Committee stage in the Lords
- Speaker
Lord MitchellLabour- Quote
- My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill. Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to. House in Committee accordingly. [The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) in the Chair.] Clause 1 [Warnings on alcoholic beverages]:
- Time
- 16:35
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Baroness CoussinsCrossbench- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 1:
- Time
- 16:35
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lord MonsonCrossbench- Quote
- I am very glad to be able to support my noble friend Lady Coussins. She has moved the amendment with great skill and most comprehensively, for which I am grateful. I have had no chance to discuss any of these amendments with her before today's debate, but quite independently I arrived at the same conclusions concerning miniature bottles. Miniatures contain either five centilitres or, occasionally, only three centilitres—usually when the bottle contains cognac. It is almost impossible to get any meaningful warning on a bottle that size. If there were lettering a millimetre high it would swamp the rest of the bottle. I do not think anyone would willingly buy a miniature, not least because they are terribly bad value. If you multiply a miniature by 15 to get the price of a bottle, it would be enormously expensive. Mostly, you get given them free on British Airways flights, no doubt to compensate for your delayed luggage. British Airways are very good at that: I have a collection of empty miniature bottles which are useful for various things. This is an unanswerable point. I suppose that there may be other containers which are difficult to label, but the miniature bottle is certainly one. I urge the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, to think very carefully about it.
- Time
- 16:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Baroness Harris of RichmondLiberal Democrat- Quote
- I was slightly horrified when I learnt that I had to deal with this Bill, not having been involved with it previously. However, when I looked at it closely, I came to some conclusions, which are mine and not necessarily the policy of my party. I shall oppose all the amendments before us today because I believe that the Bill's proposals are right, so I shall speak only once. I have heard the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins’s, explanation of this amendment, with the insertion of the words “so far as is practicable”, but I still find it very difficult to understand. Those words must be open to all sorts of interpretations, so I cannot accept this amendment and nor can I accept any of the others. We, in this Committee, all know the dire consequences of drinking to excess but many young women do not. Alcohol-related deaths have almost doubled since 1991 and continue to rise. The costs to the NHS are huge. Alcohol-related injuries and disease cost around £1.7 billion a year and about 353,000 people were taken to hospital in England in 2006 as a direct result of alcohol abuse. Clearly and unambiguously, labelling is now necessary, especially for pregnant women or those hoping to conceive. The Government’s labelling of every cigarette packet has certainly got the message across about smoking being dangerous to health. Now that message must be followed through to the labelling of alcoholic drinks. A toned-down warning, something that says, “We hope that you abide by this”, is absolutely no use whatever, and these amendments suggest that. I am sorry, but I will not be supporting them, and I support the Bill in its entirety.
- Time
- 16:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord MonsonCrossbench
- Quote
- The noble Baroness talks about alcohol abuse. Does she not concede that the greatest alcohol abuse occurs in clubs and pubs, but there will be no need to have labels put on the glasses served to the mainly young people concerned? That is the problem. It has little to do with whether there are labels on the bottle or cans.
- Time
- 16:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Harris of RichmondLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- That is missing the point. The consumption of alcohol, wherever it is, is what is important.
- Time
- 16:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Baroness Finlay of LlandaffCrossbench- Quote
- I in large part echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Harris. Reading through the amendments, I have particularly concerns about the first. I am rather disappointed that, in moving the amendment, there was no suggestion that the label on the bottle should be clearly displayed at the point of sale, when somebody is purchasing it. That creates a loophole within the Bill. People will perhaps then argue through various bits of case law that their bottle or label is too special, precious or different in shape to warrant carrying the relevant warning. My other concern is that there is no requirement for the warning to be legible. We all know and have seen times when, for example, the sell-by or the shelf date of a product is stamped in such an illegible way that we need two pairs of glasses and a strong light to see which year it was, let alone which day or month. I am concerned that exactly the same method could be used to print pale grey on a light background, or a shade of green on green or whatever, so that the label would not be clearly legible. In that spirit—and I use the word advisedly—I have grave concerns about the amendment.
