§ Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYI want to raise a point on this Clause which affects my constituency, and a good many other productive factories in other parts of the country. Clause 5 increases the excise duty on sweets from 1s. a gallon as laid down last year to 1s. 6d. a gallon. My recollection of the discussion last year was that the term "sweets" does not mean what you and I mean, Mr. Hope, by sweets, but it is a certain sweet charged with a liqueur. I would like to know if that is the case.
§ The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel)"Sweets" is a technical term, and, if the hon. and gallant Member looks up Section 52 of the Finance Act of 1910, he will find there a definition given in the following terms:
The expression 'sweets' means any liquor which is made from fruit and sugar, or from fruit or sugar mixed with any other material, and which has undergone a process of fermentation in the manufacture thereof, and includes British wines, made wines, mead, and metheglin;
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYIt is rather a technical term and it is not what you and I, Mr. Chairman, mean by sweets. In this case, it means British wines, and I thank the Financial Secretary to the Treasury for his explanation. I understand that this new industry will bear the burden. I am all in favour of taxing intoxicating liquors, especially those of such doubtful origin as this, and, therefore, I only rose to say that I support the Clause.