Examination of Witnesses (Questions 140-159)
WEDNESDAY 26 MARCH 2003
SIR ROBIN
YOUNG KCB, MR
JONATHAN REES,
DR JEFFERY
W LLEWELLYN AND
MR RICHARD
FREWIN
140. I speak with a little bit of experience
on the issue. I was president of a Labour club, and clearly, the
froth is irrelevant. Let me tell you why. We had pint glasses
with a mark at the top, and the mark was clearly a pint, and anything
above that was more than a pint. We found after three or four
months that we were losing a fortune, and I thought the steward
was dipping his hand in the till. I instituted a check and what
we found out was that the bar persons were filling the glass right
to the top; they were giving a good measure above the pint mark.
We were losing 20 pence a pint, and we lost something like £400-500
in the space of two or three months, and we did not know where
that money had gone to. Then we realised. So regardless of the
froth on the top, the fact of the matter was that it was beer,
and that beer was being sold extra to a pint. Once we gave an
instruction that you only filled to the mark, immediately we started
to take the right money for what we were actually selling. So
it seems to me there is no argument at all: a pint is a pint.
There should be no reason why it should not be sold to a pint.
(Sir Robin Young) That was the view that Mr Leigh
put forward in 1992.
141. He has moved up higher in my estimation
now, although he has always been very high in my estimation. What
is the law at the present time? If I go into a pub and somebody
gives me less than a pint because the barman regards the froth
as being part of the pint, what is the law at the present time?
(Sir Robin Young) I am told the courts are reluctant
to prosecute unless it is less than 90%, interpreting the Act
as it currently is, unamended, despite efforts.
142. How is it policed?
(Sir Robin Young) By trading standards officers.
(Mr Rees) Trading standards officers, as it says here,
do regular surveys of pubs, licensees, to try and see whether
or not they are selling a full pint. As Sir Robin has just said,
part of the problem that we are trying to reconcile is that the
courts have said that they will not take prosecutions unless there
is less than 90%. As these statistics show, very often, probably
around 20% of pints have less than 95%.
143. It says here "the best way forward
without increasing the price of beer generally." Why should
beer increase in price if you actually get what you are paying
for in the first place?
(Sir Robin Young) This is the argument put forward
by the trade: based on what they get from their current practices,
which vary below 100, they say if we force them to sell a full
pint, they would have to up the price so as to get the same return.
That is their argument.
144. It is a false argument, for two reasons.
One is that if you have a glass which shows the pint mark, that
is not going to cost them anything. I remember from my time in
the Labour club in Durham that glasses were broken on a very regular
basis, and we were always replacing the glasses. That was a regular
outlay. So that is not going to cost them anything. There are
also these wonderful machines where you press a button and they
put half a pint in your glass, and it does not actually need measuring.
Why should it cost them any more money? I cannot understand that.
What they are really saying is if this is changed, they will lose
a lot of money, on the basis that they are already ripping off
16 million beer drinkers.
(Sir Robin Young) I think that is arithmetically possible.
You have to ask them, in a sense. What we are doing is consulting
on two different propositions: one, 100%, and one, 95%. We have
had differing views in on both. The Better Regulation Task Force,
as I mentioned before, has supported the trade in saying this
would be a disproportionate and an expensive enforcement effort.
Lord Haskins, who was then Head of the Task Force, came in very
firmly on the side of the trade. This is the response to the last
consultation paper we have had. So we were accused of proposing
a disproportionately heavy and burdensome regulatory intervention.
145. You say you are waiting for ministers to
make a decision. Is it possible that they will legislate to make
it legal for 95%?
(Sir Robin Young) Yes. They are choosing between two
propositions. It may be there are some others.
146. So it is possible they will legislate that
a pint equals 95% of a pint?
(Sir Robin Young) Consumers have a right to ask for
the full pint, but you cannot prosecute the licensee.
