House of Commons Hansard Debates for 20 Apr 1990

Mr. Brown : Yes, but you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I represent northern constituencies. It is not unknown for people in the north, if they do not today, to have drunk such quantities in the past. That is what we are dealing with. I think that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as Member for a constituency not far away from the one that I represent, will agree that we have problems with people who drink such volumes of alcohol.

Mr. Gale : If we get the opportunity to debate this matter further, some of us may wish to refer to the report and demonstrate that it has already been widely debated nationally, and not all its conclusions are as readily accepted as my hon. Friend would seem to say. Does he not accept that anyone who drinks nine pints of beer in three hours might consider that he should not drive anyway?

Mr. Brown : Yes, but if that person was drinking low-alcohol beer, he would say, "Oh, but it is low-alcohol beer. I have drunk nine pints of low-alcohol beer, so I am all right. I shall get in my car and drive away." When the person is breathalysed and the breathalyser goes through the roof and virtually blows up the police car as well as the machine, he will not think so any more.

Much levity is expressed about this issue in certain quarters, but it is serious. Someone may drink nine pints of low-alcohol beer, get into his motor car and think that he is safe from prosecution. Nothing could be further from the truth, as paragraph 8 of the learned professor's report shows.

Mr. John Marshall : I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. He has suffered from a great deal of injury time this morning. We should not complain about the length of his speech in view of his courtesy in giving way. Does he not agree that some of the advertising of low-alcohol beers is highly misleading? A well-known brand is advertised as 100 per cent. Tennents and 1 per cent. alcohol. Would not anyone reading that advertisement assume that he was quite safe to drink an unlimited supply of Tennents low-alcohol beer?

Mr. Brown : That is the nub of the question. Low-alcohol beer is not safe to drink in vast quantities. The type of person who might be encouraged--because he likes to drink a lot of alcohol in terms of volume-- is the type of person who may well be inclined to drink beers such as my hon. Friend mentioned.

The report from the department of pharmacy at Queen's university, Belfast contains another 23 conclusions that support my amendment. I have drawn the attention of the House to only six of those conclusions, and the outrage and shock expressed by my hon. Friends at those conclusions suggests that they will be incapable of coping with any more.

My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton is drawing to the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) some of the more incredible facts, supported not only by the department of pharmacy at Queen's university, Belfast, but by the university of Dublin and a number of others.

Column 1704

Therefore, I hope that I have made my case. There are another 20 conclusions that I shall not draw to the attention of the House. I shall photocopy the report and ensure that it is in the hands of my hon. Friends should they wish to catch Mr. Deputy Speaker's eye. If they want to challenge anything that I have said, I shall happily reply.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell : Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in today's interesting and important debate. I shall try to follow some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), but at less length, because I am conscious that a number of my hon. Friends wish to speak both on this Bill and the next. I see that the proposer of the next Bill is present. It is appropriate that, for a Bill dealing with horses, he should attend on us in his riding gear and apparel.

For the sake of good order, I start by declaring a loose interest in the debate as a shareholder and adviser to a family business in the wine trade. As far as I am aware, no low alcohol drinks are sold in that business, so my comments are not related to that. My constituency contains the Home brewery, an outstanding supplier of ales of all kinds to my constituents and others in the Nottingham area. I have not spoken directly to the company on this issue, although I have meetings with the management on many matters of local concern, and am aware of its views. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and have a chance to give the brewing industry's professional view on many of these matters because that is extremely important.

Every day 40,000 pints of low-alcohol and non-alcoholic drinks are drunk. We are dealing with a growing and important market. That was one reason why I was so surprised that Northern Ireland was excluded from the Bill. Scotland is also excluded from one of the first two clauses. I am grateful for what my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) has already told us informally, and I believe he will say more in his speech.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton on bringing before the House an important matter that needs our attention. I propose my amendment No. 10 as a probing amendment. Before today's debate I was not fully decided about the matter and I shall listen with great interest to the Minister.

