As I understand, Clause 2 (2) makes provision for the paying over to the Isle of Man Customs Duties that have been levied, after the expenses of collection have been deducted. Reference is here made to what are called "equal duties", and a definition of equal duties is given in Clause 2 (4). If the duties are, in fact, equal, I can understand the wording of this subsection, but I have been given to understand—and the Financial Secretary will undoubtedly correct me if I am wrong—that not all duties levied here are identical with those levied in the Isle of Man. In that case, it seems to me that we might occasionally have a difference between the duties levied in the one place and the other. If that proved to be so, even in a minority of cases, I wondered how the equal duties are calculated for the payment over of these sums.
I raise the next point with some diffidence, because I imagine that I have misread either the Clause or the relevant sections of the Customs and Excise Act, 1952. In Clause 2 (1) reference is made to Section 11 (3) of the 1952 Act. When I turn to that Act, I find that that part dealing with the Isle of Man—it begins at Section 308—expressly provides that Section 11 shall not apply—or so I read it. If that is so, I wonder why it is that that particular reference is made in this Clause to Section 11. I have no doubt that the matter can be cleared up, and perhaps the Financial Secretary will be good enough to do so.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvill Hall) has asked what will happen about the unequal duties. Clause 2, he says, makes provision for the equal duties; but what about the unequal duties, of which there is, at the moment, only one, namely that on beer? That duty is collected in the island by the Commissioners and is paid over to the island Government in accordance with the concluding words of subsection (1) of this Clause. But, of course, if any beer should be removed into the Isle of Man from the United Kingdom, a drawback would be receivable in respect of any Excise duty which it had borne in the United Kingdom. No account would be taken of that drawback, under subsection (2, b) in calculating the supplementary payment.
As regards the right hon. Gentleman's second point, I think that the reason will be—but I will let him know if I should be mistaken—that, while Section 308 of the Customs and Excise Act, 1952, could be repealed by the provision of this Bill which will give the island authority to amend, in so far as it relates to Customs, any provision in an Act of Parliament—perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will look at Clause 1 (3)—we still require the reference to Section 11 (3) to identify the payments into the Exchequer, which are not to apply to the sums mentioned in subsection (1).
I accept that explanation, of course, but I confess that I do not understand it. If Section 308 is to be repealed, why is it not in the Schedule? However, I will not pursue that. I gather that the hon. Gentleman will look into it. I have not the slightest doubt that there is an explanation for it, but I must say that, looking through the Bill, it mystified me, and I looked at it several times.