CLAUSE 5.—(Duty free use of sugar, etc.) (Hansard, 10 June 1947)

§ Viscount Hinchingbrooke (Dorset, Southern)
I do not know whether the Financial Secretary intends to speak at this stage, but, if not, perhaps this will give him the opportunity, because I think the Committee will be interested to know what is the meaning of this short Clause. It says that it is to make a certain class of sugar free of import duty At first sight, it would appear that whereas the housewife is desperately anxious to get more sugar for jam making and everybody desires to see a greater and freer import of sugar for human consumption, this 926 Clause has nothing to say on that subject whatever, and allows certain manufacturers to get sugar for unspecified purposes. I would like to know what those purposes are what is the meaning of the words, "protection of the revenue"? How is the revenue protected if sugar comes into this country free of tax for use by manufacturers, and what is the meaning of the words, "giving of security"? Has it anything to do with defence? Is the sugar to be processed for the manufacturing of arms? The Committee will be interested to have some more explanation of this Clause.

§ Mr. Nigel Birch (Flint)
There are one or two odder things than those to which my noble Friend has just drawn attention. The Commissioners may authorise any person "carrying on any art or manufacture" to receive sugar, etc. What is the precise form of the art? Is it the icing of cakes? This is a mysterious Clause, and more explanation is required of what it is wanted for, and why.

§ The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall)
This is a very short Clause, and I thought we might have got it without any discussion, because its meaning is plain on the face of it. The Clause seeks to authorise the receipt, by certain manufacturers, of sugar, duty-free, which is used by them for making certain articles—

§ Mr. Birch
What articles?

§ Mr. Hall
Perhaps I can make my own speech in my own way. Citric acid is one, oxalic acid is another and the new drug which we discussed last night, penicillin, is a third. They are made from glucose, molasses, and sugar in one form or another. For some time—I think since 1897—the Commissioners of Customs and Excise have permitted, in an extra-statutory way, the use duty tree of sugar, molasses, and glucose by chemical manufacturers, and certain other manufacturers. We are now regularising a situation which has prevailed for over 50 years. This Clause makes no change in what has been the regular practice, and I hope it will be accepted by the Committee

§ Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite
The Committee will be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for enlightening us to that extent, but I think we would like a little 927 more information as we want to make sure what the Government wish to get by this Clause. The mysterious phrase, "carrying on any art or manufacture," still remains a little obscure. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the manufacture of citric acid, oxalic acid and penicillin. I should have thought that the matter might have been a little clearer if a Schedule had told us what is covered by this Clause. I do not know whether the list of articles which the right hon. Gentleman quoted was merely an example, or was comprehensive, but if there are others we should be glad to know what they are. Just how art comes into all this is a little mysterious.

§ Mr. Glenvil Hall
I am not an expert in these matters, but I believe that certain chemicals or liquids which are used for cleaning pictures are made from one or other of these sugars. We wanted to make the Clause as wide as possible, and that is why the word "art" has been inserted. Certain liquids are used for artistic purposes. There is nothing sinister here about the use of the word "art."

Mr. McKie
. I am surprised that the Financial Secretary should be surprised about our desire for a little more information about this Clause. He described it as an innocent Clause, but as the Debate has proceeded it has been amply illustrated that it is not so simple as it at first appears. The right hon. Gentleman was pressed very hard to tell us what this Clause seeks to do. I join with my hon. Friends in wishing to see every encouragement given to the processing of citric and oxalic acids and penicillin, and the cleaning of pictures. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Government wanted to make the fullest use of this Clause, that it was drafted with that idea. Without wishing to take the gilt off the ginger bread, or pour cold water on what he said, I suggest that if he had really wanted to put this Clause to the widest possible use he would not have included the words, other than the production of food or drink for human consumption. The housewives of this country will read his words tomorrow, or perhaps hear them over the wireless this evening. This is just the kind of Clause that may well get two or three minutes' time when "In Parliament today" is broadcast tonight.
928 It is very desirable that housewives should be informed about what the right hon. Gentleman has said in seeking to exclude them directly from participation in any benefits which will flow to other sections of the community, particularly those in the realm of medicine, by the inclusion of this Clause in the Bill. We know perfectly well that there is one use to which sugar might be put, but for the inclusion of these words: other than the production of food or drink for human consumption, and that is for the preservation of fruit. The right hon. Gentleman knows how the housewives of this country have suffered, and will continue to suffer, by not having proper supplies of sugar for the preservation of fruit, and particularly the wild fruits of this country. A golden opportunity is missed by the inclusion of these words which directly exclude from benefit those who are producing food or drink for human consumption. If there is to he a Division against adding this Clause to the Bill, I hope that the hon. Member for Buckrose (Mr. Wadsworth), who spoke on a previous Clause, will go into the Lobby with me in order to protest against not making available a wider and more free use of sugar than is envisaged in this Clause for not only the housewives but the consuming public.

§ Sir Frank Sanderson (Ealing, East)
I would ask the Financial Secretary to give a reply to the following point which I think this Clause is primarily drawn up to cover: Molasses are imported into this country in large quantities and they contain a high percentage of sugar. They are used primarily for two purposes—one in the process of distilling, and the other in the manufacture of cattle feedingstuffs. I understand that it is the wish of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the sugar content in molasses shall be free of duty. I think that I am right in saying that the two illustrations I have given cover the principal commodity upon which the right hon. Gentleman desires by this Clause to free the sugar content from duty, though there are others to which the Financial Secretary has referred.

§ Mr. Baldwin (Leominster)
Could we have an indication of the extent of this duty? It would seem that a straight forward way to deal with this would be to make the manufacturers pay the duty and 929 allow them to charge a little extra for the products which they are turning out. All these little rebates give an avenue for a black market, and I think the straight way would be to increase the cost of the product to cover the duty. If in the carrying on of any art or manufacture a particular chemical is required, those concerned should pay duty for the chemical. I do not see why they should be given any greater preference than the farmer who uses molasses for making silage for the cattle they feed. I would like to know whether it would be possible to exclude all rebate on sugar and molasses.