There is clear agreement in the House about what we seek to achieve. We want clearer definition and a greater ability to understand the effects of alcoholic drink and to ensure that the consumer is able to understand those effects. I listened with intense care to the peroration of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes. Although he produced a great deal of complicated evidence, he was not successful in persuading the House that we should all adhere to his aim.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton on the way in which he has guided the Bill. He has brought it to the House in a form that is largely acceptable and I make no bones about that. He has also managed to steer it through Committee with little unrest and without disturbing any of the professional lobbies. The only group that has made representations to the House is Guinness plc, and I am sure that we are all grateful to Guinness for giving us its view.

Column 1705

I have tabled a probing amendment, and I wish to speak about the other amendments in the group, too. Amendment No. 10 seeks to leave out "0.5 per cent." and to insert "1.2 per cent." As we have already established, I wish to maintain the status quo. I shall dwell on a number of aspects, especially the labelling of spirits and beers, and the way in which amendment No. 10 would bring about some rationality in the market which does not exist at present.

My hon. Friend the Minister has already referred briefly to the ministerial group on alcohol misuse, which is more generally and rightly known as the Wakeham committee. Many of us regarded it as an important contribution and we were pleased by the high prominence that the Prime Minister gave to that committee, which sought genuinely to make some inroads into the tragedies caused by alcohol misuse. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to give us a few thoughts on what came out of that committee and on what progress it made.

I also hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will pay tribute to the considerable good work of the working group on alcohol and young people which produced the Masham report. I am sure that we need to hear something on that. In addition, we need a qualitative statement from the Minister about the report to which my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes referred and about the detailed scientific evidence on which he touched. Even now, he is circulating copies of the papers to which he referred.

I am content to leave the decisions on the scientific evidence to the Minister. If the Government support the Bill--I am pleased to see that they do in effect--my hon. Friend will, no doubt, have already considered the weight that should be attached to the evidence. He should be able to give us the benefit of the Government's and his Department's views of the detailed scientific evidence, which is too much for me, a humble Back- Bencher, to weigh in the balance. One area of concern today has been to find out the precise alcoholic strengths of various drinks and to know how they compare with other alcoholic drinks on sale. I want briefly to shed some light on that. I have managed to persuade the Library to provide some information. In beers generally, the alcohol content varies from 2 per cent. for some of the mild Scandinavian varieties to about 8 per cent. in especially strong beers. Most American beers vary from 4 per cent. to 5 per cent.

The natural, unfortified and dry wines, such as Burgundy, Chianti and Sauternes contain between 8 per cent. and 12 per cent. alcohol and most American varieties contain between 12 per cent. and 14 per cent. Vermouth and aperitif wines usually contain about 18 per cent. Cocktail wines, and dessert and sweet wines, such as sherry, port and moscatel, contain 20 per cent. to 21 per cent. That is the magnitude of the range of wines with which we are comparing low-alcohol beers and it is important for us to be aware of those figures.

12.15 pm

It is also extremely important to hear what the Department of Health feels about the Bill and about the alcohol content of the drinks that we are discussing. The central point of my case is that I fear that 0.5 per cent. may be the worst of all worlds. That is a point made by the hon.

Column 1706

Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), who has kindly sat through our debate this morning. The tipping-over-the-top effect may be made worse by having a 0.5 per cent. level.

We discussed briefly the importance of specific gravity and whether that was the issue, but I do not believe that it is. It is more important for us to focus on the signals that we send to children who will be able to buy these goods and to people who may drive following a drink and who may be even more confused as a result of the Bill than they would be otherwise. It is helpful for our deliberations to have with us the Minister for Roads and Traffic with whom we so often discuss what he can do to enhance the safety of roads in our constituencies. I am sure that he would have a signal contribution to make, if he were to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on what he considers to be the Bill's likely effects.

I had two major concerns in tabling a probing amendment. It will be difficult for us to pass the Bill unless we are certain of the signals that we send to children and of the effect it may have on those who drive after a modest amount of drink and who want to be clear where they stand. They have no wish to go anywhere near the limit. We must not send them false signals which fail to help them to carry out their perfectly legal and law- abiding aim to have a modest drink and then to be able to drive.

