Home Page

Column 1671

House of Commons

Friday 20 April 1990

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. Speaker-- in the Chair ]

Orders of the Day

Licensing (Low Alcohol Drinks) Bill

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 1

Low alcohol liquor not to be intoxicating liquor for the purposes of the Licensing Act 1964

Miss Ann Widdecombe (Maidstone) : I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 1, line 6, leave out from 1964', to end of line 12 and insert for the words "not exceeding 1016 and of a strength not exceeding 1.2 per cent." there shall be substituted the words "not exceeding 1009 and of a strength not exceeding 0.5 per cent.".'.

Hon. Members : Hear, hear.

Mr. Speaker : With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments :

No. 1, in page 1, line 11, leave out 0.5 per cent.' and insert 0.05 per cent.'.

No. 9, in page 1, line 11, leave out 0.5 per cent.' and insert 0.1 per cent.'.

No. 10, in page 1, line 11, leave out 0.5 per cent.' and insert 1.2 per cent.'.

No. 2, in page 1, line 11, leave out cent.' to end of line 12. No. 3, in page 1, line 12, leave out from sale' to end. No. 4, in page 1, line 16, at end insert

at the time of the sale or other conduct in question'.

Miss Widdecombe : After that enthusiastic reception, may I apologise first to you, Mr. Speaker, and secondly to my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) for the fact that I shall be unable to stay for the whole of the debate? However, I am grateful for this opportunity to speak to the amendments that stand in my name.

One of the effects of the otherwise excellent Bill that has been promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton is that it will make it very much easier to obtain low-alcohol liquor outside the context of licensed premises. My amendment would bring the Bill back into line with the Licensing Act 1964, but with a reduction to 0.5 per cent. alcohol and its corresponding level of specific gravity. I am most reliably informed by a professor of physics, since I have no knowledge of physics whatsoever, that that is 1009 deg Gay Lussac. I have tried to accommodate my hon. Friend by incorporating the

Column 1672

reductions he suggests, but I have also tried to bring back within the scope of the Licensing Act all sales of low- alcohol drinks, wherever such sales take place.

If the Bill is not amended, it will be possible to obtain that which is classified as non-intoxicating liquor--but which can in fact contain an alcohol level of 0.4 per cent., or even 0.49 per cent.--outside licensed premises. Alcoholic drinks of that kind would therefore be available to children if they were sold in unlicensed premises. According to the Bill, drinks with an alcohol content of below 0.5 per cent. will be available in all sorts of premises which do not have to be licensed to sell alcohol.

A child will understand only one thing : here is some excitement, here is a drink with some alcohol in it. Unfortunately, due to the efforts of our advertising industry and the image projected by the drinks industry, children are inclined to think that there is something glamorous, grown-up and desirable about a drink with alcohol in it. If, therefore, alcoholic drinks are readily available--perhaps with an alcoholic content of only 0.1 per cent., although it could be as high as 0.4 per cent.--children will have access to them.

We know that the problem of under-age drinking and the crimes associated with it are increasing. Therefore, it would be ill-advised for my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) to leave in an otherwise commendable Bill a loophole that would promote under-age drinking. If the Bill were enacted in its present form, teenagers and fairly young children of perhaps nine or 10 would learn to consume alcohol and, what is infinitely worse, taking it for granted. Unlike an adult, a child cannot reasonably be expected to compute the sum of the drinks that he or she is consuming and work out the likely effect. The child will think that it is fun and exciting to consume alcohol, but that it will do no harm because it is low alcohol. But if a child consumes five or six drinks which contain only 0.4 per cent. alcohol and are therefore deemed low-alcohol, and not dangerous, he will have taken in a fair quantity of intoxicating liquor.

There are obvious dangers to a child or a young teenager whose constitution has not developed sufficiently to absorb that. If alcohol becomes a habit and children treat such drinks as if they were Coca Cola or orangeade, they will gradually develop an alcohol habit, however low. The mood of our legislation, all that the Home Office has said in recent years and certainly the social perception are that we should move in the opposite direction and encourage young people not to form a drink habit.