- Time
- 16:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
The Earl of ListowelCrossbench- Quote
- Briefly, I warmly welcome this Bill in Committee, the co-operation and work undertaken between many of the interests involved, and the work of my noble friends and the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, in bringing this forward. I do not intend to speak any further in Committee, but am grateful for the work that has been done. I share the disappointment expressed about the amendments. It should be as strong as possible. After all, we were recently reminded by a report from Alcohol Concern that 1 million children have an alcohol-dependent parent. Of course, we are particularly concerned about the foetus at this point. This is an opportunity to break some women and mothers from their use of alcohol when their child is at an early stage, so that the children do not experience their parent with that dependency. I want to quote briefly from a report from the mental health charity Rethink. Referring to what we have learnt from advertising on cigarette packets, it states: “Large warnings on cigarette packets in the UK have had a dramatic effect. 12 per cent of quit attempts in 2004 were prompted by packet warnings. Packet warnings are the second largest source of callers to the NHS Stop Smoking Helpline. As the warnings have grown bigger, the number of people who said that the warnings had stopped them from having a cigarette doubled, and the number of people saying they have led them to consider quitting has gone from 25 per cent to 40 per cent”. These warnings are clearly important. I know that we are talking about the size, and the small warnings. I look forward to listening to the Minister’s response on this. In general and on principle, however, I welcome the Bill and the work done on it. I regret that it is not stronger, but recognise that compromises have to be made.
- Time
- 16:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord MonsonCrossbench
- Quote
- Would my noble friend not agree that you cannot go into a pub or club and buy one or two individual cigarettes, having no sight of the packet? If you want a cigarette, you have to buy or have access to a packet and therefore you will see the warning. The analogy with alcohol is imperfect because you can drink an awful lot in a year without buying a bottle or can of beer, or whatever.
- Time
- 16:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- The Earl of ListowelCrossbench
- Quote
- I recognise the point my noble friend makes.
- Time
- 16:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Baroness Falkner of MargravineCrossbench- Quote
- The noble Lord, Lord Monson, made a valid point that many young people who overindulge do so in a social setting where they would not be buying the entire bottle, and therefore would not see the label. But the point of the Bill is to create a culture whereby people are educated about the damage that alcohol can do to them. Irrespective of whether on a particular Saturday night they had a couple of drinks too many and did themselves harm, they would be more aware in general of the damage of alcohol through the labelling process. Secondly, we know from recent research figures that since the smoking ban, the consumption of alcohol in social domestic settings has increased considerably. That is where people would be privy to the warnings on bottles and so on.
- Time
- 16:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Baroness ThorntonLabour- Quote
- Perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lord Mitchell that the first amendment always takes time, so don’t worry. It is of course up to him to decide what he wishes to do with this amendment, but I thought it might be useful if I placed the Government’s position on the record. Thereafter, unless asked specifically, I shall not take part in the debate. I shall sit here and smile. I congratulate my noble friend on his perseverance and his success in bringing his Private Member’s Bill to Committee stage. I am very pleased to see the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, again in her place and on her feet. As we have said on both occasions that my noble friend has sought to introduce his Bill, the Government support fully the ethos and motivation behind it, and are determined to tackle alcohol-related harm in whatever form it may take. As Members of the Committee will recall, last year we reached a voluntary agreement on labelling with the alcohol industry which will provide people with information about how much they are drinking and what it means for their own health. We also expect that the industry should include information on what drinking alcohol during pregnancy means for the health of the child. On Amendment No. 1, the Government’s agreement with industry contains an exemption similar to the proposal put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, because it is aimed at providing flexibility to a minority of small producers in cases where the logistics of production and distribution would have disproportionate costs. My noble friend’s excellent Bill proposes a warning on drinking alcohol during pregnancy. We commend this entirely. We have been clear with the industry that it should include pregnancy advice on labels. Our strong preference is for industry to use government wording, but labels may also use the French pregnancy advice logo. However, we hope that the voluntary agreement will accomplish even more than my noble friend’s Bill, incorporating additional information on units and relating these to daily recommended alcohol consumption guidelines. My noble friend’s Bill rightly proposes that, should it be enacted, it will come into force by no later than 1 January 2010. We agree that swift action is needed. Our voluntary agreement with industry is clear that we expect to see the majority of alcohol product labels carrying the health information by the end of 2008, which is soon and well within the timeframe that my noble friend proposes. It is fair to give industry, which has shown willing thus far, the opportunity to improve labelling without new regulation. And we have given the industry a reasonable period of time within which to meet the terms of the agreement announced last May. We shall be monitoring the industry to ensure that this has taken place, and have appointed CCFRA Technology Limited to carry out an initial collection and analysis of data from a sample of alcoholic drinks labels throughout the UK. A second sample will be taken towards the end of 2008. We will be looking at the presentation. My noble friend’s original Bill contained some detailed provisions, but there are also amendments tabled that would lighten its requirements. I remind noble Lords of the Government’s position. While our voluntary agreement is not so prescriptive on placement, size and other things, we expect the industry to produce labels that consumers can easily read and take in. Visibility, legibility and intelligibility will be the key measures of effectiveness. It is clear that we must await the results of the monitoring, but I sincerely hope that the outcome is as positive as the Government and my noble friend would like. However, if it becomes evident that progress on implementing the agreement is insufficient and that the industry has not delivered, Ministers have made clear that they are willing to legislate following public consultation.
