§ (1) The maximum barrelage shall be determined by the Commissioners in the ease of each brewery and shall be, as respects any quarter, the standard barrel-age as defined in this Section with the addition as respects any quarter after the first quarter of the surplus barrelage as so defined.
§ (2) The standard barrelage for the purposes of this Section shall be—
- (a) in the case of a brewery which was working during the corresponding quarter in the year ending the thirtieth day of September, nineteen hundred and fifteen, the number of barrels which appear to the Commissioners to have been brewed at the brewery in that quarter; and
- (b) in the case of a brewery which was not working in the corresponding quarter of that year, the number of barrels which appear to the Commissioners to be reasonable having
1386 regard to the average number of barrels brewed at the brewery during the time the brewery has been working; and - (c) in the case of any special brewery where the Commissioners are satisfied that, owing to the transfer of a brewing business or any other change of circumstances taking place after the thirtieth day of September, nineteen hundred and fifteen, and before the fifteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and sixteen, the standard barrelage as ascertained under the foregoing provisions affords an unfair standard of comparison or no standard of comparison, such number of barrels as the Commissioners think just having regard to the special circumstances of the case;
§ Provided that if a brewer rives notice to the Commissioners before the first day of June, nineteen hundred and sixteen, that he desires that this Section should be applied to his brewery with the substitution of the year ending the thirtieth day of September, nineteen hundred and fourteen, for the year ending the thirtieth day of September, nineteen hundred and fifteen, and of thirty per cent, for fifteen per cent., this Section shall be applied to his brewery with those substitutions, subject to the power of His Majesty by Order in Council to withdraw this privilege or to substitute any higher percentage for thirty per cent. if, at any time after the expiration of six months from the first day of April, nineteen hundred and sixteen, it appears that the rate of the total output of beer in the United Kingdom is not reduced to below a rate of twenty-six million barrels a year.
§ (3) For the purposes of this Section the surplus barrelage shall be, as respects any quarter, the number (if any) of barrels by which the aggregate number of barrels brewed during the previous quarters to which the Act applies is less than the aggregate standard barrelage for those quarters.
§ Colonel GRETTONI beg to move, in Sub-section (2), paragraph (a), to leave out the words "thirtieth day of September, nineteen hundred and fifteen," and to insert instead thereof the words "thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and sixteen."
1387 I understand that the retail trade offers no objection to this proposal, and it appears moreover to be very necessary. This is where I think it comes in. I understand that at a later stage an Amendment will be moved, imposing the same dates, which the Government will accept, and which has been agreed to by all the traders concerned, to the effect that the retail trader shall, under certain circumstances, be entitled to a certificate to enable him to get his beer as a free trader. It is quite obvious that if the retail trader under this Amendment has to work on a period to be inserted in the Bill, the wholesale trader must work on the same period. The effect of the Amendment which I submit is to substitute last winter for the winter before. It is obvious that if the production in the earlier period had been higher and business had fallen off, no difficulty would arise because there would be sufficient beer in the market, but the case must be considered where, by the development of large munition works, or as the result of Government orders for troops and so on, there has been a large increase in the demand for beer during last winter. If this Amendment is not inserted, this peculiar ease will arise, that the output of beer in a particular neighbourhood will, under this Bill, remain at 85 per cent. of the amount in the earlier period, and if my Amendment is not inserted, and the later Amendment is accepted, the result will be that the retail trader will be able to go to the brewer and require a certificate of 85 per cent. on the second winter when trade was so much higher. The brewer cannot brew it, and the retail trader will go to another brewer and get a larger quantity than the previous brewer was allowed to produce. If the certificate of the brewer and of the retail trader corresponded and were for the same period, the quantities would correspond.
§ 4.0 p.m.
