HC Deb 12 June 1958 vol 589 cc488-91
Mr. Redhead

I beg to move, in page 46, line 7, to leave out "£1 8s. 6d." and to insert "£1 1s. 0d.".

This Schedule has relation to the description of sweets, a most confusing and deceptive description which I had hoped the Chancellor might have been induced to consider because it no longer has any intelligible meaning to the layman. In the Second Reading debate the Financial Secretary told us, obviously having been somewhat puzzled by the terms himself, that he had discovered that it was an archaic term of a statutory character and had its origin in the seventeenth century. He went on to tell us—although I must confess that some of my colleagues and I thought that the word "sweets" referred to items of confectionery such as chocolate liqueurs—that the word "sweets" was used rather than 'wine' because it covers fermented drinks made from fruit other than grape and also mead and metheglin."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th May, 1958; Vol. 588, c. 37.] That is the category with which we are dealing. It is significant that the Department of Customs and Excise in its Report avoids the term "sweets" altogether and refers to "British wines". That, presumably, is what we are doing.

The point of the Amendment is simple, and it will go a little way to rectify what seems to me to be a slight anomaly which the Chancellor has introduced in the changes which he has proposed under this heading. In this Schedule he reduces the Excise duty on these British wines which exceed 27 degrees proof spirit by 12s. a gallon on the still wines and 8s. a gallon on the sparkling wines, but he makes no change in the light wines which do not exceed 27 degrees proof spirit.

I appreciate the purpose which has already been explained—that is, to provide a corollary to the changes in the rate of duty which have been introduced in respect of imported heavy wines. But what has been done distorts the pattern of duty as between the light and the heavy wines in this class of British wines in a manner which he has avoided doing in respect of the imported wines. Hitherto the heavier sparkling wine has always been subject to a higher rate of duty than in the case of the light sparkling wine. But now what he has done is to put them precisely on the same level of 28s. 6d. I cannot see the equity of that. Neither can I see that it is directly in accord with what has been done in relation to the imported wines where a distinction is still maintained as between light and heavy. The Amendment seeks, therefore, to correct that apparent anomaly by reducing the duty on the light sparkling wines from 28s. 6d. to 21s. per gallon.

I would add this further consideration in this respect, that such a reduction would make for a fairer and more equitable basis of trading as between the producers of the British light sparkling wines and their newer and more sophisticated competitors, the perry type of beverage advertised and sold under names such as "champagne perry" or "genuine champagne perry", the vast majority of which are not chargeable to duty at all, although I appreciate that the stronger perries under the 1956 Act were to be treated as British wines under this heading for Excise purposes.

I think there is a case for a reduction here which would not be inconsistent with what the Chancellor has proposed for the imported wines, and that it would not cost the Revenue more than about £50,000.

Mr. Maudling

The hon. Member has raised two points. The first is the question of the use of the word "sweets" which I agree at first sight is always rather baffling. He has put on the Order Paper an Amendment which is not being called and which, therefore, cannot be discussed, but I would say that if it had been called I should have had to point out that it would not meet the point because it is technically defective.

The expression "sweets" is a term that has been in use for a long time, and is well known in the trade. It is used in other legislation—licensing legislation, for example. The term "sweets" is defined in Section 307 of the Customs and Excise Act, 1952, so that I think its continuing use is for the general convenience of all concerned. It 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 … I find it difficult to think of many drinks which are made from fruit other than grape. I can think of the Tartars of the Oxus who fermented the milk of mares. I do not think it is a matter of widespread importance, but I think that the word "sweets", although it is a strange word, has stood the test of time and is well-known. I doubt whether it would be worth while to alter it, as any alteration would involve the use of twenty words instead of one.

Mr. Redhead

Could the right hon. Gentleman explain why, if the definition be correct, mead and metheglin are held to be caught under the heading, as mead is a product of fermented honey?

Mr. Maudling

The definition in the Customs and Excise Act goes on to say: … and includes British wines, made wines, mead and metheglin. Mead and metheglin are specified. I think it would be better to leave that as it is.

The second point made by the hon. Member baffles me completely. He talked about the unfortunate position of heavy British sparkling wines. I have always been baffled to know what is a heavy sparkling wine. I have never come across sparkling port or sparkling sherry. I have consulted those who advise me on this matter and I have got the impression that neither have they come across a sparkling heavy wine. But for the sake of tidiness a category of this character is inserted in the Finance Acts in case somebdy should produce a heavy sparkling wine. As far as I know, there is no such product, and it sounds as if it would be quite nauseating if one were produced.

I do not think that the point is a very substantial one. In any event, to do what the Amendment is designed to do—this is the serious answer—namely, to reduce the duty on light British sparkling Wines, would be impossible, for this reason. It has always been the established practice that these duties on British wines and the duties on imported Commonwealth wines should move together. I do not think that we could reduce the duty on light British sparkling wines without doing the same for the Commonwealth. Under the G.A.T.T., we could not, I am afraid, do it for the Commonwealth without doing it for the other producers of sparkling wines, of which, of course, the principal item at the moment is champagne. In view of the present buoyancy of the champagne trade, I do not think there is a case now for a reduction in duty which would, because of our obligations, have to include champagne.

I cannot, therefore, advise the Committee to accept the Amendment, but I hope that I can console the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Redhead) by saying that I do not think that its non-acceptance will, in practice, do any harm because, as far as I know, no producers of heavy sparkling wines are to be found.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule agreed to.