My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes gave three good reasons for a figure of 0.05 per cent., in respect of which he has tabled an amendment. I do not find the argument as compelling as he did. I am content to leave the analysis to my hon. Friend the Minister who will be able to set our minds at rest. However, it is important to recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes made an eloquent and accurate tribute to the Public Bill Office for the way in which it handled the advice on all the amendments which, although closely related, are slightly different. I am sure that all of us join him in that tribute.

I mentioned earlier that the Home brewery, which is now owned by Scottish and Newcastle Breweries, is a distinguished and important business in my constituency. I shall touch briefly on some of the technical problems with 0.05 per cent., the figure that was so eloquently and lengthily supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes. Near beers--that is, beers that are not full strength--are produced with more alcohol than normal. That alcohol is then drawn off to create beers with an alcoholic content of, for example, 0.05 per cent.

The first of my two great concerns is that there may be severe technical problems with the process. I am not an expert, but I understand that the industry has advised that such problems might arise. My other fear is that if most of the alcohol is drawn off, leaving only 0.05 per cent., the resulting taste will not be as attractive or the drinks as palatable as beers containing slightly more alcohol. If we set the limit so low, the product may not prove at all popular and may not sell well, and that will undermine an important aim of the Bill.

Mr. Gale : My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The net effect of the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) that we reduce the limit not to 0.5 per cent. but to 0.05 per cent. would be to make many of the products so upalatable that people

Column 1707

would choose stronger beers rather than opting for the low-alcohol beers whose consumption the Bill seeks to encourage.

Mr. Mitchell : I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is more knowledgeable than me about the brewing industry. I suspect that he knows more than many of us about the technical aspects of the production and marketing of such products. He has cast some doubt on the first hour of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes and I am sure that the House will be grateful to him for his intervention.

It is perhaps an illustration of the unity that exists on these matters that I can support absolutely one of the points of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), who said that under the Bill children might learn more easily about alcohol and might learn to consume alcohol. She said that ease of access by children to alcohol and near- alcohol was highly undesirable. She also said that children cannot commute the amount of alcohol that they have consumed. She was worried about alcohol addiction--the habit-forming nature of the product--and mentioned the possible effect of alcohol on brain cells, which is a matter of scientific evidence. I should like to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton has to say on the subject of children and it would also help to hear the Minister's view, not so much on the health aspects but on matters affecting the Home Office. Under the auspices of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, then the Home Secretary, the Home Office set up a group designed to work to make parents more responsible for the actions of their children as a means of combating juvenile crime and ensuring better parental control. Clearly, the Bill can be seen in that context. I shall find it more difficult to support the Bill if my hon. Friend the Minister cannot tell us that it is likely to make it easier for parents to exercise control over their children. We regard that as fundamental to the credo of our party on law and order, which we wish to see enforced and enhanced. I shall be interested to hear from the Minister what the Home Office thinks.

Hon. Members have argued eloquently about the topping-up effect on drivers. We must be clear of the effect that the drinks will have on drivers and the drivers themselves must be clear of it if the Bill is to have a beneficial effect. Many people were not in favour of the introduction of seat-belt legislation--a cause that I know is near to your heart, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Those who work in the National Health Service have seen the significant effect of that measure in reducing driving accidents. My wife, who worked some years ago in a major hospital close to the M4 and often had to deal with road accidents, is an avid supporter of the measure because it has greatly diminished the frequency with which she had to deal with the sad and tragic results of road accidents. As important as the argument about children is the argument that drivers must be able more easily to see the effects that drinking the products will have. It is important to keep both those considerations at the forefront of our minds. It has been suggested that six or seven pints of low-alcohol beer could be treated in the same way as six or seven pints of lemonade and that the levels are potentially misleading. There is always the fear that low-alcohol drinks will be regarded as effectively non-alcoholic and that the Bill will serve only to create confusion and diminish responsibility. That was the consideration at the

Column 1708

heart of my probing amendment and that was what led me to believe that there was considerable merit in maintaining the status quo. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), I almost regard the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) as my hon. Friend because of his kindness to me on my first day in the House. He emphasised the dangers of encouraging under-age drinking, and I cite his remarks to support my case.

