HC Deb 09 June 1937 vol 324 cc1872-9

Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

8.47 P.m.

Mr. R. C. Morrison

I think the Committee are entitled to an explanation of this Clause from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Apparently a considerable amount of mystery and secrecy surrounds it. No reference to the Clause was made in the Budget speech, or during the Second Reading Debate on the Finance Bill, and up to now there has been no word of explanation. I understand the people most affected by the proposed change were not even notified. The first information they had was when the Finance Bill was printed, and I gather that then efforts to get the Chancellor of the Exchequer to receive a deputation to protest against the change have been rebuffed. Up to now the Chancellor has not shown the readiness to receive deputations from bodies of people who object to his proposals which his predecessor showed in regard to the National Defence Contribution tax. This Clause takes away from off-licence holders a privilege which they have enjoyed for 75 years, and surely that ought not to be done without an explanation. At the present time off-licence holders are allowed to sell in open vessels or in quantities of less than a pint certain kinds of British wine which, I am told, are growing in popularity in certain of the poorer districts. They may not be wines that appeal to the palates of hon. Members of this House, and I do not suppose that the Kitchen Committee keep any large stock of them. People who go abroad have always regarded is as a pleasant feature of life in Continental towns to see poor people sitting with their wives and children in a cafe with glasses of wine in front of them. In this country beer largely takes the place of wine, but a custom has been growing up in some of the poorer districts for the off-licence holder who supplies at the week-end one or two bottles of beer for father to supply also a sixpenny bottle of cheap wine which the mother of the family takes as a little delicacy.

For some reason which the Chancellor of the Exchequer will no doubt be able to explain, but which frankly I cannot understand, this privilege is taken away, but only from off-licence holders. People who like this cheap wine in sixpenny bottles will in future have to get it from the public house or the club, although alternatively they can still buy it from an off-licence holder if they purchase a whole pint at a time. It seems a pity to spend a great deal of time in idle speculation on why the Chancellor has inserted this Clause in the Bill. Many working people who are unable to afford port, sherry or champagne enjoy these cheap wines, and why should we drive them to public houses to get it? Why should they not still be able to go to an off-licence holder? Many people object to going into a public house. It would almost seem that there had been a conspiracy between the publicans, with the connivance of the Government, against the little man, the off-licence holder. If this privilege had been one which had been enjoyed by brewers or publicans for 75 years, and it had been proposed to take it away, the House would have been crowded this evening. Every Member would have been inundated with literature, and there would have been lobbying and deputations. I do not know of any Chancellor who would have dared to say in such a case that he would not receive a deputation. But because it is only the off-licence holder who is affected, and it concerns only cheap wine which is a little luxury of the poor, the Clause is put in without a word to anybody.

8.52 p.m.

Sir J. Simon

I was on a point of rising to give some explanation when the hon. Member himself rose. I had expected that the Amendment on the Paper would have been moved, and that would have given an opportunity to explain. I am glad to explain this Clause, which I find in the Finance Bill which I inherited. It is capable of an easy explanation. It has to do with the holders of off-licences and therefore with a branch of the licensed trade which is strictly limited in this way: that they have privileges only for the sale of intoxicants which are to be consumed off the premises. There is no doubt that according to the law the off-licensee cannot sell wine in an open vessel or in very small quantities. The law says that wine shall be sold under an off-licence only if it be sold in a closed vessel containing one reputed pint, what is sometimes called a half-bottle. That has been the practice throughout. This Clause, however, does not deal with wine, but with something which the law rather curiously describes as "sweets" by which is meant liquor which has been made in this country—I suppose grape juice or something of the kind imported and manufactured here into what is called British wine. It also applies to mead and various other rather unusual liquors. For a long time their sale was not an important part of the business of the off-licensee, but, whether for good or evil, these liquors have become a more favoured form of refreshment. Manifestly it is inconsistent with the holding of an off-licence, a licence given to somebody on the condition that there is to be no consumption on the premises, and authorising the sale to the customer for the purpose of taking it home, to say: "You are allowed to sell sweets in an open vessel." The customer may come in with a glass and say, "Fill it." He may get it in any small quantity which he likes. That position obviously leads at once, and may very often in fact, lead to consumption on the premises. That is the reason for wishing to maintain the distinction between the off and on licence.

