HL Deb 28 June 1990 vol 520 cc1798-802

8.12 p.m.

Viscount Montgomery of Alamein

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Montgomery of Alamein.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The LORD HAYTER in the Chair.]

Clause I [Low alcohol liquor not to be intoxicating liquor for the purposes of the Licensing Act 1964]:

Lord Mancroft moved Amendment No. 1: Page 1, line 11, leave out ("0/") and insert ("0/").

The noble Lord said: I had not originally intended to speak on the Bill—I did not speak on Second Reading—as I did not regard it as the most important piece of legislation. I see by the level of attendance in the Chamber that I was not alone in that thought. However, on reading the Bill carefully, I noticed one or two details that are worth examining closely. I have put down this amendment in the form of a testing amendment, as it were, so that we can consider those details.

The point that came to my attention when I read the debate that took place in another place concerned the percentages of alcohol content and where one drew the dividing line between high and low alcohol content for the purposes of the Bill. The great question is where that line should be drawn.

The part of the debate that interested me most was the discussion on the difference between 0.5 per cent. and .05 per cent. of alcohol. That seems a narrow area until we consider it further. If one goes back, one realises that this is a compromise Bill. From the point of view of the Government it is a compromise between their desire to encourage people to drink less, or weaker, alcohol, and their need to raise revenue. From the point of view of the brewers it is a compromise between the healthy desire to show profit for their shareholders—I do not quarrel with that—and their desire to show their social conscience by promoting lower alcohol content beers. I am a little more cynical about the latter point. The difference that we must think about is the difference between the 9 per cent. strength that I have referred to in my amendment and the 5 per cent. that exists at the moment.

It does not take a mathematical genius—that is fortunate, because I am not such a genius—to work out that the difference between 9 per cent. and 5 per cent. is less than twice, whereas the difference between .05 per cent. and 5 per cent. alcohol content is 10 times.

Viscount Ullswater

I should remind the noble Lord that he is talking about 0.5 per cent.

Lord Mancroft

That is quite correct, but I am talking about the difference between .05 per cent. and 5 per cent.

Viscount Montgomery of Alamein

I regret to tell the noble Lord that he is wrong because his amendment seeks to change the strength in question from 0.;5 per cent. to 0.9 per cent.

Lord Mancroft

That is entirely correct, but if the Committee will allow me to finish I shall explain my point, which is quite simple although it has now become suddenly rather horrible. In my amendment the difference is between 0.5 and 0.9 per cent. which is a difference of less than twice. In the discussion in another place, the difference was one between .05 and 0.5 per cent. As I have said, the difference betwen .05 per cent. and 0.5 per cent. is 10 times. In another place and again here, it was decided that those two percentages could be quite happily lumped together in one block as low alcohol content. However, the reality is that .05 per cent. constitutes a non-alcoholic content. A loaf of bread or a glass of apple juice contain .05 per cent. alcohol but we do not suggest that those products should be licensed. However, at the moment it is suggested that 0.5 per cent. is too far away from 0.9 per cent. to be included in the same bracket.

The Committee may say, with justification, that I am splitting hairs and that this is all rather facetious. But there is a rather important point here. It is that many people come into the same bracket as myself. I am an alcoholic which means that I am allergic to alcohol. That is not really a big deal. I do not mind it too much. However, it means that I must not drink alcohol. If I drink alcohol it will start the whole process of my disease again and I shall go down the tubes, which is where I do not wish to go. However, if I stick off the alcohol life is pretty rosy. There are quite a few of us who fall into the category of wanting to keep our lives rosy.

On more than one occasion I have entered a restaurant and asked for non-alcoholic beer. The staff say they have a non-alcoholic beer, but they produce a low alcoholic beer. There is a world and a galaxy of difference between the two. However, there is no difference whatsoever between a low alcoholic beer with 0.5 per cent. of alcohol and a low alcoholic shandy with 0.9 per cent. of alcohol. One can taste the alcohol. One knows there is alcohol in there, and it has an effect. There is a brand of beer produced by Guinness which contains 0.5 per cent of alcohol. I should point out at this stage that I have no axe to grind for or against Guinness, although it appears that other brewers have such an axe to grind. If one consumes a beer with .05 per cent. alcohol one is not consuming any alcohol at all. However, if one drinks a beer with 0.5 per cent. of alcohol, one is consuming an alcoholic drink. It seems to me, therefore, that it is unwise to lump those two categories together. If Members of the Committee and Members of another place think it is all right to lump the two categories together—I do not quarrel with that if that is what they want to do—there is no reason why those two or three brands of drink which contain 0.9 per cent. of alcohol should not also be lumped in with the other two categories.

The Government, the brewers, Alcohol Concern and others have got together and have produced a compromise which is good enough for all of those bodies and whoever else took part in the discussions. The only person it is not good for is the consumer. He has been fooled again. It is not a major point, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time. I beg to move.

