My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 24, 25 and 26. I start by expressing my gratitude to a range of people and organisations who have been in touch with me since I spoke to a series of amendments in Committee, and my thanks to those who have put their name to these amendments today, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, who managed to fly here from abroad to speak in this debate. The people who put their names down represent a substantial concerned body of health interests who are convinced that MUP—minimum unit pricing—is needed in England as well as Scotland, where people are trying to press it through. We also hear that the Welsh Government are now embracing and seeking to implement it. Its aim is to minimise alcohol harm to people’s health and harm to the NHS by reducing NHS costs, to cut public disturbances and the cost to the criminal justice system, to reduce domestic violence, to reduce accidents at work and on the roads, and to reduce—this is an important point—the hidden sugar in alcohol, which is quite a big contributor to the major health problem facing us, the growth of obesity in this country, a growth which has taken place significantly under this Government.
The argument for this change was made by the Government in a well produced alcohol strategy that they issued in 2012. Regrettably, when it came to the crunch, the Government ran away from the tough decision. They talk about taking tough decisions, but they have run away from this one, even though there is mounting evidence and support for it on a very wide front. I am particularly pleased that the Church of England is in favour in principle, and I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle, who regrettably cannot be with us because of a prior engagement but wished to speak strongly in favour, from the position of one of those who would be affected by this change in legislation.
On the new licensing regime that will cover community and ancillary businesses, I should express a word of gratitude to the Government. Following our debates in Committee, they ran a public consultation—there
had not been one previously. In a sense, that was in recognition that this was not a deregulatory change, as I had argued, but a matter for new legislation. I think that this led them to recognise the need for a public consultation in November and December. Had there been a bit more time for that consultation, some of us would have been happy to give the Government some suggestions on how it might have been better run than was the case, but none the less they did it and it would be churlish if I did not express my gratitude to them for it.
One area that some of us—I have in mind other groups here—would have focused on would be establishing a basis for enforcing the scheme. Local government would have liked to have had proper powers to police it and ensure that it is effectively put in place. While the Government have suggested that a certain maximum number of units should be consumed by people participating in such events around the country, quite frankly, as we all know, there is no way in which one could enforce that if they exceed it or even supervise what is happening.
Minimum unit pricing at such events, which would put the cost of a unit of alcohol at a higher level than perhaps would normally be charged, could be seen as a restraining factor to try to limit the amount of drinking taking place—they could be events in communities, charities or in church affairs and so on. I should advise the Government that, if they were prepared to embrace this change, they would be well supported by a number of councils around the country. All 12 councils in the north-east of England want MUP introducing because of the problems which they encounter. They have written to me giving support to the amendments that I am proposing. They range from the councils in Newcastle, Middlesbrough and Durham—the big ones—to which then can be added, moving across to the other side of the country, all the councils in Greater Manchester, Lancashire Council and Leeds Council. Coming further south, Birmingham Council, too, is now pressing for MUP to be introduced because of the problems which it faces in the health service and with disturbances related to the criminal justice system. I understand from the Local Government Association, which has been giving me advice on this matter, that while many other authorities in other parts of the country have not as yet come out in favour of the principle of MUP, they are privately in favour of it and in due course will go on record as saying that they need it soon. These issues need to be taken into account in the context of what I am pressing for tonight.
I have also heard from numerous charities, which will qualify under the CANs for this form of licensing, saying that they would be very happy to be running minimum unit pricing. So we have a group that ranges over local authorities with their links, charities and the Church of England. I have also had conversations with the National Federation of Women’s Institutes, which was much quoted in debates in the Commons on where it stood. It does not have an official policy on MUP, but I guess that in the light of some of the arguments now being advanced by people of like mind on a wide front—the people who were prayed in aid so much in the Commons—the women’s institutes may come on board, too.
As well as upholding the principle of containing the amount of drink that people consume, all such groups see that there would be a benefit for them in having a higher yield from applying minimum unit pricing than perhaps they have had hitherto. They buy cheaper from the supermarkets and then sell at the higher rate there. It is a win-win situation as far as many of them see it, and one of the reasons why—as they are financial beneficiaries as well—they would be glad to see this come into practice.
9 pm
This set of amendments really offers the Government an opportunity to trial minimum unit pricing in a limited area, administered in the main by people in groups which favour MUP. Amendments 24 and 26 provide a sunset clause. If this was not working after a period of three years it would allow the MUP to fail and fall away. I am trying to be as reasonable as I can and to accommodate the Government as best I can, given the objections that they have raised so far. If MUP were successful in achieving the objectives that we are after, the amendments would provide the opportunity to raise the minimum unit price from 50p to a higher rate that would be appropriate at that time.
