OUTPUT OF BEER (RESTRICTION—No. 2) BILL. (Hansard, 7 November 1916)

§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Pretyman)
The House will recollect the Bill that was passed to restrict the output of beer and to reduce the quantity of brewing materials imported into this country. The general effect of that Act was that the brewer was limited to an output 133 of 85 per cent. of the amount which he brewed in any quarter of the standard year. That standard year was the 1st of April, 1915, to 31st March, 1916. No brewer is allowed to brew more than 85 per cent. of what he brewed during the corresponding quarter of that standard year. The Act was passed early in August, but it practically took effect from 1st April of this year. In order to give time for adjustments, the first three quarters of the present financial year were taken as the period of adjustment. It has been found that that is not quite long enough, and, without in any way affecting the quantity which may be brewed or the reductions which may be obtained by the Act, we propose, in Clause 1 of this short Bill, which I am asking the House to read a second time, to allow adjustments to take place for the whole of the four quarters of the present year ending 31st March next, instead of restricting it to the three-quarters ending Christmas. That is the simple effect of the first Clause of the Bill—gradually to distribute the reduction evenly over the whole year instead of tying them down to the actual amount brewed in one particular quarter.
Then, under the second Clause of the Bill, a difficulty has arisen which is rather complicated. It arises out of this, that taking the standard year ending 31st March, 1916, which is the standard applied to the Bill as a whole, a different quantity standard, if I may use the expression, was allowed to be adopted by brewers who preferred it—that is to say, the year ending 31st March, 1915, or what I may call the 1914 standard. The general standard of the Bill is what I may call the 1915 standard, but as a quantity standard only, and not as applied to the other provisions of the Bill, any brewer who preferred it might take 1914 instead of 1915. In that case, instead of being allowed 85 per cent. of the output of 1915, he was allowed only 70 per cent. of the larger output of 1914, and a considerable number of brewers availed themselves of that option, and took the alternative quantity standard of 1914. Under Clause 2, Sub-section (2), paragraph (c), of the Act, power is given to the Commissioners, where any change has taken place in the circumstances of the brewery after the 31st March, 1915, and the standard barrelage does not, therefore, afford a proper standard of comparison, they may make such adjustment as they think proper in the number of barrels. The 134 House will observe that that power only extends to changes taking place in the standard year proper. The effect of that is that any changes which have taken place in the circumstances of the brewery prior to the commencement of the standard year proper cannot be dealt with under Clause 2, Sub-section (2) (c), and, broadly speaking, that is a satisfactory position. You cannot extend the paragraph in question beyond the commencement of that year, otherwise endless complication would be caused, and the taking of the option of the 1914 year is entirely within the discretion of the brewers. If they take that year, they take it with its advantages and its disadvantages.
But there was one point, and that is a point dealt with here in Clause 2, which was not contemplated either by ourselves or by the brewers, and it was this: It occurs occasionally that brewers having more than one brewery, close down the others, and brew the whole of their output in one brewery. The output is not necessarily reduced. The same quantity of beer may be brewed in one brewery as was being brewed in two breweries. That sometimes occurs when one brewer purchases another brewery. He then closes down one of the two breweries, and does all the brewing in the other. During the 1914 year, where that has been selected by a brewer, it is clearly contemplated by the Act that he should be able to take as the standard of comparison the total amount of the beer which he was brewing, whether it was being brewed at the time in one brewery or two breweries; but he may have closed down one of those breweries in 1914, and then, as the Act is worded, he would be precluded from reckoning any beer brewed except in the brewery where it is now being brewed. Therefore, this Clause permits him, in calculating his standard, to take the quantity brewed in the brewery closed during 1914, but it gives a certain discretion to the Commissioners which is necessary, because there may be cases, and, in fact, there are actual cases, where the brewer has bought a brewery which he has closed during 1914 or, at any rate, previous to March, 1915, and, although he bought a brewery he did not buy the whole of the trade. It is possible the brewery might have some tied houses attached to it, and he might have bought the brewery with a proportion of the tied houses, and not the whole, in which case he would not be entitled to the beer which is now being brewed by the 135 brewers who purchased the remainder of the trade, and who probably took the year 1915 as the standard, and it is quite impossible to take the beer from them and hand it over to this other brewer. If they were both allowed to have the same rights, the result would be that the standard quantity as a whole would be increased, and therefore this Clause allows that calculation to be made so as to give the brewer who closed the brewery in 1914 the standard amount which was really represented by the trade in his possession at the time the brewery was closed. That is really what Clause 2 does.
Clause 3 extends Clause 6 of the Act, under which the Board of Trade may, at the request of the Army Council, grant a special certificate to any brewer in Ireland authorising him to brew beer in excess of the limits prescribed by the Act if the addition is required for the use of military canteens in Ireland. That Clause was inserted by the House, because a considerable number of troops had been sent into Ireland who were in excess of the ordinary population, and who were sent in for reasons which could not be foreseen, and which rather vitiated the 1915 standard or the 1914 standard. Therefore, authority was given to the Board of Trade, on the request of the Army Council, to allow a certain quantity to be brewed to meet that special requirement in Ireland, and that has been restricted, I need hardly say, to the smallest possible amount. Altogether something like 10,000 or 12,000 barrels, speaking from memory, have been sanctioned under that provision. We now find ourselves in an exactly similar position in this country, namely, that a very large number of Colonial troops have come to this country who are a clear extra, and who are not, as are British troops, drawn from the population who have previously-consumed the beer They are an extra, and they require beer at the canteens, but the Army Council, with the rights which they possess under the Act of obtaining certificates for any quantity of beer which was brewed for them by any brewer for those canteens during the standard year, cannot provide this extra quantity without depriving other brewers of rights which they possess under the Act. Therefore, what I wish to ask the House to do is to take the word "Ireland" out of Clause 6 of the Act by this Clause 3 of the amending Bill now before the House, so as to 136 give the same authority for exactly the same reason, namely, if the Army Council find that their rights are insufficient. I may say that every possible care will be taken that, unless extra beer is urgently required, both in the opinion of the Army Council and of the Board of Trade, these rights will not be extended, and I am satisfied that those who are working this matter for the Army Council are doing their very utmost to do without this, or, at any rate, with very limited quantities, but they fear there must be some extra quantity; and, therefore, I ask the House to be good enough to take out the word "Ireland" and apply that Clause also to England. I apologise for having to bring in an Amending Bill so soon, but the restrictions on manufacture are somewhat difficult to administer, and I hope this Amending Bill will pass into law without delay,

