Alcohol

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe Excerpts

Tuesday 6th December 2016 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of the findings of the review by Public Health England on the consequences of alcohol abuse, whether they will implement minimum unit pricing of alcohol.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, we welcome Public Health England’s comprehensive alcohol evidence review. It provides evidence of the most effective policies for reducing alcohol harm in the English context. We will be considering the evidence set out in the review over the next few months. The introduction of minimum unit pricing in England and Wales remains under review, pending the outcome of the legal case between the Scotch Whisky Association and the Scottish Government and the impact of the implementation of this policy in Scotland.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)]

I am grateful for much of what the Minister has said in her reply. I am, however, disappointed that the Government have chosen to delay until we hear the outcome of the Scottish case. Is she aware that the report indicates that we now have over 1 million people a year going into hospital due to alcohol-related illnesses of one sort or another and that alcohol is now the biggest killer of males between 15 and 49? It is time that we started taking some action on this. Will the Minister indicate that discussions will take place on the report, what the timetable will be and what progress is likely, and not simply wait for the outturn in Scotland? Is she aware that if we move ourselves we would help Scotland rather than hinder it?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I concur with much of what the noble Lord has said. It is frustrating to have to do so but it is important to wait for the outcome of the Scotch Whisky Association case in Scotland. I totally agree that alcohol-related admissions to hospital are worrying, as is the fact that alcohol is now the leading health risk factor for people between 15 and 49, which is a very wide age group. That is not to mention the cost to the public purse.

Policing and Crime Bill

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe Excerpts

Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard - part one): House of Lords
Wednesday 9th November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)]

My Lords, I beg to move that the clause do not stand part of the Bill and, in short, that it be deleted. If carried, the clause means that the definition of alcohol will be extended to cover all forms in which it might be presented. Specifically, it will cover powdered alcohol and vaporised alcohol, and it follows that they will then become regulated for sale in the UK under the Licensing Act 2003.

Yesterday we had a short debate on the action the Government are taking to address reports of increasing violence in prisons. The Minister replying referred to the White Paper, Prison Safety and Reform, in which there is a section on reducing the supply of and demand for illicit items. If I had been able to get into the debate yesterday, I would have asked the Minister to explain to the House how permitting for the first time in the UK the sale of powdered and vaporised alcohol will help to reduce the problems in prisons. I would be grateful if the Minister endeavoured to respond to that point. How can this change be justified against the background of the Government’s announcement last week that no-fly zones are to be imposed over jails in England and Wales to stop drones being used to smuggle drugs into prison grounds? It is against a background of numerous initiatives costing £1.3 billion that we are trying to tackle rising violence, drug use and other problems in prisons.

The Home Office may have consulted the drinks industry on this change, but did it consult its own Ministry of Justice, which is responsible for prisons, and the health authorities on how they view the proposals? I have tabled a whole range of Written Questions asking the Government about this topic and they have answered a fair number recently. I particularly asked if they would define the benefits of this change to the public. I have had no reply, so I should be grateful if the Minister told the House today what benefit the Government see from authorising the sale of powdered and vaporised alcohol.

Powdered alcohol has been around in some countries for quite a while—not vaping alcohol, which is a new development to which I will come back shortly. The production and marketing of powdered alcohol started to take off in the USA about two years ago—March 2015—when its sale was authorised by the federal bureau on drugs and drinks. This has been controversial in the States. Powdered alcohol can be consumed with fruit juices, water and other soft drinks. It can be mixed with other alcoholic drinks to double or treble their strength. It can be taken to and consumed in places where ordinary liquid alcoholic drinks cannot because they are prohibited, such as sporting and musical events, public places and on public transport. Powdered alcohol can be taken there because it cannot be detected. It can be baked, put into ice cream, and so on. A whole range of things can be done with it.

There has been an outcry in the States about the attempt to market and sell it. Opposition has grown over the months, and I understand that 27 states have banned its sale. The opposition has been such that there have been disputes about its legality, and the main producer of the main powdered alcohol—Palcohol—is having to take a different stance entirely to the one it adopted previously. It is interesting to note, too, that this year, Russia is banning the sale of powdered alcohol. Yet here we are in the UK contemplating legitimising its sale. It is true that it is not yet on sale here but as I pointed out to the Home Office, websites are already set up waiting to sell it online as soon as it is legalised for sale.

As the Home Office has conceded, alcohol in vaping form is already here. It is true that it is being presented as a novelty item, but how long will it remain as such? Indeed, is it being used as a novelty item? I do not think it will stay like that for long. The cigarette manufacturers are already moving big time into vaping. The CEO of Philip Morris, which has the big selling brand, Marlboro, and commands 30% of the market outside the USA, selling 847 billion cigarettes last year alone, said that he is on a mission to get millions more people vaping. He says he can see the day when Philip Morris stops selling cigarettes entirely, and will be totally into vaping.

So a big change is taking place—we will have a vaping future. Of course, it will not just be nicotine. Last week, I went to one of my local vaping shops in Battersea, which has 50 different vaping items on sale. As yet, they do not have alcohol, but when I talked to them about the possibility, they said, “Yes please, could you tell us when we can get our hands on it?”. The items they are already selling come from all different parts of the world, in all different concoctions. There must be a question from a health point of view about what people will be vaping and the effect over time on their health—even from what is currently available for sale.