§ Mr. PRETYMANI have considered this Amendment very carefully, and because of the difficulty which it raises I cannot see my way to accept it. I really do not think it is necessary, and it would cause very great inconvenience, particularly at the Excise. The period we have chosen is the complete brewing year, ending the 30th September, 1915, and in conferences which have taken place about this Bill several suggestions were made of different periods not ending with the complete brewing year, and the Excise authorities always expressed great objec- 1388 tion to any departure from that, unless it was absolutely necessary. The brewers generally have agreed to the 1915 period. My hon. Friend shakes his head, but they have agreed to that. We had conferences with the trade, at which my hon. Friend could have been present if he liked. The trade conference of the Brewers' Society agreed to the period for 1915. That was the arrangement; and the amount of beer brewed in the twelve months of the complete brewing year ending 30th September, 1915, the standard year, was 30,222,000 barrels, the total amount of beer brewed in the year ending 30th of March, 1916—that is what my hon. Friend suggests we should take—was 30,290,000 barrels, practically identical. The position to which my hon. Friend refers is really provided for and we are perfectly prepared to take that risk. It may make a few gallons of difference, and, if so, that will have to be adjusted, if adjustment is necessary, which I hope it will not be. The suggestion is that under a Clause which we hope to accept later on from the hon. Member for Birmingham (Sir F. Lowe) we shall allow a licence holder to give a certificate to a brewer for a quantity equal to that which he received during a certain period, and that that certificate might be larger; but, on the other hand, it might be less than the amount he would be entitled to brew under the Bill. If a few odd barrels are added to the brewer's output under that arrangement he will have the right to them and no objection will be raised to that certificate being returned to the same brewer. Therefore I think my hon. Friend ought to be grateful rather than the reverse for this arrangement being allowed to stand. The reason for the adoption of the 1916 period in the later Clause is, as I explained on Second Heading, to carry the arrangement between the licence holders and the brewers up to the latest possible date, so that we may take the arrangements as they are and not as they were six months before. Therefore, on the whole, I have come to the conclusion that in the interests of the Bill and of all concerned it is better to leave the Bill as it stands.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERWhen the agreement to which the hon. Gentleman refers was made the Clause of the hon. Member for Birmingham had not been considered and was not on the Paper. The object of proposing this Amendment is in order to bring the two Clauses into really close 1389 relation with one another; otherwise you will require adjustment between the year chosen and the period selected, since the year 1914–15 may be quite different from those of 1915–16. Take the case of a canteen, for instance. They may ask for a certificate and get it, but their camp may then be in Southampton and it may have previously been in Edinburgh, and other brewers would probably not be able to supply the order. This is merely a question of expediency. The hon. Gentleman spoke of an Excise difficulty and of the brewing year. The Excise make up their accounts every month and make their calculations on monthly or quarterly figures, and it would be no trouble to them to take any particular period, so that that is no argument whatever against the adoption of the Amendment.
§ Colonel GRETTONIt has never been explained what the objection of the Excise is, except, perhaps, to the hon. Gentleman. The Bill has nothing to do with the Excise except in the limitation of brewing. As it happens, the quarters would work out very evenly under this Amendment, and the figures are always made up in quarters. If that is the only objection to the Amendment, I really must press it upon the hon. Gentleman. My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs mentioned the case of canteens. This Amendment will facilitate the business of canteens, and if he has in mind the Board of Control, to which I do not feel any particular friendliness at present, if necessary this will facilitate them also. I cannot accept the objection of the hon. Gentleman, and I am surprised that the argument has been used that this has been agreed to by the trade generally. When 1915 was agreed to there was no question of substituting another period for another purpose. The whole position is changed by the Amendment at a later stage. Obviously the thing is unworkable in itself, and I must ask the hon. Gentleman to further consider the Amendment.
§ Mr. PRETYMANI am sorry the hon. Gentleman thinks it desirable to press his Amendment, which, after careful consideration, I cannot accept. The whole of the arrangements have been based on the year 1915. So far from the statement of the hon. Gentleman being justified, he was not present, and perhaps is saying what he has heard and not what he knows himself. After my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham's Amendment appeared on the Paper there was a further confer- 1390 ence of brewers with all the representatives of the brewers, when they agree in substance to accept the Amendment.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERNot after the Amendment was on the Paper.
§ Mr. PRETYMANNot in its exact present form, but the Amendment in its original form. It has been modified to a certain extent, but the principle as it now stands—that is, the principle of Free Trade against Compulsion, which is what it amounts to—was agreed to at that conference. No suggestion of this kind was put forward, and no suggestion officially made afterwards. I am perfectly certain this Amendment would injure the bill and create difficulties. This Bill has really been in operation since the 1st April last, and has been working on the standard of 1915, and has been accepted and in force all over the country. My hon. Friend, who is in constant touch with us, thinks it desirable to make changes which will be of some advantage to the trade. I have no doubt his object is to help us in every possible way, and I desire to acknowledge that the brewers generally have done their best to help us. But we have to deal not only with my hon. Friend but with the whole trade, large brewers and small brewers and everybody concerned. They have been proceeding on the understanding that we are going to act on the 1915 standard. Further than that, we have given an alternative of 1914. They have made careful calculations, and have made up their minds whether they are going to have 1914 or 1915. Now my hon. Friend wants suddenly to put all that into the melting-pot and suggests that we should take 1916, which would mean that everybody would have to reopen the books and go into a totally new calculation and discover whether it would be better to decide, not between 1914 and 1915, but between 1914 and 1916.
If I saw any real advantage in the change I would face that, because my whole object has been to try and cause the least inconvenience possible to everybody concerned. I recognise that inconvenience has to be caused. As long as we get our restrictions, after that our object is to cause the least possible inconvenience to all concerned. I have gone into this Amendment from that point of view, and I do not think my hon. Friend has really made out any strong case for the Amendment. Officials and others who have a most intimate knowledge of the trade an I 1391 with every desire to give as little trouble as possible take that view, and I have come to the conclusion, taking all things into consideration, that the present standard of 1915 is better, even allowing that some small discrepancy may happen when the Amendment of the hon. Member for Birmingham is accepted, therefore I must adhere to my decision.
