On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition did not mean to mislead the House when he said that Michael Foot was a friend of the Soviet Union. Michael was a staunch anti-Stalinist and a critic of the Soviet Union. When I was put in prison by the communists in Warsaw for supporting Solidarity, Michael Foot came to support my release, at a time when Margaret Thatcher was denying visas to Poles who were trying to escape from communism. We need to learn some history, which the Leader of the Opposition is wholly incapable of.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his attempted point of order. With his customary force and clarity, he has put his views on the record. I must say to him and to the House that I was, of course, listening very carefully to what the Leader of the Opposition said—I always listen carefully to what every right hon. and hon. Member says—and my distinct recollection is that he referred to his disagreement with the views of Mr. Foot on the subject of nuclear disarmament—[Interruption.] Will the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) let me finish? [Interruption.] Order. I will deal with this. The right hon. Gentleman has asked me for a ruling, and he is going to get it. He ought to listen to my ruling, which I hope the House will do as well. The Leader of the Opposition said that he disagreed with Mr. Foot’s views on nuclear weapons and on the Soviet Union, but he certainly did not accuse him of supporting the Soviet Union—

rose—

Order. I do not want to get into any further debate on the matter, and I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman seriously expects me to do so.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can we celebrate an unusual occasion—namely, an apology from a Secretary of State? Is there a way of putting it on the official Hansard record? The Speaker will know that—

Order. I am sorry to cut the hon. Gentleman off; it is always a pleasure to listen to his mellifluous tones. Even as he is delivering his attempted point of order, however, he is barely able to conceal his smile, for the simple reason that he knows perfectly well that what he is saying does not constitute a point of order—

rose—

Order. The hon. Gentleman has put his views on the official record—[Interruption.] Well, he has as far as I am concerned, and he is not going to have the opportunity to do so any further. I have made my position clear, and I shall brook no contradiction.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you, as a defender of Back-Bencher rights, to help me? I wrote to the Prime Minister on 14 January about Lord Paul, who you may remember, Mr. Speaker, drove the Armstrong pension fund into deficit, robbing thousands of their rightful pensions. I wrote to the Prime Minister on behalf of my constituents asking how that man could become a Privy Counsellor when he fulfilled none of the criteria required to become one. As I said, I wrote on 14 January with a legitimate question about someone who sits in the other place, but, as far as I can see, has no right to be a Privy Counsellor. I have had no reply, so can you help me, Mr. Speaker, to elicit a reply from a Prime Minister who will not answer questions?

I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, who is an assiduous attender and is frequently inclined to raise points of order, but I am afraid that what he said was not a point of order, but a point of frustration. Let me make two observations for his benefit and for that of the House. First, I remind the hon. Gentleman that Members should not criticise Members of the other place other than on a substantive motion. I have had reason to make this point before, and I hope that I shall not have to keep repeating it. [Interruption.] Order. I am trying to help the hon. Gentleman; he should be grateful to me, although he shows no sign of it. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman refers to a letter that he has sent. I know that he attaches enormous importance to his letter, and so do I, but a letter is not a parliamentary question, so it does not constitute a parliamentary proceeding.

rose—

Mr. Fabricant will have to wait a moment. He has already had one go and I will give him another in a moment.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is on a similar matter and I wonder whether you can help me. I wrote to the Prime Minister on 11 November about a serious matter—what I believe to be prima facie evidence of a serious breach of the ministerial code by the former Prime Minister, Tony Blair. I have had one acknowledgement. I subsequently wrote to the Prime Minister again on 19 January and 9 February, but he shows no sign of wishing to respond to this serious matter. There is every indication that he wants to get past the election before replying. Can you help me, Mr. Speaker, in any way to secure a proper reply to this most serious issue?

The hon. Gentleman rarely requires any help in the pursuit of his political campaigns. I had an advance inkling of his intended point of order, but the problem is that it is not a point of order for the Chair. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman why not. First, it relates to a letter. The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) attaches as much importance to his letter as does the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Stuart) to his, but it does not constitute a parliamentary proceeding. That is the first point. The second is that I am not responsible for the ministerial code. The hon. Member for Lewes may well think that I should be, and I am grateful to him for his support and encouragement, but I am not.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families has apologised to my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) in a letter—not my letter, but his letter. How can it get broader publicity and be recorded in the House?

The hon. Gentleman is abusing points of order. I have the highest regard for the hon. Gentleman, but when he talks about how to achieve wider publicity, he knows that he has achieved his objective. He should not abuse our procedures any further.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not know whether you noticed in this morning’s obituary columns the passing of Andrée Peel, who was known as “agent X” in the second world war and saved the lives of many hundreds of allied servicemen before being tortured and put in a concentration camp. There seems to be no clear mechanism by which Members can pay their respects to the passing of great people such as this gallant lady, so I wondered whether you, Mr. Speaker, would give some consideration to providing such a mechanism in the future.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we debated parliamentary reform last Thursday, but it is of course a matter of continuing business. I am very open to suggestions from the hon. Gentleman and others, but in the short term, it is open to him to table an early-day motion to express his admiration for the deceased individual. In the light of what he has said about her, he might well find that he could muster quite a lot of support.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you for calling me. I was getting worried because my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) has had two points of order and I had not had any. Over the last 13 years, I have asked you, Mr. Speaker, your predecessors, the Cabinet Secretary, almighty God and just about anyone I can think of to try to get the Government to answer questions—not letters, but questions, which are parliamentary proceedings, Mr. Speaker. What recourse do Back Benchers have against the Government from the Prime Minister downwards when Ministers are determined not to answer questions?

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her point of order. What I would say to her is this. First, we introduced, very recently, a tracking system whereby information on which questions had been answered by Departments and which had not would be publicly available. It was my hope, and that of others in the House, that that mechanism of transparency would be a sufficient spur to trigger speedier responses than Members had been receiving. I think that the right hon. Lady should exercise a degree of patience—

I have not got long.