147. Could they legislate that? Is that possible?
(Sir Robin Young) They could legislate for what I
am just saying, which is that a full pint is what the consumer
is paying for, the consumer has the right to ask for a full pint,
but you do not prosecute the licensee for serving less than 95%.
That is legally possible. But, I repeat, ministers have not taken
a view.
148. So if the Government legislate in that
way and go down this route, this would give a green light to companies
to rip people off.
(Sir Robin Young) It would mean they escape prosecution
for serving between 95 and 100% of a pint, yes.
149. Would you agree it would undermine sales
from breweries?
(Sir Robin Young) It depends, I suppose. Consumers
have the right to ask for a pint.
150. If a brewery sells a barrel of beer with
a certain number of pints in, if you can legitimately sell 5%
more, you are actually ripping the breweries off as well.
(Sir Robin Young) Yes. Consumers will have the right
to ask for a top-up from 95 to 100%.
151. This is double Dutch. If consumers have
the right to ask for a top-up from 95 to 100, why is it not a
statutory right that they get their 100% to begin with? It is
crazy.
(Sir Robin Young) I am sorry. I cannot say this more
often. Ministers have not taken a decision on this issue, but
there are two propositions in front of them, which I think I have
described.
152. You have indeed. You are managing very
well not to drop yourself in it. As for the Treasury, your answers
to Mr Bacon were appalling, frankly, because in fact you are being
ripped off, as I see it. You are saying if you sell a pint of
beer, and 5% of that beer can then be sold again, you are losing
the duty on that, surely?
(Mr Molan) I have promised to provide a note to the
Committee.
153. Am I right?
(Mr Molan) You may be right, Mr Steinberg. I honestly
do not know the answer.
154. It just seems to me if you sell a pint
of beer, and you in fact do not sell a pint of beer but you keep
5% of it back, then you sell that 5% on, out of the barrel that
you have sold you are selling more beer than is actually in the
barrel, which is impossible, but if you do do that, you must be
losing the tax on that.
(Mr Molan) I understand what you are saying.
The Committee suspended from 5.05 pm to 5.15
pm for a division in the House.
Mr Gibb
155. Can I ask whether there are any local authority
areas in Britain that have bylaws which have different trading
standards from the national ones?
(Sir Robin Young) Not that I know of. I do not think
there can be. A national framework has to apply to all.
156. Exactly. I was not a consumer minister,
unlike most people on the Committee, but if I were, and I asked
you "Why do we have national trading standards enforced by
local authorities?" what is the reason?
(Sir Robin Young) That successive governments have
taken the view that these things are best sorted out locally as
part of a joined-up local authority, so they can learn from each
other and be under one locally sensitive command chain, rather
than be separately established in a Department. But it is regularly
examined.
157. It seems to me we have a Trading Standards
Institute, we have this LACORS thing, which is the Local Authority
Co-ordinator of Regulatory Services, we have Consumer Direct,
we have the OFT looking into it, and we have you producing voluminous
national performance frameworks. I cannot understand why it needs
to be locally run. Look at paragraph 4.11: "In 2000-01, on
average, only 56% of high risk businesses were visited by Trading
Standards Departments for all inspection purposes. The percentage
for individual authorities ranged from 2% up to well over 100%,
reflecting the fact that some authorities were visiting very few
high risk premises." We have this huge variation of local
authority standards. Surely this should be nationally run, which
in effect it almost is, because you have admitted there is a national
framework for local authorities. Instead of 202 trading standards
departments, we should have 202 departments of a national trading
standards authority run and accountable to Parliament. As a consumer
minister, what would your advice be to me about moving towards
that?
(Sir Robin Young) We are part of a wider central government/local
government relationship, so each time you add to or take away
from local authority powers, that is part of a wider discussion
within government.
158. What are local authority powers? I see
no local authority discretion at all.
(Sir Robin Young) No. They are the enforcement authority.
159. They are just enforcing national frameworks.
They are not doing anything that is locally orientated.
(Sir Robin Young) They are doing it in very different
ways, and what they are doing is telling us how they are performing.
| 