§ Colonel GRETTONI understand the hon. Gentleman does not think that I was speaking with the concurrence of others in the brewing trade. I can assure him that if that is his difficulty then I think it can be overcome. I hope I shall afford him proof that this Amendment is really required, and I now ask leave to withdraw.
§ Mr. HODGEI object to the Amendment being withdrawn, and I do so only for the purpose of pointing out how the whirligig of time brings its own revenge. When various other Bills have been before the House the Government have been jibed at from the other side of the House because they consulted with Labour Members, as, for instance, in the case of the Munitions Act. But here to-day we have evidence of the fact that the Government have been in consultation with the brewing trade with respect to this particular Bill. I do not object to that. I think in the best interests of measures of this character that it is essential that those who know most about them and are greatly interested in them should be consulted. I simply desire to point the moral that in future we should remember this particular aspect of the matter.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Mr. PETOI beg to move, in Sub-section (2) (a), to leave out the word "fifteen" ["nineteen hundred and fifteen"], and to insert instead thereof the word "fourteen."
Although the hon. Gentleman told us that the brewers agreed generally to this, as a matter of fact a very great deal happened between 30th September, 1914, and the corresponding date in 1915. In some cases brewers took very large contracts for the supply of beer to canteens, while in other districts brewers found that a great many of their customers had removed from the neighbourhood, and therefore their output was reduced. The diminution of output in respect of brewers who agree to take the 1915 standard is 15 per cent., but the smaller 1392 country brewers who are injured by the removal of their customers, and by their concentration in camps where canteen contracts operate, are required, if they select the 1914 standard, to reduce their output by 30 per cent. I cannot see any equity or justice in that. I should like to hear what the real reason is. It may be necessary to take into consideration the fact that there has been this concentration of beer drinkers in certain localities, that these large contracts have been made, and that the brewers who have been fortunate enough to increase their profits in this way should get off so much more lightly than the unfortunate country brewers who have been harassed in every possible way under the Regulations of the Central Control Board. They have the worst of both worlds. Their customers have been taken away and they are not allowed to supply those remaining, and yet if they want to have a normal period of their brewing output taken as the basis, they are to have their trade reduced by double the amount proposed in the case; of the more fortunate brewers. I am sure that the small country brewers never agreed to this, either at the conference which has been referred to or anywhere else. I have had the strongest protests from them. If the real object of the Government is to reduce the consumption of malt, hops, and other articles of that kind, they have secured the full benefit of what is proposed in this Bill by the unnatural reduction of trade which has already taken place in consequence of the War. I therefore ask for some explanation of why, in the framing of this Bill, they have consulted only the interests of the big brewers who have the best opportunities for making additional profit, and sacrificed the smaller brewers, who have not had any of these canteen contracts to swell their profits.
§ Sir J. D. REESI am afraid this Clause is really past praying for, after the withdrawal of the previous Amendment. I have risen merely to enforce what my hon. Friend has just said, to urge upon the Parliamentary Secretary that the case of the country brewers should be very carefully considered, and to warn him that he is now reaping some of the odium caused by the extreme injustice of the Central Control Board, which must animate everybody who wishes to see justice done to the liquor trade, and will affect every Amendment and every Clause in this Bill.
§ Mr. PRETYMANI am afraid I cannot accept the responsibility for the sins of the Central Control Board, as it is not under the Board of Trade, nor do I know what are the particular iniquities to which my hon. Friend refers. With regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto), I really do not quite understand his point of view. Although we have had conferences with the brewers, there are such people as the consumers, and in considering this Bill we cannot consider it solely a matter for the trade. We have to consider also the question whether or not the consumers can get their beer. There has been a large migration of the beer-drinking population owing to the War. In many rural districts, such as that represented by my hon. Friend, recruiting has been admirable. A large proportion of those who drank beer in the Devizes district are now at military centres, which are usually nearer the East Coast, or on some ground taken by the War Office as a centre for training. It would be ridiculous for us to propose by means of this Bill to restore the position of the brewer in Devizes, who through that migration has lost something like 40 per cent, or 50 per cent, of his trade. The suggestion apparently is that under this Bill we should give him back some of the trade that he has lost, that we should enable him to brew in Devizes beer which cannot be drunk in Devizes, and congest our already congested railways by carrying that beer from Devizes to Ripon or elsewhere. I am sure my hon. Friend would not suggest anything of the kind. It is impossible to do that. We have to recognise that, before this Bill was thought of, this migration had taken place. Originally it was suggested, I think on behalf of the brewers, that the year 1914 should be taken. The Army Council, the military brewers, and everybody who had any real knowledge of the subject at once said, "If you take the