Mr. John Marshall (Hendon, South) : Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem of alcohol is just as relevant in Northern Ireland, and does she join me in regretting that the Bill does not seem to apply to Northern Ireland?

Miss Widdecombe : I absolutely support what my hon. Friend says. I might well have mentioned that point, but, as my hon. Friend feels strongly about the issue, he may wish to touch on it later. If low-alcohol drinks are available they affect the problem of drink driving. At present, the law is fairly clear. If one visits licensed premises and drinks more than a low quantity of alcohol, if one is driving one is likely to be over the limit and guilty of a criminal offence.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell (Gedling) : Further to the intervention by my hon. Friend for Hendon, South (Mr.

Column 1673

Marshall) has my hon. Friend noticed that clause 1 does not apply to Scotland, but that clause 2 does? Does she not find that an extraordinary anomaly? In tune with what my hon. Friend said about Northern Ireland, should that not be addressed at this stage so that we can do something about it?

Miss Widdecombe : My hon. Friend is absolutely right : the anomaly applies to Northern Ireland and to Scotland.

Sir Peter Emery (Honiton) : To avoid any wrong assumptions, we should be clear that, as is so often the case, the law in England is different from that in Scotland, so it was necessary to table an amendment to part II of the Bill to deal with the law in Scotland, while the amendment in part I of the Bill deals with the law in England. It is my intention that the two clauses achieve the same legal definitions and legal structure in England and in Scotland. As my hon. Friends from Scotland are nodding in agreement, I am glad that I am giving the House the right information.

Miss Widdecombe : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his explanation and his clarification of the part of his Bill that applies to Scotland. Without meaning any offence to my hon. Friends from Scotland, drink is a considerable problem in Scotland.

Mr. John Marshall : I must ask my hon. Friend to withdraw that comment. I spent Easter in Scotland, and I can assure my hon. Friend that I saw no excess of alcohol. My hon. Friend is clearly referring to what prevailed in Scotland 10, 15 or 20 years ago, when one could find a drunk at Glasgow central station at any time of the day or night. Following the changes in the Scottish licensing law and the civilisation of Scottish public houses, it is no longer true that one can find drunks at any time of the day or night. Scotland is not the alcoholic country that my hon. Friend envisages. She does a disservice to the good people of Scotland.

Miss Widdecombe : I, too, spent Easter in Scotland and it was most enjoyable and pleasant. I did not spend my Easter on Glasgow central station, so I have no idea whether the level of drunkenness to be observed there has changed. I did not mean to impugn the Scots or to suggest that they uniquely have an alcohol problem. I merely said, --presumably my words are on record in Hansard --that there is a drink problem in Scotland. There is also a drink problem in England and in most of Europe.

9.45 am

Mr. Andrew Mitchell : Let me add to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South. My experience in Scotland is entirely the opposite of what my hon. Friend suggests. Every summer I spend the short amount of time that I allow myself to spend away from my constituency in the north-east of Scotland. Staying near Tain on Easter Ross, I found it extremely difficult to find a drink at all. One has to travel so far to find a drink, that I spent much of my short holiday there drinking low- alcohol drinks and canned beer that I had brought with me from England. I found Scotland to be an extremely abstemious place where it was difficult to get a drink.

Column 1674

Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North) : Will the hon. Lady give way?

Miss Widdecombe : I am being extremely generous in giving way, so perhaps before I give way again perhaps I can answer my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell).

Once again, he has misunderstood what I said. I did not suggest that there was an undue level of drunkeness in Scotland compared with anywhere else. I am sorry that he had a problem finding a drink during his Scottish holiday. I took the precaution of staying on licensed premises. I must admit that I did not see any signs of excessive drunkeness. I said that there is a drink problem in Scotland, as there is in England and the rest of Europe.

