House of Commons Hansard Debates for 20 Apr 1990

Mr. Andrew Mitchell : Gedling.

Mr. Gow : My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling is son to his father. I noted that, during an earlier intervention, my hon. Friend used the word "Ireland". He did not mean that ; he meant "Northern Ireland". If I rebuke him it is because his father served as Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department also served at the Northern Ireland Office, did he not?

Mr. John Marshall : He was a PPS.

Mr. Gow : Yes, he was a Parliamentary Private Secretary. We ought not to refer to Ireland. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling knows very well, there was a meeting of the Anglo-Irish Conference yesterday, and this afternoon the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic, who has made a journey from Dublin, is to wait on the Prime Minister.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell : I stand rebuked for using the wrong terminology earlier. Let me offer my hon. Friend this deal : if he will forgive me for describing Northern Ireland inaccurately, I shall forgive him for inaccurately describing my constituency.

Mr. Gow : I apologise to my hon. Friend. I transposed the letters d and l. Perhaps my hon. Friend will table an early-day motion recording my apology.

Mr. John Marshall : I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, with his customary charm and courtesy. He referred to the Anglo-Irish Conference and the fact that the Prime Minister of Ireland has made a journey from Ireland to the United Kingdom. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is most unfortunate that a number of criminals have not made that journey?

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. We are supposed to be discussing specific amendments that are before the House. I have heard no direct reference to them for the past half hour, and I hope that the House will now address itself to them.

Mr. Gow : I was addressing myself in particular to amendment No. 8, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone. We have clarified matters so that we now know that the little nought above the figure 1009 refers to specific gravity. The key question

Column 1683

is, should we insert the words? My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone wants the words inserted because she wants added protection to be given to teenagers ; that was the burden of my hon. Friend's remarks.

The hon. Member for Linlithgow made a short intervention. In his short speech, he made his point more vividly than some people make theirs in longer speeches. I was impressed by the hon. Gentleman's intervention. The problems of under-age drinking and the difficulties in deciding whether a girl is 13 or 18 years old are not confined to Scotland : we have the same problems in Eastbourne, and it is a serious matter. I hope that later the hon. Member for Linlithgow will suggest how we might address ourselves more effectively to that problem.

Mr. Dalyell : Nothing is as likely to persuade hon. Members to make short speeches as the fact that they are responsible for business which could be talked out. If the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) is really so well disposed towards me this morning, perhaps he will bear it in mind that the third item on the Order Paper is my important private Member's Bill dealing with certain aspects of the Security Commission. I had hoped that perhaps my Bill might have the hon. Gentleman's blessing.

Mr. Gow : I have no wish to injure the glittering political career of the hon. Member for Linlithgow but I must tell him that I almost called him my hon. Friend, and I really think of him in those terms. I hope that that will not injure his prospects. I am aware--we are all students of these matters--of the business that is before the House. We are now discussing the Licensing (Low Alcohol Drinks) Bill. Incidentally, I tabled an amendment to shorten the title, because the titles of our Bills tend to be too long. I know that one must never ever criticise the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I regret that my amendment was not selected. Perhaps it is no criticism of the Chair to express one's regret.

I want to come back to amendment No. 8. Other amendments are grouped with it, but it deals with the key issue. Do we change the wording of the Bill? If we do, will that help to protect young people who are led astray in the way that my hon. Friend described? There is real merit in amendment No. 8. Whether my hon. Friend will press it to a Division I do not know. I assume that, after contributions from others of my hon. Friends--I do not think that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) can speak again--we shall all listen with bated breath to the first of today's speeches by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), because he will advise the House whether to accept the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone. If my hon. Friend should advise against her amendment, I do not know whether she will press it to a Division. Only time will tell.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone will press her amendment to a Division. We could even vote on amendments Nos. 1, 9, 10, 2, 3 and 4, some of which stand in the name of the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Under-Secretary of State.

