text_body: --- DIVISION TITLE ---
  
  Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation - 2. Sparkling cider (rate of duty)
  
  --- MOTION EFFECT ---
  
  <p>The Aye voters passed <a href="http://http://archive.treasury.gov.uk/financebill/1999/c1.html">clause 1 of the Finance Bill 1999</a> which increased the duty on sparkling cider and perry as follows:</p>
  
  <blockquote><i>(1) In <a href="http://http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1979/cukpga_19790004_en_9#pt5-l1g71">section 62(1A)(a) of the Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979</a>, for "Â£45.05" there shall be substituted "Â£161.20".</blockquote>
   
  <blockquote>(2) This Resolution shall have effect as from 6 o'clock in the evening of 9th March 1999.</i></blockquote>
   
  <p>The reason for this significant increase can be seen from the <a href="http://http://archive.treasury.gov.uk/financebill/1999/c1.html">Treasury's notes</a> on the clauses of the Finance Bill 1999. As it says:</p>
  
  <blockquote><i>Infraction proceedings against the UK were threatened by the European Commission in 1995, alleging that sparkling cider (mainly domestically produced) had a duty advantage over competing lower-strength sparkling wine (mainly imported). The products are often similar in taste and alcoholic strength and some were being offered for sale with very similar presentations.</i></blockquote>
  
  <p>Since lower-strength sparkling wine was subject to a higher duty, the lower duty on sparkling cider was distorting competition hence why the government chose to significantly increase the duty on the latter.</p>
  
  
  
  --- COMMENTS AND NOTES ---
  
  (put thoughts and notes for other researchers here)
  