Mr. Walker : I would normally be in Scotland on Fridays, except when there are matters in the House that affect Scotland, as the Bill does, and I was on the Committee that considered the Bill. My hon. Friend was referring to the problem of under-age, drinking which is a matter of great concern. She is quite correct to say that there is such a problem, but I would remind her that 90 per cent. of Scotch whisky, which is Scotland's most famous export, is exported and not drunk by the Scots. I am a teetotaller. I do not drink it at all.

Mr. Speaker : Order. I think that we have established that there is no undue drink problem in Scotland.

Miss Widdecombe : Perhaps I can conclude the discussion of the drink problem in Scotland by apologising unreservedly if I have offended any of my hon. Friends. I did not intend any slur on the Scots.

Before my hon. Friends intervened, I was referring to drink driving. If one visits licensed premises and consumes intoxicating liquor, one knows that one must limit one's consumption severely, if one must drink at all. I should favour a law which prevents people from driving after drinking any amount of alcohol, but the present law requires only that one should severely limit the amount of alcohol one drinks. That is fairly easy to compute, and is readily understood.

If low alcohol liquor is outwith the licensing laws, the temptation will be to confuse it with alcohol-free liquor and that because one is drinking something that is only 0.3 or 0.4 per cent. proof one is not consuming alcohol. Someone may be tempted to have two drinks in a public house, which should be sufficient, and instead of drinking orange juice or lemonade to think "I will be safe because this is so entirely innocuous that it need not be licensed." He therefore consumes a drink that is so low in alcohol that it has been removed from the licensing laws. That is dangerous, and I suspect that many people may take that incremental amount of alcohol when they would normally stop because they have been deluded by the licensing laws into thinking, "This is not really alcohol at all, is it?" That is my fundamental objection.

Combining what I was saying about children and drivers drinking, and about low-alcohol drinks not being subject to the licensing laws, there will be official guidance saying, "You needn't worry about this ; it isn't really alcohol." People will take their cue from that. If we are to ensure that children do not have ready access to drink, and that drivers are not deluded into thinking that a low-alcohol drink will do no harm, society and the law

Column 1675

must lay down extremely clearly that it is intoxicating liquor, that it is subject to the licensing laws and that it is available only at licensed premises.

If society does not give that guidance, it is understandable that people will tend to think that it does not matter how much low-alcohol drink they consume, that it cannot be habit-forming because its strength is so low and that it does not matter, because if it did matter and if it was habit- forming, surely the law would require a licence to be granted. That is the mentality with which many people will approach the liberalising proposals in the Bill.

Mr. Richard Page (Hertfordshire, South-West) : My hon. Friend is raising spectres that worry me. I do not want people in licensed premises to be deluded into drinking low-alcohol beer, driving their motor cars, being breathalysed and losing their licences. Has she made any estimates of how much low-alcohol beer an average man, who legally can drink almost two pints of full-strength beer, will have to consume to be over the limit? How many pints of low-alcohol beer would have to be consumed to put that man near the limit?

Miss Widdecombe : It is proposed to reduce the requirement from 1.2 to less than 0.5 per cent. Assuming that the man was drinking a 0.4 per cent. strength drink, he would have to drink about three times as much as intoxicating liquor. If he were drinking low-alcohol beer as if it were lemonade or bitter lemon--one can drink six or seven of those drinks without realising it--he would be gradually consuming the equivalent of one pint of beer or one measure of spirit.

The prospect that alarms my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South -West (Mr. Page), of people losing their licence, is not the most terrifying one. The most terrifying prospect is of people getting behind the wheel of a car when not in a fit state and causing accidents and deaths. It is more desirable that they should lose their licences as a sharp warning than be allowed to cause accidents.

I say again--I am well aware that it is outwith the scope of the Bill and that I would be called to order if I developed the point--that it is high time that we had a rule preventing people from driving when they have consumed any alcohol. That is the only way to guarantee safety.