Make no mistake: when we look at the future of vaping, what we are seeing is just the start of a major development and we should be aware of it—if indeed the Government intend to proceed with this measure. I hope they are prepared to think again. The truth is that powdered ethyl alcohol and vaping alcohol are mind and mood-altering substances little different to class C prohibited drugs, while those classified in the recently passed Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 will in due course cause the same kind of problems as the substances which have been previously been banned, if not more, particularly if vaping takes off on a big scale.

The Government should withdraw Clause 117 and to help them, I oppose its standing part of the Bill. To help them clarify the legal position—which is ostensibly their concern and why they are taking this action—I suggest they have a look at class C prohibited drugs and the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 to see whether these substances should be so classified. If not, they should simply and straightforwardly be banned.

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, I rise to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, and his persistent campaign against powdered alcohol and vaping. I accept what he says about these things being mind-altering substances, but surely that is because they contain alcohol, which is an accepted mind-altering substance—no more, no less than that. I understand the concern about the way you take the alcohol. Vaping, I understand, gives a very instant hit, unlike drinking alcohol, where you get a delayed reaction. However, have we not learned lessons from the past about prohibition and, in particular, prohibition of alcohol, not being an effective way of dealing with these issues? On these Benches, we would say it is far better to regulate, license and control the use of these new substances, rather than trying to ban them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I cannot disagree with the noble Baroness’s comments about the powdered form of alcohol. However, this obviously depends on what one compares the powder to. Some fairly lethal drinks are available. I am thinking of things such as absinthe, which was banned for years in this country. Every form of alcohol has the potential to do harm. As the relevant product is not yet on the market in this country, we will keep the situation under review.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe]

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for her support. As noble Lords might expect, I am disappointed with the Minister’s response. Alcohol in its present form is very badly regulated in a number of areas. A Health Minister is present who knows about the major problems we experience with alcohol. We need to look constantly at the Licensing Act 2003 to try to improve the situation.

Alcohol will be presented in quite a different form from anything we have experienced previously. Make no mistake—it will come. The Home Office seems to be way behind on this all the time. There is a manufacturer of this form of alcohol in Japan, where it is available, and a Dutch producer. I believe that some has been produced in Germany as well, so it is coming on to the market. The existing Licensing Act will not be able to hinder this product’s portability. That is what has changed. You can hide it and move it anywhere, whereas beer in a bottle or glass is visible. That is the distinction and that is why this new form of alcohol is so different. When we see the difficulties in places such as prisons, and the steps we are taking to reduce violence in them and stop illicit drugs going into prisons, to say that the Government will meet what is primarily the drinks industry’s requirement to have the legal position clarified, in which it has a vested interest, is the wrong way to go.

There is a solution to this problem. My proposal would not legalise this product. We could ban it. We could also for the first time consider classifying it as a class C drug. That would frighten the drinks industry to death. We could also classify alcohol in this form under the Psychoactive Substances Act. I suggest that the Minister takes the measure away and reconsiders it in those terms.

Clause 117 agreed.

Policing and Crime Bill

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)]

My Lords, I want to speak to Part 7 of the Bill, relating to alcohol and the Licensing Act 2003. It is not a major part of the Bill but the misuse of alcohol carries a huge cost to the country in a whole variety of different ways, particularly in the context of policing, crime and alcohol-related poor health.

The Minister mentioned it in his opening address, and I have been interested for some time in the way in which alcohol is being presented and now sold in a different way from the traditional liquid form—as powdered and vaporised alcohol. I have been asking the Government how they will deal with this development. Powdered alcohol is being manufactured in the USA and the best-known product there, Palcohol, has been legal since March 2015.

It has not been welcomed everywhere there because it can be taken easily to places where alcohol should not be consumed. It can be added to existing liquid alcohol drinks, thereby substantially increasing their strength. The biggest risk is that it can be, and in practice is being, added to the wide variety of soft drinks that minors and children consume. There is great concern about that. These are some of the reasons why to date, while it has been legalised in the States, 25 individual states have now banned the sale of the product. For all intents and purposes it is a psychoactive substance. It is mind altering and, as the Government document recognised, it can be vaped, as can other psychoactive substances. Ethyl alcohol is, of course, a drug. We talk about drink and drugs, but it is actually drugs and drugs if we look at it technically. I should like to know from the Minister why the Government are differentiating this from the other drugs that were recently banned under the psychoactive substances legislation. Why is this different from what has been banned under other legislation? Is it not really a legal high that is little different from the others?

Can the Minister also say what the Government think about the concerns and objections that have been raised in the States? If they intend to press ahead with the proposals to extend the definition of what constitutes alcohol to the Licensing Act 2003, does this in effect formally legalise the sale of powdered and vaporised alcohol in the UK from the time that this Bill becomes law? It is a little unclear at the moment. I have noticed that some websites are already preparing to sell powdered alcohol for vaping in the UK but they are waiting, as they put it, for the Government to legalise it. I presume that the Government are taking a step to legalise it, whereas it has hitherto not been seen as legal. Yet there is evidence in the States that where it has been legalised there are problems with it.

