(Except clauses 1, 3, 7, 8, 12, 20, 21, 25, 67 and 81 to 84, schedules 1, 18, 22 and 23, and new clauses relating to microgeneration) - Clause 5
Finance Bill
9:00 am
Colin Breed (Shadow Minister, Treasury; South East Cornwall, Liberal Democrat)
I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Illsley, for our deliberations this morning. We are discussing clause 5 on duty and tax on alcohol sales.
Most people would accept that if access to almost anything is increased and the cost is reduced, consumption is likely to increase, although they would not be certain by how much. Access to alcohol has increased in recent years, as have licensing hours more recently, with availability in so many different outlets. Therefore, if there is not a reasonable increase in cost—for example, in line with inflation—consumption will increase in the way that it has. That has given rise to health and, more particularly, antisocial issues, because alcohol certainly has some influence on antisocial behaviour and perhaps on domestic violence and so on.
It is important and right that the Government maintain the cost of alcohol by increasing the duty in line with inflation. There may even be a case for increasing it beyond that, but I am happy with the proposal to increase it in line with inflation.
I want to emphasise a point to the Government. There is a difference between sales from licensed premises and from off-licence premises. On the whole, and particularly more recently with the tightening up of some of the licensing arrangements, licensees of public houses and so on have been more responsible. They exercise more control and if they fall out of line, they may have conditions placed on their licence or even lose it. In fact, only last week or the week before, a licensee in my constituency lost his licence because of problems inside and outside the premises. That is a warning to others.
I find in my constituency, as other hon. Members may find in their constituencies, that much of the antisocial behaviour and binge drinking on the streets, particularly under-age drinking, usually emanate from off-licence sales, which are far less protected by legislation and more likely to provide people with alcohol when they should not have it, either because they are already intoxicated or they are under age.
In recent times, pubs have been hit with more legislation, higher energy costs and so on, yet supermarkets have promotions that reduce the cost. The differential between the two outlets in terms of access and cost has become rather too wide. Have Treasury Ministers or the Government studied the option of an aspect of variable duty? Perhaps they could provide a different rate of duty for those sales made from off-licences and those made from on-licences, which would recognise the issue about the social aspects and availability. I believe that there is a case for at least considering some sort of differential rate for off-licence and on-licence sales of alcohol.
In passing, can I request an explanation of the treatment of the spirits tax? I think that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West referred to this earlier in our deliberations on the clause. I am not certain why that tax has been frozen for some time. It might well be a measure to protect the Scotch whisky industry and, in my part of the world, Plymouth gin sales, but that seems a little strange in terms of our promotion of free trade and so on. It might mean that the tax on spirits was out of line, and so it has been frozen to get it back into line. If that is the case, when do we anticipate that spirits taxation will be back in line so that it can start to increase again? However, the Financial Secretary might be able to give us another explanation.