The right hon. Lady has a long time left on the planet, albeit probably not much time left in the House.

I hope that that system will have the desired effect. However, let me also say to the right hon. Lady and to Ministers that when Members table parliamentary questions, they are entitled to speedy and substantive replies.

The right hon. Lady should know that I have often discussed this matter with the Leader of the House. I know that the Leader of the House attaches great importance to it and constantly drives Ministers to respond more quickly, but we will clearly have to step up our efforts. If the right hon. Lady is asking me whether I am open to the idea that new measures might be required in a subsequent Parliament to bring about improvement, I can assure her that I am as open-minded about that as I am about most other matters.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have noted that earlier, during the heated exchanges that characterise Prime Minister’s Question Time, a number of Labour Back Benchers said that Cross Benchers in another place—specifically Lords Guthrie and Boyce—were Tories. They attributed to distinguished public servants political partiality. May we have a ruling on the appropriateness of Members of this House accusing Members of another House who are distinguished public servants of speaking from a partisan position, when all that they have ever done throughout their careers is stand up for the principle of public service?

I note what the hon. Gentleman has said—with his usual alacrity—and my response is that I think that, albeit with the most public-spirited motives, he is seeking to continue an earlier argument or debate, and I do not think that that would be seemly today.

Let me add for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman that the utterances to which he was referring were delivered from a sedentary position. The Members concerned were not on their feet, and it was not easy for me—particularly given the amount of noise and hubbub—to see precisely who was guilty. But I will keep an eye on it, and I know that the hon. Gentleman will encourage me in my efforts to do so.

rose—

Mr. Chope has been very patient. We must give him a go.

I am normally very patient, Mr. Speaker.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I draw your attention to motion 7 on today’s Order Paper, which stands in the name of the Financial Secretary? It calls on the House to authorise the amazing sum of £23,893,853,000, which represents excess expenditure by the Government in the year ending 31 March 2009. I think that that is probably the largest sum of money that any Government have ever spent in excess of any supplementary estimate or authorisation of the House.

As you will know, Mr. Speaker, this matter goes to the heart of the purpose of being in this legislature, which is to hold the Government to account on issues of expenditure. How will we be able to hold a debate on the motion under the rules of the House, given that it has been tabled in a form that precludes debate and only allows it to go through on the nod or following a vote? It has been said that it would then be incorporated in a Consolidated Fund Bill, but it would not be possible for us to debate that either.

Perhaps your Clerk is advising you, Mr. Speaker, that the matter is under the control of the Public Accounts Committee. I am advised that the Public Accounts Committee was told that it had no authority to do anything other than allow the motion to be tabled on the Order Paper and to be nodded through.

Order. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I think that I have heard enough of what he has to say to be able to formulate a coherent response. I am grateful to him for his attempts at lip reading, or simply at hearing the advice of the Clerks, but I am afraid that on this occasion he is mistaken in his supposition as to the views of the Clerks. I know that the hon. Gentleman has both an active mind and a fertile imagination, but in this case he is getting ahead of himself. We have not got to that matter yet. We will get to it in due course. I know that the hon. Gentleman deprecates the fact that there will be no opportunity for a debate on it, but it will be conducted in accordance with the agreed procedures of the House. The hon. Gentleman is nothing but an enthusiastic proceduralist and so there will be an opportunity, if he remains dissatisfied, to divide the House. That is something on matters of this kind to which the hon. Gentleman is no stranger.

Further to that point of order—

Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting very excited. I shall take a point of order from him once more, but I appeal to Members to calm down—there was a point at which I thought that the House was going to have a collective fit. The national health service has enough responsibility as it is outside this House.

I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you will appreciate the difference between having a chance for a debate and just having a vote. Since this is, as you rightly say, an issue of procedure, should Government excesses of the order of £23 billion appear on the Order Paper in future, would you recommend that the Procedure Committee should look into the issue to decide whether it should be subject to a debate rather than going through on the nod or on a vote?

What I would say to the hon. Gentleman—this becomes curiouser and curiouser—is that I am well aware, because I made the point myself, that the matter is subject to a vote but not to a debate. I am genuinely a little surprised and even tickled that the hon. Gentleman should suggest that I invite the Procedure Committee to consider this matter. The hon. Gentleman is a distinguished and celebrated member of the said Committee and he has never before required any encouragement from me to press for a Committee of which he is a member to consider a matter.

indicated dissent.

There is no point in the hon. Gentleman shaking his head in evident disapproval of what is being said from the Chair. The procedure on this matter, I should emphasise to all attending to our proceedings, is a procedure of the House on which the House has agreed. It was not decreed by me. I know that the hon. Gentleman would not want to convey any contrary impression.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am glad that the Leader of the House is in her place—or nearly in her place—for this point of order. Last Thursday, historically, the House agreed without a Division to set up a Back-Bench business committee in time for the start of the next Parliament. Will you confirm, Mr. Speaker, that the only way that can be done is if a Standing Order is passed in this Parliament to do that job? Will you further confirm that, at least for the time being, that Standing Order can only be put on the agenda above the line by the Government? Finally, will you confirm that, given that the House has spoken overwhelmingly in favour of the matter, it would be a block to necessary and voted-for reform and would, indeed, defy the will of the House if that Standing Order were not brought forward by this Government in this Parliament to be passed and to implement the will of the House as voted for last Thursday?

The Leader of the House is present and may want to respond, but the hon. Gentleman’s supposition about the Standing Order is, in my judgment, correct and work is in hand. I know that he is by nature—perhaps rightly—of a suspicious disposition, but I do not think that he should be too suspicious. If the Leader of the House wants to comment, she is welcome to do so but she is under no obligation.

