Little Andrew: Alcohol Reform Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Little Andrew: Alcohol Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 24 October 2012. Volume:685;Page:6148. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
ANDREW LITTLE (Labour) 
: 
 It was pleasing to hear from the honourable member Cam Calder in his contribution to the debate—at least to hear from a member from the Government at last on these very important considerations. As I think we have established in other parts of the debate on this very important bill the Alcohol Reform Bill the earlier debate on age alone has somewhat derailed the reality of the requirements or the need for proper regulation around alcohol sale—that is that it is not just a question of age and regulating the age of purchase; there are other measures that are required as well. Pricing is one local input and regulation is another and access and availability is yet another. 
I want to talk to my Supplementary Order Paper 110 which deals with the accessibility or availability of alcohol. But before I do that I just want to say in relation to the local alcohol policies and the ability of local authorities to make effective regulation on the sale and distribution of alcohol that it does sound suspiciously like social well-being that local authorities will be called upon to regulate and to consider and to deliberate upon. Yet we know that in other legislation this Government is doing its darnedest to remove that power and that ability from local authorities. So this is somewhat contradictory to this Government’s strategy—dare I say because there does not seem to be one—but in any event the other failing apart from being inconsistent with the overarching local government legislation is that of course it is not mandatory. It is if you like a voluntary scheme that local authorities can enter into. 
If there is one thing that has become clear in my consultations with members of the public or the communities that I have engaged in regularly since I have been a MP on this issue it is that they are looking for leadership from this House. They look to Parliament to provide leadership. For this legislation as it stands—with or without the age of purchase issue that has been disposed of leaving it at 18—the overwhelming view is that this is incapable of making a material difference to the very real social problems that the existing regime on the sale and distribution of alcohol are presently creating. People are looking for a material difference a substantial change that is going to make a real difference to the availability of alcohol so that we can start—all of us: parliamentarians local authority members entire communities—to take responsibility and take control of the very real social issues that a much more liberal alcohol regime has been creating. 
In relation to that my Supplementary Order Paper dealing with the opening hours or the trading hours of off-licence premises is very important. The default position created by the bill is that off-licences will be able to trade or have default trading hours of 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. It is simply unnecessary in a community and in a society awash with alcohol as it is for off-licences to be trading for such an extensive and extended range of hours—16 hours in a day. The purpose of my Supplementary Order Paper is to simply accept a reality: for there to be alcohol available at totally socially responsible and socially acceptable levels it is not necessary for off-licences to be open so early and it is not necessary for them to be open so late. Having opening hours from 10 in the morning to 8 in the evening allows those who are responsible—planners and organisers of events where they wish alcohol to be available either at home or when they are inviting people round—to have ample time to make their purchases of alcohol. 
I think one of the arguments that we have to get on top of is this argument we often hear that rights are being infringed. There are no rights being infringed. I make that argument because we consider the issue of rights in this context to be that the obverse of a right is not responsibility but obligation. When we claim a right we are claiming that there is an equal obligation on another to observe or respect or uphold that right. There can be no claimed right of access to alcohol or access to purchase alcohol. What is now called for is an acceptance that alcohol is a substance that is capable of causing harm and that demonstrably is causing harm so there can be no question of a right to alcohol. The reality is that it has been a part of our social landscape—a feature of our social lubrication if you like—over many decades and over centuries so no one is arguing that we should ban alcohol because it can be consumed responsibly. But the regulatory regime we have in place will reflect our view about how important it is or how accessible it should be. My submission in support of my Supplementary Order Paper is that it is time to send a signal that a greater restriction on the availability and accessibility of alcohol is now due if we are to get to grips with the very serious problems that it is creating. 
The proposition in my Supplementary Order Paper is to reduce the default hours to 10 a.m. to 8 p.m. There can be no complaint or criticism that that does not allow reasonable access for those who participate in and partake of this substance this drug responsibly and in a socially acceptable sort of way. I urge members in particular those members opposite whom I met in the lobby when we came to vote on the purchase age—we were all voting for the raising of the age to 20—who in the comfort of the lobby expressed great concern about the more liberal access to alcohol that we presently have and implore them to think again to think very carefully about the sorts of changes that are being proposed in all of these Supplementary Order Papers and to support those changes that are about making a material and sensible difference so that we have a more responsible alcohol sale and purchase regime. They know that they want change. That is what they wanted when they voted for raising the age to 20. There is more they can do. There is more that has to be done. They know it can be done and by supporting these other Supplementary Order Papers they can achieve that and salve their conscience.