Mr. Gary Waller (Keighley) : Is my hon. Friend aware that the nomenclature of different beers can confuse prospective purchasers? The word "light" has been misinterpreted many times. A court found special reasons for not disqualifying a person who was over the limit because he had been informed that a beer was low in alcohol because it was called light beer. Does my hon. Friend think that there is a need for much caution, particularly among brewers, in the names given to beers, which may or may not be low-alcohol?

Miss Widdecombe : I agree with my hon. Friend and I am grateful to him for making that point. There is massive confusion, which will be compounded if certain forms of alcohol, which undeniably are alcohol but have a low content, are not subject to the licensing laws. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) raises an important gap in our approach to drink ; that is

Column 1676

in education. People should understand what they are purchasing and consuming. It is unlikely that they will if a licence is not necessary to sell certain forms of alcohol.

Imagine trying to explain to a child that all alcohol is dangerous, is potentially habit-forming, should be avoided when one is driving, has some effect on the brain cells and does this, that or the other. The child would say, "If that is so, why don't you need a licence to sell low-alcohol drinks? Surely it can't be dangerous, and can't be alcohol." The mentality that worries me, which would grow under these proposals, is : "This is not really alcohol, is it?" If it can be purchased only on licensed premises and is subject to the licensing laws, it will be regarded more as alcohol and as having all the potential dangers of higher alcohol drinks.

Education is important. I can well understand someone consuming light beer thinking that it is something to do with its light content. Such confusion is rife in our alcohol laws.

Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) : I am listening carefully to the hon. Lady, and I agree with most of her arguments. I hope that she will be a little hesitant about the nomenclature of beers. There are traditions in this country on what we call beers, which are respected and well-known. To start talking about light beers as alcohol-free is pushing it a little. There is a tradition of what we call bitter, mild and all the other lovely names that British beers have. I hope that she is not suggesting some EEC mentality about what we must call different British beers. I should like to know when I am drinking a non-alcohol beer, but we must be cautious. I and most hon. Members know what a light ale is.

Miss Widdecombe : I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I represent a hop -growing area, where the EEC mentality definitely is not the flavour of the month. It would be hard for me, even should I want to do so, to make a case for introducing further legislation to assault well-established British institutions.

I was saying--if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, it is reasonable to say so--that people are confused. He may be well up in the traditions of British beers, but I am not. He may understand the description of every beer on offer, but many people, particularly first-time drinkers, do not and are confused by the terminology. I was proposing not that we should remove those terms but that there should be proper education. I was not proposing that we should amend our laws and start trying to standardise descriptions--I would not do anything so dull or dreary--but there is a strong argument for proper education.

I am particularly worried, as I have made clear throughout the debate on the amendment, about under-age drinkers. People going into public houses and learning the traditions of beers for the first time, or going into supermarkets and purchasing alcohol, do not have the benefit of the knowledge of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), and could be confused. That is an argument for education, and I sincerely hope that he did not think that I was proposing to become legislative, because my line has always been that we should reduce, rather than increase, legislation.

Column 1677

10 am

Mr. John Marshall : I thank my hon. Friend for giving way with her usual courtesy and for the frequency with which she has done so. She mentioned the problem of under-age drinking resulting from individuals going into supermarkets, does she not think that it is an unfortunate social trend that, whereas 20 years ago it was almost impossible to buy cans of drink in supermarkets, it is now far too easy for far too many young people to do so?

Miss Widdecombe : It is perhaps one of the most regrettable social trends that we have seen, but at least if a supermarket sells alcohol it must have a licence to do so, and as long as the definition of alcohol covers even those of low alcohol content, such drinks must be licensed. My big worry about the Bill is that a group of alcoholic drinks will be taken out of that requirement for a licence and will therefore be available in supermarkets and other shops that do not have to have a licence to sell alcohol.