I should also like to know—I introduce the health element here—what consultations there have been with the health authorities on this change. The noble and learned Lord, in his introduction, also referred to your Lordships’ Select Committee which is currently reviewing the operation of the Licensing Act 2003. I declare an interest as a Member of it. Part of this review, which has just got under way, is that a department of the Home Office has recently presented what is in effect post-legislative scrutiny to the Committee. It runs to 80 pages and, for anyone interested in reading it, it is Command Paper 9278 and was published in June. Generally speaking, it gives a rather glowing report of what has developed over the years since the Act came into force in 2005. It points to the reduction in the amount of alcohol now consumed, which is true, particularly among young people, where there has been a decline in recent years. It points to the fall in crime and disorder in alcohol-related incidents, but there are some negatives that some of us see arising from the Act. For example, late-night opening has shifted alcohol-induced problems to later in the night, with some consequences for public order and certainly consequences for the police and their resourcing. It has also had quite a major impact on A&E and emergency services.

There has also been a growth in off-licence sales, where the number of licences and sales have gone up, while in on-sale premises, such as pubs and clubs, sales have gone into decline. We now see that more than 70% of alcohol sales are coming from the off-sale trade which is changing very significantly indeed, with very major players such as Amazon now selling alcohol online 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year.

That sort of change has probably increased preloading, where people buy cheaply in supermarkets, drink it at home and then go out later in the evening. That in turn has led in the opinion of some of us to a really major problem that has not been recognised so far by the Home Office—in particular, in the paper that it presented to the Select Committee, which I have just mentioned—about the ever-increasing number of NHS hospital patients with alcohol poisoning or other alcohol-related illnesses. There is conclusive evidence of more than 64 of these so-recognised alcohol-linked problems, including liver disease and cancer—breast cancer in particular. Strong evidence has now come through about the effect of excessive drinking by women and the risk of breast cancer. Notwithstanding the statistics available about hospital admissions, I suspect that if some more research is done on what is happening at GP level and the extent to which GPs are looking at alcohol-induced illnesses being dealt with there, on which relatively little research has been done, we will see that there has been a growth in that area, compared with what life was like in 2003 when the Act first came into place.

Among the 80-odd pages of the post-regulatory review the Home Office submitted to us, I found a couple of lines about health problems generally. When I checked up on it I discovered a two-line reference, which I researched, that there is now evidence from the Health & Social Care Information Centre that in 2014-15 there were more than 1 million alcohol-related patient admissions to hospital—to be precise, 1,059,000. That was a 5% increase over 2012-13. But going back to 2005, when the 2003 Act was first put into place, the figure was as low as 493,760 admitted to hospital. While there has been a decline in alcohol consumption and fewer incidents of violence reported to the police, the other side of the coin is a massive change, with a 115% increase in alcohol-related admissions to hospital. This is a significant factor and change in the ethos that we have to take into account when looking at the 2003 Act.

I would not want to repeat all these arguments in Committee. The health authorities have long been arguing that a major omission from the 2003 Act was the requirement to take into account the health implications arising from alcohol consumption. It has already been taken into account in Scotland, where a change has been adopted. I will seek in Committee to move an amendment. Even though this is a relatively small item in the context of the size of the Bill we have before us, it is an important element with very substantial costs attached to it for the country as a whole. Given we have a change in the Home Office, with a new Minister in charge, I hope we might perhaps look for a more positive response from it to the idea that the health objective should be imported into the criteria required before licences are granted for people to sell alcohol. I tried to do this previously with a Private Member’s Bill without any success, but I hope, given the weight of evidence now accumulating, that there will be a positive response from the Home Office to this and we will see a way forward that will certainly delight many people in the health authorities too.

Road Traffic Act 1988 (Alcohol Limits) (Amendment) Bill [HL]

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe Excerpts

Friday 22nd April 2016 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe]

1: Clause 2, page 1, line 12, leave out “Sections 1 and 2” and insert “Section 1”

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 2 standing in my name. These amendments are consequential to the amendments I moved in Committee. Technically I should have moved them then, and I apologise for not having done so. However, the merit of moving them now is that I have the chance briefly to express regret that in Committee the Minister firmly reiterated the Government’s unwillingness to support this Bill, notwithstanding that it seeks simply to bring us into line with what is happening in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales in reducing the drink-drive alcohol limit from 80 to 50 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The UK, where motorists can drive between three countries, should surely have common laws in this regard. That is logical and pure common sense, and I cannot understand why so often the Conservative Party allows itself to end up in the same bed as UKIP. As the Minister knows, that party is now campaigning in the forthcoming Scottish parliamentary elections on a manifesto that wants to lift the Scottish drink-drive limit of 50 back up to 80 milligrams, and of course to reintroduce cigarette-smoking rooms in pubs. Surely we do not support that—I hope not—and nor will the general public or motorists. RAC and AA polls now consistently show a majority in favour of reducing the limit of 80 milligrams, as do many police and crime commissioners, the National Police Chiefs Council, the Local Government Association and most other health, accident and road safety bodies and services.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

The noble Lord makes the assertion that the general public would support his Bill. I have to say that in 23 years as a Member of Parliament nobody ever came to me saying that he or she wanted a reduction in the alcohol limit—in fact, rather the opposite.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention, but times are changing. A lot of things were different 23 years ago. My noble friend Lady Hayter on the Front Bench says that she wrote to the noble Lord. I will leave him to sort that one out afterwards.