10.30 am

Mr. Michael Brown : Can I advise my hon. Friend that, were my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone to press her amendment to a Division, I would most emphatically oppose it? I would recommend to the House and urge

Column 1684

upon my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton, the sponsor of the Bill, support for my amendment No. 1 instead.

If, during the course of the day, I should catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall urge upon the House the merits of amendment No. 1, rather than amendment No. 8, which is an alternative to that amendment.

Mr. Gow : The House is a little puzzled by some of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes, because they do not make reference to the specific gravity problem.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell : I am grateful that my hon. Friend has given way a third time. Further to the comments by the parliamentary private secretary to the Minister for Industry, were the amendments to be put to a vote I would also emphatically, although apologetically, oppose the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone, and would urge the House to support my amendment No. 10 which, if I am fortunate enough to catch your eye Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall seek to suggest to the House is worthy of serious consideration.

Mr. Gow : My hon. Friend has overlooked an important point. His amendment does not address the question of specific gravity either. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone was kind enough to explain to me what that little nought meant. At least I admitted to my ignorance on that matter. Of course, my hon. Friend the Comptroller is an expert in specific gravity--I am told that he wrote a treatise on the subject--so there was no need to give such information to him. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, knew at once what that little nought meant. It was only I who was unable to follow it. It perplexes me why none of the other amendments refer to specific gravity. The scholarship of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone made her refer to specific gravity in her amendment ; that is why, despite interventions by some of my hon. Friends, I prefer Maidstone to Brigg.

Mr. John Marshall : Surely it is not surprising that my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone is so expert in these matters. After all, Maidstone is in the centre of Kent, which is the hop-growing county of England. Therefore one would expect representatives from a hop-growing county, including my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale), to--

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I have a duty to the House and to all those other hon. Members who are awaiting an opportunity to present and argue the case for their Bills. Twenty more Bills are waiting to be dealt with, and I hope that hon. Members will have some sense of their responsibility and obligation towards the other hon. Members who are waiting for the House to deal with their Bills.

Mr. Gow : In view of that advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall resume my seat.

Mr. Michael Brown : As I said in an earlier intervention, I tabled amendment No. 1 before the Easter recess and I should like to recommend consideration of it. Since I tabled it I have been in correspondence with Guinness plc regarding the amendment. The manager of public affairs, Mr. Mark Leverton, wrote to me as follows : "I have been sitting on your Christmas card for months I have heard about your promotion from the Back

Column 1685

Benches I would like to take this opportunity to point out that we seem to have common interests in the Licensing (Low Alcohol Drinks) Bill. I see that you have tabled various amendments at the report stage and it might be of interest and advantage for you to know that over the last 12 months Guinness has been trying to persuade the Home Office"

and subsequently my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery)

"that 0.5 per cent. is too high as a definition of intoxicating liquor for the purposes of sale in unlicensed outlets. We have not of course been successful."

Miss Widdecombe : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way so early in his speech. I want to refer to what he has just said about 0.5 per cent., because I was sorry not to have the opportunity to respond to the last issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) on specific gravity. I would like the House to address, I was about to say the gravity of this issue, but that is not quite what I had in mind. It is a most important matter. The specific gravity refers to what happens in the process of producing the alcohol, and that is ignored in amendment No. 1. Under my proposal, if, in the process of making the alcohol, specific gravity rises to higher than 1009 degrees, it is very intoxicating. My amendment tries to link the final product with the process so that there is no stage at which highly intoxicating liquor is produced as a by-product. Does my hon. Friend intend to address the important problem of degrees of specific gravity?

Mr. Brown : Yes, and it is for that reason that my hon. Friend's amendment is unnecessary. Were we to pass amendment No. 8 it would have no effect on the Bill, as it seeks only to define ; but amendment No. 1 seeks to change the Bill. In line 11 of the Bill we see the figure 0.5 per cent. by volume of alcohol. I wish to delete 0.5 per cent. and insert 0.05 per cent. Therefore, my amendment will have a major effect on the Bill.

I have a suspicion that my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) will be unable to accept my amendment at this stage. However I hope that he may be more favourably disposed by the time I have finished my speech.

