BRITISH BEER DUTY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LIX, Issue 18174, 21 August 1922, Page 8

BRITISH BEER DUTY.

> NO CHANCE OF REDUCTION, The amendment to the Finance Bill, , which sought to reduce the beer duty, ; was defeated in the House of Commons i by 184 votes to 102. The House took [ very quietly the refusal of the Chancellor [ of the Exchequer to reduce the taxation on beer by Id per pint. » The demand was made by Mr. Richard- ' son, a member of t'he Labour Party—a ; broad-vowelled North Countryman. He , had, not much to say on the subject. His request was for a 30s a barrel reduction of duty, Mr. S. Roberta could not support the reduction of 30s, but suggested that if the "trade" and the Chancellor would put their heads together they could, by a mutual sacrifice, effect a reduction of Id per pint! Mr. Townley amueed the House by the confession that, whereas he used to drink a pint of beer a day at lunch, he now drank half a pint only. "I can't promise to make up the loss of revenue to the Chancellor of the Exchequer," he added whimsically, " but if the reduction is made, I promise to drink my pint of beer again." (Laughter.) Mr. C. Roberts, a former Minister for Labour, said that during the war he was told by both employers and trado union leaders that the scarcity and cost of beer was one of the great causes of industrial unrest. /, The Chancellor the Exchequer 'said &e agreed that experience had shown that a great disadvantage might be suffered if the people were deprived of a legitimate form of enjoyment to which they had been accustomed. Nothing less than a reduction of Id per pint in the taxation would have any effect on the price of beer to the consumer. That would cost £22,000,000 a year, even allowing for an increased consumption in beer. " Quite frankly, I do not see where I can get the money to make up that sum," ( said the Chancellor. " Save it," cried members. Conversations which hft had had with the brewing trade had convinced him, said the Chancellor, that it was impossible . to make any arrangement with tnem to share with the Exchequer the loss of revenue necessary to allow of a reduction of Id per pint. Members protested. " Well, there is no reason for sugffHMSing that .-there is any ring of brewers," answered the ChanI ceilor. .■ • .. J As to the proposal that he should re- ' duce taxation by 15s a barrel in the hope that public'clamour would compel the trade to make a reduction ot Id per pint, the Chancellor said that in his opinion the only effect would be to lower the qualitv of the beer. He had refused & reduction of £11,000,000 on the sugar duties. How. then, could he grant a reduction of £22,000,000 on beer? 3 . " I m no way of raising the revertm I should lose, except by rehnposing la on the income tax," lie said. Members gasped at this final thrust from the Chancellor. ■'