§ (1) If the holder of a retailer's on-licence proves that the sale or consumption of intoxicating liquor on his premises has in any year been suspended during any hours under the Intoxicating Liquor (Temporary Restriction) Act, 1914, he shall be entitled to a repayment of any duty paid by him in respect of his licence at the rate per annum of one-fifteenth part of the duty for every hour or part of an hour that the sale or consumption has been so suspended, but the amount repaid under this Section shall in no case exceed one-fourth part of the whole duty.
§ This provision shall not have effect as respects premises in any area to which the Secretary of State orders that it is 982 not to apply owing to the increased opportunities afforded for the sale of intoxicating liquor due to the concentration of troops in the area.
§ (2) In order to make provision for the case where hours of sale are curtailed by Section seven of the Temperance (Scotland) Act, 1913, the holder of a retailer's on-licence in Scotland shall (in addition to any other relief granted by this Section) be entitled to a rebate of two-fifteenths of the duty payable by him in respect of his licence.
§ 5.0 P.M.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERI beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "retailer's" ["If the holder of a retailer's"], to leave out the word "on-licence," and to insert instead thereof the word "licence."
The Amendment has reference to the case of the ordinary beer retailer who holds an off-licence. The Clause will be extremely hard upon him, and he ought, in fairness, to have, some concession made to him. There is the half-holiday once a week, and so on, and, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen knows, there is a grievance in Scotland in regard to this matter. A fully-licensed house in Scotland, in many of the country districts, pays actually less than the grocer, £5 and £10 minimum, while the beer seller with an off-licence pays £14. If a concession is given to one part of the trade, it ought to be given to the other.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThis case has been put before me by communications I have received from representatives of the beer off-licence holders. The difficulty is this, that speaking of the majority of off-licensed holders, they are not affected in the same way as holders of full licences.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERSome of them.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI should like to hear something about their grievance. If the hon. Gentleman can point out to me where there is any real grievance, then I will certainly consider it. The hon. Member referred to the trade in Scotland, and I should like to hear about that. If you take an ordinary grocer's licence, you find that the grocer does not open at more than from eight or nine in the morning until eight at night. Any order of the magistrates therefore, while it nominally affects him, does not do so really. Why 983 therefore should he get an allowance in respect of diminished trade because of a curtailment of hours which does not affect him in the slightest degree?
§ Sir G. YOUNGERThe right hon. Gentleman has altogether forgotten the off-beerseller, who is a man that pays more Licence Duty than the others, and why is he not to get some allowance?
§ Mr. J. M. HENDERSONFormerly grocers were entitled to sell at eight a.m., and now they cannot sell before ten a.m. There is a reduction there.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEIf the hon. Baronet the Member for Ayr Burghs and my hon. Friend will give me particulars and put before me practical cases of grievance, I shall consider them. I agree there is a nominal grievance, but if it can be pointed out to me that there is a practical grievance, and that these retailers close their premises at a time they have been in the habit of keeping open, and that they are doing that under the order of the magistrates, then I am prepared to consider it. But I do object to giving a privilege which is extended to people whose opportunities of doing business are not curtailed—giving them the same privileges as people obtain whose business is really curtailed. If the hon. Gentleman will give me any particular facts on the subject there will be no difficulty in dealing with the matter when it comes before me. I am not objecting on principle, but on the ground that I do not think that those for whom the hon. Gentlemen speak are in the same position as other portions of the trade. I am prepared, how-ever, to consider the matter between now and the Report stage.
§ Mr. WATTAs my hon. Friend said, grocers formerly could open at eight o'clock in the morning, but in some instances they did not take advantage of that, and opened at ten o'clock. Under the Temperance (Scotland) Act, licensed grocers are no longer able to open their premises before ten o'clock, and they are on all fours in that respect with public-houses. Under the enactment to which I have referred, they have suffered loss. Similarly public-houses have suffered loss, but public-houses are getting an advantage from the Chancellor of the Exchequer which grocers are not receiving. They hold that they are entitled to be put on the same footing, now 984 that they are precluded from opening before ten o'clock.