Further to that point of order, I can reassure the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) that of course we will not defy the will of the House. We are completely clear that once a resolution is passed by the House that requires Standing Orders to put it into effect, that is what will happen next. Throughout all this, there has been a climate of unwarranted suspicion. We should all be pleased and gratified with the progress that has been made and the hon. Gentleman should be confident that further progress will be made.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I should say that we have other business to which to attend and I think that people will realise that I have been very generous. I have been very generous to the hon. Member for Lichfield, but I think that I am going to make him wait a little.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the Indian Parliament and Canadian Parliament, they have a period, known as the zero hour in the Indian Parliament, in which Members can raise any subject they wish for a limited time—about a minute. We have just spent nearly 20 minutes on points of order, very few of which were genuine points of order. In your consideration of reform of Parliament, should we not have our own zero hour where people can raise any matters they wish for a limited period?

Yes, I think that one point is noted and that the other is for the Procedure Committee. I am grateful on this occasion, as I am always to the hon. Member, for his helpful point of order.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, but I hope that we are getting near to the end. I think that people might be interested in hearing other matters debated.

Further to my earlier point of order, Mr. Speaker—thank you for the decision that you made then—may I ask for your help regarding the fact that, last week, the Leader of the House, who is almost in her place, made entirely unwarranted and unfounded allegations about the noble Lord Ashcroft, who has entirely met all the promises—

Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat. I have been extremely fair in taking a lot of points of order and in trying genuinely to respond in detail to them. It is not right to abuse the procedure of making points of order to develop, extend or start debates. We have important matters to consider. May I just say that I have appreciated a lot of good humour, and I have also noted some bad temper, but that we really ought to have some regard in this House to the way in which we are perceived by the voters whose support we shall shortly be seeking and who pay our salaries? They do not want this House to behave in a disrespectful or abusive way, or to waste time.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

No, I am not going to take a further point of order from the hon. Gentleman. I have been very generous.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you could explain something. If an hon. or right hon. Gentleman inadvertently misleads the House in the Chamber and subsequently admits outside the Chamber that he has inadvertently misled the House, how can that be put on the record? If something is not published in Hansard in detail, explaining what has been said and what was subsequently admitted to be wrong, surely it will be giving a misleading and wrong impression to the public whom we wish to serve.

The difficulty with the hon. Gentleman’s point of order is that he is expressing himself in hypothetical terms. [Interruption.] Order. It is not reasonable therefore for him to expect me to reply. [Interruption.] I have seen a letter on this matter, but I am not sure that it quite warrants the description that he has just offered. [Interruption.] Order. He should calm himself. What I would say to him is that if he is genuinely interested in exploring this matter further, it is open to him—and perhaps I encourage him—to write to me about it. I will study his letter with care and if anything disorderly has taken place, he will learn about that.

I was genuinely sorry to see the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness in a state of some angst and obviously feeling that he had a justified grievance. I do not think that he did have, but I am going to be fair to him. If he wants to have one more go, he can, but he had better not take any liberties.

I am extremely grateful, Mr. Speaker. That is most kind. You rightly ruled that Members of the other House should not be maligned in this place without a substantive motion coming before the House. When that happens, however, and it seemed to me that it happened last week to the noble Lord Ashcroft at the hands of the Leader of the House, of all people, is there anything that can be done to rectify it? Perhaps I am being unfair, but it feels as though a Back Bencher such as myself would be fallen upon very quickly and very hard, but that the Leader of the House was able repeatedly to malign the noble Lord Ashcroft in, to my mind, an entirely unfounded and unwarranted way.

Members of this House should use their privileges in a responsible way. What I said about the substantive motion stands. The hon. Gentleman will be the first to accept that I cannot rewrite or excise the record, and it would be totally wrong and improper for me to do so. I can only reiterate that people should behave in a proper way. If I intervened to stop someone from saying something, it was because I judged that the line had been crossed, but it is not always a straightforward, yes or no, black or white matter. Many things were said of which the hon. Gentleman might have disapproved but which were not disorderly. I hope that he will regard me as a fair-minded referee who is doing his best to protect the rights of Members of the House. I think that is enough said.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you confirm that it is in no way out of order for matters to be discussed in this House that are the subject of big controversy outside the House? Is it not the case that you have sought to make what we debate in the House more topical and better matched to issues of public concern? Is it not also the case that there is no way that this House, or any hon. Member in it, should be prevented from putting a question of fact to the House and talking about facts? Will you confirm that the facts that I put forward—that an assurance was given that tens of millions of pounds would be paid by Lord Ashcroft, and that it then came out that tens of millions of pounds was not paid—were matters of fact?

Order. What I would say to the Leader of the House is that Members from the most senior in the Government to the most recently arrived Back Bencher are perfectly free to air their views and concerns about public issues, subject to two important caveats. First, they must do so within the rules of the House. Secondly, and relatedly, they must do so when the issue in question is a matter of Government responsibility. I said what I said last week, and I am not going to be drawn or inveigled by any Member into criticising a Member who spoke last week. I have not done that and I am not going to do that. I sense that some Members are trying to get me to take sides against particular answers that have been given, but I am not going to do that. I will judge matters on a case-by-case basis. I have no objection either to what the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness has said, or to what the Leader of the House has just said.

I think that there will be a general sense in the House, and certainly beyond, that we really ought to move on to other matters, and specifically to a very important matter—as is being chuntered from a sedentary position by the person whose interest it is. Mr. William Cash will present his Bill.

Bill Presented

Representation of the People (Undue Influence) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Mr. William Cash, supported by Mr. Edward Leigh, Mr. Iain Duncan Smith, Mr. Nigel Evans, Mr. Andrew Turner, Mr. Charles Walker, Sir Nicholas Winterton, Ann Winterton, Mr. Peter Bone, Mr. Brian Binley, Philip Davies and Mark Pritchard, presented a Bill to amend the Representation of the People Act 1983 to extend the concept of undue influence; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 23 April, and to be printed (Bill 85).

At last, Mr. Speaker, I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the extension of Christmas Day restrictions on the opening of retail premises to Remembrance Sunday; and for connected purposes.

