§ Notwithstanding the provision in the First Schedule to the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, in pursuance of which the duty payable by the holder of a manufacturer's licence to be taken out by a brewer of beer for sale is charged upon the number of barrels brewed by him during the preceding year, the duty on such a licence shall be charged on the number of barrels brewed during the current year. Provided that for the purpose of speedy collection of duty the same shall be collected upon the number of barrels brewed during the preceding year, but within one month after the end of the current year the amount so paid shall be adjusted, having regard to the number of barrels brewed during the 1733 current year, and any duty underpaid shall forthwith be paid by the holder of the licence to the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, or any duty overpaid shall forthwith be repaid to the holder of the licence by those Commissioners.
§ The CHAIRMANThis Clause appears to impose a charge on the same lines as the old question about the three years' average which, while it would relieve some people, would make other people pay more.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERIn this particular case it does not. Owing to the enormously increased Beer Duty there is not a brewer in the Kingdom who is going to produce anything like the same quantity of beer this year as last year. By an extraordinary—shall I call it, fiction, the licence must always be prepaid, and the previous year's basis was taken in the Act of 1909–1910 in order to fix the Licence Duty for the following year. As it happens, the duty having been increased, there has been an enormous reduction of production everywhere. Therefore this Clause will give relief, and not impose an extra charge. Although you might read into it the possibility of such increase, there is no case where it will impose an extra charge. Under these circumstances, I submit that the Clause might be allowed to be considered. If it is not, I think that in the exceptional circumstances of the case, the right hon. Gentleman ought to extend the Resolution and recommit the Bill in order to do what is purely an act of justice. No one supposed that when Act of 1910 was passed, that the Beer Duty would be trebled. It is only right that this matter should be put right. I think the authorities realise that it is a fair thing to do. Moreover, it would place the tax in future on a very much fairer basis. The tax itself is indefensible.
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Baronet is now arguing the proposal, and not submitting a point of Order. I am afraid I must deal with the question as it appears to me. Clearly if the proposed alteration is made, some firms might have to pay more, although most of them will be relieved.
§ Sir G. YOUNGEREverybody will be relieved; but of course you cannot accept that.
§ The CHAIRMANI am afraid I cannot. On that ground I must rule the Clause out of Order.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERThen I would make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to do something to put this matter right. It is a crying injustice as it stands.
§ Mr. McKENNAPerhaps it will be sufficient if I give the hon. Baronet an assurance that on another Bill—which cannot be very long delayed—we shall be very glad to consider the matter.
§ The following proposal stood upon the Paper in the name of Sir G. Younger:—