I have known Mr. Mark Leverton for many years. I sent a Christmas card to him and received one from him. He is the manager of the public affairs department at Guinness and in the last sentence of the third paragraph of his letter he said, in relation to his efforts to persuade the Home Office and my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton : "We have not of course been successful and I note that one of your amendments relates to this point. In view of this I am attaching a note which I have prepared which I hope will be helpful to the debate on 20 April I should also point out that we were put on the spot"-- by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton--

"who accepted our concern, in general terms."

My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton is a reasonable man. I find it reassuring to know that he has addressed the concerns expressed by Guinness about my amendment. However, at the end of the day my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton chose to ignore those concerns. He wrote 0.5 per cent., not 0.05 per cent., into his Bill.

It is fair to say that Guinness would be happy with half a loaf if it cannot have the whole loaf. I have no doubt that Guinness would prefer to see the Bill enacted rather than

Column 1686

for it to fail. However, Guinness has made it clear that it would prefer 0.05 per cent. rather than 0.5 per cent. in clause 1. Mr. Leverton continues in his letter :

"Naturally we chose the former"--

that is, 0.05 per cent.--

"but we were not particularly happy about it.

You may also know that definitions of alcohol free' and low alcohol' are under some threat from Brussels, which is likely to complicate matters."

Although I make no criticism of the Chair's selection, I had hoped that we could have addressed the issue of alcohol free and low alcohol as distinct from non-alcoholic and separate from de-alcoholised. We could have considered that under new clause 2. However, I believe that in the context of amendment No. 1 it is relevant for the House to consider the distinction between low-alcohol and non-alcoholic drinks because my amendment seeks to bring us closer to the non-alcoholic position.

Mr. Page : My hon. Friend has come to the nub of the difference. In introducing the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) is trying to introduce a practical aspect rather than a theoretical one. In response to an intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) said that there was something in existing law like a 3 : 1 ratio of the amount of drink one must consume to reach a specific alcohol level. That is highly dangerous and could be confusing. The Bill as presently drafted reduces that figure to the extent that if a man went into a pub he would have to drink about 15 pints of low-alcohol beer at 0.5 per cent. to reach the same alcohol level.

I suggest that amendment No. 1 moves us into the realms of--dare I say it-- the ridiculous. A man would have to drink 150 pints of beer at the low alcohol level suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) in amendment No. 1 to have the same practical effect. Surely we are concerned with practice rather than theory.

Mr. Brown : Clearly my hon. Friend has not studied the issue seriously. Guinness, as a responsible company, would not have invited me to table amendment No. 1 and offered me its full support if it believed that this was just an esoteric or theoretical discussion. My hon. Friend has not had an opportunity to read the study carried out by Professor Li Wan Po, whom we all know is at the department of pharmacy at Queen's university, Belfast. He has studied the effects on the human body of the consumption of quantities of alcohol at 0.5 per cent. by volume. I am sure that my hon. Friend will realise that his comments were completely untrue. I will show that it is possible to get very drunk, very quickly by consuming relatively low volumes of alcohol in so-called low-alcohol beer.

I have very grave misgivings about low-alcohol beer. Like the Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household, I believe that if we are to talk about low-alcohol beer, we should be honest and talk about non-alcoholic beer. I will consider the non-alcoholic beer products that are threatened by the Bill.

Mr. Sheerman : Guinness has also corresponded with other hon. Members. Those of us who want to get this point right want to be clear about the issue without talking about the Government Whips Office ad nauseam.

I believe that the Guinness case is as follows ; someone may believe that he can normally drink one and a half

Column 1687

pints of beer and still drive safely. That is something that many of our citizens still believe. If that person then switches to low-alcohol beer at 0.5 per cent., he can quickly become a drunk driver. If he were to switch to 0.05 per cent. beer, that danger would not exist. That is the crunch. I have been waiting with great interest to hear what the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) has to say about that.

10.45 am

Mr. Brown : The hon. Gentleman has hit the nail on the head. That is precisely why I tabled the amendment.