After what I can describe only as a very fractious hour, I hope that the modest proposal that I shall make to the House will unite us. Every week, in Prime Minister’s questions, we all listen with sadness to the list of names that the Prime Minister reads out of those who have given their lives for their country in Afghanistan. What has happened in the past few years has given added significance to the annual commemoration of those who have laid down their lives for their country over the past century.

Remembrance Sunday looms large in the calendar and has real meaning for people throughout the United Kingdom, and it seems to me right that the House should recognise that. That there is a public feeling of wanting to recognise it is made manifest every time that sad procession drives through Wootton Bassett and people come and respectfully stand. I am bound to say, in parenthesis, that that is rather exploited by the media, but that is another story. That there is true feeling, true sadness and a wish to show how much we appreciate those who have made the supreme sacrifice is all too evident.

What I am seeking to do with this Bill is to put Remembrance Sunday on the same footing as Easter Sunday and Christmas day. Christmas day was given exemption in the Sunday Trading Act 1994, and a special status in the Bill introduced in 2004 by the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones). On whatever day of the week it falls, the large shops are closed.

I believe that this a very modest but very sensible proposal. It is extremely difficult for members of the British Legion in some towns and cities to organise their remembrance parades because of the clutter, hustle and bustle of the high street on Sunday. Many people who would wish to pay their respects by standing silently at the local cenotaph are local shop workers. This Bill has the very strong support of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, and I am delighted to be able to introduce it.

The Bill would not affect farm shops, pharmacies, petrol filling stations, shops at airports or railway stations, or shops at exhibitions that are specially staged on a Sunday. Rather, it would mean that large shops—those of 280 square meters, or 3,000 square feet, and above—would not be able to open on Remembrance Sunday. It would also mean that the loading restrictions in force for Easter day and Christmas day would apply.

When we first debated Sunday trading, I was one of those who strongly opposed the removal of all restrictions. I said in a speech then that, if we abolished all the restrictions, we would end up with a high street Sunday that was a replica of Saturday. Whatever view colleagues take of Sunday trading, no one can deny that that is what has happened. In all our major towns and cities, the hustle and bustle and activity on a Sunday mirror that of the day before, the Saturday. Surely it is not too much to ask that only a second Sunday of the year—and, on those rare occasions when Christmas day falls on a Sunday, a third—should be set aside.

Christmas day is a great day of family celebration. Easter day is too and, like Christmas, it is also a great religious festival. However, there are very few families in the land who have not been touched in one way or another by the conflicts of the last century.

My mother died in 2000, at the age of 90. When I went through her papers, I was amazed to discover that she had lost no fewer than seven cousins in the great war. All of us have similar stories in our families. Today, young men and women are serving on the front line in Afghanistan, and a number of them will never come back.

Those of us who have been privileged to welcome our returning troops as they marched into New Palace Yard—with your permission, Mr. Speaker—have been deeply moved by the spirit, dedication, determination, bravery and quiet courage of those young people. We have also been moved by their eagerness to get back.

We have just gone though the war in Iraq, and we are still at war in Afghanistan. I really feel that we should set aside Remembrance Sunday, so that the remembrance ceremonies can be conducted with proper and due decorum, and so that the ringing of the cash till does not drown out the observance of the silence.

I hope that the Government will accept this Bill, and that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Benches and in the other parties will support it. I have based it on the one introduced by the hon. Member for North Durham a few years ago, and if the House gives me leave I will publish it later today. I shall name a day for Second reading that will make it possible for the Bill to be enacted in time for Remembrance Sunday this year.

We are preparing to enter an election in which we will debate with each other— perfectly honourably and honestly—on a range of issues about which we disagree. However, I believe that it is right and proper for us to come together over this measure, which I think will have widespread support throughout the country.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Sir Patrick Cormack, Dr. Vincent Cable, Mr. Christopher Chope, Rosie Cooper, Mr. Nigel Dodds, Christopher Fraser, Kate Hoey, Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, Dr. Richard Taylor, Miss Ann Widdecombe, Sir Nicholas Winterton and Dr. Tony Wright present the Bill.

Sir Patrick Cormack accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 12 March and to be printed (Bill 84).

May I begin, Mr. Speaker, by saying how much I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate? You will be aware that we published a report on alcohol in January. We are about to get a response from the Government, although sadly not in time for this debate.

Most hon. Members will know that the problem of alcohol goes way beyond the Department of Health and into many other areas of Government. We expect the Government’s response later this month but, given the election that is well on its way, it would have been wrong not to take this opportunity to debate the issue as it affects this country, in the light of the Health Committee’s report.

I do not want to go into too much detail today, but anyone who has read the report will know how wide the Committee went with the evidence that it took and the recommendations that it made. I have been concerned for many years that the House has looked at alcohol from the point of view of antisocial behaviour. That is quite right, as that aspect is very important: communities and neighbourhoods are being disturbed by people who are binge drinking and having too much to drink, and that has a major knock-on effect, in families, communities and town centres.

It was right and proper for the Government to take action to prevent that, but I and other members of the Committee have been worried about the consequences of excessive alcohol over time. In the report, we looked at what is happening now, at the beginning of the 21st century, but we also went back to Hogarth’s London and all the gin and so on that was drunk then. We took a look at the history of alcohol in this country.

There is no doubt that English drinking habits have been transformed over the last 60 years. In 1947, the nation consumed approximately 3.5 litres of pure alcohol per head; the current figure is 9.5 litres. General Household Survey data from 2006 show that 31 per cent. of men are drinking hazardously, consuming more than 21 units per week, and that 9 per cent. are drinking harmfully, at more than 50 units per week. The figures also showed that 21 per cent. of women are drinking hazardously and 6 per cent. harmfully, although the House will be aware that the unit size recommended for women is lower than that for men.

Although the consumption of alcohol has increased, taxation on spirits has declined in real terms, and even more so as a fraction of average earnings. I want to put it on the record this afternoon—it is stated in the report—that rising alcohol consumption and its consequences have become an increasing source of concern in recent years. The consequences include those not only of binge drinking, which causes many serious accidents, disorder, violence and crime, but of long-term heavy drinking, which causes more harm to health.