Viscount Montgomery of Alamein

I have listened with considerable interest to my noble friend's speech. The first point that I want to make is that he must not confuse levels of attendance with levels of alcohol. There is very wide concern about the issue, and that is one of the reasons why the Bill has been brought before the House.

My noble friend made some very interesting comments, particularly at the beginning of this speech, which I thought argued cogently in favour of the Bill as it stands. As he pointed out, the Bill is a compromise measure. It has been subject to very wide consultation with a large number of organisations, including those concerned with the excessive consumption of alcohol.

My noble friend explained his own position very sincerely. Therefore, I found it rather strange that he should be proposing an amendment which has the effect of doubling the proposed minimum level of alcohol. Be that as it may, the point at stake here is that the measure has received wide consultation. There is a great deal of support for the position as it stands. A very long timescale is allowed for its introduction in order that the labelling can be correct so that there should be no misunderstanding whatsoever about the strength of the beverages that people are consuming and related matters at all levels in the chain of consumption, whether at the retail, wholesale or consumer level.

For those and other reasons, I believe that my noble friend's amendment is wholly unnecessary and somewhat illogical. I urge the Committee to reject it. In view of the fact that this measure has received considerable support from all parties and from the Government both when it went through another place and in this House, I shall be interested to know whether the Government are of the same view on the matter. When the Minister comments I hope that we shall hear that the Government are of the same mind as they were last week.

Viscount Ullswater

When considering the question of how the definition of intoxicating liquor might be amended in the light of the development of low alcohol and non-alcoholic drinks, the Government have always been particularly concerned to get right the percentage of alcohol by volume it would be safe to permit in drinks which could, in future, be sold without a licence. That would mean, for example, that they could be sold freely from unlicensed premises such as sweet shops, groceries and corner stores. In licensed premises they could be sold to and consumed by young people under 18 years of age.

We have always recognised that this is a fairly complex question to which there is no simple answer. We have taken the view that what might be termed the medical considerations of the issue should be regarded as paramount. Accordingly we have relied on advice from the Department of Health. The department has based its advice on the premise that the most immediate concern, where young people are involved, is over the short-term intoxicating effect of consuming alcohol. The most important short-term physical effect of consuming any alcoholic drink is to produce a rise in blood alcohol level. The higher the blood alcohol level the greater the risk of harm ensuing to the individual concerned.

Very briefly, the advice we have been given is that consumption of as little as two pints of low alcohol beer of around 1 per cent. alcohol by volume in one hour without food would cause the blood alcohol level of a fairly typical young person to rise to 30 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. That is considerably above the maximum level of blood alcohol (20 mgs per 100 mls) which our advisers would regard as acceptable in such a young person. If, however, the same young person were to drink beer of 0.5 per cent. alcohol by volume, he or she could consume up to six pints in three hours without any food and still remain within the acceptable blood alcohol level.

On the basis of that advice, the Government consider that the threshold of 0.5 per cent. for which my noble friend's Bill makes provision is the right figure to choose in this context. It would, in our view, lead to too great a risk of young people becoming inebriated if the threshold were to be placed as high as my noble friend Lord Mancroft's amendment would have it. My noble friend Lord Ferrers made it quite clear in his Second Reading speech that the Government appreciate that it will be necessary to look at, and possibly make amendments to, food labelling laws to sort out any implications the passing of this Bill may have for the producers of canned and bottled shandies. As my noble friend said, the commencement provisions in the Bill are designed to allow adequate time for that process to take place and there are no grounds for accepting the amendment on that account. I therefore strongly advise the Committee against supporting this amendment.

Lord Mancroft

It has been a short and rather obscure debate. I thank my noble friend Lord Montgomery for taking the trouble to reply to the amendment so carefully, and also my noble friend Lord Ullswater. I am not overly impressed by the introduction of the long timescale. I do not see what that has to do with it. Nor am I overly impressed by the measures for relabelling. I am sure that it is very important, but apart from fine wines I do not believe that many people examine the labels of their drinks very carefully. If the labels are anything like existing labels one will need a magnifying glass to find out what is in the drinks.

I am also extremely unimpressed by the medical evidence. As someone who has been involved in the treatment of alcoholism for some years I know that the last place to go for accurate medical evidence is the Department of Health. Any evidence that comes from there carries very little weight on this Bench. I am afraid that the staff in the department will not be very pleased if they read Hansard; but if they take as much interest in this subject as noble Lords, they probably will not read it.

I was delighted to hear what my noble friend said about the relabelling of shandy. Having put down the amendment I have to confess that I am not a great shandy drinker, but it is interesting that the point was noted. However, as I said, it is not an important issue but I thought that it was worth raising it in order to place it in the Official Report. On that note, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 [Corresponding provision for Scotland]:

[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]

Remaining clauses agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.