Lord
Griffiths of Burry Port: My Lords, on behalf
of my noble friend Lord Mitchell, and with the permission
of the House, I rise to speak at this point in the debate
and to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Some have greatness thrust upon them.
I
am glad that the Bill is of such a length that I could
read it properly and prepare myself in a way that allows
me to speak first on this issue. I was drawn to it as
a subject when I believed that its field of application
would be more widely drawn than has turned out to be
the case. However, even this discrete area of proposed
legislation allows me to consider the points that would
have been perhaps more germane had there been a wider
field of reference.
I
begin with both a disclaimer and an expression of interest.
The disclaimer is that I speak, of course, as a Methodist—but
a Methodist with a very nice wine cellar. In case there
might be some misapprehension, I am proud of my church’s
teaching on questions of social importance across the
generations, but life is too short to go without the
pleasures of life and we must find a proper way of enjoying
them and, at the same time, safeguarding the vulnerable
and the weak. I believe that the Bill makes one such
proposal along those lines.
The expression of interest is that our daughter will, within
three or four weeks’ time, produce her first child.
Our daughter loved the social life, which involved the
consumption of alcohol and the smoking of cigarettes,
prior to her pregnancy. My wife and I have watched with
personal interest my daughter’s stance on those
pleasures as she began, with her husband, to think of
starting a family. With great pride we can say that
her readiness and her ability to give up both habits
have raised her considerably in our already rather aggrandised
view of her qualities.
As she is to give birth to her first child, our first grandchild,
in Cambodia, I think that the misspelling of my title
on the Order Paper suggests some kind of Freudian slip
on someone’s part, but I am very grateful for
the great care and attention that has been given to
making me feel very much at home.
Who
can be against the proposal at the heart of the Bill?
No one, I would have thought. It is sensible to
18
Jan 2008 : Column 1546
give
the right kind of warning and to display that warning
in the proper place—visibly—to make its
own point. I do not think the debate will involve noble
Lords putting forward an opposing point of view.
The
reason I felt drawn to the debate is largely that I
want us to remind ourselves that we should not imagine
that by putting such a Bill on the statute book we will
cure or solve the problem we are envisaging. In other
areas of life in recent times, we can see where similar
animadversions have been brought to bear on our social
mores and have brought short-term benefits. For example,
the safe sex campaign made a great impact when it was
launched with all the advertising that went with it—some
of it negative advertising showing the danger of HIV/AIDS—but
more recent reports have shown that unsafe sex and sexually
transmitted diseases are on the rise again. So there
may well be a partial and immediate benefit to be gained
from the Bill—I certainly want it to happen—but
we should not imagine or delude ourselves that it will
solve the problem once and for all.
A
similar thing has happened in the area of smoking, where
health warnings abound. It is one of the ironies of
life to see people clutching a packet of cigarettes
that has a health warning which is visible to those
looking at the smoker; whether it is visible to the
smoker is another matter altogether. When one realises
the recidivism and the dependency that are built into
some of these pleasures, we should never imagine that
what we are considering today will once and for all
deal with the problem.
How
do we effect a change of culture? How do we create an
ethos within which people recognise the choices available
to them and choose sensibly? How do we avoid the repression
of the culture I grew up in, which was so condemnatory
of anything that purported to carry pleasurable connotations?
How do we avoid the obvious negative aspects of that
without just moving into a free-for-all ethos in which
it seems that anything goes? In a post-modern culture
where we make up our own ethics as we go along, nothing
can be supposed to be bad. How do we avoid those two
extremes? It is a Scylla and Charybdis situation. Those
of us who are associated with bodies that, in the public
mind and common perception, are negative, condemnatory
and judgmental institutions find it very difficult to
persuade others that there might be proper and objective
grounds for some of the restrictions and that the desire
to rein back the licence is reasonable.
I
commend the Bill on behalf of my noble friend. I thank
the House for giving me the delusion that I am a Front-Bench
spokesman and I hope that the Bill will be warmly endorsed—with
the caveats that I have described.
Moved,
That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord
Griffiths of Burry Port.)