§ Mr. SHERWELL
I do not rise for the purpose of opposing this Bill in any way. It is a Bill that is very simple in its scope, but is not so simple in its construction. I am very much indebted to the hon. Gentlemen for the explanation he has given of Clause 2. It is the only approach to an explanation that I have been able to get from any source that I have consulted. I have referred the construction of this Clause to a number of high legal friends, and until I heard the hon. Gentleman I had no idea what really was the precise object. The House is familiar with the fact that the authorities have been for some years searching for a final test of drunkenness, but I cannot conceive, and certainly have never encountered, a finer test for the sobriety of a man than the test of this Clause. Any man who could construe this Clause with any approach to its ostensible meaning would put any suspicion against him of lack of sobriety beyond all possible reproach. The object, as I understand, as described by the hon. Member is a simple one, but I am not quite sure that the safeguards are present in the Clause as here drafted. I very much dislike the provision which confers a discretionary power upon the Commissioners, which discretionary power may conceivably be exercised in a direction contrary to the intention of the original Act; but if we are assured the discretion of the Commissioners will be used in the direction indicated by the hon. Member, then I would not like to press my objection to that particular Clause in the Bill.
137 I am not so satisfied about Clause 3, because, although the hon. Gentleman referred to the presence—the unexpected presence, as I gather—of so many Colonial troops in this country, therefore augmenting the demand for beer, I would remind him that the presence of these Colonial troops is a temporary and fluctuating presence, and that the number of "Colonial troops in this country who may make a transient visit or a transient stay are more than compensated for, or approximately compensated for, by troops moving from this country to the various seats of war, and I am not quite sure that the Clause as drafted in the Bill does not provide for a larger number than is really intended by the Government, or really required for the particular purpose. The Bill is, as I said at the beginning, one that is very simple in its scope, but I do suggest that the Board of Trade should scrutinise a little more closely the construction of Clause 2 before the House is asked to enter on the Committee stage of the Bill.

