Legal Beagle by Graeme Edgeler

Note also this determination by the Business Committee on 21 March 2012:

Agreed, That during the committee stage of Part 2 of the Alcohol Reform Bill there be one debate, with the questions on the three clauses (9 to 11) being put separately at the conclusion of the debate.

(SO 299(1)(c))

One of the technical points I didn't get into, was that after discussing each part, (or each clause) and after voting on each proposed amendment, the Committee of the Whole has a vote on whether that part or clause should remain in the bill. That certainly hasn't happened yet with the clauses which regulate the alcohol purchase age.

Sadly, all the debate about this seems to be happening on Facebook, but consensus seems to be that the possibility is real, and the question is whether there are enough MPs who are up for it to make a difference.

This where I see the brighter future.

As the house moves to also consider the solutions of an increased tax on alcohol and a control on the number of outlets – if you currently hold a licence to sell liquor - you could do very well as a result – as it will likely become a licence to print money.

A million RTDs a day seem to trump any conscience votes of Mps ?

If I was a cunning MP I would introduce an amendment taxing RTDs on sugar content as well as alcohol content.

taxing RTDs on sugar content

great idea - hence our shameless political limpdicks are just as likely to be successfully lobbied against it by those with deep pockets and shallow consciences.