In Committee on 11 March, the Minister stated:

“The Government … maintain … that lowering the limit in itself is not going to change people’s behaviour”.—[Official Report, 11/3/16; col. 1571.]

With respect, that is wrong, as Scotland is proving. The Scottish drinks and hospitality industries certainly share that view; otherwise, why are they so up in arms about the change that has taken place? Is the Minister aware of their protests and the reason for them? Is it not because a cultural change is truly coming through in Scotland?

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

Is this not a case similar to that of plastic bags in supermarkets, where the devolved nations and regions led the way and in a populist stance the Government, only in a very tardy way, followed the precedent set by Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe]

I am grateful to my noble friend for that helpful intervention and I share his view. Unhappily, many deaths, accidents and injuries still occur as a result of drinking and driving. As I have argued previously, there has been little change since 2012—in fact, there has been a plateau—and the Government’s current policies are not really making any great difference. Therefore, I believe it is time that the Government themselves—I am seeking to help them in any way I can—embraced and encouraged such a change. The fact is that the drinks and hospitality industries will have to face up to the fundamental shift in opinion and culture that is starting to take place.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

This has had a very damaging impact on the hospitality industry in Scotland, as the noble Lord said earlier. Will he tell the House how many jobs he would expect to be lost if his proposals were carried out?

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe]

I am grateful for that intervention but I cannot give a precise figure. However, if the noble Lord will be patient, I will come to tell him not only how the number of jobs in the hospitality industry will be secured but will, I hope, be increased.

The simple fact is that the drinks and hospitality industry will have to change its attitude, as it had to do with the smoking ban—when people talked about all the jobs that would disappear and said that it would be the end of the world when smoking in public places was stopped. The industry should not be plying drivers with alcohol but encouraging patrons instead to have a non-drinking driver. It should look to improve—this is where I come to the answer to the noble Lord’s question—its competitiveness to attract more customers than it is at present. It is not this legislation that is the biggest threat to the industry. The biggest threat is cheap booze that is sold in supermarkets and off-licences, which leads to people drinking more at home rather than going out. The industry’s competitiveness is, in the main, weak at the moment because it has to sell alcohol in hotels and pubs at quite high charges compared with supermarkets and off-licences. If, as the Prime Minister wanted, the Government were prepared to undertake and embrace higher minimum unit pricing to have a level playing field for competitiveness, the industry could look forward to getting more people back into pubs and clubs. They would not buy so much in off-licences and supermarkets because drink would no longer be so cheap there.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

Does my noble friend not have a slight unease at any social policy that is being determined by price, which absolutely inevitably is of no consequence whatever to people who are better-off but substantially affects the less well-off?

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe]

I am grateful to my noble friend for that intervention. I do have that concern, but equally I have a very big concern about the cost to the National Health Service and the whole country. That cost bears down on the shoulders of all sections of the community.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

I am sympathetic to what the noble Lord is advocating, but he is making a Second Reading speech. If he could explain to us the purpose of the amendments, that would be extremely helpful.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe]

I was endeavouring to be brief but I did not expect so many interventions. These are technical amendments that follow from those I moved previously. They are straightforward and I am sure there will be no objection to them from the Minister. I am probably going beyond my brief at this point in the debate but I hope I can encourage the Minister to be more supportive than he has been so far, and that the Government will give some stronger leadership. Coming back to Scotland, I think the Minister is in favour of an evaluation taking place there. Will he tell the House when that is likely to start and when it is likely to report? I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

As someone who during his university days was often the driver for others who were merrier in the car, I can perhaps reflect on a personal dimension. Of course, the noble Lord is quite right that we need to consider the full impact of that and to look at the evidence base as presented.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe]

My Lords, I thank those who have intervened in this short debate. I am grateful to hear from the Minister that positive steps are now being taken to embark on a discussion with the Scottish Government.

Amendment 1 agreed.

Moved by

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe]

2: Clause 2, page 1, line 12, leave out “come” and insert “comes”

Airports: London

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe Excerpts

Monday 18th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

Indeed, it gives me great pleasure to join the noble Lord in wishing the Lord Speaker, on behalf of the whole House, a very happy birthday. In doing so—I am not sure that I shall get the chance later this week—I wish Her Majesty the Queen a very happy 90th birthday.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)]

On the decision that may be taken in the summer on the third runway and Heathrow, is the Minister aware that, for more than a decade, air pollution around Heathrow has been way above acceptable levels and little has been done by any Government? Regardless of the decision, will any steps be taken to try to solve that problem and ease the poisoning that is taking place, particularly of children?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

The noble Lord is right to raise the issue of pollution. That is why the Government are taking full consideration of the Davies Commission’s powerful recommendations on mitigating those impacts, so that appropriate consideration is given to ensure that those impacts can be mitigated, whatever the final decision on south-east expansion.