10.14 am
Baroness Coussins: My Lords, I agree
absolutely that it is vital for women who are pregnant,
or who are planning to be, to know about the effects
of alcohol on the developing foetus so they can decide
18
Jan 2008 : Column 1547
whether
they should modify their drinking in the interests of
the baby’s health. I also agree that putting information
or advice on the labels of alcoholic drinks is one important
way to promote awareness of that message. The question
for me is only whether imposing a statutory duty is
the most effective way to achieve that.
I
hope I might convince the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell,
when he reads this speech, that he would see his underlying
objective amply fulfilled by placing his confidence
in the voluntary labelling agreement announced last
May by the Government and the industry. 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. Indeed, some evidence
suggests that if consumers are presented with information
cast as a warning, as proposed in the Bill, they are
likely to react unfavourably, especially if the warning
comes from the Government.
If
I thought that labelling were the only or the most effective
way to inform women about alcohol and pregnancy, then
I would have no reservations about supporting the Bill.
If I thought that pregnancy labelling could be achieved
only by forcing the industry to do it with legislation,
I would again have no reservations. The fact is, however,
that the industry has moved significantly on this issue
since the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, last introduced
his Bill a year ago. I know from my 10 years as chief
executive of the Portman Group that the drinks industry
can often be spurred into redoubling its efforts and
speeding up its actions on social responsibility if
there is the threat of legislation as a backstop. However,
the situation on this issue is that voluntary commitment
to pregnancy labelling, if I can call it that for short,
is now so widespread that the disadvantages of legislation
simply outweigh the benefits of having the threat of
it waiting in the wings in case voluntary labelling
fails.
I
want to develop my argument a little bit more. Your
Lordships should know that although I no longer work
for the Portman Group, I have an interest as a non-executive
adviser on social responsibility to Brown-Forman, a
global wines and spirits company. In my earlier career
in the voluntary sector, I worked and campaigned with
a number of organisations concerned with maternity and
infants’ rights and welfare.
First,
there is the question of timing. The Government and
the industry have agreed a five-point voluntary labelling
scheme, one element of which is pregnancy information
that is broadly in line with what the Bill proposes.
The Department of Health will monitor compliance throughout
2008 and has said that it will decide at the end of
the year whether legislation is justified. The noble
Lord, Lord Mitchell, knows that when his Bill comes
to Committee I shall be as helpful as possible, but
in the light of this timetable for the voluntary agreement
I am hoping he might agree that it is putting the cart
before the horse to deal with the Bill now.
Secondly,
the industry is not just paying lip service. I shall
illustrate with just a few figures. Taking the
18
Jan 2008 : Column 1548
wine
sector first, 23 per cent of the UK market is supermarkets’
own-label brands, and all these retailer chains have
already begun the production process to include the
pregnancy advice on the label. Some are in the shops
already. The largest wine company in Europe, Constellation,
has a further 22 per cent of the UK market. It already
has the French logo on some brands and will include
it on 80 per cent of its brands on the UK market by
this autumn. Half a dozen other global companies have
between about 1 per cent and about 8 per cent each of
the wine market, and several of those have also already
agreed that they will adopt the pregnancy labelling
point within the voluntary agreement. Most of the remaining
35 per cent or so of wine here comes from French companies
and is already labelled accordingly.
In
the spirits sector, the retailers’ own brands
are over one-third of the UK market, and again are already
carrying the pregnancy advice or will certainly do so
shortly. Of the five or six major producer companies
which, between them, account for virtually all the rest
of the UK’s spirits market, half are already committed
to including the pregnancy advice on the label, including,
I am pleased to say, the company I advise.
In
the beer sector, supermarkets’ own brands are
a very small part of the market, although all these
now carry the pregnancy advice or have a production
timetable in place to do so. It is the same with the
two major producers whose brands between them make up
40 per cent of our beer market. Another two are actively
considering it and others which are currently unwilling
might well change their mind if there were consistent
medical advice, a point I shall return to in a moment.
I
hope noble Lords will agree that this represents genuine
progress. I believe that by the end of the year, when
the department evaluates the scheme, a significant majority
of total product in the UK market will carry the pregnancy
advice. Ironically, if the Bill proceeds, progress is
likely to dry up because companies will no longer be
sure what is expected of them. They will not want to
invest this year in one new label design only to face
a new statutory scheme next year. Those already complying
with the voluntary scheme would effectively be penalised
by having to fund two changes. It is unfair to penalise
the industry’s most responsible companies in this
way.