- Time
- 16:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord MitchellLabour
- Quote
- The Minister has given me a lot to think about. I will consider very seriously what she said. I am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, is in her place. It was the right decision to postpone the Committee stage of the Bill. She has been very helpful. She was in hospital, and we are glad to see her on her feet. I am pleased that she is making a contribution to this. In the beginning, I was not absolutely convinced that she was on the side of the angels, but we have spent quite a bit of time trying to find a practical solution to these issues, and she brings a wealth of knowledge from her experience in the drinks industry. There are two areas where we do not agree, and I am certainly less strident than the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, on this issue. It will be interesting to see how the Committee proceeds. Since Second Reading, there have been a number of developments that are well worth mentioning. First, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, which had in some ways equivocated on this issue, came up with a strong position regarding alcohol and pregnancy. That was very good for all of us who have supported this position. Secondly, the BMA has been consistent in its support for what we are trying to do and supports compulsory labelling. However, the most interesting thing that has happened relates to Diageo, which is a major drinks manufacturing company. It manufactures Guinness and lots of spirits, and is a leader in the industry. Its position on this is quite clear: it does not like a voluntary agreement and does not want one. It wants legislation. I went to see Diageo, and it issued a press release. I shall read what the managing director of Diageo Great Britain wrote; it is worth listening to: “We believe that this is crucial if we are to avoid confusion among women. If a pregnant woman walks into a shop and sees two bottles of wine, one with a pregnancy message on it and another without, we want to avoid her thinking that one is better for her than the other. A voluntary labelling agreement would carry this risk”. It continues: “We have been waiting for NICE to confirm its position. We believe that all alcohol producers should include the new guidance on their products. Now is the time for Government to make it a mandatory requirement. We should remember that information on labels is only one way to communicate a pregnancy message. Labelling will only be effective if part of a wider package of responsible drinking communication including programmes, interventions, websites and other resources”. When it comes to it—when the independent survey to which my noble friend referred takes place—Diageo may well not have complied, because I do not think that it wants to. It is absolute: it wants in black and white what it should and should not do. I listened to what noble Lords said about the amendment. I have thought a lot about the issue of miniatures. Clearly, you cannot have a label bigger than the bottle. That is not practicable. The American example is good. You may not be able to read it, you may need good eyesight to be able to read something on a small bottle, but it is there. It is part of a method of thinking; it is part of where we stand on the issue. I see no reason for any exception, even for miniatures. In any other area, you do not get an exception just because you are a small business. It is absolute: if you have to do certain things, you have to. I cannot see the issue. Just as the rules on tobacco were a 100 per cent requirement that had to be complied with, exactly the same should be true of alcohol, without exclusions. There are always issues about phasing in but, as my noble friend said, the Government will look seriously at what is the situation at the end of 2008. It is now May, and there are eight months ago, which is not long. By then, we will know exactly where we stand. On the issue of pubs and clubs, which the noble Lord, Lord Monson, mentioned, I was in a bar in New York a few weeks ago with some friends. There in the bar—not on the glasses but with the bottles—was a clear message that stated that drinking when pregnant can affect the unborn child. There are various ways in which the message can be put across. Even in the club and pub culture, we can do that, as we did in the case of tobacco. I want to keep the provision as it is; I think that it is correct; I do not think that practicability should be an issue. That is where I stand.
- Time
- 17:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness CoussinsCrossbench
- Quote
- Is the noble Lord aware that the Diageo commitment to mandatory labelling for pregnancy does not extend to miniatures? It has said that it would be happy to do it only on containers above that size. Because the noble Lord is so delighted with Diageo’s position, which I can understand, I wonder if that alone might persuade him to think twice about a specific exemption for miniatures. I shall not go to the wall on any of the other aspects, but that seems to me a logical thing to do.