Road Traffic Act 1988 (Alcohol Limits) (Amendment) Bill [HL]

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe Excerpts

Friday 11th March 2016 Lords Chamber

Debate on whether Clause 2 should stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)]

My Lords, on the Second Reading of my amendment Bill on 29 January, I opened by saying that the Bill was precisely in accord with what had been piloted through the Scottish Parliament. As a consequence, it contained a provision in Clause 2 that permitted a person to elect to have a specimen of breath replaced with a specimen of blood or urine. However, as this former statutory option was removed from the Road Traffic Act 1988 by Part 1 of Schedule 11 to the Deregulation Act 2015, which came into force in April 2015, I therefore need to withdraw Clause 2 from my Bill. Therefore, I oppose the question that Clause 2 stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 disagreed.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe]

1: Clause 3, page 1, line 17, after “regulations” insert “, made by statutory instrument,”

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe]

My Lords, this amendment arises from the 20th report from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, published on 5 February 2016, relating to Clause 3(2) on the powers to appoint the commencement date for enactment. The committee recommended that, additionally, subsection (2) should require the regulations for the commencement date to be made by statutory instrument. I accept this and accordingly move the second amendment, which meets its recommendations and relates to Clause 3.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I thank the noble Lord for his comments. I agree that changes such as these have an impact. As he rightly pointed out, Scotland has introduced changes. We are talking regularly with our counterparts in the Scottish Government, but it is right that we await a more substantial evidence base for these changes. As I said, we are not contemplating any changes at this time.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe]

My Lords, neither of the amendments today is contentious so they should not pose any difficulties for the Government, although I know that the purpose of the Bill does. I am grateful to the Minister for setting out again that the Government are endeavouring to limit the damage done to individuals by drunken drivers. However, I am sorry that they still maintain there is not sufficient cause for embracing this measure, which would, in my opinion, lead to further lives being saved, fewer accidents and fewer people being damaged than is the case at present.

I do not want to repeat all that I said on Second Reading. However, notwithstanding what the Government have done, the numbers of deaths, accidents and injuries have virtually plateaued since 2012. Notwithstanding the minor changes made recently, there does not seem to be any indication of significant change ahead, even though Scotland has shown that very big changes can be effected by moving down to the 50 milligrams limit. While the Government are still digging in, I hope that the many individuals, organisations and members of the public who have supported me—I express my public gratitude to them—and who are in favour of this measure will continue to put pressure on the Government to bring about a change which will be in the best interests of all concerned, other than, perhaps, the drinks and hospitality industry.

Amendment 1 agreed.

Airports: Expansion

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe Excerpts

Thursday 10th March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

Not only does Britain need a hub airport, Britain has hub airports and they play an important part in aviation capacity around the world. In terms of orders for planes, it is really for airlines themselves to decide on a commercial basis what type of aircraft they require.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)]

My question is on the same theme as that of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. Will the Minister assure the House that, if perchance the referendum says no, the Government will still make the decision to press ahead with expansion in the south-east and Heathrow?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

We should not convolute the issues here. In terms of the referendum specifically, it was the previous Government under our current Prime Minister who gave the commitment that the people of this country would decide, and they will decide on 23 June.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe Excerpts

Monday 1st February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

What is required is for local councils to learn and look towards good practice. We have seen examples of good practice in place and have also seen how the Act has been used effectively—the transition from having 19 elements within the anti-social behaviour orders to having six has helped. But this is very much a matter for local authorities. We have seen good practice around the country, which needs to be replicated in those areas where we have seen such acts as the noble Lord just described.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)]

My Lords, can the Minister give a stronger assurance to the Lib Dems that they will not be prosecuted for skateboarding?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I assure the Lib Dems that if they were to break into song, they would not be prosecuted.

Road Traffic Act 1988 (Alcohol Limits) (Amendment) Bill [HL]

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe Excerpts

Friday 29th January 2016 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe]

That the Bill be read a second time.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the privilege, the opportunity, and not least the luck in the ballot to get the chance to bring forward this Private Member’s Bill. I am also grateful to all those who have kindly assisted me, including our clerks and the many outside organisations and campaigners who support this aim, and of course to the noble Lords who are going to speak today. I offer apologies from my noble friend Lord Rea, who was down to speak but has had to scratch.

This is a simple Bill whose objective is to better protect innocent citizens from accidental death, injury and harm from vehicle drivers who consume alcohol and then drive impaired. It also seeks to protect the drivers themselves. Specifically, it amends the Road Traffic Act 1988 to lower the maximum alcohol limits permissible when driving in the UK from the present blood alcohol concentration of 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood down to 50 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. There would be corresponding changes to breath and urine limits, but in this debate I will refer solely to the limit change using the acronym BAC.

The Act would apply to the whole of the UK, although, as most noble Lords know, Scotland has already enacted this. What they may not know is that the Welsh Assembly has proposed the adoption of a BAC limit of 50 for the Principality, and across the Irish Sea the North Ireland road traffic amendment order not only proposes a lower 50 BAC limit, but an even lower limit of 20 BAC for novice and some commercial drivers.

This amending Bill is precisely in accord with what was piloted from 2014 through the Scottish Parliament. As a consequence, I regret that Clause 2 contains a provision to reduce the limit below which a person could elect to have a specimen of breath replaced with a specimen of blood or urine. This statutory option was removed from the Road Traffic Act 1988 by Part 1 of Schedule 11 to the Deregulation Act 2015 which came into force in April 2015. 1 will therefore need to withdraw Clause 2 later, and I hope that this will make life easier for the Minister.