A
key milestone which could trigger further compliance
will be when we know the outcome of the review by the
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.
At least two of the very largest drinks producers are
currently holding back from pregnancy labelling because
they are, quite defensibly, reluctant to put their reputation
on the line and even risk legal action by carrying misleading
or inaccurate information. In the past year we have
seen conflicting advice from the Department of Health,
NICE and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.
Although the chief medical officers are agreed, this
really must be underpinned by a solid consensus among
the scientists and practitioners, otherwise the reluctance
of some drinks companies will remain with good reason,
despite their genuine wish to play a part.
18
Jan 2008 : Column 1549
Noble Lords might say that if the majority of the industry
is so sympathetic to pregnancy labelling and so many
are already doing it, why would it be so dreadful to
make it mandatory? Legislation would not ask the good
guys to do anything they are not doing already, so what
is the problem? The problem is that the price of mandatory
labelling for all brands of all alcoholic drinks would
be disproportionate cost and serious threat to the viability
of many small businesses, with a consequent impact on
consumer choice. This would apply particularly in the
wine sector, where thousands of small producers from
all over the world, using hundreds of UK agents, use
the UK market to test thousands of new wines every year.
We are talking about a very small percentage of the
market in volume terms, but the cost to these companies
of labelling for just one market would be prohibitive
and might even raise questions about fair practice within
the EU’s competition regime. It would also mean
that choice for the vast majority of UK consumers—who
are not pregnant—would be diminished. A regulatory
impact assessment is needed to calculate the effects
of what may seem like a modest labelling requirement
but which could have much wider ramifications.
I
would happily argue that all this would be a price worth
paying, and well worth paying, if it were the case that
only by labelling could we inform women about the effects
of alcohol on pregnancy, or even if it were the case
that there was a vast knowledge gap that needed to be
plugged. But neither of these things is true. In June,
the Government published the revised National Alcohol
Harm Reduction Strategy, which revealed that the proportion
of mothers who drink during pregnancy fell in the five
years between 2000 and 2005. Some 46 per cent said that
they did not drink anything at all and 92 per cent of
the rest drank two units or less a week. This is absolutely
in line with the advice endorsed by the chief medical
officers; that is not surprising, as nearly three-quarters
of mothers who drank said that they had received information
about drinking in pregnancy, mainly from their midwives.
The others may just have been following the message
from their own body which, in my experience, stops you
drinking the minute you are pregnant by making you feel
nauseous at the very thought.
The
Government also said that they would be launching a
new campaign in April this year to ensure that women
are aware of the revised advice. Labelling is a sensible
way of reinforcing this advice, but is by no means the
primary source of information for women. Indeed, were
it down to labelling alone, we should almost certainly
not have such a positive story to tell. Research in
the US and Denmark suggests that pregnant women’s
attitudes are largely independent of the advice they
get on health warning labels.
So
my conclusion is that the price of forcing every producer
to label every brand is not justified either by the
information gap among women or by the role played by
labelling within the whole range of sources of advice
available. The department seems to accept this point,
because it stated in the voluntary agreement that,
18
Jan 2008 : Column 1550
“it may not be practicable or may be disproportionately
costly for labels of some products to carry all or any
aspects of the sensible drinking message”.
There is one other argument against legislation, to
do with the principles of better regulation. If a policy
objective can be achieved through voluntary action or
self-regulation, it is surely a waste of public expenditure
and an unwise use of parliamentary time to create, administer
and police a system that the industry is demonstrably
able to produce and pay for itself.
I
also think that there are ways in which the Bill could
be more proportionate and consistent, and I will mention
them in passing, leaving more detailed discussion for
the Committee stage. For example, I should have thought
that the guidance on legibility of labels from the Food
Standards Agency would be perfectly adequate for drinks
containers, without having to go further and be as prescriptive
as the Bill. The penalties also seem excessively harsh,
given the existing penalties.