Why are the Government going to object to these amendments? I rather suspect that I will be disappointed, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, was with the previous amendment. I will take noble Lords through a series of points that have been made by Ministers in recent debates as to why MUP should not run. Ministers argue that MUP is only part of an alcohol strategy and that there are other elements to it. I agree with that. It is not a silver bullet: there are other factors too. However, eliminating cheap booze, as the Prime Minister himself put it when he first spoke in favour of minimum unit pricing as the heart of an alcohol strategy, has been tried and tested in other areas and has been quite successful in producing significant changes in other countries. There is also evidence to indicate that it would work very well here.
Ministers argue that careful consideration has to be given to any possible unintended consequences of MUP, such as the potential impact on the cost of living. That would be an effect that I would concede. When the cost of cigarettes was increased in an attempt to deter smoking them, there was an impact on the cost-of-living indices at the time. We are, of course, at the happy stage at the moment where we have the lowest level of cost of living increases that we have had for a long time. In any event, I asked the Minister—the noble Lord, Lord Bates, recently replied to me—what the impact would be on the cost of living in the UK if a 50p minimum unit price were introduced for alcohol. The reply indicated that, in spite of the Government saying that it would have such an impact and they were concerned about it, no such assessment has been made as yet. Will the Minister tell us why not? Will they do it before we get to Third Reading? When people start employing these arguments, they should at least have done the research in the first instance.
We then looked at the third factor. Ministers argue that a possible consequence might be an increase in illicit alcohol smuggling. That might be the case. I do
not deny that this might happen. This risk will always exist, as it does with tobacco and cigarettes. However, without knowing the scale of such problems, that is not a counterargument for resisting a policy. A limited trial of the type that I am advocating would give the Government a chance to look at the extent to which those factors would come to bear and the extent to which they might need to look for resources to resolve those problems. We can stop smuggling and the illicit production of alcohol simply by monitoring it better and policing it better than we have done in the past. I know that involves resourcing and cost, but equally we have to take into account, when we look at alcohol, the costs that arise in the daily deaths of people, and the cost to the NHS to be set alongside that.
The Government have also argued that we must wait to see what comes out from the appeal at present in Europe against the Scottish decision to introduce MUP north of the border. The information I have—though who can say until the judge’s report—is that the indications are that it may go back to Scotland unresolved and be left to Scotland and its industry to sort out for themselves. It is possible that that may happen to us if we introduce this trial—that there would be an appeal against it. On the other hand, the Government might try to use their powers through their links with the responsibility deal with industry to persuade it not to do that in the rest of the UK. If it did appeal, we would have to stand up against that. I believe that the major consumer of alcohol in the UK should take a case to court—if a court case has to be taken—rather than a smaller country such as Scotland or possibly Wales.
All the foregoing matters relate to issues that were put to myself and other Peers when we have raised MUP latterly. I come now to the original decision taken by the Lib Dem Minister in 2012, Jeremy Browne—one of the noble Lord’s colleagues. He announced that the Government would not proceed with MUP because they did not feel they had enough concrete evidence that its introduction would be effective. That was notwithstanding, as I have said, evidence both here and abroad of so many places where it works. It even works in Putin’s Russia where there has been a reduction in the amount of alcoholism because the price of alcohol has been increased.
Jeremy Browne went on to argue that the crucial point was to avoid penalising people who drink responsibly. Of course, they are already penalised by abuse of alcohol. They are the ones, along with the rest of the taxpaying community, who must find the money to pay for the NHS’s problems that arise from alcohol. They have to pay for all the other problems that arise linked to alcohol so they are already paying in part. They face the prospect, according to the new CEO of the NHS, that there will be a £30 billion black hole in the NHS by 2020 unless some radical steps are taken to put right some of the problems we face. This is one issue where we could look to effect a change to reduce the abuse and harm that arises from alcohol and the number of people ending up in hospital or in care.
I suggest to the Government that they have the chance to run a trial here in a limited area with willing victims who want to operate it. At the end of the day,
we could end up with a win-win situation for everyone concerned. If that works well, it could then be extended over a wider front so that we could endeavour to meet the desire that so many organisations believe is desperately needed. I hope the Minister will respond as positively as he can and give answers to some of these points that have been made incorrectly in defence of the current position by other Ministers. Otherwise, I will come back again at Third Reading. I beg to move.