year 1914, you will take the pre-war condition, and by so doing you will ignore the present distribution of the population. You will have to carry the beer from the places where it is brewed under the old condition to the places where it will be drunk under the new condition." Really that would be a most un-businesslike proceeding, and I should have been very sorry to have had to face the criticism in Committee here which would very properly have been directed against the Board of Trade, if, merely to benefit the small local brewers, we had adopted 1394 any such principle. What we have done is to meet the brewers as far as we can by giving them the 1914 alternative as an option. The reason why 30 per cent, is taken instead of 15 per cent, is very simple. The consumption of beer in 1914 was very much greater than in 1915, and in order to get down to the 26,000,000 barrels which is our basis, we had to take 28 per cent., instead of 14 per cent., and the corresponding figures of 30 per cent, instead of 15 per cent, simply represent a reduction to the same level. The question of differentiation against the small brewer as compared with the large brewer does not arise at all. We have done the best we can to adjust the figures, and to do the least possible injury to the brewers. We are bound to have regard to the consumers from one end of the country to the other. That is the reason why I cannot accept this Amendment. I think we have gone as far as it is possible to go to meet my hon. Friend. I quite feel the hardship which the small brewers have suffered, but that hardship has not been caused by the Government, nor is it due to this Bill. We are told that they have lost 40 per cent, or 50 per cent, of their trade. Under this Bill they are to be forced to reduce their output by only 30 per cent. Therefore if they have lost 40 per cent, or 50 per cent, they will be able to increase their present output by 10 per cent, or 20 per cent.
§ Mr. PETOAfter the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary, I beg leave to> withdraw the Amendment, but I would call his attention to the percentage in the proviso at the end of the Clause.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. E. STRAUSSI beg to move, after the word "brewed" ["brewed at the brewery"], to insert the words "by the brewer."
This Amendment has to be taken in conjunction with other Amendments standing in my name. As the Committee is aware, Clause 2 deals with the standard barrel-age, which is the barrelage for the year ending the 30th September, 1915. What would happen to a brewer who, on the 1st October, 1915, sold his premises but not the goodwill of his free trade and tied trade. I am afraid that in such a case there might be two claimants to the barrelage of the brewing premises. Unless the brewer transferred his barrelage to another firm he would be unable to supply his customers. I hope that some 1395 Amendment of this sort will be accepted, otherwise there will be a great deal of trouble, and possibly litigation.
§ Mr. PRETYMANI quite recognise my hon. Friend's point, but this Amendment could not be accepted, as it would go very much further. I think the point will be met by two changes in the Bill, which will be made by Amendments standing in my name to paragraph (c), under which full power is given to the Commissioners of Excise to make any necessary changes. The paragraph will read:
"…where the Commissioners are satisfied that owing to the transfer of a brewing business, or any other change in the circumstances of the brewery, taking place after the 30th day of September, 1914, the standard barrelage as ascertained under the foregoing provision does not afford a proper standard of comparison, or affords no standard of comparison, such number of barrels as the Commissioners think just, having regard to the special circumstances of the case."
That would enable all these adjustments to be made by the Commissioners. The insertion of the word "proper" instead of the word "unfair" will enable the barrelage to be decreased as well as increased. The word "unfair" rather suggests only increase. The word "proper" covers decrease as well as increase. I know my hon. Friend will suggest that tinder Clause 5 difficulties may arise, but when the Amendment of my hon. Friend (Sir F. Lowe) is accepted, compulsion goes, and the free trade Clause will apply. Therefore I think that these changes will absolutely meet my hon. Friend's point. I believe he has one particular well-known case in mind. I have taken advice upon that case, and I am advised that these changes will cover it without any further Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. PRETYMANI beg to move, in paragraph (c), to leave out the words "of circumstances" ["or any other change of circumstances"], and to insert instead thereof the words "in the circumstances of the brewery."
I think it is pretty obvious on the face of it that "in the circumstances" is too wide. The words might cover changes of population, and innumerable matters might be brought before the Commis- 1396 sioners which it was never intended should be brought. Therefore I propose the Amendment.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Further Amendments made:
§ Leave out the word "fifteen" ["nineteen hundred and fifteen"], and insert instead thereof the word "fourteen."
§ Leave out the words "and before the fifteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and sixteen."
§ Leave out the words "affords an unfair" [" affords an unfair standard of comparison"], and insert instead thereof the words "does not afford a proper."
§ After the word "or" insert the word "affords."
§ Leave out the word "June," and insert instead thereof the word "August."
§ After the word "that" ["that this Section "] insert the words "the foregoing provisions of."
§ Leave out the words "this Section," and insert instead thereof the words "those provisions."—[Mr. Pretyman.]
§ Sir G. YOUNGERI beg to move, in paragraph (c), after the word "privilege" ["to withdraw this privilege"], to insert the words "as from the date of such Order in Council."
I suppose the right hon. Gentleman will accept that Amendment?
