§ THE EARL OF DENBIGHMy Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government on what grounds "it is held but not yet settled" that under the Sugar Convention Act, 1903, an obligation exists to impose an Excise duty on sugar manufactured from home-grown beet in the United Kingdom, seeing that the Finance Act, 1901, referred to in the above Act, gives no power to impose an Excise duty on such sugar.
LORD DENMANMy Lords, the answer I have to give to the noble Earl is as follows. The duties on sugar are imposed by the Finance Act of 1901. These duties were duties of Customs and were payable on importation or delivery from warehouse. By the terms of the Sugar Convention it has become obligatory to place all sugar factories and refineries under bond, and Section 2 of the Act of 1903 provides that the bond shall secure inter alia the payment of duties; and, in addition, the following words occur at the end of the section—
The duties payable under the Finance Act, 1901, or any Act amending that Act, shall be taken on the delivery of any article from the factory or refinery and shall be the same as those payable on the like articles on importation.Therefore we are advised that there is an obligation to impose a duty on sugar manufactured from home-grown beet, but in order to regularise the charge of such a duty there should be a Resolution of the House of Commons and the usual enactment on the subject.
§ THE EARL OF DENBIGHThe noble Lord said the other day that "it is held but not yet settled." Am I to understand that it is now definitely settled that the Sugar Convention Act of 1903 and the Finance Act of 1901 include duties on home-made sugar? There is no reference therein to anything except imports.
LORD DENMANI cannot say that it is definitely settled. I understand that there is some doubt about it, but His Majesty's Government are advised as I have stated. I believe that, shortly, the position is this. We are under legal obligation to impose a duty, but we have no legal power without legislation to collect the duty, and that is one of the reasons why special legislation would be necessary.
§ THE EARL OF DENBIGHIs there any prospect of the point being definitely settled so that we shall know where we are?
LORD DENMANI can assure the noble Earl that an excise duty will be imposed. Therefore he and those who think with him know exactly where they are in the matter. Of course if the noble Earl wishes I will inquire further, but it hardly seems worth while as the actual case has not arisen and is not likely to arise.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEAre we to understand that there is in the opinion of His Majesty's Government some doubt as to the precise position of the law, but that they have no doubt in their own minds as to the policy they mean to adopt, which would be to exact an Excise duty corresponding with the import duty at present leviable?
LORD DENMANI believe there may be a doubt on the actual legal question, but there is no doubt that the whole tendency of the Act shows that an Excise duty must be imposed. I think that is absolutely necessary. In the section to which I referred just now it will be seen that there is a provision that the duties payable shall be taken "on the delivery of any article." I do not think that this section of the Act is very clearly drawn. "Any article" may be intended to refer to imported sugar, but it might be held to include any produce going out of the factory. In that case, of course, an Excise duty has to be imposed.
§ THE EARL OF DENBIGHThe section which the noble Lord has just quoted says, "the duties payable under the Finance Act, 1901." That refers solely to imported sugar. The only reference to any sugar deliverable from bond on which Excise would have to be charged is to glucose, molasses, and invert sugar. There is no mention whatever of the commercial article, which is the ordinary beet sugar or cane sugar. As far as I can read the Act there certainly does not appear to be any obligation whatever on His Majesty's Government to impose an Excise duty on home-made beet sugar.
LORD SHEFFIELDDoes not Lord Denman's reply come to this, that under the Convention agreed to by the late Government there is a treaty obligation upon us to impose an Excise duty, but that as no sugar has yet been made in this country there is no legislation to impose such a duty?
LORD DENMANSection 2 of the Act of 1903 reads that "His Majesty may by Order in Council," and so forth. That is permissive; but I am informed that when read in conjunction with Article 2 of the Sugar Convention it becomes obligatory. Therefore we should be obliged to introduce legislation to impose a duty.
§ THE EARL OF DENBIGHPerhaps the noble Lord will take the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown on the subject and let us know definitely.
LORD DENMANIf the noble Earl really desires it I will do so, but as there is no likelihood of the case arising it seems to me, as I said just now, hardly worth while.
§ THE EARL OF DENBIGHFrom the noble Lord's last statement I take it he thinks there is no chance of sugar being made in this country. Certainly by their present policy His Majesty's Government are doing their very best to prevent its being made here.