HC Deb 12 June 1958 vol 589 cc491-5

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Cronin

I beg to move, in page 4, line 21, to leave out from "alcohol" to "shall" in line 22.

This Amendment might seem to be a somewhat esoteric one, but it is put down largely for the purpose of understanding what is in the Government's mind. We understood from the Chancellor in his Budget speech that the tax was being removed from methyl alcohol because it was a poison and, therefore, not likely to be drunk. It was, on that account, removed from the category of substances such as spirits, sweets and wines. In the actual Bill we find these words: Methyl alcohol, notwithstanding that it is so purified or prepared as to be potable … In other words, if by some chance it were possible to make methyl alcohol a drinkable substance, it would then have the same privileges. On the face of it, there seems to be some anomalous thinking in the drafting of the Clause.

It seems also that there is a lack of scientific information available to whoever drafted this Clause. My recollection of methyl alcohol, from my student days, is that it is a pure substance. It has the formula CH3OH. There is no way of changing it without changing the actual nature of the substance. So, while the Clause as drafted envisages that it can be purified, the matter is not really very clear. Indeed, this substance which cannot be changed except by changing its nature completely is a deadly poison, and it is rather difficult, therefore, to imagine how it could be made potable. If the Minister would elucidate these rather difficult points, we should be very grateful.

Mr. Maudling

The answer to the interesting point which the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) has raised is that it is perfectly possible for a poison to be potable. I imagine that the word "potable" refers to the condition of the substance and whether one can drink it. The fact that it will poison a man who drinks it does not make it undrinkable; it merely makes it very unwise to drink it. These words are really purely explanatory. Their elimination would have no effect on the substance of the Clause, but I think that they are probably useful as explanation.

As I understand it, methyl alcohol has always been known to be poisonous, but there was a rumour some years ago that a brilliant German scientist had devised a way of turning it into a drink. Thereupon, rightly and properly, the Customs and Excise authorities decided that its use must be controlled lest a loophole were here opened in the law imposing duties on potable spirits. Fortunately, this rumour appears to have been false, but it still seems to be the case that methyl alcohol, even with its impurities removed, may be regarded as potable, though poisonous.

I shall not enter into any scientific argument with the hon. Gentleman on this matter, because I know that on these subjects he will defeat me every time because he knows far more than I. I imagine that by purification or preparation is probably meant the removal of impurities or foreign bodies from the spirit. I am not quite sure. Certainly, as I understand it, it is, at any rate theoretically, possible for methyl alcohol to be prepared so as to be potable, although it would remain poisonous. The purpose of the words is to make it perfectly clear that methyl alcohol is no longer to be liable for the spirits duty even if it is in such a form as to be drinkable. As has been pointed out, the reason that it will not be taxed is that, so far from being a spirit which one would drink, it is a spirit which would poison anyone drinking it.

I hope that that explanation of this rather tortuous point will satisfy the hon. Gentleman. As I say, these words are intended purely as clarification. Their removal would make no change of substance, but would, I feel, make the Clause slightly less clear than it is at the moment.

Mr. Jay

I am quite inexperienced as regards methyl alcohol, and I am quite prepared to believe that poisons may be potable. Also, I have studied the story about the German scientist. None the less, I still do not see what is gained by having these words in the Clause. It seems to me that the sense of the Clause would be exactly the same if one left out the words beginning with "notwithstanding that".

I approach this matter as a matter of logic and language only, and I feel that we ought to spend a minute or two trying to ensure that our legislation means what it should. If we were to say that the House of Commons, notwithstanding that the seats are made of wood, shall be deemed to be situated in Scotland, or, even, that the Paymaster-General, notwithstanding that he represents a North London constituency, shall be deemed to live in Algeria, the sense would be the same in both cases if we left out the words beginning "notwithstanding that". We could just as well say in the Clause that methyl alcohol … shall not be deemed. to be spirits", and so on.

The right hon. Gentleman said that the words were put in because they are explanatory and make for clarity. But surely, if we are to draft Bills with that approach all sorts of interesting statements might be made about many of the things mentioned in the various Clauses which might give us interesting information about this and that throughout the Bill. But is it really the usual principle to add words which have no effect at all on the total legal effect of the Clause? I should like the right hon. Gentleman to consider the matter again for a moment or two. Am I right in thinking that these words have no effect whatever upon the legal meaning of the Clause, and, if that be so, is it really usual in such cases to put in such words.

Mr. Maudling

I am advised that these words have no effect on the substance of the Clause, and I understand from the drafters that it is a normal thing to do. I think that the point is a logical one The Clause says that methyl alcohol, notwithstanding that it be so purified or prepared as to be potable, shall not be deemed to be spirits, and so on. When it has been so prepared, of course, it is a potable spirit, and it is usual, of course, for potable spirits to be liable to duty. These words emphasise that this particular form of potable spirit, although potable, will not be liable to the duty which all other forms of potable spirit have to carry.

I think that that is right and logical, although I will gladly look at the point the right hon. Gentleman raises. I am advised that these words have no effect in substance, but it is a nice point of drafting which follows the conventions. However, I will, with pleasure, consider whether there might be an improvement.

Mr. Jay

The words have no legislative effect at all, but are merely a kindly hint to the reader.

Mr. Cronin

We are not quite satisfied with the Paymaster-General's explanation. I hope he will consider further whether an alteration should be made in the drafting. He tells us that methyl alcohol is being relieved of duty because it is poisonous though potable; yet it would still be relieved of duty because it is poisonous.

Mr. Maudling

I said that it can be regarded as potable even though it is poisonous.

Mr. Cronin

That still does not clarify the situation. It seems to me that this additional phrase is incomprehensible to the Paymaster-General and everyone else on the Government Front Bench. There has been no answer to my point that methyl alcohol cannot be purified. It cannot be made a potable substance in any reasonable sense of the word.

I do not propose to press the Amendment further, but I hope that the Paymaster-General will take some further action, particularly as he points out that this phrase has no effect at all on the sense or substance of the Clause. In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.