HL Deb 31 October 1979 vol 402 cc400-3

4.4 p.m.

Debate resumed

Lord AUCKLAND

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Kimberley has chosen a most opportune time to debate this extremely important social subject. It is perhaps a quirk of fate that it follows yesterday's debate on the misuse of drugs. It is a well-known fact that the menace of drugs, particularly among young people, has now to a large extent been replaced by the menace of alcohol. Not for the first time the noble Lord, Lord Soper, has contributed valuably to this debate his experience of working with many of these unfortunate people.

I have several close relatives who are engaged in the hotel and licensing trade. Certainly the Licensed Victuallers' Association are extremely concerned about the question of alcohol abuse and of alcoholism. Of course, it is a fact that alcohol abuse is the state of affairs which eventually leads to alcoholism. There are really two stages here. If the abuse of alcohol, particularly among certain young people, can be counteracted, then the dangers of full-blooded alcoholism can largely be arrested.

It was a relief to learn that the proposal to license motorway cafés and other places of refreshment has been turned down. I hope that my noble friend who is to reply can give a categorical assurance that this proposal really has been turned down. Speaking from the point of view of the insurance industry—in which I have an interest to declare—the licensing of these places would have brought enormous problems, particularly with young drivers who might be involved in a fearful accident which would cause not only possibly tragic loss of life and limb but enormous problems of litigation. Of course, on the roads it is quite possible for a person to drive off the motorway for two miles down an unclassified road to a public house, or even to pull into a layby and drink from refreshment provided from a picnic basket; but at least it is good to know that the idea of licensed premises on motorways is not to be with us.

I was particularly interested in the speech of the right reverend Prelate, the Lord Bishop of Southwell, when he referred to Nottingham, because our elder daughter now teaches in Nottingham and so we visit that city from time to time. There is a particularly interesting article on page 11 of the magazine called the Licensee, which has been provided to some of your Lordships today and which refers specifically to Nottingham: Magistrates in Nottinghamshire are pointing out to off-licences throughout the county the problems caused by alcohol being readily available in certain premises. It goes on to say: And at a recent meeting of Eastwood LVA, members were told of a letter which has now been sent to off-licences by the clerk to the justices of the Nottingham and Bingham Petty Sessional Division. It was hoped that all courts in the county would send out similar documents. Furthermore, the letter goes on to say: The main causes for concern are undoubtedly those off-licences which operate on a self-selection basis. Only the other Saturday morning my wife and I were shopping in one of the large supermarkets in Surrey. It so happened that I was purchasing some wine. It is true to say that in this particular supermarket the wine and alcohol department is separated from departments selling baked beans and so on. However, I am convinced—and I discussed this with my wife (who is a magistrate) this morning—that the staff of these shops can rarely cover the proper supervision of youngsters who purchase a bottle of whisky or gin. I am speaking here not so much of wine as of spirits. These youngsters may say, "This is for my father", and the rather harassed young lady at the cashing-out desk has presumably to bear this in mind.

off-licences and public houses are subject to rigorous inspection. My wife serves prominently on the local licensing committee of our local magistrates' bench and I wonder whether my noble friend is satisfied that the same stringent rules apply to supermarkets and other places which serve alcohol—as I say, not so much wines, or even beer, but whisky, gin and other spirits—which young people consume and which can do untold damage. Nobody wishes to be a "Scrooge" in these matters, but it is quite clear from figures which have been published that there are all too many young people who are under age—sometimes well under age—consuming these drinks.

As regards sports grounds, I suppose it would be too much to expect any suggestion to be adopted that the Cup Final should be played on "dry grounds or that there should be further limitations on licensing premises at sports grounds; but this may well have to come because so much of the hooliganism which is caused by a small number of people—and I repeat" a small number of people"—at football matches and other sporting occasions is the result of too much drink having been consumed. Then vandalism increases. In magistrates' courts the defending counsel will often plead, "He had a little too much to drink". I hope that magistrates, on hearing that, will impose a much more severe sentence, because I have always believed that the taking of alcohol is no excuse for hooliganism or any similar crime.

We are approaching now the Festive Season, with office parties and so on. We are approaching the season when business people are under more and more stress, and all too often the bottle, whether it is in the boardroom or whether it is liberally handed round among young people at office parties and so on, can sow the seeds of alcoholism.

Mention has been made of mental hospitals and of the number of people undergoing mental tratment through having been forced, one way or another, into this very tragic situation. A very good personal friend of mine was captain of the England Rugby XV. He started at Lloyds of London at the same time as I did. Unfortunately, he became addicted to the gin bottle, and although he was cured of that he then went on to beer and died in his late forties, leaving a widow and young children. This kind of situation can be multiplied many times.

My Lords, I accept that this has been a gloomy speech. The debate is concerned with an unhappy but vital subject. It does not indicate that alcohol is evil—that is far from the truth: many worthy people are engaged in the making of wine or other forms of alcohol—but it is incumbent that everything should be done to prevent what is on the Order Paper—in other words," alcohol abuse"—before we get to the ultimate tragedy of alcoholism.