The European Union does not have a directive on a drink-drive limit, but as long ago as 1988 it first proposed harmonisation throughout Europe at a 50 BAC limit, which it recommended should be adopted. Over the years it has been adopted by all European Union countries except two: Malta and the UK. So I ask: who offers better protection to their citizens, and are the interests in favour of sticking with the present limit being better protected than innocent lives and limbs? To get the answers we need to look at a bit of history and then come up to current developments. These have been recently summarised by Professor Richard Allsop in his 2015 paper for the RAC Foundation entitled Saving Lives by Lowering the Legal Drink-Drive Limit.

It is now well recognised that drinking and driving impairs performance and is a leading cause of road traffic accidents. But, as some noble Lords may recall, that was not always the case. Even in the mid-1960s there was still debate as to whether moderate drinking increased or decreased the risk of collision. But others had recognised the danger much earlier. As long ago as 1954, the World Health Organisation reported that,

“the inference cannot be avoided that at a blood alcohol concentration of 50 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood, a statistical significant impairment of performance was observed”,

in more than half the cases it examined in the experiments it had undertaken. As a result, the WHO recommended a BAC limit many years ago.

The UK set up its own study in 1953 using what it called laboratory “tasking”, resembling driving vehicles on the road, which reported in 1959. It did not agree with the WHO’s recommendation but, while it acknowledged that substantial impairment of performance still occurred at levels below 80 BAC, it was suggested that those below that limit should not be criminalised. That was the reason given for not embracing the lower limit. In 1962-63 there was a large-scale study at Grand Rapids in the USA. This study quantified the relationship between BAC level and the risk of collision, and provided convincing evidence of greatly increased risk dependent on a driver’s alcohol level.

So why was the 80 BAC limit chosen? The choice of 80 BAC made by Barbara Castle, the then Minister of Transport, should be understood in the context of the evidence available at the time, and in 1967 it was probably influenced by several other salient factors too. The Grand Rapids evidence indicated that the average risk of involvement in a collision was roughly doubled at 80 milligrams. Further, 80 milligrams was within the range of levels then being considered or implemented by other countries. It was plausible that public and parliamentary acceptance could be gained, partly on the basis of advice that most people could have three small drinks without exceeding the 80 limit. However, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents has long contended that 80 was not decided solely on the basis of empirical accident risk assessments, but was influenced upwards by the need to make acceptable to the public the introduction for the first time ever of legislation limiting the amount of alcohol that drivers could consume.

Eighty milligrams was the level at which the Grand Rapids evidence in the form in which it was published enabled the increased risk to be established with the conventional statistical 95% level of confidence against a background of genuine difference of opinion as to whether the risk was increased or decreased. The last of these points is more statistically technical than the others, but it carried weight among those preparing advice for Ministers, as no doubt former Transport Minister the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, may pray in aid when he comes to make his points. But I will argue that that precise basis is relevant to the case for lowering the limit.

What has happened since 1967, as well as the widespread harmonisation of a 50 BAC limit in so many other countries, including Scotland? Importantly, there have been further large-scale studies, including those conducted in the late 1990s at Fort Lauderdale and Long Beach in the USA. They were similar to the Grand Rapids study, but were helped by advances in statistical techniques which had been developed since the 1960s. Further studies were done in nine states in the USA between 2006 and 2008, and all were read across to the UK in a similar way to the original Grand Rapids evidence. They indicated that the increase in the risk of a driver’s involvement in a collision if they have a BAC of 80 milligrams to be nearly three times as much for collisions leading to injury and about six times for collisions leading to death as compared to the mere doubling which had informed the setting of the limit at 80 BAC in 1967. Even at the lower BAC level of 50, which this Bill proposes, the increases in risk are respectively about 1.5 and 2.5 times more—that is, double the Grand Rapids figures back in 1967.

There is now a broad consensus that risk of involvement in a collision is increased rather than decreased by moderate drinking. Acceptance of this changes the appropriate statistical process for assessing the level of confidence in analysing the Grand Rapids and similar data from a two-tailed to a one-tailed test. The meaning of this for the Grand Rapids data in the form in which it was published is that increased risk is established with a statistical 95% level of competence from 60 BAC upwards instead of the then 80 upwards as applied. There is a stark difference, and there was also a stark difference of opinion on this in 1967.

The foregoing may seem a bit dry, but the science proves that the 1967 BAC of 80 is now not only outdated but can mislead to risk life and limb. At the end of the day, of course it is the motorist’s right to decide whether or not to drive after drinking, but they have a right to know the facts about the risks and impairment that drinking has on their driving. It is the Government’s duty and responsibility to provide those facts, especially when quite innocent citizens are involved or affected through drink-driving motoring accidents. Even though I am moving this, I ask the Minister, first, do the Government accept that the 1967 BAC of 80 carries far more risk than was originally believed? If so, what do they intend to do about correcting that? If, however, they maintain that 80 is still appropriate, I would like them to revalidate the figure and produce the science from a more scientific perspective than we have done previously.