My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne spoke in a style and manner unique to this place and made famous by him. He eloquently supported my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone. He made it clear that he favoured the focusing of attention on specific gravity. I listened carefully and with an open mind and I thought that he put a good case in favour of the House accepting my hon. Friend's amendment rather than mine.

I hope that in his winding-up speech my hon. Friend the Minister will clarify the amounts and their effects. I hope that he will also consider carefully the interests of other Departments in the Bill. It will have an effect on the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, as well as on the EEC, which introduces measures affecting the definition and labelling of low-alcohol drinks. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department and I have suffered a calamity today. When we cannot be in our constituencies we reside in the borough of Islington, where the community charge bills have been delivered this morning. I fear that no amount of alcohol-free lager will be able to mitigate their appalling effects on my hon. Friend and me.

Mr. John Marshall : My hon. Friend referred to the fact that he received his community charge bill--

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. What has the community charge to do with it? Let us get back to the amendment.

12.30 pm

Mr. Mitchell : I am extremely grateful for your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because my hon. Friend was seeking to guide me down a route which was clearly out of order. I was making the point that whatever amendment, if any, was included in the Bill could not make up for the tremendous size of the community charge bill which I received in the letter box this morning, and on which it would not be appropriate for me to comment further, despite my hon. Friend's inducement. Nor would it be appropriate for me to mention that one third of the charge is to finance the special arrangements that the authority made and should not have made.

As the Bill stands, for drinks to be sold legally in unlicensed premises, they will have to contain 0.5 per cent. alcohol at the time of consumption or supply rather than during manufacture. When my hon. Friend sums up, could he advise us and make it quite clear whether the change in the way in which the level of alcohol is calculated has any other significance that we should be aware of? For example, alcohol commuted during fermentation may have a different relationship to the level of alcohol commuted during production. Can he give us advice on the difference between those two at the time of sale?

My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton has been careful to make it clear that the Bill rationalises a position which has previously been confused. We need to know

Column 1709

whether eliminating the tests during preparation will have any other effects. Also, if the figure was 1.2 per cent. in 1964, what good reason is there for changing it now?

Amendment No. 1, which would leave out 0.5 per cent. and insert 0.05 per cent., would be too restrictive, and is therefore not compelling. Amendment No. 9 comes close to the amendment standing in my name. It would reduce the figure from 0.5 per cent. to 0.1 per cent. and is similar to amendment No. 1, proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes.

Amendment No. 2 aims to delete all words after "per cent.", but there must be a point of definition, so it would be helpful for us to know the thinking behind that amendment. In amendment No. 3, what does "other conduct in question" mean? That is a relevant point that needs to be explained.

I have already dealt with amendment No. 4, which is important because it would bring Scotland into line with England. Generally, we are in favour of that, particularly in some areas of public spending, where I would strongly favour that.

Mr. John Marshall : Hear, hear.

Mr. Mitchell : I think that my hon. Friend is thinking of the National Health Service--and who can blame him when the Scots can spend 25 per cent. more than we can? However, that is an avenue down which I would not wish to advance, or I would try your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

One effect of the Bill will be to align some of the provisions of the licensing laws on the sale of drinks in unlicensed premises with requirements about the labelling of non-alcoholic and low-alcohol drinks. However, I fear that the Bill, if passed in its original form, may create new anomalies.

As I understand it, the Bill would mean that drinks containing up to 0.5 per cent. alcohol by volume would be allowed to be sold in unlicensed premises but that 1.2 per cent. alcohol by volume would remain the lower limit for the purposes of excise duty. By deviating from the 1.2 per cent. figure, we will create an additional anomaly : there will be a potential range of drinks between 0.5 per cent. and 1.2 per cent. which will come within the new definition of low alcohol, which may only be consumed on licensed premises but on which no excise duty will be payable. The 0.5 per cent. limit corresponds with the labelling requirements for de-alcoholised wine and beer. There seems to be a division of opinion about the minimum level of alcohol required for a drink to be intoxicating, and after our discussions today, I am not sure whether any of us are clearer about that. In a consultation document issued in 1988, the Government stated :

"drinks below 1.2 per cent. alcohol are non-excisable and generally regarded as non-alcoholic there is evidence which suggests that it is not possible to become intoxicated from the consumption of drinks with a strength of up to 1.5 per cent."

