CLAUSE 2.—(Standard Barrelage.) (Hansard, 6 July 1916)

§ Mr. PETO
I beg to move to leave out the word "thirty" ["thirty per cent, for fifteen per cent."], and to insert instead thereof the word "twenty-five."
1688 On the Committee stage I called attention to the fact that the basis now agreed upon with regard to the standard period for the reduction in the output of beer inflicts grave hardship on the small brewers in various parts of the country. Their position as compared with that of the large brewers who have taken very extensive contracts for the supply of can teens, and who are to reduce their out put by only 15 per cent., seems to me to be very anomalous. The main object of the Bill is to get a substantial and agreed reduction in the output of beer. The whole output of these small country brewers, whose customers in many cases have left them owing to the movement of population in connection with the War, is a very small fraction of the total out put of beer in the country. The Parliamentary Secretary pointed out in the Committee stage that the reduction first agreed upon was 28 per cent, upon the 1914 standard. I am informed by the small brewers that that was agreed to with a good deal of reluctance, but they accepted the statement that it was necessary in the national interest. They subsequently found that, owing to representations by, the brewers who had a very large share of the canteen contracts that the troops could not be supplied with beer to a reasonable extent if 1914 were taken as the standard, because these large can teen contracts could not then be executed, the period was altered to 1915. To show the position of these small brewers I will give one typical case in which the reduction in the output in 1915 as compared with 1914 is 24 per cent. If the hon. Gentleman insists on his 30 per cent., the only option for that small brewery, which is working almost at a loss owing to the diminution of its output, will be either to make a further reduction of 15 per cent, on the 1915 standard—I am speaking of the Bill before the period was altered to March, 1916—

§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Pretyman)
It is practically the same total.

§ Mr. PETO
Yes. This small brewery will either have to add 15 per cent, to the already ascertained reduction of 24 per cent., making 39 per cent., or to take the 1914 standard and make a reduction of 30 per cent, on that. Instead of having to make a reduction of 15 per cent., as in the case of the larger breweries, the 1689 only option before this small brewery will be to make a reduction of 30 per cent, or 39 per cent., according to the period they adopt. This particular brewery during the spring of this year obtained a share of the canteen contracts, but it will be perfectly impossible for them to supply any canteen beer at all if they have to reduce their output by either 39 per cent, or 30 per cent. The effect of the Bill as it stands will therefore be to throw the small share of the canteen contracts obtained by the small breweries into the hands of the large breweries, and thus create a practical monopoly, which may affect both the price and the quality of the beer supplied to the troops. I do not think that that is a desirable effect to produce. The hon. Gentleman said that 28 per cent, was originally agreed Upon. I ask him to reduce that 28 per cent, by three instead of increasing it by two. As the Bill stands, the burden upon these small breweries will be such that in many cases they will be unable to pay anything, even to their debenture holders; therefore I ask the hon. Gentleman to accept this very moderate proposal.

§ Mr. G. TERRELL
I beg to second the Amendment. I hope the hon. Gentleman will see his way to accept this very reasonable proposal. By the Bill as drawn he cannot reduce below 30 per cent., but he can always increase. If he accepts the Amendment and then finds he does not get the total reduction desired, he can always, by Order in Council, put on an extra 5 per cent, increase. If the Bill goes through as it stands his hands will be tied. He may get a greater reduction and still be unable to give relief to the small brewers. As this measure is going through practically by consent, and everyone is endeavouring to assist the Government by all the means in his power, it is very necessary that the Government should be as just as possible, and see that no harm is done to the small brewers, who are the least able to help themselves in times like the present.

§ Mr. PRETYMAN
I have every sympathy with the spirit of the suggestion made by my hon. Friends, but I think they have omitted to note that the standard on which the Bill was based was the 1915 standard. That has now been altered. The standard is not the 1914 standard at all. The 1914 standard is merely an alternative put in for the very 1690 reason advanced by my hon. Friends, namely, to remove the extreme hardship caused to the small brewers. The reason why we could not adopt the 1914 standard as a whole was that it is not a question of the brewers only; it is a question of the consumers also; and we were obliged, as I explained in Committee, to take a standard which approximated as nearly as possible to the present distribution of population. If we had taken the 1914 standard, we should have been forcing beer to be brewed according to the old distribution of population, and it would all have had to be conveyed by rail — thereby adding to the congestion on the railways — to the munitions centres and the places; where there are assemblages of troops. It was absolutely necessary to fix that standard. It was then pointed out that this was a hardship to the small brewers. To meet this case we have given them the alternative percentage. We are quite aware whichever way it is looked at that the brewer will suffer some diminution of his trade. It is, however, quite impossible for me to accept this Amendment, for we should lose our reduction—

§ Mr. PETO
A very small fraction!

§ Mr. PRETYMAN
I know! It is "the-very small one" argument that is constantly put forward. But we have definitely, in the national interests, to bring the manufacture and consumption of beer to 26,000,000 barrels, and we cannot depart from that. Everybody has been treated on that basis, and it is quite impossible for us to depart from it. I gave no sort of suggestion to my hon. Friend that I should accept this Amendment, or consider it, nor had I any notice that my hon. Friend proposed to move it again on Report. It is not down on the Paper. Therefore, I really think the point was completely answered in Committee. My hon. Friend must not think that the Government have not got full sympathy with the small brewer. It was for that reason we inserted this provision giving him the alternative, and I do not think it is very gracious having given the alternative to minimise the hardship—or quite fair—to-found on it further demands which would completely alter the whole basis of the-Bill.