The president of the Royal College of Physicians gave evidence to the Committee and told us that alcohol was probably a significant factor in 30,000 to 40,000 deaths a year. The World Health Organisation has put alcohol as the third most frequent cause of death after hypertension and tobacco. UK deaths from liver cirrhosis increased more than fivefold between 1970 and 2006. By contrast, in France, Italy and Spain, the number of deaths shrank between twofold and fourfold. This country’s number of deaths from cirrhosis is now greater than that in all those countries.

The hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor), who is a member of the Health Committee, was a hospital physician for many years, and we once used a phrase in exchanges to the effect that 30 years ago cirrhosis of the liver was something that old men died of. We were talking about people probably between the ages of 60 and 70. Now we see in the media that young women and men in their 20s are dying of that disease, which is related to an accumulation of alcohol over time, or the quantities in their case. We as a country should not ignore what is happening to the health of those individuals. That disease—there are other similar diseases—is something that should concern us. It is not an old man’s disease anymore.

In 2003, the Prime Minister’s strategy unit estimated the total cost of alcohol to society at some £20 billion. Another study in 2007 put the figure at £55 billion. Faced by a mounting problem, the response of successive Governments has ranged from the non-existent to the ineffectual. In 2004, an alcohol strategy was published, following an excellent study of the cost of alcohol by the strategy unit, but I have to tell my hon. Friend the Minister that the strategy failed to take account of the evidence that had been gathered and was not implemented. The evidence showed that a rise in the price of alcohol was the most effective way to reduce consumption, just as its increasing affordability since the 1960s has been the major cause of the rise in consumption.

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman and his Committee on producing a consensual, constructive report, and I hope that they are successful in getting the recommendations implemented. Will he compare and contrast the consensual way that he and his colleagues approach the issue with what has happened in Scotland, where Liberal and Labour Members have acted as an oppositionist bloc to stop the very recommendations that he suggests? We could implement those recommendations in Scotland with the assistance of Liberal and Labour Members in Scotland. Will he give them advice? Will he help them and us to implement those recommendations?

The Health Committee is designated to consider England and Wales, not the devolved Assemblies. What the hon. Gentleman mentions is a matter for the Scottish Parliament, but I hear what he says. Whether other people hear what he says is a matter for them.

Let me go straight on to say that we note that minimum pricing is supported by many prominent health experts, economists and the Association of Chief Police Officers, which gave evidence to the Committee. Indeed, the chief medical officer in his latest annual report supports the introduction of minimum pricing. I will go a bit further into that detail in a few minutes.

How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile the fact that alcohol is relatively cheap in France, yet the incidence of alcohol-related disease is declining there, as he said, whereas alcohol is relatively expensive in this country and we have a bigger problem?

In part, the answer is cultural and I will come on to that, as we need to consider it. However, we went to France to take some evidence last September, and we found that, instead of what was considered to be steady consumption, binge drinking by young people is increasing there. France may face the problems that we are experiencing in this country if it does not take appropriate action. I am not saying that we know what action should be taken at every level, but if France follows our pattern of binge drinking among young people—it looks as though things are moving that way—it will have to take more action. Certainly, we must take more action to try to overcome the problem.

On the price of alcohol, 40 or 50 years ago the death rate from alcohol in France was quite appalling. It was monstrous. Perhaps the French have learned from their terrible history that alcohol causes terrible health problems and death, and perhaps we have yet to learn that lesson properly.

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I hope that the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) appreciates it. Anyway, minimum pricing needs to be looked at further.

A myth is widely propagated by parts of the drinks industry and politicians that a rise in prices would unfairly affect the majority of moderate drinkers. Precisely because they are moderate drinkers, a minimum price of, for example, 40p per unit of alcohol would have little effect. It would effectively mean that a woman who drinks the recommended maximum of 15 units a week could buy her weekly total of alcohol for £6. Of course, probably not everyone drinks industrial white cider only.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for sharing the Committee’s interesting report with us. Will he clarify, however, that the £6 figure relates to the off-trade and that no one could buy those units at that price in the on-trade? That is, of course, one of the big problems that we face, as the Committee acknowledges.

That is in the report, and I will deal with it later in my speech if the hon. Gentleman will allow me.

Opponents also claim that heavy drinkers are insensitive to price changes, but their consumption as a group will be most affected by price rises, as they drink so much of the alcohol purchased in this country. Minimum pricing would most affect those who drink cheap alcohol—in particular, young binge drinkers and heavy low-income drinkers, who suffer most from liver disease. It is estimated that a minimum price of 50p per unit of alcohol would save about 3,000 lives a year, and that a minimum price of 40p per unit of alcohol would save 1,100 lives a year.

Of course, minimum pricing would have other benefits. Unlike rises in duty, minimum pricing would benefit traditional pubs—the on-trade, as the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Greg Mulholland) suggested—so, unsurprisingly, it is supported by the Campaign for Real Ale, which also gave evidence to the Committee. We are all concerned about the closures of public houses in this country. They are closing for many reasons, not necessarily just the price of alcohol, but it is true to say that minimum pricing would be more likely to support local, traditional pubs than to do anything adverse to them.

I am following my right hon. Friend’s analysis closely. I am not sure whether it leads me to the same conclusion that we should interfere in the alcohol pricing mechanism across the board, but does he agree that the duty on white cider, which is often what those people who are most affected by alcohol are drinking, should be increased to the same as that on beer and that it is wrong that the duty on spirits has increased by only 20 per cent. over the past 13 years, compared with 50 per cent. for beer?

I was about to move on to precisely that issue. I understand that some industrial white cider, which is the most appropriate way to describe it, can be bought for 20p a unit in supermarkets. It is the stuff that we see young children and other people consuming on park benches. That has to stop, but it is not stopping. Indeed, it is being promoted in this country as we speak, and we have asked the Government to consider that in detail. I am talking about pricing, but other hon. Members may want to talk about the wider issues raised by our report.