Sometimes that decision may be important. The figures are very interesting. The annual output of the production and sale of sweets has risen from 2,882,000 gallons in 1928–29 to 6,222,000 gallons in 1936–37. Hon. Members will see that it is completely anomalous to say to an off-licensee, "If you sell wines you must do so under conditions which properly secure that they are really consumed off the premises," but, "You may sell any quantity, however small, of sweets, in an open container which may be brought to you." That is the explanation of this Clause. There is no mystery about it. I need hardly say that the matter was carefully considered by my predecessor and by the Department. They came to the conclusion, which I support and submit to the Committee is right, that it is not proper to allow this legal anomaly to continue to exist. It is true that the Clause will not prevent such things happening with an on-licence, but, after all, an on-licence is an authority from the State to sell liquor to be consumed on the premises. I sympathise with anybody who deals in this trade, but I think the Committee will wish to maintain the distinction, which is in the minds of magistrates and other authorities who grant on-licences, that the on-licence is for the purpose of consumption on the premises. The matter is perfectly well understood by the trade. Since I have been at the Treasury I have seen a letter written on behalf of those who are in the trade, but adding nothing whatever to the arguments which have been put. I hope the Committee will approve the inclusion of this Clause.

Mr. R. C. Morrison

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I ask him a further question. He says that all the arguments are against the abuse of selling wines in open vessels. If we concede that point, I suggest it might be possible to allow licence holders to sell small 6d. bottles which cannot be consumed on the premises.

Sir J. Simon

I would only say that there appears to be very great ground for making the rule which exists as regards wine apply as regards these other substances. I am not saying whether they are better or worse. Some take one view, and some another, but unquestionably they are intoxicants, and I do not see any particular reason why there should be a different standard of bottling merely because the contents of the bottle consist of these liquids rather than of wines. The Clause is put in purely for the purpose of regularising the position.

9.0 p.m.

Sir Joseph Lamb

On reading the Clause I find the words: or, in England, in any quantity less than one reputed pint bottle. Why not Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland? Is there any reason why England should be singled out?

Sir J. Simon

I agree with my hon. Friend, and I am not sure that I should not have left this to the Under-Secretary to explain. It is not for me to explain why there should be a different practice in Scotland, but the explanation is that in Scotland there has never been a restriction in the case of the sale of wines in bottle to any minimum quantity. Whether that is because Scotland deals in smaller bottles than half bottles, which are thought to be sufficient for what the human frame requires, or whether there is any other explanation, that is the fact. Suppose that you went to an on-licensed house in Scotland and asked for the smallest quantity of wine they could sell you. I understand they would sell you a quarter bottle. If that is the case with wine, it is right that it should be the case with these other liquids. In England, the minimum bottle is what is called a reputed pint bottle, and it is natural to make the standard size the same, whether we deal with wines or with sweets.

9.2 p.m.

Sir Stafford Cripps

The right hon. Gentleman has not quite tackled the point as regards the reputed pint bottle. Surely the explanation why the Clause is put in as regards wine is that the smallest size packed is the half bottle, and that if any smaller vessel were used it would be rebottled by the off-licence holder and would not be a properly bottled and sealed bottle, for instance, if he put the wine in a medicine bottle and said: "This is a bottle of wine."

As regards these sweets, of which I knew nothing until the right hon. Gentleman spoke of them, they are, in fact, put up by the producer in smaller bottles than the reputed pint bottle, as a regular article of commerce. In the other kinds of wine there is not a smaller bottle than the reputed pint bottle, but, considering that the smaller bottles have been sold for 75 years, could not the right hon. Gentleman say that where there is a regular and properly packed sealed bottle of a smaller size which is used for sweets, that bottle should be sold as the smallest packed bottle of wine is already sold? I do not think the analogy is quite true to say that because it has always been the half bottle of wine it ought to be the half bottle of sweets. Is not the real anomaly that the smallest bottle is not put up by the producer so that you have to rebottle the thing on the premises? I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should see whether this thing could not be extended to the smallest size bottle which is put up by the producer.