Of course, it can be argued that limits do not really matter, and it is the deterrent of being caught and punished with heavy penalties that really counts. To a degree, that is, no doubt, true. In the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, the UK achieved major reductions in road deaths, injuries and accidents with 80 BAC. This was because the Government more vigorously enforced the limit than did many other countries, even though some had lower limits than we had.

This House produced two EU Select Committee reports on the Commission’s call for a 50 BAC limit in 1998 and 2002. Both supported the Commission’s recommendations. In response to the first, the Government, using their words, “was minded” to move to 50. The transport department supported it also. It was delayed, however, on the basis that it intended to deal with the matter in the context of a possible EU directive. That never came but, instead, in January 2001, the Commission issued a non-binding recommendation that member states should set a 50 BAC limit. It was scrutinised here and, again, adoption of the 50 BAC limit was recommended. The department supported the reduction but, to many people’s surprise, including my own as I chaired the sub-committee, the Government did an about turn at the 11th hour. Instead, they said that they wanted to review the issue in their proposed longer term motoring strategy that they were about to undertake.

During the ensuing decade, deaths and injuries continued to remain high but were reducing slowly, although the 2007-08 recession saw the biggest fall for quite some time. Opinion polls, however, particularly those conducted by the motoring associations, began to reveal growing public concern about drink-driving and support for the lower limit. This culminated in December 2009 in an independent review of drink and drug law by Sir Peter North QC. Most judged his report in 2010 as an excellent piece of work. On drink-driving, North was convinced by the evidence that the risk of involvement in a collision is increased by even moderate drinking. In particular, the review found that lowering the limit from 80 milligrams to 50 milligrams could save over 100 lives a year, based on evidence from NICE, as well as preventing many more serious accidents.

As a consequence, he recommended that the 80 BAC should be reduced to 50 for five years, after which there should be a further review with the aim of establishing a 20 BAC. The newly elected House of Commons Transport Select Committee in 2010 was not so convinced. It believed that the North report sent mixed messages. It in turn sent few messages or recommendations from its report. It did not dispute that drivers were impaired further at 50 BAC and saw an effectively zero limit, although too great a step at that time to take, as probably the best option in the longer term. Instead, its key recommendation was that,

“any reduction in the legal drink drive limit should only occur after an extensive Government education campaign, run in conjunction with the pub, restaurant and hospitality industries, about drink strengths and their effect on the body”.

The committee’s report evidence shows that heavyweight lobbying was on it from the drinks industry. In that decade, 5,330 people were killed and 170,000 casualties were also witnessed in the UK.

Since the North review in 2010, there has been a levelling off in the previous declining figures for drink-related road deaths and casualties. Further models, including that proposed by the RAC Foundation’s report authored by Professor Richard Allsop, also associate significant, if not as dramatic, reductions in death and injury which a drop to 50 BAC would produce. Allsop’s “cautious” estimate is that there would be 25 fewer deaths and 95 fewer serious injuries per year.

Even more recent news and perhaps the most compelling for change comes from Scotland where a 50 BAC limit is now in force. The BAC change has been accompanied by a wide-ranging publicity campaign which has stimulated a nationwide debate on drink-driving on a scale not witnessed previously. An RAC survey shows 79% of Scottish motorists believe that moving the limit to 50 is a positive move while a Scottish Government survey found that 82% of people agreed that it is unacceptable to drink any alcohol before driving, and only 12% of people disagreed with that, which was quite a surprise and a very big change in public attitudes.

I anticipate the Minister will express interest and welcome the Scottish developments. But I suspect that the Government will then want more time and data to assess what is happening north of the border—perhaps even two or three years before they get the figures that they would want to analyse. Meanwhile, the Government state that drink-driving “remains a priority”. But they have made only very small changes to the law over the past five years, nor have they indicated anything really radical ahead. In fact, their policy has probably stalled since 2010, which is why there has been a plateauing in the number of deaths and injuries. In addition, since 2010, police numbers have been cut by 23%, which has had an effect right across the whole of motoring, including drink-driving. I was not surprised, therefore, that 10 of the Government’s police and crime commissioners were in touch with me yesterday pledging support for this Bill. Furthermore, they were pointing out that from a financial perspective, the Local Government Association’s estimate that lowering the current drink-drive limit to 50 BAC would save almost £300 million annually by reducing the number of call-outs to accidents and the associated public sector costs of police, ambulances and hospital admissions. It argued that this funding could be ploughed back into making communities safer. It went on to say that it has overwhelming public support for this legal change. Research released only this morning from the RAC’s Brake, the road safety charity, and the Alcohol Health Alliance of an opinion poll of 5,000 respondents shows that 77% of people in the country favour a 50 BAC limit bringing England and Wales in line with Scotland and virtually the rest of the EU, apart from Malta.

