LORD MUSKERRYMy Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government if it is a fact that the Excise are charging all traders taking spirits and tobacco out of bond the proposed extra duties; if so, is it legal for the Excise to do so, and what authority have they for such action; and, if it is not legal, will the Government direct the extra duties to be refunded at once on application of the payees?
I hope to get from His Majesty's Government some information on a point of constitutional law. I have always understood, and I think most people would agree with me, that no tax could be levied on the people of this country except under the authority of an Act of Parliament; that 953 is to say, that the proposals for new taxes should come before both Houses of Parliament, should receive the Royal assent, and should be published in the Gazette before they took effect. I am informed, however, that the authority under which the Excise at the present moment are demanding the new duties proposed in the Budget, and now under discussion, is a Resolution of the House of Commons, and that immediately the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduces the Budget the new taxes which he proposes in that Budget come into effect. But surely, my Lords, no Resolution of either House of Parliament can override the constitutional law of the land. If I am right in that, then surely the Excise in demanding these duties are acting illegally. In Sir William Harcourt's Budget, which was defeated at a later period, the extra impost there proposed was refunded, but, of course, that refund was only made to those traders who had dealt direct with the Excise and paid the impost to them. The customer, the man in the street, who had to pay extra money for the things he required had no possible chance of ever being repaid. I am rather astonished if what I have stated is true, that it is only a Resolution that authorises this charge being made. The fact that such a Resolution has been passed should not be allowed to infringe the constitutional rights of the people of the country.
§ THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (LORD PENTLAND)My Lords, the Leader of the House has asked me to reply to the noble Lord. The noble Lord is quite right in assuming that the proposed new duties are being charged on all traders taking spirits and tobacco out of bond.
§ LORD PENTLANDSo be it. I assume it does. But all this is being done in accordance with an established practice by which the Treasury authorises the Commissioners of Customs and Excise to levy new duties from the date of the passing of the relative Resolution in Committee of the House of Commons. This is the information which I am authorised to convey to the noble Lord. I may refer him for further information to the note on page 589 of the 1906 edition of Sir Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, where he will find fuller details on the point.
LORD MUSKERRYCan the noble Lord tell me whether these duties must be authorised by an Act of Parliament?
§ LORD PENTLANDThe new duty is subsequently legalised. This is the established practice by which all these duties are levied as from the date of the passing of the Resolution. As the noble Lord knows, the passing of the Resolution is a preliminary stage and is followed by the introduction into the House of Commons by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the Finance Bill. The assent given by the House to the Finance Bill is the machinery by which the practice to which the noble Lord alludes is legalised.
House adjourned at five minutes before Eight o'clock, till Tomorrow, half-past Ten o'clock.