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way yet again. On the problem of supermarkets versus pubs, thousands of young people get tanked up on cheap booze from supermarkets before they go the pub. Does that not undermine the pub and encourage irresponsible drinking, too?

Yes. From the evidence that we took, I think it is called front-loading. Many years ago, when I was working in industry and went out to the club on Saturday nights, I often saw people bending down to bring out of their handbag little bottles of spirits to top up their drinks. Front-loading has previously occurred in one or two areas, but I suspect that the availability of alcohol in cost terms now means that people do not have to do that with spirits any more.

Minimum pricing would also encourage a switch to weaker wines and beers—the Committee emphasised that point. With a minimum price of 40 per cent. per unit, a 10 per cent. alcohol by volume wine would cost a minimum of £2.80, and a 13 per cent. ABV wine about £3.60. Some people pay £6, £8 or £10 for bottle containing six or eight units of alcohol. No one who buys wine at that level will be hurt in the pocket. A good exercise for Members to do the next time they go to the supermarket is to go along the shelves turning around the wine bottles to see how many units of alcohol they contain, which will give them a practical idea of the effect of what we propose. In my view, average drinkers, as we call them, would not be harmed by what we propose.

Of course, without an increase in duty, minimum pricing would lead to an increase in the profits of supermarkets and the drinks industry. Anyone who looks at our report will see what we said about how supermarkets in particular promote alcohol and about the mechanisms they use to do so—discounting and so on. I do not intend to discuss that this afternoon, but it is an important area for us to look at. To increase profits in that way would not be helpful.

We believe that alcohol duty should continue to rise year on year, but unlike in recent years, duty increases should predominantly be on stronger alcohol drinks, notably spirits. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) mentioned the situation in Scotland. The Committee learned that nowadays the spirit of choice in Scotland is the £5 bottle of vodka—we can compare that with what spirits cost 10, 15 or 20 years ago. Now, they are affordable to young people, and they are drinking them—we provide evidence of that in our report. It is deeply worrying.

According to Treasury calculations—hon. Members can intervene on me to show how hopeless my understanding is—the duty on a bottle of spirits was 60 per cent. of male average manual weekly earnings in 1947; in 1973, when value added tax was imposed in addition to duty, duty was 16 per cent. of earnings; by 1983, it was 11 per cent.; and by 2002, it had fallen to 5 per cent. According to calculations undertaken by the Treasury at the Committee’s request, for our report, if the duty on a bottle of spirits had increased since the early 1980s at the same rate as earnings, it would now be £62. If the rate had increased in line with the retail prices index and not with average male earnings, the duty on a bottle of spirits would now be £38.60. The Committee examined questions of licensing—who can sell alcohol—and accessibility in terms of where it can be obtained, but the accessibility of alcohol in terms of income has seen an extraordinary turnaround, especially that of the heavier stuff.

Has the right hon. Gentleman decided not to consider the question of advertising because this is an estimates debate and he does not want to go down that road? Does he have any concerns about the extent to which, through advertising, the excessive drinking of alcohol is glorified?

There is great detail on that in our report. The Committee did not talk only to the drinks industry but took evidence from people who act as their agents in promoting alcohol. Many years ago, when I was looking at the promotion of tobacco, the methods used in relation to various age groups, voluntary codes and so on, I probably had a firmer view on how tobacco was promoted and was strongly opposed to it. I am pleased that this House has legislated to get rid of it. The Committee did not make firm recommendations on alcohol advertising, but there are points on how alcohol is promoted and young people’s perceptions. There are voluntary codes—people under 25 should not be used in advertising and so on. The subject is in our report, and perhaps one or two of my fellow members of the Committee will say something about it. I decided to stick with pricing in my speech, but the hon. Gentleman raises an important matter. We spend public money on trying to educate people about being more responsible; does alcohol promotion act against our work on health education? I will leave that question for another day, but it should be asked, none the less.

I have said what the duty on spirits would have been had we not changed the mechanisms and dropped the links altogether in recent years. Neither I nor the Committee recommend an immediate leap to those levels of duty on spirits, but we should certainly make a start. Availability of alcohol, not just in terms of where it can be bought but in terms of cost, is, we believe, the reason for the increase in drinking in this country and in ill health caused by alcohol. We think that a start should be made. We recommend that duties on spirits be returned in stages to the same percentage of average earnings as in the past. The duty on industrial white cider should also be increased—there is no question about that. Industrial white cider is easily obtainable and cheaper per unit than other forms of alcohol, and is drunk by many binge drinkers, old and young.

Beer under 2.8 per cent. ABV can be taxed at a different rate. We recommend the duty on that category of beer be reduced. Now, only one beer—Welton’s Pride ’n’ Joy, which is praised by CAMRA—is in that category. The Treasury should consider how to set duties on drinks, not to encourage people to stop drinking alcohol—no one wants to make people stop—but to increase the availability of lower alcohol content drinks. That will help people to look after their health a little better, which I would like to be able to do. That is what the Committee arrived at, with Treasury decisions running alongside the wider issues.

Any prices increase must be part of a wider policy aimed at changing our attitude to alcohol. It has been said that France’s drinking culture is different from ours—children there aged five or six will have a glass of wine with meals and so on—but as I said, there is evidence of increasing binge drinking by young people. The French must be very aware of that.

I apologise for not being here at the start of my right hon. Friend’s interesting speech. From talking to parents and police officers, I have learned that in parts of our community there seems to be a culture of parents giving their children drink to take out on to the street—in fact, some give their children drink, then drop them off at certain known trouble spots, on the basis that they know where they are and what they are drinking. Is that not a terrible state of affairs? It makes the police’s job much more difficult. Do we not have to get a much stronger message to that section of the community that that is not the right thing to do, and to provide better education for them?