What has changed the Government's view since then? No doubt my hon. Friend the Minister will want to address that point.

Later, a concentration of 1.2 per cent. was described as "unlikely to be intoxicating." That statement was made in a press notice from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 8 September 1988.

Column 1710

A consultation letter that appeared on 19 April 1989 stated that low-alcohol lagers can contain 0.9 per cent. It continued : "Ministers are concerned to ensure that consumers are not misled into thinking that such drinks are lower in alcohol than they are in reality."

In a debate led by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton on 26 January, there was some discussion about the significance of the 0.5 per cent. threshold in terms of its effects on blood alcohol levels, particularly on drivers who had already been drinking normal strength drinks. It is difficult to know what is meant by the term "non-intoxicating" in that context even when the Government use it. A cat's cradle of different levels of alcohol is being referred to in different ways by different Departments. There is a danger that that could be misleading. We all know that different amounts of drink affect different people in different ways. A former Opposition Member, Mr. Russell Kerr, was acquitted of a drink-driving charge because he managed to show that something in his gut generated alcohol. That was a most ingenious defence ; and it shows that applying absolute levels in the way that the Government have applied them in different press releases can be extremely misleading for people who want to know what they have drunk.

Mr. Sheerman : The hon. Gentleman is just talking the Bill out, and he knows it.

Mr. Mitchell : The hon. Gentleman is wrong. I very much hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) will be able to speak to his Bill later. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton will be successful and also that the next Bill will reach the statute book.

There is bound to be confusion in the labelling of low-alcohol beers. A recent press release from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on labelling controls on low-alcohol beers, stated :

"This is a rapidly expanding sector of the drinks market. While my colleagues and I believe that existing labelling laws are broadly sufficient to ensure that lower alcohol drinks can easily be distinguished from normal strength products, we think it would be sensible to restrict the use of the term low alcohol' to those drinks not exceeding 1.2 per cent. alcohol by volume. Such drinks are unlikely to be intoxicating. It is important that the term low alcohol' should apply consistently to the whole range of alcoholic drinks if it is to be helpful to consumers."

That is a very definite statement, and we need to know whether the Government's view has changed.

Almost exactly a year ago--on 19 April 1989--a letter from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food outlined a proposal to restrict the use of the description "low-alcohol" and similar terms. The second paragraph of the letter made it absolutely clear that the Ministry wished

"to restrict the use of the description Low-alcohol' and similar terms to alcoholic drinks not exceeding 1.2 per cent. alcohol by volume."

That is very different from the terminology that is used in the Bill. It is the burden of my amendment, and it is important that we should consider that.

A press release from the Ministry of Agriculture dated 15 May 1989 referred to the strength marking of alcoholic drinks and to "New regulations giving consumers details about the alcoholic content of the drinks they buy".

The release goes on :

Column 1711

"The regulations, which were laid before Parliament today, will implement EC legislation making alcoholic strength marking compulsory for prepackaged drinks with an alcoholic strength of more than 1.2 per cent. alcohol by volume. The regulations also require strength marking indications to be given for a representative sample of dispensed drinks offered for sale in retail outlets such as public houses, wine bars and restaurants. The requirement for dispensed drinks is subject to a maximum sample size of six for

Community-controlled wines and 30 for other alcoholic drinks and the information can be added to existing price boards or wine lists." The last bit is incomprehensible Eurospeak. However, the first part is clear : it shows that the Government have examined the issue carefully, and reached the conclusion that 1.2 per cent. is the right cut-off level.

Let me complete my brief speech by congratulating

Mr. Sheerman : Brief?

Mr. Mitchell : As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have spoken for much less time than other hon. Members. I am sure that he does not wish to prolong my speech.

On all these points, it is the Minister and the Bill's promoter, my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton, who will be able to clarify the different amendments and the effects that they will have. I have tried to put the case for my amendment. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton both on his subject and on the skill with which he has steered the Bill towards its position today. I shall be supporting him. I shall not request a Division on my amendment. The House and the country owe my hon. Friend a debt for introducing a Bill which--subject to the points on which I seek clarification--will be of great benefit to society, especially in the two or three respects that I have identified.

