§ As from the first day of August, nineteen hundred and twenty-eight, there shall, in lieu of the Customs duty theretofore payable on Empire brandy, be charged, levied, and paid on Empire brandy imported into the United Kingdom for every gallon computed at proof—
| £ | s. | d. | ||||
| In cask | … | … | … | 3 | 5 | 4 |
| In bottle | … | … | … | 3 | 6 | 4 |
| —[Mr. Harmon.] |
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. HANNONI beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The effect of this proposed new Clause will be to give a preference to Imperial brandy of 20s. per proof gallon. The House of Commons, on many occasions recently, has signified its adherence to the general principle that our overseas Dominions should get a preference in our market for the products which they send to this country. We have given a very generous concession in the case of wines, but, for some reason which only the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the officials of the Treasury can explain, they have treated brandy—a most important product of South Africa—with scant courtesy. We imported, last year, no 1324 less than 500,000 gallons of foreign brandy.
§ Mr. HANNONThe Noble Lady seems to be interested in that large importation of foreign brandy. She is horrified. She may be further horrified to learn that we only imported 1,000 gallons of Empire-produced brandy. It is for preference in favour of brandy produced in South Africa—as I have said, an important product of that interesting Dominion—that I am now pleading with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am asking for a concession of 2s. a bottle on Imperial brandy. We give, at present, a concession of 2s. 6d. a bottle on rum, but then rum had the advantage of coming into the market long before Empire-produced brandy was heard of, and it has long since established itself and consolidated itself on its merits as an article of consumption in this country. Therefore, it would not be fair to regard the case of rum as analogous to the case of brandy in this respect. In the case of wines, we are giving a preference of 33⅓ per cent. on wines of 25 per cent. strength, and 30 per cent. on wines of 42 per cent. strength. Surely, 1325 if we are doing that for wine, we ought to do it in a corresponding degree for brandy from the Empire. The preference which we are giving to Colonial wines is roughly equivalent to 8d. per bottle, and a bottle costs 4s. In the case of brandy, which costs 17s.—and I am sure the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) will be astonished at that—we give a preference of only 3½d. I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary, who has for many years given a good deal of thought to the relative values of scientific preference on Empire commodities, how that 8d. on a bottle of wine which costs 4s. and only 3½d. on a bottle of brandy which costs 17s. can be justified? It is one of those extraordinary anomalies which is characteristic of our public finance I appeal to the Chancellor to put that right without a moment's further delay, and to think of the satisfaction which he will give to the South African people with whom he has been so eminently identified. This South African brandy is making its mark at the present time, and is specially acceptable for medical purposes in all our London hospitals. Surely, the Chancellor will not stand in the way of the medical faculty having the opportunity of the full enjoyment of so admirable a product. I appeal to my right hon. Friend to remove at once this singular anomaly in our preferential arrangements and give to our Cape producers, who are loyal, patriotic and devoted citizens of the Empire, the full privilege of sending their brandy to this market on equal terms with their French competitors. Why should we consume 500,000 gallons of French brandy and only 1,000 gallons of Cape brandy? I ask the Chancellor to assist the Cape farmers to get more of their brandy into our market, and thus cement still further the bonds of Empire.
§ Major ELLIOTThis proposal would involve a sacrifice of revenue so great as to bring a shudder to the heart of any member of my nationality. The sacrifice of revenue would mean £2,500,000 a year, and it is impossible for the revenue to contemplate a sacrifice of that kind. [Interruption.] My hon. Friends must not forget the fact that these Spirit 1326 Duties are correlative, and it is impossible to reduce the taxation of one particular class without having regard to other classes of spirits which are produced. It is an axiom of taxation that things which may be substituted for each other must be scrutinised by the revenue authorities, and the suggested preference would bring the duty on brandy to a lower level than the duly on spirit which is produced in Scotland. It would mean putting the Cape farmer, loyal and devoted as he may be, in a better position than the equally loyal and devoted citizens of the northern kingdom. We already give considerable preference to Cape brandy; no such preference to Scotch whisky is given by the Cape farmers. We have made a gesture of friendliness towards them, and it is for them to reciprocate, and until that is done we see no reason why we should lower the duty and put those who live in one part of the Dominions better off than those who live in another, because the Cape farmers would be put in a better position than the Scottish farmers. For those reasons I must ask the Committee not to accept the Clause, and I hope that my hon. Friend will not desire to press it.
§ Mr. HANNONAfter the explanation of the hon. and gallant Member, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion. Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
The CHAIRMANWith regard to the five new Clauses—(Silk Duties, Amendment)—standing in the name of the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Sir F. Meyer), the third, fourth, and fifth are not in order, as they impose a charge. The hon. Member can move either of the first two, whichever he prefers.
§ Sir F. MEYERI will move the second new Clause.