Mr. DENNISSI should like to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—having had some experience in this matter—to the fact that an enormous number of off beer licences are granted in this country, for the same hours as ordinary licences. If you go to any village in England you will find two on-licensed premises, where drink can be consumed on the premises, and two other places where beer is not consumed on the premises.
§ Mr. J. M. HENDERSONThe whole trouble is deeper seated; it is that you can have a fully licensed house for £5, while the grocers pay £10 and £14. As the hours of the latter are being curtailed some part of the alleviation should be granted to them. I am quite sure if the Chancellor of the Exchequer looks into it, he will come to the conclusion that they have a very great grievance, and there is now the opportunity of giving them some form of alleviation.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Amendment made: In Sub-section (1), leave out the words "but the amount repaid under this Section shall in no case exceed one-fourth part of the whole duty."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]
§ Sir G. YOUNGERI beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "premises" ["not have effect as respects premises"], to leave out the words "in any area."
As the Clause stands, I do not think it is fair. In the first place, there is no definition of the word "area"; and, in the second place, the licence holders of an area may get no benefit at all. Therefore I propose that it should read, "This provision shall not have effect as respects premises to which the Secretary of State orders that it is not to apply," and so on. I think a man ought to have the opportunity of proving whether or not he has any advantage before he is penalised in this way. I think it is grossly unfair, besides not being workable. Supposing a particular camp is in question, what would be the area affected by that camp? I submit that each case ought to be tested on its merits.
§ Mr. J. WARDI think it is quite apparent to those who visit country 985 districts where camps are established at the present time that something of the description contained in the Bill is necessary. As to whether the provision of the Bill exactly meets the case, I do not know. I have had plenty of opportunities, of which I have availed myself, to visit villages in my own region and the camps now established on Salisbury Plain. There are public-houses in different villages around the Plain which did very little trade before the War broke out. The existence of these great camps of the New Army now being organised in different parts of the country has resulted in public-houses that have hitherto done scarcely any business beyond merely catering for the ordinary population of their respective districts are now doing an enormous business. As a matter of fact, you can go to village public-houses, where once scarcely a customer was to be seen, and find them crowded. If you take the Hampshire side of Salisbury Plain, where there are places filled with troops, in barracks, tents, or huts, you find that the village public-houses have had their business, owing to the presence of this military population, enormously increased. As a matter of fact, the soldiers have to go where they can get accommodation, sometimes going miles, and those public-houses are crowded out. Under these circumstances, I imagine that a Clause of the suggestion suggested here is necessary. I do not know whether the term "area" is suitable, or how the ground is to be covered, but I certainly think that some provision of the kind suggested ought to be made. In these cases instead of losing trade these people are making immense profits as a result of the War. I have seen village public-houses absolutely loaded four or five miles away from camp.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI hope the hon. Baronet will not press this Amendment. The effect might be to convert the Secretary of State for War into a sort of licensing authority to pick and choose amongst the various public-houses of the neighbourhood. That would be an invidious task to cast upon him. In practice the area practically would be defined by the War authorities. You cannot ask them to say that this public-house should be in and that public-house out. They have got to take into account the whole circumstances and prescribe an area, and to consider whether the number of available customers of all classes has increased. 986 In such areas you have privates and officers and the various drafts attached to the battalion, and therefore I think the hon. Baronet may depend on it that all kinds of licensed premises will derive some benefit by the fact that you have got an aggregation of troops in that area. I think it is very much better to leave the words as they are, and that an area should be prescribed rather than that individual public-houses should be singled out and that the Secretary of State for War should be converted into a sort of licensing authority.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERI have no objection to the definition of an area, but I would suggest some sort of provision which would not refuse to a man a concession owing to some advantage which he had never received. There will be many cases of the kind, I am told. I know nothing myself about these matters, and the right hon. Gentleman knows I am not in a position, nor do I desire, to press any Amendment. I can only state the case to him, and leave him to decide as he thinks best. I am bound to bring these matters under his notice. I quite agree it would be a cumbrous thing for the Secretary of State for War to arrange this, but the licensing authority could satisfy themselves. I have stated the case; the Chancellor may or may not consider it. I can do nothing more.