Mr. Allan Stewart : I am privileged to follow the expert speeches of my hon. Friends. Perhaps I can reassure the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) that I do not propose to detain the House for longer than 10 minutes or so.

I will start by declaring that--as stated in the Register of Members' Interests--I have an interest as consultant to the Brewers Society. In that position, I can confirm what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery)--that the Bill is welcomed by the society and by the industry. There is a clear need for the definition that it introduces. It is also welcomed by Alcohol Concern and the Health Education Authority.

Let me refer to some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) about what has happened in the marketplace. I shall refer specifically to a review in the Brewing Review of January 1990 of low-alcohol and alcohol-free beers. In view of the time, I will not go into the details of the review, but it is worth putting on the record its summary, which points out that, in two years, the market in the United Kingdom for low-alcohol and no-alcohol beers has been transformed. It is the fastest-growing sector of the drinks marketplace, and has accelerated more rapidly than any other drinks type in living memory. There has been a remarkable shift in consumer attitudes. The industry deserves credit for that, because the marketing has undoubtedly improved. Until 1987 or so, the sales of no-alcohol and low-alcohol beer suffered from a lack of credibility because of the poor perception that many drinkers had of product

Column 1712

quality. However, today there is a new scenario. The most important fact is that regular beer drinkers now believe that no-alcohol and low-alcohol beers are a perfectly acceptable choice of drink--and not just when they are driving. That traditional perception has now changed, as is proved by the sales figures, which show year-on-year increases of more than 100 per cent. and more and more brands entering the market.

My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton is to be warmly congratulated on bringing forward the Bill and on his expertise and, I hope, on seeing it complete its passage today. Hon. Members will be used to Scottish Members asking, "What about Scotland?" in tones varying from genuine inquiry to artificial outrage. I put myself on the side of the genuine inquirers.

Mr. John Marshall : As always.

12.45 pm

Mr. Stewart : I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall).

However, I should not accuse my hon. Friends of overlooking Scotland. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) visited Scotland recently. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes is renowned for the expertise that he demonstrated on the Standing Committee that considered the Self-Governing Schools Etc. (Scotland) Bill, when he covered many aspects of the history of Scottish education. My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) referred to his recent experience in Scotland.

Unless I have completely misunderstood the position, all the amendments exclude Scotland. They relate only to clause 1. The House should think seriously before passing a Bill that would impose different percentages north and south of the border. Licensing legislation does not need to be uniform throughout the United Kingdom. The Bill does not apply to Northern Ireland. I imagine that that is because of the complexities of Northern Ireland legislation. The Bill would have been much longer if it applied to Northern Ireland. However, clause 2 applies to Scotland, and states : "from on analysis of' to the words 1.2 ' there shall be substituted the words is of a strength not exceeding 0.5 '." My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton referred to the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976. My copy of that Act may be out of date and it does not contain that wording. It refers to degrees of proof and not to 1.2 per cent.

Sir Peter Emery : I wonder whether my hon. Friend has a copy of the amendments to that Act, which was amended in 1971 and 1982 and which I took into account.

Mr. Stewart : I am referring to a copy of the Act, which was reprinted in 1986. I may have misunderstood the position, but the meaning is the same although the wording may be a little different. With his customary expertise, my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes made an extremely well researched case. Technology is constantly improving. My hon. Friend referred to the Guinness product with 0.05 per cent. alcohol. We should not encourage people to drink to the limit if they are to drive. It is absurd to think that people can work out for themselves whether they are at a level of 78 per cent., 79 per cent. or 80 per cent. My

Column 1713

hon. Friend the Member for Gedling put some technical points extremely well. In view of the time, I shall not repeat them. On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton. I am sure that my hon. Friend will have spotted a misprint in Hansard. It says :

"The general feeling is that a bear with an alcoholic content of 0.5 per cent."--[ Official Report, 26 January 1990 ; Vol. 165 c. 1243.]

That raises all sorts of visions. The obvious error is that the word should have been "beer".