§ Mr. PRETYMANI will accept it, and will improve it, if I may.
§ Sir G. YOUNGEROh, very well!
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ Mr. PRETYMANThe form in which I shall in a moment propose my Amendment, I think, will be rather better from the hon. Member's point of view, for the date of the Order in Council might even be a little too soon. I therefore propose to add "as from a subsequent date, to be fixed by the Order in Council."
§ Sir G. YOUNGERYes, that is better.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Words, "as from a subsequent date, to be fixed by the Order in Council" there inserted.—[Sir G. Younger.]
§ Further Amendment made: Leave out the words "percentage for thirty per cent.," and insert instead thereof the words "percentages pro rata."—[Sir G. Younger.]
1397§ Sir G. YOUNGERI beg to move to leave out the word "a" ["below a rate of"], and to insert instead thereof the words "the required."
§ Mr. PRETYMANThat Amendment is unnecessary.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERI think it would be better if the Bill were altered as I suggest.
§ Mr. PRETYMANIt is a matter of drafting—"the required" refers to nothing. I have referred the hon. Member's suggestion to the draftsman, and I hope he will leave the Bill as it now stands.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERI hope there is no point in the Amendment, but I have very grave doubts as to whether or not it does not involve a very large matter. However, if the right hon. Gentleman tells me across the floor of the House that my words are not needed, I am perfectly willing to withdraw.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Sir FRANCIS LOWEI beg to move, at the end of paragraph (c), to insert the words:
"(3) If any licensed premises shall after the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and fourteen, have been or be sold, transferred, mortgaged, or leased to any brewer, the brewer shall be entitled thereafter to supply to the licensed premises the same quantity (less fifteen per cent.) of beer as has previously been supplied to those premises, and if the beer has previously been supplied by another brewer the maximum barrelage of that other brewer shall be reduced by the amount of such supply, and the maximum barrelage of the brewer to whom the premises shall be so sold, transferred, mortgaged, or leased, shall be similarly increased. The transfer of a mortgage on any licensed premises shall be deemed to be a transfer of licensed premises within this Section."
To begin with, I may point out that this Amendment does not in any way interfere with the main object of the Bill, which is to restrict the output of beer generally. This Amendment does not have the effect of increasing that output in any way, but it is really a safeguard—a very small point really—of the power, of the free, unfettered power, which the licence holder now possesses to sell his premises, to mortgage them, or to lease them in any market which he may consider to foe the most favourable. It is per- 1398 fectly obvious that in the case of such a man the people he would first go to in case he wished to sell or mortgage his premises would be the brewers, and the more brewers he could go to the more competition there would be, and the more favourable terms he would be likely to get. In the Clause as it stands it seems to me that that might be somewhat interfered with. Under paragraph (c) in the Clause as it stands the brewer could only get the right, although ho has purchased the premises or lent money on mortgage, to supply them with beer if he satisfied the Commissioners of Excise that that constituted such a change in circumstances as enabled him to increase his output. At all events, I think that there is considerable doubt about the matter, and I think it is very desirable to have these words in, both in the interests of the licence holder and of the brewers. I submit they are reasonable, and I trust my right hon. Friend will see his way to accept the Amendment.
§ Mr. PRETYMANI am quite ready to accept this Amendment. It is quite reasonable, but it really relates mainly to the transfer of tied houses, and enables the brewer who purchased the tied house from another brewer or, as my hon. Friend has suggested, purchased any licensed premises whatever, when he purchases the house, to assume the right to brew—that that right to brew should pass from the brewer hitherto supplying the house, without in any way an alteration of the total output of beer as restricted by this Bill. It merely transfers the right to the person who has bought the premises to which the rights apply.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERI have no objection whatever to this Clause being put into the Bill except that it is redundant, because the point is or will be covered.
§ Sir J. D. REESMay I express my satisfaction at the way this matter is going. The right hon. Gentleman is very ready to accept anything that he can which does not impair his Bill.
Mr. CHANCELLORThen how stands the case of a free house in which the supply of beer is divided amongst a number of brewers? Will account be taken of the amount supplied by each of 1399 the brewers to this free house? And will this, or will it not, have the effect of reducing their output?
§ Mr. PRETYMANA later Clause covers that point.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. E. STRAUSSI beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (3), to add,
"(4) Provided that where a brewer has ceased to brew at a particular brewery and continues to brew at another brewery, or has contracted with another brewery to brew for him the barrelage of the brewery at which such brewer has ceased to brew, shall, so long as such arrangement remains in force, for the purposes of this Section be deemed to be part of the barrelage of the brewery at which such brewer continues to brew, or of the brewer who has contracted to brew for such brewer. In the event of the contract of the brewer who has ceased to brew being terminated he shall be entitled to transfer such barrelage to any other brewer with whom he may make a fresh contract."