A very serious point is at issue here. I believe that no motorist should consume alcohol before sitting at the wheel of a car. However, for better or for worse, legislation has permitted a motorist to consume a certain amount of alcohol to a level beyond which it is illegal for a motorist to climb into his car and drive it away. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) has outlined the problem about which Guinness is concerned and which prompted its support for my amendment.

It is possible for someone to go into a public house and consume up to two and a half pints of beer of full, normal alcoholic strength and then decide that he is near to the limit. He may then decide to change from beer of full alcoholic strength to low-alcohol beer. As I shall show in a moment from studies carried out by Professor Li Wan Po, it is possible for someone to switch to low-alcohol beer at 0.5 per cent. by volume as recommended by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton in clause 1 and then climb into his car under the impression that he was driving safely within the limit. It is likely that that person would be over the limit and would fail a breathalyser test. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) made a persuasive speech, I believe that we should reject amendment No. 8 and consider amendment No. 1.

Mr. Waller : Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Brown : I will give way in a moment.

There is an industry concern. Companies like Guinness have successfully developed and marketed non-alcholic beers and drinks. I believe that that is the route that we should follow if we want to reduce the consumption of alcohol.

Mr. Waller : My hon. Friend spoke about the risks inherent when someone who intends to drive changes from a full-strength to a low-alcohol beer. We live in an imperfect world ; is it not possible that an individual who was planning to drive would be prepared to transfer to a beer containing little alcohol at some point in the evening, but, if faced with the choice of transferring to a beer with negligible alcohol--as my hon. Friend proposes--might stick to the full-strength beer with which he started? It is not as simple as my hon. Friend suggests.

Mr. Brown : I think it is. Let me cite a product that I have had the opportunity of consuming with great pleasure. Kaliber is a beverage that contains not negligible amounts of alcohol but no alcohol whatever. We should be encouraging such products, but they have not been as successful in the past as I hope that they will be in the future because our legislation militates against their production. The taxation policy in our budgetary legislation has given a strong steer to consumers to buy

Column 1688

unleaded petrol. Similarly, our taxation policy and any reforms that we make to the Licensing Act 1964 today should always err on the side of non-alcoholic beers rather than favouring alcoholic beers, whether of full, medium or low strength.

A Mr. Lisscomb, managing director of Guinness Brewing GB, sent a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton--and may have sent it to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State and a number of my other hon. Friends who are taking part in the debate. The letter, which concerns my amendment, talks about the consequences of the existing legislation, which

"limits the availability of low alcohol' and alcohol-free' beers by making them available only in licensed premises. Section 201(1) of the Licensing Act 1964"

--which this Bill seeks to amend--

"stipulates that : any drink that has an alcoholic strength of 1.2 per cent. alcohol by volume or more must be sold through licensed premises.

Moreover, any drink of less than that strength, but which was stronger at any time during its manufacture, must also be sold through licensed premises."

I accept that that is what my hon. Friend's Bill rightly seeks to change. I do not criticise what he is seeking to do with regard to the selling of low -alcohol beers in unlicensed premises ; that is not the concern of my amendment, although it is the concern of his Bill. The letter continues :

"These criteria were formulated well before there was any demand or adequate technology to produce low alcohol' or alcohol-free' beers."

The debate on the Licensing Act 1964 was the last occasion on which we had the opportunity of considering this issue at some length, and with a certain amount of serious discussion on both sides of the House. That Act now guides the sale of alcohol in licensed or unlicensed premises ; it has been on the statute book for 26 years. The amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton to it is the first of any significance that makes some reference to the new beers that were not on the market when the 1964 Act was framed. In those days we were a nation without speed limits and without the breathalyser. Those of my hon. Friends who have been successful in the ballot for private Members' Bills have sensibly decided, now that the breathalyser puts so much pressure on the motorist, that it is proper for us to amend the 1964 Act.

Mr. Allan Stewart : My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He referred to Kaliber ; does he agree that it is partly because of its success that we have reached a different phase in the market, and low alcoholic and non- alcohol beers are now being marketed heavily for reasons other than those connected with drink-driving?