§ Mr. S. ROBERTS
I desire to thank the hon. Gentleman for introducing this Bill, and I thank him for responding to a question which I put before him which was brought to my notice by a constituent of mine. The case is a very simple one. The brewery is closed after the year 1914.

§ Mr. PRETYMAN
During the year 1914, or prior to 1915.

§ Mr. ROBERTS
It would be very hard if that brewer were deprived of the quantity of beer he brewed at that brewery, and which he transferred for economical working to another brewery. I believe there are eight similar cases in the whole country, and I think it would be a very great injustice if my point were not met. I thank the hon. Gentleman for meeting this case in the way he has done. I have only one other criticism to make. My friends are suspicious of leaving this matter entirely in the hands of the Commissioners. Supposing the Commissioners were to say that half this quantity would be quite sufficient, in my opinion that would not be exercising their discretion in a judicial spirit. As far as I am concerned, I am willing to accept what the hon. Gentleman says, providing the Commissioners administer the Clause in the way which has been suggested.

§ Mr. PRETYMAN
I will undertake that they do.

§ Sir FRANCIS LOWE
This Bill is introduced in the interests of the brewers, and I entirely approve of its provisions. There is another class, the free licence holders, who have a point to raise, and they have asked for an Amendment which is not included in this Bill. While we are having an amending Bill they think the Amendment which they desire should also be introduced. I hope I am in order, because it seems to me that it will be very inconvenient to have a number of amending Bills, and while we are having this one it is quite proper that all these points should be dealt with. The off-licence holders say that under Clause 5 of the principal Act they are entitled to have the same amount of beer supplied to them as they have hitherto been receiving from the brewer with whom they have been dealing, and to do this they have only to get a certificate from the brewer they formerly dealt with and take it to any fresh brewer and get a similar amount from him. That had the effect of giving them just as free a market for the purchase of their beer as they had before the passing of the principal Act. They now say as Clause 5 of the old Act stands, when they have once got their certificate and given it to another brewer they become tied to that brewer and cannot transfer it from one to the other, and if the second brewer does not supply them satisfactorily they have no alternative and still have to keep on dealing with him. What they ask is that there should be a Clause introduced which would enable them to transfer this certificate, as in the past, from one brewer to another, instead of being tied to the first brewer to whom they take the certificate. I should be very glad if my hon. Friend would give me his views on this subject.

§ Mr. PRETYMAN
I can only reply by leave of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I will answer the hon. Member very shortly. The point he has raised was only sent to me to-day, and I had a letter from the interest for which my hon. Friend is speaking in this case, and to which we were very much indebted while we were framing a valuable part of Clause 5. I do not think anything can be done in regard to this point, because what the Bill does is exactly what my hon. Friend says: it allows a free seller of beer not only the free house, but grocers and people who sell beer on off-licences to get a certificate from a brewer who used to 139 supply them in the corresponding quarter of the standard year, and that they can transfer to another brewer in they do not get on with their original brewer and if they do not wish him to continue to supply them. We cannot allow them to transfer more than once a quarter. They get a new certificate each quarter, and if we were to allow constant changes they would have to be referred to the Commissioners, and the administration would become impossible.

§ Sir F. LOWE
Supposing the certificate is obtained for the first quarter and he transfers it to another brewer who does not supply him satisfactorily, in the next quarter he cannot go to another brewer until next year.

§ Mr. PRETYMAN
The next quarter he may go to another brewer.

§ Sir F. LOWE
Yes, next year.

§ Mr. PRETYMAN
The point my hon. Friend raises is what will happen in the year 1917. I will undertake to deal with this matter.

Sir H. DALZIEL
It is a Committee point.

§ Mr. PRETYMAN
I hardly think an amendment of the Act is necessary, but I will confer with my hon. Friend about it.