Street Maryan: Alcohol Reform Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Street Maryan: Alcohol Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 24 October 2012. Volume:685;Page:6183. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak to this Part 6 in particular clause 383. In that respect the Supplementary Order Paper that stands in my own name which is Supplementary Order Paper 112 would amend clause 382. I just want to correct that I am talking about clause 382 and my Supplementary Order Paper on that is 112. My Supplementary Order Paper is quite straightforward. It is quite a simple measure and again as with every other speech I have made in this Chamber on this piece of legislation it has a health focus. It imposes a health levy—in other words a tax. Indeed it is a tax but not an excise tax that is levied on sale but sheeted back home to the producers more often than not. In this case it is a levy that is gathered at point of sale. In other words it is an impost on consumers and it is in regulation form. In other words it is at the discretion of the Minister who could levy this health levy as and when required using what the Law Commission recommended which was price as a deterrent against heavy alcohol consumption. 
The most obvious use of this health levy would be for a Minister to declare that a certain amount of money would be added to the price of a particular product line at the point of sale for off-licences. This would apply only at off-licences; not on on-licence premises like restaurants or cafes or bars but off-licence premises—wholesalers supermarkets bottle stores and so on as we are familiar with. This levy could be extracted at the point of sale it would be an impost on the consumer and the Minister could apply it to for example RTDs—ready-to-drink products. I personally consider those to be the most flagrant attempt of the alcohol industry to lure young people by disguising what is otherwise the bitter flavour of alcohol and an acquired taste as a sweet drink that can be attractive to young people. In other words it is getting young people hooked on consuming quantities of alcohol without really appreciating the fact that they are doing so. 
The point of this levy being exercised at point of sale is that it would have the deterrent effect of in some respects minimum pricing but that deterrent effect could be applied to particular product lines for a certain length of time. I also support my colleague Phil Goff’s Supplementary Order Paper when it comes to ready-to-drink products. But this one has two notable features that I think are worth speaking to. 
The first is that this levy is ring-fenced. It is pegged to go back to the health sector; not to go into the consolidated fund not to go back to the alcohol industry but to go into the provision of health services arising from excessive consumption and abuse of alcohol. That is why it is called a health levy. It would be targeted for a particular purpose to a particular product for a certain length of time. If it became apparent that there were other products if say the Minister decided to exercise this health levy on ready-to-drinks and another product line emerged over time that had become fashionable for young people for example to consume in harmful quantities—because that is the primary driver or rationale for this Supplementary Order Paper—the Minister could then apply another levy to another product line for an alternative length of time. 
So this Supplementary Order Paper has these two notable features that others do not have. One is that it can be applied flexibly to a range of product lines and the other is that the proceeds from it would go back into and be tagged for the provision of health services for those who have problems arising from alcoholism or the excessive use or abuse of alcohol. This is fairly straightforward. It is a health levy at point of sale. It would be established by regulation and therefore would not need to come back to the House on a regular basis. It could be done by regulation and come to the scrutiny of the Regulations Review Committee. It could be used variably across a range of products so that it could specifically target certain products such as the one I have suggested ready-to-drink beverages or spirits beer wine or other alcoholic beverages according to their proven and demonstrable harmful effects. 
 One of the things that I keep coming back to is that the Law Commission did not make its recommendations in a vacuum. I am still disappointed that this Government has not taken up some of the forceful recommendations of the Law Commission because as I read it the Law Commission arrived at its recommendations on the basis of evidence. 
This health levy is also predicated on the basis of any new evidence that might emerge in the future that would single out and target particular alcohol products as being harmful—harmful because they are fashionable harmful because they are marketed in a particularly deceptive way to young people harmful because they are disguised harmful because they are more readily accessible than other products or for whatever reason that they might cause harm. The underlying reason for this Supplementary Order Paper is to avoid harm to minimise harm and where harm has been proven to occur to ensure that the proceeds from the health levy be applied back into the problem health areas. So its application to health problems arising from abuse of alcohol will in fact address one of the Law Commission’s recommendations in this regard. 
The establishment of a point-of-sale health levy only for off-licence premises is also a mechanism that can stop heavy discounting possibly to below cost. It can be used to prevent that loss-leading scenario that happens in off-licences such as supermarkets. It would also have a very limited effect on those who drink safely and responsibly. If a favourite product is subject to this levy then people who drink safely and responsibly are not going to be consuming it in such quantities that they feel a huge impact from the levy. But where it is purchased and consumed in excess and in large quantities there will be a deterrent effect. 
This Supplementary Order Paper combines the deterrent effect of additional price mechanisms without that being sheeted back home to producers such as wine growers. It applies that levy to health remedies and services for those suffering from the effects of alcohol abuse. This is a Supplementary Order Paper that is worthy of consideration. I would appeal once more to the Minister to look on it favourably and I commend it to the Committee. Thank you.