Mr. Brown : My hon. Friend is probably right. The current position has resulted not only from the drink-driving legislation, but from the fact that today we are far more aware of the evils--including the social evils-- of alcohol than we were in 1964 ; the greater concern that the public now have for their health ; and the government's policy on preventive medicine. There has been a general and voluntary move away from alcohols of full strength to alcohols of low strength and non-alcoholic beers. It is generally acknowledged that there is much greater public demand arising naturally, notwithstanding the drink-driving legislation. I am prepared to concede my hon. Friend's point : we may agree on one point, although we disagree about the various reasons.

Column 1689

There is now the public demand and adequate technology to produce low-alcohol or alcohol-free beers and the past few years have seen the emergence of such beers. To be brief, I will use the jargon of the trade and refer to NABs, non-alcoholic beers, and LABs, low- alcoholic beers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) said, the consumer demand for such beers is growing rapidly.

NABs and LABs, the letter says,

"are important alternatives to the usual range of alcoholic drinks and give the consumer greater choice. They are particularly important in the context of the Government's strategy against alcohol abuse". I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will confirm that the Home Office accepts the anomalies that have been outlined by me, and by Guinness. It may not be possible for my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to give me the information today--he may prefer to write to me--but I would like to know whether the ministerial group on alcohol misuse--I forget who chairs it now that my right hon. Friend the former Patronage Secretary has been transferred to the Department of Energy, but it involves several Government Departments-- has had an opportunity to consider the Bill and my amendment. My amendment would certainly be in line with the group's concerns.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd) : The ministerial group has welcomed the Bill as istands.

Mr. Brown : I welcome that only as far as it goes. I would have expected my hon. Friend to go one stage further and say that the Committee would also welcome amendment No. 1 which goes in the direction of the objectives that the Committee has set itself. Nevertheless, I am glad to have my hon. Friend's assurance that at least that committtee has considered the Bill. It contains an anomaly. We are concerned that the Bill redefines intoxicating liquor as having no more than 0.5 per cent. alcohol. We have been talking about 0.5 per cent. alcohol and about the alternative measurement of specific gravity. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne reprimanded me for not being precise in my amendment.

11 am

Mr. Dalyell : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is now 11 o'clock. May I ask whether you have had any request from Ministers for a statement on the alleged pressure on Customs from Government Departments not to prosecute firms in relation to the Iraqi gun export order? I have raised this matter with the responsible Treasury Minister, and he knows about it. Has there been any request for urgent clarification of the authority given to the Ministry of Defence press office to suggest that the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller) was less than clear in his warnings?

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I have not received any request for permission to make a statement to be made to the House.

Mr. Dalyell : Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I ask whether from now on--this is a matter of some

importance--Members of Parliament giving warnings to Governments have to do it in--

Column 1690

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot say to the House what he might have had the opportunity to say following a statement.

Mr. Dalyell : Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Has there been any request for a statement on when Ministry of Defence Ministers first knew about this matter? The question that I put last Wednesday--

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I have told the hon. Gentleman that I have not received any request for permission to make a statement of any kind whatsoever to the House.

Mr. John Marshall : Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was somewhat saddened to hear you say that, because I was wondering whether you had received any request to make a statement on the ever-worsening situation in Lithuania, which is a cause of

Mr. Deputy Speaker : I have told the House that I have not received any request for permission to make a statement of any kind whatsoever. Perhaps we can now get back to the business before the House.

Mr. Dalyell : Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : I thought that I had made it clear that I have dealt with it.

Mr. Dalyell : It was suggested that one Government Department, the Department of Trade and Industry, is pointing a finger at another Government Department

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman must realise that, if I allow him to make those comments, in all fairness I must allow other hon. Members to make comments on the same matter. I cannot allow that. We are debating a private Member's Bill. I call Mr. Brown.