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAINI do not wish to suggest any Amendment, but I would suggest that when the Secretary of State or the authority that is to make this order comes to consider the particular area they should not be bound by a Local Government Board area, but that it should be an area of drinking, so to speak. It might seem a very simple thing to take a parish area which might produce the kind of thing mentioned by my hon. Friend. If it is clearly understood that the Secretary of State may take what I may call a drinking area and not a Local Government area he ought to be able to do substantial justice.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI will convey that suggestion to the Secretary of State for War.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
Amendment made: At the end of the Clause insert the words:—
(3) The amount of any duty repaid or allowed under this Section shall in no
987
case exceed one-fourth part of the whole duty payable by the licence holder in respect of his licence."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]
§ Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
§ Sir G. YOUNGERI hardly think the period of credit is long enough. There is one point I want to ask the Chancellor to consider against the Report stage to-morrow and that is the propriety of dealing with the question of rebate. Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to look into the question and suggest a Clause to-morrow? He ought to do so; I press him very hard to do so, and I think it is his duty to do so.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGENo one knows better than the hon. Baronet that this is a very difficult practical question and there are unlimited possibilities for fraud upon the revenue unless it is very carefully safeguarded. I have gone into the case but I have not yet satisfied myself that I have found a scheme which, while being perfectly fair to the wholesaler and the retailer, will be equally fair to the revenue. I should rather not be forced to deal with the question in this particular Budget. It is one of the things that I have got in my mind. I thought it might be one of the ways I could meet the trade and the proposal I made to-day was the alternative. I am rather inclined to consider the best method of doing this because I conceive infinite possibilities of the revenue being imposed on, and the hon. Baronet knows that perfectly well. There are many who would take advantage of perhaps reducing the amount of duty and which they would regard as within the limits of the law. I am afraid that between now and to-morrow it will be quite impossible to come to any decision on the question, which is one which involves a very considerable amount of money.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERmade an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI quite agree. It is in respect of beer—
§ Sir G. YOUNGERmade an observation which was inaudible.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI agree, but even then it does run to hundreds of thousands of pounds, so that it is a matter to 988 be carefully considered. It is not as if I were departing from any rule—
§ Sir G. YOUNGERYou are trebling your duty.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThe only ground really for a consideration of the question is that I am proposing to treble the duty. Up to the present the Customs and Excise have invariably refused to consider this question, and successive Governments have invariably refused to alter that decision for reasons which I think are very, very strong. Therefore I should rather myself have a little longer time to consider it. I promise to do so, and on the next occasion for considering the question of the finances of the year, if I am responsible for the revenue of the country, I will give it very careful consideration, and with an open mind and with a desire to do what is fair by the trade. By that time, too, we will be in a better position to know the effects of the duty and to adjust the asperities of the tax.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERNobody has got any time to consider it. You have a revolutionary proposal chucked at your head one day and you have got to submit or otherwise you are not doing your duty to your country. It is very hard lines, and this is a very important matter, as the Chancellor very well knows. With all respect I say to him now it was his duty to ask the experts properly to prepare a statement and a scheme for dealing with the matter, and now for six months you leave open the question of the whole of the difficulty of arranging prices and as to whether the retailer is or is not to receive credit for those returns. I quite admit that some people are not honest, but we must safeguard from fraud the brewer as well as the revenue, because the brewer would be swindled just as much as the revenue, and they are both in the same boat in this respect.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clauses 9 and 10 agreed to.