I make my final point to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes on amendment No. 4. The point behind my hon. Friend's amendment on point of sale is correct. My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton will advise the House but I do not believe that in terms of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1987, the amendment is necessary.

Mr. Dalyell : Has the hon. Gentleman had any information--this is a genuine inquiry--from the brewers about their view on the vexed and complex question of points of sale? Have they a view on that point?

Mr. Stewart : Is the hon. Gentleman referring to points of sale in supermarkets?

Mr. Dalyell : Yes.

Mr. Stewart : I am sure that the brewers have a view on any legislation of that nature that comes before the House. That point is referred to in the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, which is currently in another place and will be considered by this House later this Session.

All the amendments would result in the Bill being different north and south of the border. That is undesirable. Therefore, I hope that the House agrees that it would be sensible for the excellent Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton to proceed to another place unamended.

Mr. Sheerman : I shall not detain the House long on this Bill, which I broadly support. Indeed, the majority of Members of the House support it, although, as it is a Friday, they are not here in great numbers.

I wish to make a general point before I mention the matters dealt with in the amendments. The Opposition believe and have believed for a long time that licensing laws are in something of a mess. The Bill will take a small step towards tidying up one corner of that mess. There should be a much broader inquiry into licensing laws and the problems caused by drinking in many communities.

I agree with all the hon. Members who have spoken that under-age drinking is one of the most serious problems for crime prevention in Britain today. Any of us who live anywhere near even a small urban centre know that it is almost dangerous to go into town and city centres on a Friday or Saturday night if one is a"a respectable person" who hopes to keep out of any trouble. The extent of alcoholism and bad behaviour makes many towns and cities almost no-go areas. If the Bill makes a difference to that, we shall certainly support it.

However, there are serious problems with the Bill. The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown)

Column 1714

referred to some of them in his rather long speech. I am sorry that he is not here to hear my comments on his speech. He mentioned the problem of identifying young people when they buy alcohol to drink on the premises or from a shop. The Government must grasp that problem. We must require proof of identity to drink, and to buy alcohol to take away.

We all know that the law on drinking under 18 is widely disregarded by the young and those who sell alcohol, whether in supermarkets, corner shops or public houses.

Mr. Gale : I do not seek to delay the hon. Gentleman, but will he concede that that is perhaps a case for the voluntary identification cards for which many of us have pressed for a long time?

Mr. Sheerman : Personally I am enamoured of such identification cards. If one wants to enforce the law on drinking under 18, it is logical that there must be some way of identifying who is 18. I have never pushed for the drinking laws that are in force in most of the states of the United States of America where one cannot drink legally until one is 21. I have always campaigned vigorously for implementing the law of drinking at 18 which has been widely disregarded. It is about time that we not only implemented it, but offered an alternative to young people. One problem is that there are few institutions, social occasions or social outlets where young people can drink anything other than alcohol. If the Bill provides a basis to ensure that our young people are not pressurised into drinking high concentrations of alcohol in large numbers, it will be welcome. The Brewers Society and the major brewers have taken a responsible attitude to informing Members about the Bill, but the Government should reconsider the advertising of alcoholic drinks and the way in which the consumption of alcohol is presented to young people. Much of the targeting of under-age drinkers--of 15-plus rather than 18-plus--is irresponsible.

Again, we must present our young people with a choice and with socially congenial places in which they can mix with others of their own age where they do not feel that getting drunk is incumbent upon them. I am afraid that at the moment many young people believe that there is no alternative.

I have already outlined one of the Opposition's worries about the Bill is an intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes. I am sure that when the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) speaks, he will be able to put our minds at rest on the point about the evidence relating to the 0.5 per cent. and 0.05 per cent. alcohol by volume. We believe that the Government must reconsider that point and, having listened to the debate, it is clear that although the scientific evidence has come from only one side of the argument, there is cause for concern about the top-up problem. I am sure that that point can be met because I have always believed that if we can take a firm step in the right direction, it is better to take that step than not to take any steps at all.

With that caveat, I reiterate that the debate has pinpointed some of the real problems of alcoholism and the consumption of alcohol and about what it can do to people's social and family life and to young people if they are encouraged to drink much too early in their lives, when they are not educated.

Next Section

Home Page