I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept this Amendment. It removes all doubt, and I can assure him there is an apprehension in the minds of a number of brewers who have entered into brewing arrangements that they are at the tender mercies of the Commissioners. If the Amendment carries out the wish of the hon. Gentleman I see no reason why he should not accept the Amendment. It only carries out what he desires. It is very unpleasant to people who have entered into brewing arrangements that there should be litigation or trouble, and if the hon. Gentleman will accept this Amendment I am sure it will relieve the minds of many brewers who have entered into such arrangements, and will satisfy those who have invested their money.
§ Mr. PRETYMANI have consulted the draftsman, and I really think this is better left out, because it is absolutely covered by paragraph (c). It is impossible to foresee what exact arrangements may, be made for a transfer, and when you get a general Clause, covering every conceivable case, it will cover the particular case or so which my hon. Friend has in mind. I really think it is better left general, and I do not think my hon. Friend need have any fear of the Commissioners. 1400 They have no possible interest in the matter, as there is no question of taxation or interest to the State. It is merely to provide, where there has been a transfer of brewing rights from one brewery to another, that the Commissioners will be able to adjust the matter as between one brewery and the other. In the interests of drafting and the proper carrying out of the Bill, I think the professional advice I have had is really to be relied on.
§ Mr. WARDLEI hope the hon. Gentleman will not accept this.
§ Mr. HODGEWill this have any effect on those who are at present brewing nonalcoholic beer—that is, beer under 2 per cent, proof spirit?
§ Mr. PRETYMANIt does not touch that point at all. This Clause simply deals with the question where one brewer has sold part of his property to another. I think it would be out of order to discuss it on this particular Amendment, although I am quite ready to explain it.
Sir G.YOUNGERI think on the Question, "That the Clause stand part," it will be possible to discuss that particular point.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
§ Sir G. YOUNGERThis Clause restricts the output in future by 30 per cent. from 1914 or 15 per cent. from 1915. I do not mean to make any objection whatever to the Clause as it stands. The brewing trade, when faced with the dictum of the Board of Trade that it was essential to restrict tonnage, and that this was the only possible way in which they conceived it could be done, accepted at once the statements made by the President of the Board of Trade, and set to work with him to try to devise a scheme under which it might be carried out. In that particular calculation every material used in brewing brought from abroad was taken into consideration, and amongst these were hops, and the restriction of 15 or 30 per cent, has been based upon the calculation that something like 10,000 tons of hops were imported from America, Germany, and the Colonies in the past years for the purposes of brewing. The President of the Board of Trade has prohibited the import of hops largely under the pressure 1401 of my hon. Friend, one of the Members for Kent, and no doubt his intention was very admirable so far as his constituency is concerned. Hon. Members know that Kent grows most hops in England, and the best hops in England, I will say. The right hon. Gentleman's Department has now prohibited the import of hops, and in doing so has gone altogether outside the arrangements which he made with the brewers with regard to the restriction of their material, because this 30 and 15 per cent, reduction in the output of beer is calculated on the assumption that there will be an equal reduction in the future in the import of barley and also of hops. The hon. Gentleman realises no doubt perfectly well that even with the restricted quantity of beer to be brewed, the military beer, which everybody is so anxious to provide, cannot be produced unless a certain amount of foreign and Colonial hops is introduced into this country. No doubt at present there is a considerable quantity of hops in the country, but that time will pass very soon, and those stocks will be used up, and you will be left subject to the home grown article and the imported, which, no doubt, under licence the Board of Trade in certain cases will permit.
What I want the hon. Gentleman to say is, that if this restriction is going to have the effect of curtailing the necessary supply of hops, there will be no difficulty whatever in granting suitable licences for importing hops, and I want him to go further and say, that if growers of hops in England take unfair advantage of the restriction, and put an absurdly high price on their product, he will reintroduce the free import of hops. It would be grossly unfair to prohibit the import altogether, if he is going to allow those people—and, mark you, agriculturists are not liable to the Excess Profits Tax—to do that. Therefore they must be controlled in some kind of way from taking an unfair advantage. The other point I want to mention is the question of non-alcoholic beer. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has had it brought to his notice that the Board of Control is about to issue an order to prevent, I believe, licence holders from selling during prohibited hours any class of liquor which contains less than 2 per cent, proof spirit. That is the sort of beverage sold in refreshment houses. That requires to be looked into and altered. But, over and above that, if there is going to be a demand for this particular article, the brewers will not be able to brew it, 1402 while people outside without any restriction will be able to brew it as much as they like. It is made from malt and hops, but is lighter and contains more water, and if brewers wish to brew this they will be prevented by the fact that they are restricted, while the people outside can use barley, malt and hops because they are utterly uncontrolled. That is another matter the hon. Gentleman's Department will have to deal with.