I agree entirely. Any parents in this day and age who are giving their children cans or bottles of alcohol, then dropping them off in a place where there is a culture of drinking, are not doing their children any favours. It could well be argued that what they are doing is potentially shortening the lives of their own children. That is not a responsible position for any parent to take. It was not the position that I took as a parent, although I cannot tell my children what to do now: they are all grown up and two have children themselves. Parents who do what my hon. Friend describes are doing no one, especially not their children, any favours, but it is happening. I do not have the statistics in front of me, but it is a well-known fact that under-age drinkers get much of their alcohol not just from somebody aged 18 buying it from the local shop and then handing it on to them, but via their family. Parents should be well aware of that.

We said in the report that the policy must be aimed at the millions who are damaging their health by harmful drinking, but it is time to recognise that problem drinkers reflect society’s attitude to alcohol. There is a good deal of evidence to show that the number of heavy drinkers in a society is directly related to average consumption. Living in a culture that encourages drinking leads more people to drink to excess. Changing the culture will require a raft of policies. This afternoon I am speaking about one of them—pricing—but there are many other aspects that need to be addressed.

One of the most interesting statistics reported to the Committee was that if people who drink in this country—there are quite a lot of us—drank no more than the number of units per week recommended for women and for men, alcohol consumption would be reduced by about 40 per cent. The alcohol industry was not happy to engage in the debate about that, but if those statistics are true, as we believe they are, they indicate the extent to which people in the UK drink beyond the guidelines recommended to protect their health.

Let me deal with the Government response to the report. As I said earlier, they are not in a position to respond in the usual form, but my hon. Friend the Minister put out a press release. I hope she was not planning to read it out this afternoon, as I shall quote extensively from it. She stated in response to our report:

“Alcohol is an increasing challenge to people’s health. We”—

that is, the Government—

“are working hard to reverse the trend and are constantly seeking better ways to tackle it.”

She continued:

“Since 2004 this Government has adopted a strategic approach to tackle alcohol harms, from under-age drinking and binge drinking through to longer-term harmful drinking.”

That is true. It is also true that the tide is going against us. The policy is not working and there is no plan to make it work.

The Minister went on to say that

“current levels of alcohol-related hospital admissions, crime, and deaths are unacceptable.”

That is a very positive response to the publication of our report. The press release continued:

“Much more can, and will, be done to turn this around, but the change won’t happen overnight”.

Everybody accepts that. None the less, I was pleased that my hon. Friend went on to say:

“New and strengthened campaigns from this month will raise public awareness further on the link between drinking too much and poor health, and on the harm that alcohol can do to children.”

She pointed out that the Government

“have already taken new powers to tackle the worst irresponsible promotions such as ‘drink as much as you like for £5’.”

I understand that the Home Office is taking action against that.

First-year students at university—I have one in my family—are offered the chance to go into a nightclub and drink as much alcohol as they like for the price of the £10 admission fee. It is extraordinary that alcohol is so easy to access. When I was young, I lived in a working-class culture where young men went out drinking beer, even before they were 18. We would do that one or two nights a week. Although I was working, I could not afford to go out more than that.

The idea that young people now can go out and, for £10, drink as much alcohol as they want—spirits or beer, as I understand it—is frightening. Young people do not know everything, although they think they do from the age of about 16 onwards. The damage that such promotions may be doing to them, which may not be found out for years, is frightening. I am pleased to say that since our report, the Government are taking action, and I know that they were working on the matter before.

The Committee took evidence showing that in Southampton Tuesday is the night for students to go out drinking because that is the night they can drink as much as they like for £10. Will the right hon. Gentleman also condemn the drinking clubs such as Carnage, which target new students and organise pub crawls of all the pubs in town for a fee? That causes great distress to many local residents.

Indeed. I understand that some of those promotions are coming to an end, and quite right too, in my view. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will tell us more when she responds to the debate. We as a society must get back to a more balanced approach to alcohol. Accessibility and cost are two aspects that must be tackled.

The Government also said in response to the Committee’s report:

“We will continue to look at how we can tackle the problems caused by cheap alcohol. We will consider this within a framework which respects the rights of responsible consumers whilst making a real difference to the types of excessive drinking that damage individuals and families and are a cost to our society.”

I agree entirely. The aim is not to punish the average drinker in any way—I rarely see average drinkers sitting round with bottles of white cider. The aim is to attack binge drinking, and minimum pricing is one method. The study that was done in Sheffield was carried out in the cultures that I have lived in all my life, certainly since the age of 8 in south Yorkshire. It concluded that minimum pricing would work in that situation to cut binge drinking.

I know that my hon. Friend will not be able to give us a definite answer about pricing structure, especially at this time in the political diary. We have a general election in a few weeks, and whoever comes into government must tackle the long-term damage to health being done by alcohol. The objective is not to stop people drinking, but to get them to use alcohol in a sensible and proper manner, as my generation and many before us were able to do.

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron). I congratulate the Committee on an interesting and well put together report. Clearly, the key area that the Committee examined was pricing, and that is certainly one of the elements that should be tackled, as the right hon. Gentleman stressed.

We should start by acknowledging that there is a problem with people abusing alcohol. The focus should be on problem drinking. There are various definitions, some of which are helpful. We can have a debate about how many units people should drink per week or over a year, but by problem drinking, I mean drinking that leads to inappropriate, irresponsible behaviour, antisocial behaviour and crime, or drinking that damages health. The Select Committee report focuses, of course, on damage to health and what action the Government—any Government—can take to try to ameliorate that.

We should also acknowledge that the problem is not alcohol. I say to the Chair and the members of the Select Committee—I suspect they would agree with me, although this may not be sufficiently clearly stated in the report—that the problem is not even cheap alcohol. The problem is people abusing alcohol and drinking in an inappropriate way that leads to the kind of problems that we have heard about. That is cultural, and it is all very well saying that drinking patterns have changed, and all very well quoting the figures for how many people are drinking more, but if we look at those patterns, we find that the situation is not as simple as the figures suggest. As my colleague and chair of the all-party beer group, the hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan), knows, beer consumption is declining, so the issue is that of our culture shifting, not just that all Britons are drinking more. A group of people are drinking more than they should, and we must focus on them.