Mr. Michael Brown : As I was saying, the Bill redefines intoxicating liquor as having more than 0.5 per cent. alcohol. I was upbraided earlier for some lax draftsmanship in my amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne said that amendment No. 8 defines the terminology in terms of specific gravity. I used the term "0.5 per cent." We are talking about 0.5 per cent. alcohol by volume. I concede that I should have defined the term in my amendment. I assume that anybody taking a serious interest in the Bill--including my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne--would have readily understood that the alternative way of measuring alcohol is commonly referred to as 0.5 per cent. alcohol, and we normally understand that to mean alcohol by volume. I accept my hon. Friend's apologies.

If it is possible in the House of Lords, should my amendment be accepted, and should it be necessary for drafting purposes to redefine it, I should be willing to accept, perhaps, the addition of the words "by volume". I should have thought that it is such a small drafting amendment that if the other place were pleased to grant a Second Reading to the Bill it would be quite possible to add the words "by volume" to my amendment. I am prepared to accept my hon. Friend's injunction, but I am surprised that he, of all people--he is normally very precise in his use of language--did not recognise that I should have added those two words.

Column 1691

Drinks with a strength of 0.5 per cent. by volume or less would be able to be sold in unlicensed premises.

Sir Peter Emery : If my hon. Friend looks at the definition in the principal Act, he will see that his point is not necessary, because there is the use of percentages in the original Act, and it is made clear that it is by volume of alcohol within the totality of that being tested. There is no difficulty, and my hon. Friend's amendment would be in order.

Mr. Brown : I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton for his help. I am seeking to amend my hon. Friend's Bill, which would amend an Act that is already on the statute book. That Act is the reference point for him and, therefore, the ultimate reference point for me. I accept my hon. Friend's case.

There is a strong case for redefining intoxicating liquor at 0.05 per cent., not 0.5 per cent.

Mr. Page : I suggested earlier that we are dealing with practicalities rather than theories. With respect, my hon. Friend is confusing a marketing policy for no-alcohol beers and full-strength beers, and not considering the practicalities of the amendment to the licensing laws. I hope that we shall hear about the immortal research by Professor Po to see how dangerous is the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) as against the theory being advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown).

Mr. Brown : I am delighted to advise my hon. Friend that, if only he will be patient, all will be revealed. I have in my hand, and the Minister has in his file, several pieces of paper ; they are the study that was carried out by Professor Po. If my hon. Friend will be patient, he will see that I am not talking theoretical nonsense. I am talking practicalities. My hon. Friend continues to be muddled. I am anxious to get us away from low- alcohol beers. I regard them in the same way as my hon. Friend the Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household would regard them. They contain alcohol ; they are alcoholic. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone that if the Bill is passed unamended it will be possible for a child to purchase low-alcohol beers from unlicensed premises. I am not sure whether that child would be breaking the law. I have a suspicion that, if the child were breaking the law, the supermarket sales girl at the cash checkout would be unaware whether the law is being broken. Hon. Members must realise that I am seeking to put low-alcohol beers on one side. They are a dangerous commodity. For the reasons that the hon. Member for Huddersfield outlined in his intervention from the Opposition Front Bench, it is possible for low-alcohol beers to contribute to people committing a motoring offence, albeit unwittingly. Therefore, I should prefer that the House accept my amendment. It would then be absolutely clear that there is no danger whatever.

The current definition of intoxicating liquor excludes products which at any time in the process exceeded approximately 1.2 per cent. by volume. All are agreed--certainly my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton agrees--that that is a nonsense. Low-alcohol and no-alcohol beers are normally made by evaporating the alcohol from normal strength beers. The move to define the strength at the point of sale is welcomed by all.

Column 1692

At 7.45 this morning, when my clock radio alarm woke me, I heard the dulcet tones of my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton coming through loud and clear. He was challenged by the interviewer, Sue MacGregor on the "Today" programme, on the attitude of the brewing industry. He reassured her, the nation and me--4 million people heard him--that the move to define the strength at the point of sale is welcomed by the industry.

Sir Peter Emery : As is my Bill.

Next Section

Home Page