§ Mr. HODGEI should like to support the hon. Baronet in the case he has put. A certain number of brewers are brewing this non-alcoholic drink. Are the gallons they brew to be reckoned as part of the quantity they are permitted to brew, or will those be treated as not coming under the category of this Bill? I think it is an important point, and the Government should also take into consideration the point of view that the hon. Baronet has placed before the Committee. In the brewery they must pay the duty upon this particular non-alcoholic beer, but if it is brewed in a place that is not called a brewery there is no duty to pay.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERThey pay duty under the Finance Bill.
§ Mr. HODGEAnother point is that this non-alcoholic beer can be sold in refreshment houses or in sweet shops without a licence, but the brewer and the publican during prohibited hours cannot sell it. I think that that is really an anomaly which the Government ought to deal with, and probably the hon. Gentleman on Report stage will accept an Amendment that this Bill should not apply to beer brewed of a gravity not exceeding 1.026 and which is no more than 2 per cent, proof spirit. I hope the hon. Gentleman will keep the matter in mind and not only accept this Amendment, but press upon the Government the removal of the other anomalies which the hon. Baronet mentioned.
§ 5.0 p.m.
§ Mr. L. HARDYI hope the hon. Gentleman opposite will not at once give way to the questions addressed to him by my hon. Friends to-day, because I do not think there is any proof whatsoever that there will not be hops sufficient for the requirements of the country, especially under the reduction enforced by this Bill. The question of price has been raised, and I go so far with my hon. Friend in this, that I think if there is any large increase of price in consequence of the prohibition it ought to be met by some other action on the part of the Board of Trade. But 1403 it must be remembered that the price of hops has been unduly depressed. The importations were greatly in excess of the average during the last month and the home market has suffered considerably. The prohibition has not in any sense raised in any way the price. The market has remained quite stagnant, showing that there is no real desire on the part of the brewers to get hops, and there are quite enough hops in the market at present for the trade. There is no likelihood of any question of this sort arising at the present time. I should like to ask how long the importation of hops is going to be allowed without licence? It has been increasing in the last few weeks. I find that during the week of the 29th it amounted to 6,000 cwts. I should like to know when the actual prohibition ceases and whether it does affect all countries. I do not know whether hops are being admitted from the Continent or not.
Mr. CHANCELLORFor the first time in my life I should like to say a word in support of what has been said by the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger). I would like to know whether the brewers have to pay above and beyond the duty levied under the Act. If so, I hope the Government will take steps not to discourage the brewers in utilising their premises for the production of harmless instead of a very harmful beverage. If there could be a profitable development in that direction it would be a great advantage to the public at large, and it might not, in the long run, be a disadvantage to the brewing trade. If there is anything which deters the development of what I hope will be a profitable trade in an article that will do less harm than most of the products of breweries, I hope the Government will remove any such obstacle.
§ Mr. PRETYMANOn the Second Beading of this Bill I made it perfectly clear that this was not a temperance measure, but simply a Bill for restricting imports on account of the shortage of tonnage, and I stated that I should resist any attempt to use this measure for any other purpose than as a measure of war legislation. I am not suggesting that my hon. Friend (Mr. Chancellor) wishes to do otherwise, but I feel sure that all hon. Members will agree that we cannot use 1404 this measure for that purpose. If we did the trade would have a very just cause for complaint. After all, brewing materials have to be used for temperance beer as well as for other beer, and it would be unfair to restrict, on purely war grounds, the importation of materials for one kind of beer whilst allowing absolute freedom in regard to other kinds of beer produced in the same brewery. I have had this question before me, and I need not wait until the Report stage to explain the position. This non-alcoholic beer is a beer which must have less than 2 per cent, of proof spirit in it. This beer has the property, if it is kept for a certain time, of further fermentation, and perhaps in a few weeks, if the beer is kept, you may find the 2 per cent, of proof spirit has very considerably increased, and that beer may no longer be a temperance drink. There also arises the question of gravity, and I believe that the limit of gravity at which beer ceases to be excisable is 10.16. It has been stated that some of this temperance beer has a gravity of less than 10.16, but I believe that is rarely the case, and the gravity is more often 10.18, 10.20, 10.22, and 10.24, and where you have 2 per cent, of proof spirit it may become 4 per cent, or 5 per cent, by process of time if it remains in the barrel.
Ordinary beer which is kept some considerable time gains in strength, and I am afraid that temperance beer is so nearly beer that it is subject to the same tendency, and becomes non-temperance after a certain time. The reason I am pointing out these scientific details is that it is quite obvious that for the purpose of the Excise where it is necessary to go into a brewery and supervise the whole production of beer in that brewery, and treat it as a whole and assess the duty which is payable, it would be absolutely impracticable to attempt to draw the line between temperance beer and ordinary beer brewed in the same brewery; in fact, it would be almost impossible to draw the line, because this beer is variable after it is put into the cask. I have discussed this matter with the Excise authorities, and they inform me that it is quite impossible to allow a temperance beer to be brewed at a brewery and to be treated apart from the other beer brewed in the same brewery which is subject to duty. That, however, does not prohibit a man under the ordinary law outside the brewing trade who chooses to manufacture any 1405 liquor which is non-alcoholic, whether it be ginger beer, or this particular form of drink, which may be made from brewing materials, but which does not come under the Excise. A man will do this at hip own risk, and if he chooses to keep that non-alcoholic drink until it becomes alcoholic, and then sells it, he is subject to heavy penalties for selling alcoholic drink under the guise of non-alcoholic drink. Therefore it is impossible to alter this proposal in the Bill.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERIs there no way of restricting the people who use the same materials as brewers, mostly sugar?