Sir Peter Emery : It is terribly important that we are clear about the argument that my hon. Friend is advancing. My Bill strengthens what she wants. It will stop beers or any alcoholic drink between 0.5 per cent. and the present level of alcohol being sold in shops or elsewhere. Therefore, I hope that, if my Bill is passed, it will meet my hon. Friend's arguments. I am delighted to hear her propose them because they strengthen, rather than weaken, the Bill.

Miss Widdecombe : They would strengthen the Bill if it went as far as my amendment proposes, which is to take into account also those alcoholic drinks below the 0.5 per cent. level. I am grateful, as ever, for my hon. Friend's intervention and his clarification. I am worried that children will be able to consume 0.1, 0.2, 0.3 and 0.4 per cent. alcoholic drinks freely, without having to buy them from premises with a licence. They will have no idea of the build-up effect and will form a drink habit. They will not understand that such alcohol, in cumulative quantities, affects the brains and organs in the same way as high-level alcohol in smaller quantities. Those children will be affected if the Bill goes through unamended. I am worried about adults who will be lured into thinking that what they are drinking is not alcohol and will therefore think that it is safe to drink it in addition to what they have already allowed themselves before driving. I am worried that, if a range of alcoholic drinks appears saleable without a licence, it will be regarded, in general, as not really alcohol, and the social problems of drinking will not be solved by these proposals.

Therefore, I propose what, I admit is a draconian amendment. It is right and in the social interest, and before the Bill reaches the statute book, I commend my hon. Friend at least to think about whether it needs strengthening. It is likely to be on the statute book for a long time, and its social effects are likely to be far-reaching.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) : The hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) has done a considerable service to the young people of this country in bringing forward his proposals. I wish them well. The hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) wondered if the Scots took offence at what she was saying. This Scot takes no offence because, in candour, there is a problem, and those who do not recognise that would be

Column 1678

deluding themselves. There was some banter about the position in Scotland. I was taken aback and appalled to be taken by the police in my constituency, in the early hours of the morning, to the Bathgate town centre to see the amount of drink being taken by people who, if they were not under age, were nearly under age.

My contribution has one purpose : to ask the hon. Member for Honiton to outline the contact that he has had with various Scottish authorities, because he has worked on this issue. As a Member of Parliament, it behoves me to say, bluntly, that I am not an expert on licensing and I do not pretend to be so, but it is an important issue. Therefore, I should like the hon. Gentleman to outline the contacts he has had with the various Scottish organisations, not least those representing the trade, which has a problem involving under-age drinking. How does one tell how old people are, if they are not familiar when they come into a licensed premises or a supermarket? It is easy, particularly with girls, to confuse 13 and 18-year -olds in good faith. That is part of the under-age problem. I support the Bill and look forward to hearing from the hon. Gentleman about the Scottish contacts that he has had.

Mr. Ian Gow (Eastbourne) : I join the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) on his excellent Bill. It has been drafted with the care which has characterised my hon. Friend's parliamentary career. It came as no surprise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, just as it came as no surprise to the Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household, that the Committee stage of the Bill began at 10.30 am and lasted for less than half an hour. The Committee rose at 10.42 am on 28 February. That is one of the shortest Committee stages in the history of this place.

Mr. John Marshall : In view of the subject we are discussing, should that fact not be entered in "The Guinness Book of Records"?

Mr. Gow : I said that it was one of the shortest Committee stages in the records of this place. The conclusion I drew from that was that the Standing Committee, composed of formidable intellects, decided that the Bill should receive not one amendment in Committee. That is a tribute to the draftsmanship of my hon. Friend and the intellect of those who served on the Committee.

I wish to remind my hon. Friends, some of whom are not familiar with these important matters, of the formidable intellects who adorned the Committee. First, my hon. Friend--

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker) : No doubt this is interesting, but it is a long way from the matters before the House. [ Hon. Members :-- "No."] The amendments deal with variations on the definition of intoxicating liquor, and I hope that we can get back to that.

