baronet on the Budget of 1909, but owing to the rules of the House it could not be moved on the Report stage. It really is long overdue.

Mr. WEDGWOOD

As a matter of fact, we have had no chance of studying this Clause at all. I understand the Clause is to benefit free houses over tied houses.

Sir G. YOUNGER

No, to put the free house in the same position as the tied? house.