I agree fundamentally with the main conclusion of the Committee’s report, which is that we should introduce a minimum price for alcohol.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Of course, and I was expecting to do so.

The hon. Gentleman is right to expect me to intervene at this point. If he agrees with minimum pricing, will he please get on the phone to his Liberal colleagues up in Scotland and tell them to support the Scottish Government, who are trying to get that very measure through in the teeth of Liberal opposition? It is not just opposition from individual Members of the Scottish Parliament, but whipped Liberal opposition, so will he get on the phone and convince them that they are wrong and we are right? Let us make sure that we have minimum pricing in Scotland.

What a very odd request from a member of the Scottish National party—to insist that I, a proud Englishman, get on the phone to tell my Scottish colleagues what to do. I shall treat that very odd logic with the contempt that it deserves. My Scottish colleagues in the Scottish Parliament deal with their own affairs and the hon. Gentleman would certainly agree with that. Under the circumstances, he would be appalled if I did otherwise.

The Liberal Democrat parliamentary party very much supports a minimum price for alcohol. The Committee Chairman has outlined some of these issues, but I shall give a stark example using figures that date back to May 2008. At that time, the average cost of a draught pint of lager in a pub was £2.75, which equates to £4.95 a litre. At the same time, however, supermarkets were selling lager with a strength of more than 4 per cent. for as little as £1.20 per litre, and weaker lager for as little as 52p per litre. Tesco was selling a 70cl bottle of “Value” vodka for £6.54. Of that price, £5.98 is taken in duty, and a further £1.14 is taken in VAT, totalling £7.12—more than the retail price. It is a scandal that alcohol is sold in an uncontrolled environment. It is easy for people to put such products in with their weekly shop and, potentially, for minors and so on to access it. That is a real problem, and I absolutely agree that minimum pricing is important.

However, politicians should not decide that minimum price. The Sheffield study was interesting but certainly not conclusive, and we need an independent body, made up of economists and industry and health specialists, to recommend not only a minimum price but how it should work, so that we tackle problem drinking without having any perverse impacts. The right hon. Gentleman talked about not having a detrimental impact on moderate drinkers, who would have to pay a little more for their bottle of wine or their pints of beer, and that may be true, but we have to consider other impacts.

I am slightly concerned about the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion that politicians should not decide those matters. We certainly receive recommendations, and the chief medical officer recommended a price of 50p per unit, which would be a good start, but in the end this House will have to decide the price and ensure that it is enforced.

That is precisely why neither politicians nor the chief medical officer should say that they know the answer to the problem, or recommend a level. We have heard about some of the effects of 50p per unit, but not about its effects on the consumption of lower strength drinks or on pubs. There could be a perverse incentive, and we need to investigate the matter holistically.

I am very pleased that the hon. Gentleman agrees with the Committee about introducing a minimum price per unit. He suggests what type of people should advise the Government, and he seems to be suggesting that politicians should not take a position on price. Does he not think, however, that we have to look beyond the advice that the Government take from different institutions? We have an increase in binge drinking and in alcohol-related deaths, and we have to look at new ways of solving that problem.

We do indeed, but I am not quite sure what point the right hon. Gentleman is trying to make. My point simply is that we should not say, “50 per cent. or 40 per cent. sounds right.” We need to look at the holistic impact of the measure. The principle is absolutely right, but we have not reached the stage where we know what the price should be, and it is important that we do not simply pick a figure out of the air.

Surely the hon. Gentleman accepts that Parliament decides—in fact, the Chancellor decides—on alcohol duty, so it is really not much of a leap to say that the House should take a strong view on minimum pricing. Does he agree that minimum pricing cannot possibly affect the pub or restaurant trade? No pubs in the country will sell alcohol for 50p per unit other than at those very strange times of binge drinking. He would be very lucky to find in his constituency a pub that would sell him beer at 50p a unit, so the measure would affect not the pub or restaurant trade but those people who consume vast quantities of very cheap alcohol that they can obtain from wholesalers or some supermarkets.

Once again, the hon. Gentleman proves my point precisely. He is quite right about the effect on the pub, but unfortunately a 50p minimum price for alcohol would make it impossible for many of our smaller breweries to survive, and that would therefore damage the brewing trade. We have to look at all those issues together. That is the sensible way to do it, rather than plucking a figure out of the air.

We have already heard that beer consumption is falling, so breweries are suffering because people are drinking cheaper, stronger alcohol that is not beer. If the price of those other drinks were raised, surely that would help the breweries and pubs.

Again, that proves my argument. Hon. Members think that through minimum pricing they have the solution to binge drinking, and I agree with the measure, but let me make it absolutely clear that there is no silver bullet. It is rather naive to suggest otherwise. If there were a silver bullet, we would all accept it and pursue it. We would all have to deal with impacts of a minimum price, however, and they have not yet been properly assessed.

On the Committee’s secondary conclusion that we should therefore increase duty even more, I absolutely agree that we should look at duty levels. Industrial cider has been mentioned, and there is a clear discrepancy between that and beer; and the rather favourable treatment that spirits have received over the past few years has also rightly been mentioned. Beer duty, which has been increased and used as just a way of making money, has no relevance whatever to the debate about how to deal with problem drinking, but the Liberal Democrats reject increasing prices as a whole.

It is interesting to look at all the statistics, but some commentators lack common sense and an understanding of psychology. The reality is simple. Let us imagine that someone is going out to binge drink 10 alcoholic drinks, which is far more than they should. We could slap on an extra duty that increased the price by 10p per drink, and that would be a large increase, but is anyone seriously suggesting that it would stop someone drinking that amount? All we are talking about is it costing an extra £1—the equivalent of a bag of chips—to drink exactly the same amount. Is that really going to have the effect on behaviour some people suggest it would? I am afraid that it will not. It is just not realistic, and I repeat that there is no silver bullet. Pricing must be looked at, but it is not the silver-bullet solution that some people suggest.