- Time
- 17:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord MitchellLabour
- Quote
- Diageo’s exports of miniatures of Johnnie Walker Black Label to the United States have labels on them. I see no reason why that should not be the case here.
- Time
- 17:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness CoussinsCrossbench
- Quote
- I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
- Time
- 17:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness CoussinsCrossbench
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 2:
- Time
- 17:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord MonsonCrossbench
- Quote
- The noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, has gone a considerable way—although not quite far enough—towards meeting the concerns of those who have misgivings about the Bill. We thank him for that. I also thank him for tacitly accepting my recommendation that drinks containing less than 0.5 per cent alcohol should be exempt. I tabled an amendment to that effect when the previous Bill was in this House. It lapsed because the Bill proceeded no further, but I am glad that he has picked up on it. I shall focus on my Amendment No. 6, to which I was glad to hear that the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, lends her strong support. Most of the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, would convert the Bill into an enabling Bill, leaving this or a future Government to decide on precise details such as the size of the lettering, the colour of the labels and so on and so forth. However, an anomalous requirement in Clause 1(2) remains, perhaps inadvertently. It stipulates that a future Government must insist on the warning appearing on the, “brand label, or on the most visible surface”. A future Government could require the lettering to be six inches high and printed in fluorescent ink, or half a millimetre high and printed in pale grey. They would have no choice over the siting of such advice. That these words should remain in the subsection would be inconsistent with Amendment No. 29, to which the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, has put his name, which deletes exactly the same wording from Clause 14. That reinforces my supposition that his failure to put his name to the deletion of these words was inadvertent.
- Time
- 17:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord MitchellLabour
- Quote
- I have no additions to make. On Question, amendment agreed to.
- Time
- 17:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness CoussinsCrossbench
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 3:
- Time
- 17:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord MonsonCrossbench
- Quote
- It is hard to add anything to the excellent argument made by my noble friend Lady Coussins. Before we leave Clause 1, I want just to refer to something that I do not think has been mentioned, although I was not able to be here for the Second Reading debate—it was held on a Friday, which as noble Lords know is not the easiest day to be in the House. The noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, will correct me if I am wrong, but I do not think that any mention of pictograms was made in his earlier Bill, which had to be withdrawn. It is an interesting idea and in many ways a pictogram may be better than a written warning. However, while one can visualise easily a pictogram of a pregnant woman, one of a woman trying to conceive is rather more interesting. All sorts of images come to mind, some of which might fall foul of the censorship lobby. Has any thought been given to this? Perhaps there is an American example that could be copied. It may sound frivolous, but it is an interesting point mainly because, as the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, told us on the last occasion, it is when a woman is trying to conceive or has just done so that the foetus is in the most danger.
- Time
- 17:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord MitchellLabour
- Quote
- I shall deal first with the questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins. I agree that “advice” is a better word than “warning”. Having thought about it and discussed it, I think that we are giving advice rather than issuing warnings. I feel quite comfortable with the changes and I accept the point that a government warning is for most people a red rag to a bull. It is good that the word will be removed. To answer the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, I should tell him that in France a very effective pictogram is used. It shows the outline of a woman who is clearly pregnant and holding a glass of champagne, as they would in France, surrounded by a clear circle with a cross through it. It makes the point that, whether you are pregnant or thinking about becoming pregnant, alcohol should be avoided. I do not think that any more graphic an example is necessary. On Question, amendment agreed to.
- Time
- 17:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness CoussinsCrossbench
- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 4 and 5:
- Time
- 17:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord MonsonCrossbench
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 6:
- Time
- 17:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord MitchellLabour
- Quote
- I am not quite sure how to answer the point, but I think that there is an inconsistency and I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. On Question, amendment agreed to.
- Time
- 17:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness CoussinsCrossbench
- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 7 and 8:
- Time
- 17:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness CoussinsCrossbench
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 9:
- Time
- 17:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord MitchellLabour
- Quote
- I accept what the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, says on this. The way the wind is blowing is clear from what my noble friend the Minister said. We already have a memorandum of understanding. If that is not complied with, it is clear that the Government will come down like a ton of hot bricks—or at least I hope they will. People in the industry will read this debate and be well aware of what is behind it all. I am happy to go along with the amendment and to lend my name to it. On Question, amendment agreed to. Clause 1, as amended, agreed to. Clause 2 [Size of warnings]:
- Time
- 17:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness CoussinsCrossbench
- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 10 to 13:
- Time
- 17:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness CoussinsCrossbench
- Quote
- Is it in order for me to speak at the same time on whether Clauses 3 and 4 should stand part of the Bill? They are all grouped together and the arguments interrelate.
