|
Alcohol Labelling Bill [HL]
A Bill to make provision for the labelling of alcoholic beverages; and for connected purposes.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab) opened second reading debate for the Alcohol Labelling Bill in the Lords on Friday.
He believed that the proposal at the heart of the Bill, to label alcoholic beverages with warning for pregnant women, cannot be opposed by anyone. He went on to say that “it is sensible to give the right king of warning and to display it in the proper place” and compared this to the health warnings on cigarettes. He did believe, however, that this Bill will not solve the problem of drinking whilst pregnant and that a change of culture, although a difficult to enact, was needed.
Baroness Coussins (CB) agreed “that putting information or advice on the labels of alcoholic drinks is one important way to promote awareness” of the dangers of drinking whilst pregnant. However, she questioned “whether imposing a statutory duty” was the most effective way to achieve that.
She believed that “legislation at this point would have a disproportionately adverse impact on the industry without achieving any significant increase in women’s awareness of the impact of alcohol on pregnancy and would almost certainly produce no change in their behaviour.” She believed that the voluntary labelling scheme is effective as a significant proportion of the industry is actively labelling alcohol.
She also argued that if the proposals of the Bill can be achieved through voluntary action then it would be a waste of public expenditure and parliamentary time to create legislation in this area.
The Earl of Listowel (CB) supported the Bill welcoming the chance that it offers to “reinforce to women who are alcoholic or on the verge of being so the message that by drinking they are harming their baby.” He also argued that the Bill was important because of the increase in binge drinking and with “young women becoming less prudent in managing alcohol”
Lord Mitchell (Lab), who introduced the Bill, described “how dire alcohol abuse” is in the UK. He believes the government has the “duty to inform women of the dangers of drinking any alcohol when pregnant.” He believes that it is important to put this message across because there is strong evidence that “mothers who drink at any stage of their pregnancy run the risk that their baby can be damaged.”
He also argued that many women “are confused about the quantity that they can drink while pregnant” and the Bill will remedy the confusion. He referred to other countries where labelling is compulsory and therefore does understand why the industry “is kicking up a fuss” over the introduction of labelling in the UK.
Lord Mitchell also argued that the voluntary code is “less than certain” and that “adherence will be less than 100 per cent.” He concluded “the time for talking is; let’s see some action.”
Lord Addington (Lib Dem) argued that the government should make sure that one message is coming out so that there was no confusion over the message. He argued that clarification on what is a safe limit of alcohol will prevent the arguments about self-regulation etc. from going round in circles.
He also believed that a way to “deal with excessive alcohol consumption” is to address “supermarkets and retailers, which often use alcohol as loss leaders.”
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con) congratulated Lord Mitchell for introducing the Bill and argued that the Bill will protect the vulnerable. He also argued that there was confusion over units and how many were safe for pregnant women. He agreed with Baroness Coussins and thought that mandatory labelling would be effective.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon, junior health minister, wound up for the government. She stated that the “government are seeking to encourage the alcohol industry to implement a more wide-ranging alcohol labelling regime.”
She stated that the government will “commission independent monitoring of the progress that is being made by the industry in fulfilling the terms of the agreement” of the voluntary labelling scheme.” She did state that the government will “not hesitate to introduce legislation if we are not satisfied with the industry’s efforts in ensuring that the majority of drinks labels are carrying the information required.”
Progress
House of Lords
First reading: November 22 2007 [HL Bill 10]
Second reading: January 18 2008
Committee of the Whole House:
|