§ Mr. PRETYMANNo.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERWhy should they not all be restricted in the use of sugar?
§ Mr. PRETYMANMy hon. Friend's suggestion is perfectly logical, but that would apply to everything used in this country. We are restricting beer, and what has been mentioned here is not beer. It may be necessary to restrict other things, but I hardly think we can go into that matter in connection with this Bill, and it would have to be done under a totally different class of restriction on all forms of beverages. With regard to hops the Board of Trade is rather between the hammer and the anvil in regard to the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kent (Mr. Hardy), but I do not think the course taken by those hon. Members is unreasonable, and it would not be difficult to hold a fair balance between them. I agree that the importation of hops must be permitted under licence, under two conditions. First of all, if there is a real scarcity of hops and the Board of Trade is satisfied on the subject, licences may be granted. There may be an unfair price and price is the barometer of scarcity. The point on which we might differ would probably be as to what was too high.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERFrom £5 to £6 per hundred weight is a good price for one class, and £7 or £8 for the other.
§ Mr. PRETYMANMy right hon. Friend opposite does not contradict that, but I do not mink the Board of Trade is likely to have much trouble in arriving at a proper price. I do not think we should be justified in withdrawing the prohibition and allowing the free importation of hops. 1406 All we should have to do would be to grant such licences as are necessary to enable brewers to obtain the quantity required for their trade.
§ Mr. HARDYCan the hon. Gentleman say whether he would consult the trade before granting licences on account of scarcity?
§ Mr. PRETYMANWe should consult both the trade and those interested in the hop industry. We shall endeavour to inform ourselves on this point. It is impossible for us to know without inquiry on what principle licences should be granted unless we have informed ourselves as to the tax on both sides. The present position is that prohibition is already in force, and the hops which are now coming in are those which had started before the prohibition was enacted. As soon as those are here they will be added to the stocks, and then the licensing system will be enforced on the principle which I have mentioned, which I hope will be satisfactory.
§ Sir J. D. REESThe hon. Gentleman; representing the Government said he was rather between the hammer and the anvil on this question, but I think he is rather between an overwhelming element and an overpowering personality. I do not want to lengthen this Debate, but I should like to say a word on the controversial note which was struck by the hon. Member for Haggerston (Ms. Chancellor). I do not want this Debate to degenerate into a talk on teetotalism, but I would like to know if some other word could not be used for this non-alcoholic drink than beer? Could it not be given some other name? I think it would be very advantageous that it could be called by some other totally different designation.
§ Colonel GRETTONOn the question of this so-called non-alcoholic beer, like all other liquors that contain sugar, it has in it alcohol, but in a smaller proportion. I understand that the Board of Trade do not recognise this particular beverage as beer. If that is so, I would like to know will they undertake prosecutions against people who sell it as beer? Brewers and the public have to pay a very heavy tax on beer, and the Board of Trade and Customs take up the position that all liquor fermented in a brewery is beer. Surely if an article which is more or less a colourable imitation of beer be sold under the same name in competition with beer which is taxed so heavily, it should be treated 1407 in the same way and subject to the same restrictions, or it should not be sold as beer. This non-alcoholic beer may be made to any extent, and many hon. Members desire that it should be made to a greater extent, although there is no suggestion of restrictions upon the importation of the materials from which this article is made. I am not quite sure that this particular article is going to be the success which some persons wish it to be. I tasted it without prejudice, and it is exceedingly nasty. I am told that people will drink it out of curiosity, but they do not drink it very often. If they do, they get very thirsty and are very glad when the houses open and they are able to get an ordinary drink. There is really no justification in this measure for prohibition of the importation of hops, because they are very light and they do not add very seriously to the weight of a cargo. The object is an entirely different one. I am not putting forward my own case, but I want to draw attention to the fact that some brewers in this country use these foreign imported hops for particular purposes. It is not only a question of the quantity, but also of the quality. This, however, is a matter in which I believe the Board of Trade mean to act fairly, and if any hops are required licences will no doubt be obtainable. The brewing trade do not wish to be unreasonable. The assurance of my right hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Laurence Hardy) that prices will not be made extortionate, and the understanding that if they are the market will be opened again, will be considerable consolation to those brewers who strongly object to prohibition.
§ Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.