Therefore, the Government have no problem in carrying the country with them on this Bill, apart perhaps the drinks industry. The public know increasingly on this topic what is right and what will help best to protect them. The cost of the change to this highly questionable and now unsafe law made back in 1967 will be minimal. It will be far outweighed by other cost savings, but even more importantly by the saving of more life and limbs. If, however, the Government delay—and it would be a delay because I believe, deep down, that they must know that this will have to come, as we cannot have differing levels between the UK countries, with trains and cars crossing borders every day as we have at the moment—I forecast that they can expect to see at least 600 people killed and around 25,000 casualties over the next three years as a result of maintaining the present level. The Minister and his colleagues can avoid or minimise these figures. They simply have to join the public view and do what is right now. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe]

My Lords, I am grateful to all who have spoken in this quite short debate. I thought that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, would probably want to maintain the status quo for the time being but if he is contemplating tabling an amendment to go for random breath testing, which would help, I would be very pleased indeed to speak to him about it and would consider accepting an amendment from him in Committee. It will not be just one silver bullet that solves all the problems; neither would the Bill. There have to be a range of factors brought to bear. My complaint at the moment, as the House will have heard, is that the Government are stalling. Yes, the Minister has referred to a number of changes but, quite frankly, they are very small indeed.

The heart of this is that the Government have a policy of saying, “Don’t drink and drive” but in practice they do not try to put forward that policy. In truth, if there was such a policy, the limit would be 20 mg. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said that I had got the North report wrong. I have not; I have read the North report well and the Select Committee report. I have also read the Government’s response to the North report and the Select Committee. True, there has been no precise impact assessment made of how the industry would be affected but the industry made vehement and significant contributions to the work of the committee in 2010.

In particular, when the Government responded in Cm 8050, they said in paragraph 2.26 in regard to whether it would affect people that:

“The majority would not need to lower consumption to stay legal with a lower limit, but their response to the present limit suggests that they will not want to take any chance with the risk of offending. These responsible people have the choice to drink even less—and especially to drink less when they are out. If that happened, it would have a substantial impact on the businesses they patronise”.

That was the department’s view and I believe that it is what the Government support. That is why when they talk about a policy of “Don’t drink and drive”, they do not actually follow it through—because there is pressure from other quarters to continue to allow people to drink at low levels. What I have argued today is that those lower levels are dangerous. I have argued not solely about deaths but about those many thousands of people who are injured and still alive. There are such people around in wheelchairs, and so on.

Repeat offenders—those who go well over the limit—are an extraordinarily difficult group to deal with. I would not for a moment deny that and would be very happy to meet with the Minister and talk about that right across the board. But it is odd that in the evidence which has come out these people, when they are tackled, say that the one thing that would influence them would be to be told that there was no drink and driving whatever. Then they would not drink. That has never been tested and there is no science on it but that is the idea which they put forward. If we went to a 20 mg level in due course, maybe that would be the point at which it would be tested.

Scotland has already had a strong outcry from the drinks industry about the way that the changes affect it. To pick up the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, it is making a cultural change in Scotland. As she rightly argued, we have seen many other cultural changes but in this area we have been slow. It is now time to move on.

I thank my noble friend Lady Hayter so much for her support. I pay tribute to the work that she has done over many years. Many of your Lordships may not know that she was the original founder of Alcohol Concern, which deals not just with this issue but with a wide range of alcohol concerns. It has done tremendous work in campaigning over many years.

We need other changes, too. If restaurants and pubs have a problem, what I cannot understand is why the root of what takes their business away is not tackled: the cheap booze sold to the public in supermarkets. If we were to go to a minimum unit price then the pubs, restaurants and so on would be on an equal competitive basis and would find more people going to them than has been the case. They need not drink, as we would hope to be running a campaign saying that if you go to a restaurant and have a drink, you should have a non-drinking driver with a car among you. That is a very good campaign indeed and I would be happy to support efforts along those lines. A package of measures is needed. A minimum unit price, even though it is not being pushed here, is a significant part of it and would answer some of the criticisms that have been levelled.

There are a whole range of issues here that need to come together. I will be coming back in Committee. The British Transport Police has suggested that the present limit needs to be equalised with that in Scotland, where there is a disparity. I think that that arises under different legislation and I am not quite sure how it needs addressing. I will speak to the Minister about it and see whether it is appropriate to table an amendment to the Bill.

In the mean time, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions, in particular my noble friend Lord Rosser on the Front Bench. I know that he had a little difficulty in determining from our friends in the party at the other end just what line to take on the Bill. He pointed to some very interesting and useful statistics and facts. I rather suspected from the way he was speaking that he has been convinced that while he may not have had a strong lead on policy from the other end, he will now go back and give them a very strong lead on what the Labour Party’s policy should be. It remains for me just to thank everyone who has contributed. We will be coming back in Committee, as I have at least one amendment that I will be moving. I conclude by asking the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.

Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Railways: South-West Network

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe Excerpts

Thursday 28th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

The noble Lord raises an important issue about investment across the country and connectivity. I will write to him specifically about that particular route but, again, I repeat the commitments made. The investment we are making in the railway industry, including HS2, underlines the Government’s commitment to improve rail network connectivity across the whole of the United Kingdom.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)]

May I revert to my noble friend Lord Berkeley’s Question and the Answer that the Minister gave? Can the Minister say why the money is not going in and there has been a pause on the work to be undertaken by Network Rail? What is the reason for that?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

As I said in my original response, the Government have made commitments. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, talked about Dawlish, and we have completed the task there. He also referenced the new GRIP study and the issues around governance and finding funding for that. The department is looking at that.