Mr. Page : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I had the privilege of serving on that Committee, and I have never in this House been called a formidable intellect. I was looking forward to the opportunity of being described as such by my hon. Friend, and I would be grateful if he could be given the chance to do so.

Column 1679

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. We are not debating amendments about the hon. Gentleman's intellect.

Mr. Gow : We are discussing the level of alcohol in drink. Neither my hon. Friend the Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household nor I would claim to be an expert on low-alcohol drinks. From time to time, my hon. Friend the Comptroller has summoned me to his own house for consultations. When I receive a summons from my hon. Friend, I naturally obey and the summonses are always for the hour of noon. At that very moment, my hon. Friend takes bottles from the cupboard. Are those bottles filled with low-alcohol drinks? They are not. Indeed, although I have frequently been my hon. Friend's guest over many years, there has not been one occasion when he has offered me a low-alcohol drink. That may underline the need for the Bill and the validity of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), whose arrival in this place we welcomed, although we deplored the departure of her predecessor.

I want to remind the House of another important event a moment ago, which passed unnoticed even by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery). For a short period of the debate, seated side by side on the Treasury Bench were the Comptroller of the Household and the Treasurer of the Household. I and my hon. Friend the Comptroller know that my hon. Friend the Treasurer--like my hon. Friend who sometimes wears a kilt, the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker)--is a non-drinker, or teetotaller. I do not think that one would describe my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone as a teetotaller.

Miss Widdecombe : Not at all.

Mr. Gow : Although neither my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone nor I am addicted to low-alcohol drinks, we are still entitled to a view on the Bill. I see that my hon. Friend the Comptroller assents to that proposition.

There is merit in amendment No. 8. I shall be listening with the closest attention--

Mr. Michael Brown (Brigg and Cleethorpes) : My hon. Friend referred to our hon. Friends the Treasurer and the Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household. My hon. Friend the Treasurer would regard amendment No. 8 with grave misgivings, because he regards low alcohol as being as bad as any amount of alcohol. He believes in non-alcohol. If we had been able to debate new clause 2, as well as amendment No. 8, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone would have had the opportunity to draw a distinction between non-alcohol and low-alcohol. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) is not wholly correct when he describes the attitude to the amendment of our hon. Friend the Treasurer. Our hon. Friend would be utterly opposed to the amendment, because it refers to low alcohol, whereas he believes in non-alcoholic drinks.

Mr. Gow : I hope that our hon. Friend the Treasurer will be in his place later this morning.

Mr. Brown : I have seen him.

Mr. Gow : But he was not on the Treasury Bench. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) will ask our hon. Friend the Treasurer to come in to clarify the point himself. I shall

Column 1680

add only that I have been the recipient of the most generous--not to say munificent--hospitality at the hands not only of my hon. Friend the Comptroller, but of my hon. Friend the Treasurer. You may be rather shocked to hear, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I have received only full alcoholic strength drinks when I have had luncheon or dinner at the house of my hon. Friend the Treasurer. I have even been summoned for cocktails at the agreeable residence of my hon. Friend the Treasurer. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell) is not leaving the Chamber, as I was about to refer to him.

Mr. Allan Stewart (Eastwood) : As well as referring to our hon. Friends the Treasurer and the Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household, my hon. Friend referred to our hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North has had to slip out of the Chamber to take part in a television programme--I do not know whether it is on the Bill--but I can reassure my hon. Friend that he is coming back.

10.15 am

Mr. Sheerman : I have heard the hon. Gentleman make some excellent speeches in this Chamber. However, as I sit listening to his present speech, I wonder quite what the recounting of the munificent, wonderful and abundant hospitality received in various places in and around the House has to do with this serious Bill.

Mr. Gow : This is only the preamble ; I shall be coming to more detailed aspects of the Bill later.