- Time
- 17:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
The Lord SpeakerCrossbench- Quote
- It might assist the Committee if the noble Baroness did so, although I shall call the amendments as they appear in the individual clauses.
- Time
- 17:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness CoussinsCrossbench
- Quote
- Thank you. It would be sensible to lose Clauses 2, 3 and 4, and it would not damage or reduce the overall impact of the Bill to do so. As they stand, the clauses are over-restrictive, inflexible and not helpful. Clause 2 is superfluous given that the food labelling regulations, which also cover alcoholic drinks, already prescribe for clarity and legibility. The relevant parts of the Food Labelling Regulations 1996 state that any information on labels, “shall be easy to understand, clearly legible and indelible and, when a food”— or, in this case, a drink— “is sold to the ultimate consumer, the said particulars shall be marked in a conspicuous place in such a way as to be easily visible … Such particulars shall not in any way be hidden, obscured or interrupted by any other written or pictorial matter”. I cannot see any reason to go any further than that, in the interests of consistency—which, after all, is one of the five principles of better regulation, an agenda enthusiastically endorsed by the Government. I shall read a couple of sentences from the guidance on the consistency principle produced by the former Better Regulation Commission, on which body I used to sit: “Regulators should be consistent with each other, and work together in a joined-up way … New regulations should take account of other existing or proposed regulations”. It is really not in producers’ interests to put consumer information on labels that is illegible. Retailers would reject it, and so would consumers. The value and importance of reputational risk should not be underestimated. Many of the same arguments apply to Clause 3, where the over-prescriptiveness could end up being counterproductive, partly because of the design of labels—if the label were black and/or red, the impact of the requirement here could be completely lost—but partly because if pregnancy advice is being included as part of the wider sensible drinking message, as in the voluntary agreement, the design and positioning of the package as a whole needs to be addressed by the producer companies. It is too restrictive and illogical to compel them to observe particular requirements for one aspect only out of the five-point plan.
- Time
- 17:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lord McColl of DulwichConservative- Quote
- I am always in favour of simplifying things and getting rid of bureaucracy. On the size of the print, however, I have studied quite a few wine bottles, and I have noted that when the warning is about 1 millimetre high, it is very difficult to read. As the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, said, it also depends on the colour of the label. Black print on a red background is extremely difficult to read.
- Time
- 17:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord MonsonCrossbench
- Quote
- I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord McColl, has understood that it will be up to the Government of the day to decide on the size of the lettering and the colouring. It is not in the Bill, but it has been turned into an enabling Bill. I think that that answers his concerns on that point. Clause 2, as amended, negatived. Clause 3 [Appearance of warnings]:
- Time
- 17:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness CoussinsCrossbench
- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 14 to 20:
- Time
- 17:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness CoussinsCrossbench
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 21:
- Time
- 17:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord MonsonCrossbench
- Quote
- I see the point of Clause 5, but if somebody buys a can of beer at an alcoholic strength of 3 per cent, it is half as dangerous as a can of a rival beer which has 6 per cent alcohol. It seems rather draconian to say that this should not be pointed out. I suppose that the purveyor of the weaker beer should not say, “This is much safer for pregnant women than my rivals”. I suppose it would be acceptable in that case. The stronger the alcoholic beverage, the more dangerous it is. Clause 5, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to. Clause 8 [Enforcement]:
- Time
- 17:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness CoussinsCrossbench
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 22:
- Time
- 17:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- The Lord Speaker (Baroness Hayman)Crossbench
- Quote
- I have to tell the Committee that if Amendment No. 23 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 by reason of pre-emption.
- Time
- 17:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness CoussinsCrossbench
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 23:
- Time
- 17:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord MonsonCrossbench
- Quote
- Once again, the noble Baroness has put the case extremely well and I cannot really add to it. The key word is “proportionate”. For the reasons that she mentioned and the comparison that she has drawn, this suggestion would be disproportionate. There is also a practical aspect. As I said at Third Reading of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill, our prisons are full to bursting. Unfortunately, the Government are creating more offences for which people can be sent to prison, but this is crazy for practical reasons let alone moral ones. I would have thought that a fine—possibly an unlimited fine—and not imprisonment is the right penalty for such an offence.
