§ In addition to the duties of Customs payable on cocoa imported into Great Britain or Ireland there shall, as from the twenty-second day of September, nineteen hundred and fifteen, until the first day of August, nineteen hundred and sixteen, be charged, levied, and paid, the following additional duties, that is to say:
| £ | s. | d. | |
| Cocoa, the lb. | 0 | 0 | 0½ |
| Cocoa husks and shells, the cwt. | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Cocoa butter, the lb. | 0 | 0 | 0½ |
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ The CHAIRMANThree Amendments handed in by the hon. Member for East Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees) are all out of order, as they propose to increase the charges.
§ 5.0 P.M.
§ Mr. LOUGHI wish to draw attention to the differential treatment meted out to cocoa as compared with tea. On cocoa only ½d. per lb. is added to the tax. On tea the additional burden is much more heavy. Of the tea consumed in this country the greater portion is of British production, but a great quantity of the cocoa which is consumed here comes from foreign countries, and I do not see why our own Colonies and their products should receive much worse treatment than foreign countries. The history of the tax on cocoa during the last few years has been rather curious. The tax was reduced in 1911 by a small amount. At that time the annual consumption was 51,000,000 1662 lbs., and the tax upon it produced £380,000. Owing to the reduction in that year the consumption of cocoa in 1914 rose to 63,000,000 lbs., whereas the tax produced only £341,000, so that the consumption increased by 25 per cent, and the tax produced less than in the preceding year. The right hon. Gentleman only proposes to add ½d. per lb. to the Cocoa Duty. I suggest it is worth seriously considering whether the tax on cocoa should not be put on the same level as that on tea. If money is wanted, I make that suggestion to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Such an increased tax would not press unduly on anyone, and inasmuch as at a later stage I have down an Amendment which, if carried, may deprive the right hon. Gentleman of some revenue, surely this would be a means of making up for the loss. There is no question of Protection or Free Trade involved. If the tax on cocoa were raised 6d. per lb. the right hon. Gentleman might get at least a million out of it, and if it were put at 1s. he might perhaps get two millions or more. From my little knowledge of the trade I can say that cocoa is an article which can stand this duty better than tea. Under the circumstances I think the Committee would not be doing its duty if it did not ask why the treatment which it measured out to cocoa is not also applied to tea. At the moment I do not move to omit the Clause, but I think the facts I have ventured to lay before the Committee should receive some consideration from the Government, and that we should know why they are proceeding in this way.
§ Sir J. D. REESThe object of my disorderly Amendments was not to raise a Debate, so far as I was concerned, but to give the Chancellor of the Exchequer once more an opportunity of explaining why he does not raise more revenue from cocoa. I have figures, from a source in which he will have some confidence, showing that in 1914 94,000,000 lbs. of cocoa, 1,000,000 cwt. of coffee, and 21,000,000 lbs. of manufactured cocoa were introduced into this country. A very large revenue could be raised if these very large imports were taxed at the same rate as tea.
§ Mr. W. THORNEThe consumer will pay.
§ Sir J. D. REESCocoa is far more a luxury than tea. It is the basis of all the chocolate and sweetmeats which undermine the constitution and rot the teeth of our future soldiers and their wives and children. It is the drink of the luxurious. You find it is placed at the bedside of the luxurious beings who do not get up till luncheon time.
§ Mr. W. THORNEAre they munition workers?
§ Sir J. D. REESIt is an exceedingly fair subject for increased taxation. Although I know it is not easy to press at this moment for any further taxation to be imposed upon it, I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will at length take the opportunity, which I have often asked him to take, of stating why this particular substance is let off so cheaply as compared with others which are very heavily taxed, and which are British products, which cocoa is not, because it is either a foreign product or, in manufactured shape, chiefly a German import.
§ Mr. McKENNAWith regard to what was said by my right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Lough), I do not know whether he gave us the figures of consumption of cocoa in the sense of ordinary drinking cocoa. He gave us figures of the total imports of cocoa. I do not know whether that was for all purposes?
§ Mr. McKENNAWhen the right hon. Gentleman gave us figures he did not mean to suggest to the Committee that those figures either of consumption or of revenue were figures which could be derived from 1664 what we ordinarily understand by cocoa, namely, cocoa that is drunk.
§ Sir J. D. REESChocolate.
§ Mr. McKENNAChocolate raises another and a totally different set of arguments. With regard to cocoa that is drunk, that is the subject brought into contrast with tea, and we naturally assumed that when my right hon. Friend was speaking of cocoa in contrast with tea he meant cocoa that was drunk.
§ Mr. McKENNAThat was drunk?
§ Mr. McKENNAOr eaten. My right hon. Friend contrasted his figures with the figures of the consumption of tea. With regard to cocoa consumed in the form of chocolate, I will deal with that separately. As regards cocoa that is consumed as drink, a very small proportion, so far as I am aware, of what my right hon. Friend referred to is consumed, and we should not get any such figure of revenue as he suggested merely by putting up the duty on cocoa that is drunk. In dealing with these taxes, which have all been classed together, we have proceeded on the principle of adding 50 per cent, to them. It may not be a good principle, but it is a rough-and-ready principle, and one that the Customs can very easily work. I hope the Committee will accept that principle. So much for the duty on cocoa that is drunk. When my right hon. Friend comes to the duty on cocoa that is used in chocolate he will have something to say to me when we get to the Sugar Duty. It is through the Sugar Duty that we make the consumer of chocolate pay.
§ Sir J. D. REESIs not cocoa the basis of chocolate?
§ Mr. McKENNASugar is very largely used in it. We are making the consumer of chocolate pay sufficiently in the duty on sugar. It is the same person who pays. Whether he pays on his cocoa or pays on his sugar, it is the person who consumes it who has to pay. It does not much matter to him whether he pays on cocoa or sugar. He has not to pay more than a certain amount. We are taking that certain amount from him on sugar. The right hon. Gentleman says we should take it from him on cocoa. That does not make any difference to our revenue.
§ Sir J. D. REESYou would get both.
§ Mr. McKENNAYou would not get both, because you would reduce consumption. We have to consider how far it is desirable to taxe the consumption of a commodity which is very largely consumed by our own troops.
§ Mr. McKENNAThen we should get no revenue. I hope the Committee will see that it is far better to take these duties as they are and add 50 per cent, to them all.