Alcohol

THE fuss in recent days over minimum unit pricing for alcohol is a classic example of the difficulties governments of whatever colour face when deciding the best way forward with some complex area of policy.

Modern democracies have to launch consultations on contentious policy issues, which is all very reasonable and proper, but of course opposition parties love to play politics.

The alcohol pricing issue is a classic example; one minister, perhaps because his area of responsibility is Health, reflects the view of many in the medical profession and says that on balance he or she favours trying to reduce consumption by increasing the cost whilst another more inclined to personal freedom and encouraging individual responsibility or maybe has many constituents employed in the brewing industry – all perfectly legitimate considerations – says it is best left to the market to determine.

The immediate response is accusations of chaos and confusion, shouts of U-turn and other nonsense. It's as if ministers weren't allowed to have opinions of their own and play a part in influencing decisions.

Of course, when a policy decision is taken, collective responsibility comes into play and ministers must stick to the agreed policy without which government would become completely unmanageable.

My preference is not to interfere with the free market but to encourage a more robust approach by the police supported by the courts.

In questions on this subject last week it was revealed it cost more than £60 to process an arrest for being drunk and disorderly, but that doesn't seem too bad if fines started at £500 and ranging up to £5,000 plus costs were to be imposed.

Week in Westminster

It was in the mid-80s that I first spoke in a debate about Humber Bridge tolls. That was in the days of the old Great Grimsby Borough Council.

It’s been quite a marathon but last Tuesday evening I was able to speak in another debate; this time in the House of Commons when the latest Humber Bridge Bill was passed without a vote.

That doesn’t mean it is, as yet, the law of the land but it is arguably now passed its first major hurdle. Second Reading debates are when Bills receive or not, as the case maybe, approval in principle. From there it is to a Bill Committee that will scrutinise it line by line. It may well emerge from that stage with a few minor amendments before passing into the House of Lords where it will go through a similar process.

So, in just a few months time the new Bridge Board will be in place and with it the authority to decide what concessions to grant and, of course, the one we all want to see is free crossings for those seeking medical treatment.

A long haul, but it’s very satisfying to be there from start to (almost) the finish,    

Also last Tuesday I took part in a debate about planning policy and ‘its impact on urban views and our high streets.’

I rather suspect that this was not something that provided a great boost to the viewing figures. Partly this would be because it took place in Westminster Hall – that’s the smaller debating chamber where localised or more specialised debates can take place – which means it was only webcast, though the BBC’s excellent Parliament Channel will no doubt fill the small hours with it over the next few days.

Planning is one of those dreary subjects that we all moan about from time to time when we spot what we consider to be some hideous building blotting the landscape. But consider also how our favourite views can be spoilt by a poor planning decision. I write this on Thursday evening as my train is passing through Lincoln and look up at the magnificent cathedral, truly one of those views that must be protected at all costs.

During the debate I was able to sing the praises of Cleethorpes’ ‘high street’ – Saint Peter’s Avenue where we have a range of shops that offer top rated service and variety; we are very fortunate when compared with many of our towns. How long we can retain them is a matter for us. If the growth of internet sales continues at its present rate then there will be further change.

Changing shopping habits over the last thirty to forty years with the growth of the superstore has already resulted in an excess of retail units. Travel around any of our towns and shopping parades of years ago are boarded up dragging down the whole area. Some high streets have migrated to the out-of-town centres where the big supermarkets are surrounded by other stores providing for our almost every need.

Councils and governments can react to these changes but this will always be after the event. The more forward-thinking are able to manage change better but the future of our high streets are in the hands of the consumers – us.         

Turning to broader horizons; the Italian General Elections have produced a result that looks unlikely to produce a stable coalition government. If you look at elections across the democratic world they seem to indicate that support for the established parties is declining. Is that a symptom of the difficult financial situation and a reaction against governments for prescribing nasty medicine or is it the early stages of the terminal breakdown of the party system?

The British first-past-the-post voting system is designed to elect governments rather than a representative assembly – and remember it’s less than two years since the electorate overwhelmingly rejected changing the system in a national referendum. If more votes go to minor parties or independents in a system not designed to accommodate them we will end up with a series of hung parliaments and more coalitions delivering bits of their manifestos which creates yet more disillusionment.        

Like most institutions in this fast-moving world when change happens at an unprecedented rate the parties are indeed changing but such is the level of cynicism of the political process that the change seems to be going unnoticed.