One important truth may have escaped even my hon. Friend the Under- Secretary of State for the Home Department. Today is the anniversary of the birth of his late imperial majesty, Emperor Napoleon III of France. Why do I mention that? [Hon. Members :-- "Brandy."] That is the point. I do not want to be discourteous to the imperial household of a friendly power, but it is said that the Emperor Napoleon III died as a result of overdoing the brandy. I do not say that the allegation is true. Even the solitary representative of Her Majesty's Opposition, the shadow Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), seems to assent to the proposition that his late majesty may have died of an overdose of brandy. If the Bill had been on the statute book during the lifetime of his late majesty, he might still have been with us.

Mr. John Marshall : I know that Queen Mary died with "Calais" written on her heart. Is my hon. Friend suggesting that, if the Bill had been on the statute book at the time of the reign of Napoleon III, we should have tried to apply it to France? We should have had to have extra- territorial powers, which no British Government have claimed for a long time.

Sir Peter Emery : Even I am not claiming that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) will now seek to address himself to the amendment. He has been speaking for 11 minutes and I doubt whether he has yet referred to the amendment. Will he please do so or resume his seat?

Mr. Gow : You will have studied the text of the amendments with the same care as I have, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I believe that we are discussing the group of amendments Nos. 8, 1, 9, 10, 2, 3, and 4. Some of them

Column 1681

have been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), the parliamentary private secretary to our hon. Friend the Minister for Industry. Those amendments relate to the strength of alcohol and how we should describe the alcoholic strength. I had great sympathy with amendment No. 8, which was moved so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell : I want to go back to the point about territoriality and the question whether the Bill applies outside our shores. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) is on to an extremely good point here. As I hope to demonstrate in my speech, if I catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, there is considerable confusion about the way in which EC directives apply on low alcohol here and in other countries in Europe. It is impossible to divorce the laws that we pass in the House, which affect this country, from the decisions and directives made by the European Community and their effect upon the definition and distribution of low-alcohol drinks, not only here but throughout Europe.

Mr. Gow : My hon. Friend anticipates a point that I had intended to address later in my speech. I shall be referring to the European Commission. I shall also refer to the former right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks., who used to be Home Secretary and then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, before his regrettable departure from the Treasury Bench. I shall be referring to the Commission, because the amendment would include in the Bill the words

"not exceeding 1009 "--

Hon. Members will note the little nought above the figure "and of a strength not exceeding 0.5 per cent."

Those are very important words. I wonder--as does my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton--whether, if we include those words, the Commission in Brussels will apply its mind to the question whether we are acting in accordance with Community law. We do not want to make the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone only to discover that the Commission proposes to overrule us.

Mr. Michael Brown : I had some difficulty with the little nought to which my hon. Friend referred, but my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) tells me that it means specific gravity. Miss Widdecombe rose --

Mr. Gow : I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone.

Miss Widdecombe : The little nought does, indeed, mean specific gravity, and in this case 1009 is 0.5 per cent. and 1016 is to 1.2 per cent.

Mr. Gow : I know that I can rely on my hon. Friend the Treasurer of the Household to instruct me in specific gravity. We warmly welcome the Treasurer, who is already in his weekend attire. For those in the Whips Office, the weekend begins early, while some of us have to man the barricades and do the best we can to understand specific gravity and all sorts of other problems. My hon. Friend the Treasurer will be able to comment later on the extent to which he favours my hon. Friend's amendment.

Column 1682

This is a momentous occasion : we now have the Treasurer and the Comptroller seated side by side, with a Lords Commissioner sitting even closer to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have a kind of Trinity on the Treasury Bench. I shall not lay myself open to the charge of blasphemy by trying to describe their different roles. In the centre is the Treasurer and on either side are his guardians. It is the Treasurer to whom we referred earlier in the debate, and who will continue to feature prominently because, along with my hon. Friend the Member with the kilt, he opposes the consumption of alcohol. I am sure that both my hon. Friends will be in favour of the amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone made a moving speech. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who has made a journey to Scotland, agreed with my hon. Friend. What we do not know --we all await the answer with some expectation, and my hon. Friend the Member for Gelding--

Next Section

  Home Page