- Time
- 17:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord MitchellLabour
- Quote
- This is another clause on which we disagree. On the fears that women might have in this country, given the amount of media publicity on foetal alcohol syndrome and the dangers of drinking when pregnant or thinking of becoming pregnant, I think that most people have begun to get the message by now. I am not sure that that is particular. I have a real problem with this amendment. I cannot see that there is any difference between a label on a packet of cigarettes and a label on a bottle of alcohol. A label is a label. There would be a legal requirement and if somebody chooses not to comply, they should face the same penalty as for tobacco labelling. As far as I am concerned, the clause should stay as it is in the Bill. As far as a fine is concerned, who would be the transgressors? They would be supermarkets, manufacturers and whoever. If they are fined, they are fined and they will just get on with life. There should be real teeth to this provision and the wording in the Bill should stand.
- Time
- 17:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness CoussinsCrossbench
- Quote
- Does that mean that the noble Lord will not move Amendments Nos. 24 and 25?
- Time
- 17:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord MitchellLabour
- Quote
- I am intending to move Amendments Nos. 24 and 25.
- Time
- 17:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord MonsonCrossbench
- Quote
- Could we hear from the Government? This is an important matter. The Government are rightly concerned that our prisons are full to bursting point. They must have a view on whether it is wise to provide for the possibility of imprisonment for such an offence.
- Time
- 17:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness ThorntonLabour
- Quote
- The Government’s position is that, should we legislate, we will consider what penalties are most appropriate, using as a starting point the penalties in similar legislation such as for food labelling.
- Time
- 17:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord MitchellLabour
- Quote
- In that case, I will support the noble Baroness on this.
- Time
- 17:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- The Lord SpeakerCrossbench
- Quote
- I can put the Question on Amendment No. 23, but if I do so, I will not be able to call Amendments Nos. 24 and 25.
- Time
- 17:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord MitchellLabour
- Quote
- I am very conscious of the conflict on this. Is there any way that we can defer it for further consideration before we take a position on it?
- Time
- 17:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- The Lord SpeakerCrossbench
- Quote
- It may assist the Committee if the noble Baroness withdraws her amendment for the moment and considers the issue on Report.
- Time
- 17:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness CoussinsCrossbench
- Quote
- In those circumstances I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 not moved.] Clause 11 agreed to. Clauses 12 and 13 agreed to. Clause 14 [Interpretation]:
- Time
- 17:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness CoussinsCrossbench
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 26:
- Time
- 17:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord MonsonCrossbench
- Quote
- I did not add my name to this amendment because, frankly, I did not understand entirely what it was getting at. However, now that it has been explained I do understand and it makes perfect sense and I support it. However, I raise liqueur chocolates in this regard. This is not frivolous. In the days when I used to ski—they are, alas, long since gone—I used to enjoy stopping off at Geneva on the way out and on the way home and picking up a few bars of something quite delicious at the airport or railway station called Gouttes de Kirsch. It was a chocolate bar containing full strength kirsch. A woman suffering cravings during pregnancy could easily demolish a bar or two of these. I reckon they contain as much alcohol as a miniature, perhaps more. I wonder whether consideration has been given to that. Liqueur chocolates are not very fashionable in this country nowadays but if you had a craving for them and ate a bar a day you could presumably do yourself harm.
- Time
- 17:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord McColl of DulwichConservative
- Quote
- I draw attention to a very small point regarding alcoholic drink above 0.5 per cent alcohol by volume—0.5 per cent means 0.5 of a gram per 100 ml, so one does not need to include “by volume”.
- Time
- 17:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord MitchellLabour
- Quote
- The amendment is a very useful contribution by the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins. It was suggested by her and it deals with an area which, frankly, I had not anticipated. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, surely chocolates containing alcohol are covered by paragraph (a) of the amendment which states, “classified as a foodstuff”. I would think that his delicious chocolates are probably covered as a foodstuff. I am also pleased that the 0.5 per cent mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord McColl, is a threshold requirement. On Question, amendment agreed to.
- Time
- 17:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness CoussinsCrossbench
- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 27 to 29:
- Time
- 17:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