Sir J. Simon

I follow the hon. and learned Gentleman's point, and I will consider it. It is clear that the intention of the Clause is to put what are called sweets into exactly the same position, in regard to the size of the container and the sealed nature of the container, as is the case with wines. That is the purpose, and it is a limited purpose. I will certainly inquire into the point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. E. J. Williams

Has the right hon. Gentleman received any computation as to the amount of labour which will be affected, if the Clause is carried?

9.5 P.m.

Mr. A. V. Alexander

I was interested to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that he would look into this matter again in the light of what has been said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). I would, however, point out to him that it is now fairly common to buy wines, not merely in reputed pint bottles, but in what are called "splits," and I have very little doubt that, if this practice is not adopted in regard to sweets, sooner or later there will be pressure to extend to off-licence holders the privilege of being able to supply what is now a common size of pack. Whatever is done, it is necessary that there should be uniformity of treatment, and, if there is a case for leaving the position with regard to sweets where it is now, I think there is just as good a case for those people who can only afford to pay 1s. 3d. for a split bottle of wine having an equal right. I hope that, when the right hon. Gentleman is going into this matter, he will consider that point also.

9.6 p.m.

Sir J. Simon

I am not quite sure whether I have made the point plain to the right hon. Gentleman and others. I said that, as regards the off-licence, the minimum size is one reputed pint bottle. It may well be the case that, where liquor is being sold at premises with an on-licence, where it may be consumed on the premises, it may be possible to buy a smaller quantity, but I am pretty confident that I am right in saying that at an off-licence, where one buys something to take away, the licence does not allow of the sale of a smaller quantity than a reputed pint bottle. I think the Committee will appreciate the difference. I cannot give any further assurance now, but I have stated clearly what I would do. I would like to make inquiries and see whether the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) would lead to a useful modification, and I would ask the Committee, in the light of that assurance, to let me have the Clause.

9.7 P.m.

Colonel Gretton

The subject on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is embarking is likely to lead to very thorny ground. In past years there have been many conflicts on this question of the size of bottles that may be sold by the off-licensed trade, and I think the right hon. Gentleman must not pay too great attention to the case put forward by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). He is dealing now with a new trade. The whole essence of the case for the alteration that is now proposed is that this new trade should be brought into line with the old and well ascertained practice. The increase in the sweets trade has been remarkable. The trade scarcely existed at the end of the War; it has grown practically entirely during the last seven or eight years to the scale which it has now reached. I have no personal interests in this matter, but I know the facts and I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will not introduce other complications in the management of the sale of wines or spirits.

9.10 p.m.

Mr. Gallagher

I am not very much concerned about these particular articles, but I am concerned about the fact that the big monopoly, or one of the big monopolies, that is prepared to soak the people of this country, is now coming forward and proposing a deliberate interference with a trade which seems to offer some competition with itself. Competition, we used to be told, was the life of trade, but here is competition which, as has been stated by the right hon. and gallant Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton), has developed very rapidly since the War. From the character of the discussion, it is obvious that this term "sweets" applies to a very mild form of beverage, which seems to have made an appeal to the masses of the poorest people, especially in London. I do not care how bad it is; it is not any worse than the beer that we see advertised by pictures of men carrying great girders on their shoulders. It seems to me that, if any man has reached such a condition that he wants to carry a girder on his shoulder, he must be a fit subject for medical examination. The trade that has for generations menaced the people of this country is now coming forward with the object of interfering with small people who have off-licences and who supply a more attractive beverage at a more attractive price, and presumably at a lower profit.

We have heard a speech which represents, not any particular section of the people in any particular constituency in this country, but which represents one of the greatest monopolies, and a protected monopoly, in this country, against a number of people who carry on a quite legitimate business. I think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer must, if he is concerned, not with these monopolies, but with the people of the country as a whole, be prepared to repudiate the advice that comes from Bung and Company and accept the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), and go into this question of a smaller sealed vessel. It is always said that it is important to carry out the spirit of a law, and, surely, there is no question of a smaller sealed bottle in any way infringing the spirit of this Clause.