§ That in lieu of the duty of Excise of four-pence per gallon payable on sweetened or fermented table waters, and of the duty of Excise of eightpence per gallon payable on other table waters, there shall, as from the tenth day of May, nineteen hundred and twenty-one, be charged, levied, and paid duties of half the above amounts respectively.—[Colonel Wedgwood.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
1293§ Colonel WEDGWOODI beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
This new Clause is to cut down the Duty on table waters by one-half. I should like to protest first of all against having to discuss it at this time in the morning. All the Members who have put their names to this Amendment except myself are absent. The Clause has excited great interest in the country. We have all been deluged with resolutions about it, and the whole work that has been done in order to arouse interest in this question will all be thrown away if we proceed to discuss it at this time of night. It is now quarter past two, and the House is tired and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has gone to bed. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no, he is here!"] I think the time has now arrived when the Chief Whip, whom I am very glad to see present, might consider whether he cannot let us off. There are still seven pages of Amendments to get through. The whole of the party which I represent is absent and I do submit, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary of the Treasury should realise that we are the guardians of the public interest, that legislation at this time of the night is contrary to the public interest. We have been on this Finance Bill, roughly speaking, half a day. At 8.15 we were interrupted by the Motion for the Adjournment and for two hours earlier in the afternoon we had another discussion spatchcocked in. It is not fair to take the whole of the second day on the Finance Bill involving an enormous amount of new legislation at the small hours of the morning. I know the Government are very anxious to get through all the new Clauses to-night and
§ to reserve for Friday the Schedules. I think they would really do better if they took the remainder of the new Clauses and the Schedules on Friday. I think I had better move first to report Progress and ask leave to sit again in order that we can have the subject properly discussed. Cannot we have an answer from the Government as to how long we are to go on?
§ Sir R. HORNEWe propose to sit until we have finished the new Clauses, leaving over until Friday the discussion of the Schedules. My view about that has not altered in the course of the evening.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODIs it that you have not been here. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"] We have lost all the working part of the day and we are trying to discuss it in the absence of the Labour party. I think any reasonable Leader of the House would say that it is impossible to carry on the Debate much longer. It is perfectly understood on these occasions that the Chief Whip lays down a principle early in the day. Then there is always a Motion for the Adjournment about half-past eleven which the Chief Whip always refuses. There is another one about quarter past two which the Chief Whip generally accepts. I do submit that now is the opportunity not to lead this Parliament with quite so heavy a hand and I think we might come to an agreement which will shorten our discussions in the long run and enable us to get home to bed and to discuss this matter in a reasonable spirit later in the week.
§ Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 7; Noes, 129.
1295| Division No. 188.] | AYES. | [2.19 a.m. |
| Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D. | Glanville, Harold James | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.) | Morgan, Major D. Watts | Colonel Wedgwood and Mr. |
| Barton, Sir William (Oldham) | Newbould, Alfred Ernest | Trevelyan Thomson. |
| Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith) | ||
| NOES. | ||
| Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte | Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. | Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A. |
| Amery, Leopold C. M. S. | Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart. (Gr'nw'h) | Butcher, Sir John George |
| Armitage, Robert | Betterton, Henry B. | Carr, W. Theodore |
| Atkey, A. R. | Birchall, Major J. Dearman | Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm. W.) |
| Bagley, Captain E. Ashton | Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith- | Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood) |
| Baird, Sir John Lawrence | Bowyer, Captain G. W. E. | Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Boyd-Carpenter, Major A. | Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Conway, Sir W. Martin |
| Barlow, Sir Montague | Briggs, Harold | Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely) |
| Barnett, Major Richard W. | Brittain, Sir Harry | Cope, Major William |
| Barnston, Major Harry | Brown, Major D. C. | Curzon, Captain Viscount |
| Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes) | Bruton, Sir James | Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead) |
| Davies, Thomas (Cirencester) | Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford) | Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor) |
| Doyle, N. Grattan | Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead) | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) |
| Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark) | Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere | Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur |
| Evans, Ernest | Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster) | Seddon, J. A. |
| Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M. | Jameson, John Gordon | Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock) |
| Falcon, Captain Michael | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Shaw, Capt. William T. (Forfar) |
| Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray | Joynson-Hicks, Sir William | Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander |
| Ford, Patrick Johnston | Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George | Stanier, Captain Sir Beville |
| Forestier-Walker, L. | King, Captain Henry Douglas | Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston) |
| Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Steel, Major S. Strang |
| Fraser, Major Sir Keith | Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale) | Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K. |
| Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Lindsay, William Arthur | Sugden, W. H. |
| Gange, E. Stanley | Lloyd-Greame, Sir P. | Sutherland, Sir William |
| Ganzonl, Sir John | Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n) | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
| Gee, Captain Robert | Lyle, C. E. Leonard | Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill) |
| Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham | M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W. | Tryon, Major George Clement |
| Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John | McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury) | Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor |
| Goff, Sir R. Park | Mallalieu, Frederick William | Ward, William Dudley (Southampton) |
| Gould, James C. | Manville, Edward | Watson, Captain John Bertrand |
| Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.) | Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J. | Weston, Colonel John Wakefield |
| Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hackn'y, N.) | Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. | Wheler, Col. Granville C. H. |
| Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Neal, Arthur | White, Col. G. D. (Southport) |
| Hailwood, Augustine | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Williams, C. (Tavistock) |
| Hamilton, Major C. G. C. | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William | Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H. |
| Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Parker, James | Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon) |
| Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton) | Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry | Young, E. H. (Norwich) |
| Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston) | Pickering, Colonel Emil W. | Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon) |
| Hennessy, Major J. R. G. | Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray | Younger, Sir George |
| Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.) | Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton | |
| Holmes, J. Stanley | Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian) | Purchase, H. G. | Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr. |
| Hopkins, John W. W. | Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford) | McCurdy. |
§ Colonel WEDGWOODI beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The duty on sweetened table waters has now got beyond the point at which it brings any increase in revenue and just because the taxes on cigars and champagne were reduced because they tended to reduce consumption and not to increase revenue so we now ask that the tax on sweetened and unsweetened table waters should also be reduced. Last year there were 10,000,000 gallons less of aerated waters used in this country than in 1919, and that is due very largely to the exceedingly heavy taxation. The present duties are 4d. a gallon on sweetened and 8d. a gallon on unsweetened table waters, but in addition to these it must be remembered that the raw material of these aerated waters is also taxed very heavily. Sugar is the principal raw material and that bears extremely heavy taxation at the present time. Roughly speaking, the ordinary bottle of table waters is at present taxed at a rate of 3d. per dozen bottles by this tax and 4d. by the sugar and spirit duties, or ½d. per bottle. The result is that a pint of mineral waters now costs more than a pint of beer owing to the heavy taxation. The additional cost is made up because the cost of the raw materials, apart from taxation, has gone up more than the raw material in any other industry. Sugar has gone up from £15 a ton to £140 a ton since the War. That increase of nearly 1296 1,000 per cent., of course, hits the industry very hard and makes the cost of ginger beer extremely expensive. Generally speaking, the price has been put up to such an extent that the consumption is falling off and the revenue is losing cash. The main point, therefore, is that there is dual taxation, the heavy taxation on the raw material and the more heavy taxation on the finished product. The effect of these taxes has been such as to reduce consumption and we say that just as the taxes on champagne or cigars was reduced when it was found that it reduced consumption, so in this case the tax should also be reduced in order to benefit consumption, and particularly that form of consumption which all of us wish to see increased at the expense of alcoholic beverages.
§ Sir R. HORNEIt is interesting to observe the enthusiasm which the hon. and gallant Member takes in the cause which to-night he has been advocating, but I am afraid that his enthusiasm has not carried into his speech that accurate analysis of the trade which has been done in these particular waters in the course of the last year. He lamented that there had been a great falling off in the consumption of table waters. I think he said about 11,000,000 gallons.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODTen millions.
§ Sir R. HORNEIt really is nearer 11,000,000, but he did not investigate the 1297 particular character of table waters which suffered diminution. That interesting part of the investigation would have disclosed that fact that while sweetened table waters had diminished very greatly in consumption, unsweetened had kept up, and, indeed, had rather increased in consumption. Unsweetened table waters, of course, are apt to be mixed with things of a stronger character, and undoubtedly the nature of the last summer had something to do with it. The hon. and gallant member directed attention to the fact that there was a double tax on the sweetened variety. I am afraid that he failed to notice the simple cause of that fact—that the ingredients which go into the making of the sweetened table water are already taxed, so that the tax on the water itself is less than that put on the unsweetened variety. The complaint which he has made is entirely unfounded, because the sugar which goes to make the sweetened table water is taxed. He said that the tax per gallon on the sweetened table water was only 4d., as against 8d. on the unsweetened variety. There is no ground, in the circumstances, for that complaint. Again, he compared the position of the sweetened with that of beer. The table water, at the highest, is only taxed at 8d. per gallon, as against 11d. for the lightest form of beer. There seems to be very little justification—
§ Colonel WEDGWOODDo you prefer people to drink beer to these table waters?
§ Sir R. HORNEThe lightest form of beer is not of such a character as in any way to be detrimental to the health and welfare of the race. I think it is not too much to ask those who prefer the table waters to contribute a little to the taxation of the country. The amount which would be lost if the hon. and gallant Member's proposal were carried would be something over £500,000, and I do not think that the Committee should be asked, in these circumstances, to forgo this measure of revenue, in order to satisfy a demand which I do not think is insistent in this country.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODI do not think that the right hon. Gentleman sufficiently realises the change in the position. Before the War the manufacturer of nonalcoholic beverages was lightly taxed compared with the taxation of beer and 1298 alcoholic beverages. Now that is all changed. You have a heavy tax on mineral waters. The right hon. Gentleman argues that they should be taxed as heavily as alcoholic beverages.
§ Sir R. HORNEI did not.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODIn previous years it was assumed that non-alcoholic beverages should be less taxed than alcoholic beverages, in order to encourage the consumption of one and discourage the consumption of the other. Apparently, that theory of taxation has been abandoned, but, personally, I prefer the old system of taxation, which had some idea of guiding the public taste in the right channels. It seeks to increase the consumption of beer and to decrease the consumption of non-alcoholic beverages.
§ Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODI said "Aye!" Why did not the "Ayes" have it?
§ The CHAIRMANI did not hear the hon Member. I could not say that the "Ayes" had it, because there were no "Ayes" to have it. I am in some doubt about the next Amendment, because it appears to me to require the Exchequer to part with some of the money it has already obtained, but I shall be glad to hear the explanation of the hon. Member for Canterbury.