Proposing the motion was Ross Cranston QC. He set out in detail the public health costs associated with alcohol misuse and the consequences of it, which he often saw in his own constituency and as a Recorder in the local Crown Court. Turning to advertising, he argued that whilst advertisements for alcoholic products were regulated in the UK, the regime to which they were subjected was amongst the most lax in the world. He cited the Roxoff and FCUK Spirits campaigns as evidence of where the existing self-regulatory system had failed to act swiftly enough. He considered that advertisements for such products were completely over the top and consequently should be subject to far tighter controls. He also rejected the oft-stated industry view that brand advertising had no effect on overall consumption.

Opposing the motion, Nigel Evans MP agreed that alcohol misuse was a problem, but that whilst not always perfect, the effect of advertising on alcohol misuse was negligible. To help illustrate the actual influence of brand advertising on consumer behaviour he turned to the example of political advertising. Evans noted that, as both he and Ross Cranston could attest, politicians spend a fortune on political advertising around the time of General Elections, yet it did not serve to grow the market, indeed consumption in the electoral market appeared to be in long-term decline. He then drew upon his experience of being a retailer in Swansea, where price and value for money were in his experience far more important determinants of consumer behaviour and purchase choices than advertising ever is. He also noted the increased popularity of wine, despite the relatively small amount of advertising spent on it by comparison with beer, and mused on whether this might have more to do with consumers' experiences of taking holidays abroad and other lifestyle issues than advertising. He closed by stating that whilst nobody advertises binge drinking it still happens.

Seconding Cranston, Eric Appleby stated that the answer to the question of whether advertising plays a part in alcohol misuse was a resounding "yes". He went on to argue that if advertising was about brand-switching and not intentionally growing markets why were ready-to-drink products aimed at women promoted so heavily, rather than at the heaviest existing consumers in the form of young male drinkers. He concluded by stating that the proponents of alcohol advertising were being disingenuous when it came to the effect of advertisements on alcohol consumption.

Supporting Evans was Tony Mair. He reiterated that there was no direct relationship between consumption and advertising expenditure at the category level in mature markets. He reported that the Government's own Strategy Unit, in its Interim Analysis of the evidence already collected prior to publication of its National Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy, had concluded that there was no econometric evidence to show that advertising had a substantive effect on overall levels of consumption. In support of this claim, he noted that rather than there being a positive correlation between advertising expenditure and consumption, perhaps rather counter-intuitively, the opposite appeared to be the case. Thus whilst advertising expenditure on beer had increased, consumption had fallen, whereas with wine, advertising expenditure had fallen and consumption had increased. In a similar vein, he noted that where governments had introduced advertising bans such as in the Nordic countries, alcohol consumption had not fallen, meanwhile the withdrawal of a ban on spirits advertising in New Zealand had actually seen consumption fall further as part of a longer term decline. Equally, Italy and Greece, which have some of the lowest reported rates of intoxication face almost no restrictions on alcohol advertising at all. He closed by stating that:

The alcoholic drinks industry absolutely has a duty to advertise responsibly, but whilst health issues linked to alcohol misuse are real, complex and serious, advertising is neither their driver nor its prohibition the solution to reducing public health costs, be they financial or human.

The opening statements by the four speakers were followed by a number of contributions from the floor, amongst these:

Hugh Burkitt of the Marketing Society observed that in relation to alcopops, products like Hooch and Two Dogs had been launched in the 1990s with virtually no advertising. He also noted that the motion did not state that advertising should be banned, but he was strongly of the view that advertising, in whatever sector, should always be responsible. Carole Brigaudeau of The Amsterdam Group reported that the introduction of alcohol advertising restrictions in her native France had completely failed to have the intended effect. Meanwhile the view of The Amsterdam Group was that the UK was leading the way in terms of effective self-regulation and consequently perhaps the existence and good work of the Portman Group itself should be advertised more widely.

Roddy Mullin of Helmsmen Business Consultants struck a cautionary note by stating some below the line marketing by retail outlets could be extremely appealing to younger drinkers. Edwin Mutton of the Institute of Sales Promotion added that it was less the advertising by the drinks manufacturers than that by the retail outlets that was problematic, particularly that conducted by drinking establishments. He considered that retail promotions whereby a ten pounds note would get you as much alcohol as you could drink for the duration of the night, served to undermine all those, such as himself, who supported effective self-regulatory bodies, such as the Advertising Standards Authority and the Portman Group.

Summing up, Nigel Evans MP suggested that the best way to tackle alcohol misuse was to attack the attitudes and cultures that made binge drinking, and the behaviour associated with it, seem acceptable to young people. He called for the real causes of alcohol misuse to be addressed rather than trying to restrict the ability of alcoholic drinks manufacturers to advertise their products.

Responding to this, Ross Cranston QC MP pointed out that the motion did not actually call for alcohol advertising to be banned. He also accepted that heavy drinking had always been a part of British culture as evidenced by so many Hogarth engravings. He contended, however, that whilst some advertisements for alcoholic drinks were responsible, as many were not, particularly those which implicitly associated alcohol with sex appeal. He considered that advertisements such as these served simply to reinforce unacceptable drinking behaviour amongst the young. In his view the best way to tackle this was through a significant tightening of the existing advertising codes. He concluded by warning that even if no link between the advertising of alcoholic drinks and alcohol misuse could be proven, legislators nowadays often decided to adopt a precautionary approach and might therefore be tempted to call for the introduction of additional restrictions in this area in any case.

After a show of hands, the Chair declared the motion defeated.