A
lot of emphasis has been placed on action taken on labelling
in other countries, particularly within the EU. But
I think that the UK is leading, not catching up. France
is currently the only other member state with a statutory
requirement for pregnancy labelling. Finland and Sweden
will follow suit, and there are discussions in a small
number of other countries. But in this context, the
UK’s voluntary scheme and its likely impact of
a very high percentage of market volume being labelled
by the end of this year looks pretty impressive to me.
What would be unhelpful would be 27 different statutory
schemes, each requiring a different format and different
message. Already quite different labelling protocols
are emerging in France, Finland and Poland. The Bill
would add to the variety and the confusion. If there
has to be legislation, it would be far better from the
point of view of the industry and, I think, the consumer,
for it to be a single piece of EU legislation prescribing
a common and consistent approach across all markets.
I
think that the voluntary agreement on labelling will
achieve the step change in information which the noble
Lord, Lord Mitchell, seeks through the Bill, but without
the unintended consequences and disadvantages that I
have outlined. As for improvements in behaviour in the
light of that information, in the end that is down to
women themselves.
10.27
am
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I support
the Bill, as vice-chair of the Associate Parliamentary
Group for Children and Young People In and Leaving Care
and treasurer of the All-Party Group on Children. The
noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, does a great service to the
public by bringing this Bill forward and by his consistent
pressure in this area. I listened with interest to my
noble friend Lady Coussins. It is of great benefit to
the House to have her expertise in this area brought
to bear on this matter. I disagree with much of what
she said, but I hope that the dynamic between support
for the measure and a strong opposing voice will add
value to the Bill as it goes through the House.
18
Jan 2008 : Column 1551
I
have been put in mind of the seductive commercials for
advertising alcohol at Christmas. It is hard to reconcile
the impetus from business to sell its product with the
need to protect certain people from the harm that can
arise. I am reminded of the work that Her Majesty’s
Government have already done in introducing welcome
measures to protect the public from the harms of cigarette
smoking. I remember being horrified when I heard about
the impact of tobacco smoking during pregnancy. I read
about the likelihood of low birth rate, with all its
associated risks. I learnt how exposure of the foetus
to toxins from tobacco could lead to reduced intelligence
and to the individual being of a smaller stature when
he is fully grown. If the Government are to be consistent,
they should accept this Bill, which should provide similar
benefits for children.
We
are all aware of the increase in binge drinking and
particularly of young women becoming less prudent in
managing alcohol. I was grateful for the encouraging
statistics from my noble friend on the number of women
who have been listening to medical advice and reducing
alcohol consumption while pregnant. I have a particular
concern about those women who become dependent on alcohol;
they need the strongest and most explicit message to
ensure that they desist during pregnancy. Will the Minister
say what the estimated level is of women who are alcohol
dependent and what the trend has been in recent years
with regard to those women?
A
year ago I had the opportunity to speak to some alcoholics
and I was struck by two things. The first was the capacity
of alcoholics to delude themselves. They would attempt
to remain sober, but when they saw the opportunity for
a drink they told themselves that to have one would
not hurt—and then they would find themselves waking
up in a park two days later. Secondly, I was struck
when a woman said that when she was carrying her baby
she reduced her alcohol intake, moving from spirits
to wine and stout. She could see that in retrospect
she had deluded herself and failed to protect her baby.
I
welcome the chance that this Bill 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. The more explicit one is about the risks to their
child, the greater the chance that they may seek to
desist from drinking. They may even approach an organisation
such as Alcoholics Anonymous for help; it may even be
the opportunity for them to stop drinking for good and
spare their child the risks associated with being reared
by an alcoholic mother. I would read to your Lordships
some comments made during a conference on women and
alcohol, led by Alcohol Concern—comments that
were made by children on ChildLine—but I cannot
find them in my notes at the moment. A significant number
of those calls were associated with children talking
about their parents’ alcohol problems.
I
look forward to the Minister’s response. I hope
that she will lay out the timescale expected for the
industry to implement what is proposed and that she
will assure the House that the warnings coming from
the industry will be as explicit and strong as possible.
18
Jan 2008 : Column 1552
10.33 am
Lord Mitchell: My Lords, here was I
thinking that I was 45 minutes early. I thank my noble
friend Lord Griffiths for moving the Motion on Second
Reading of this Bill and for the generosity of the House
in allowing me to speak at this point.
This
Alcohol Labelling Bill is almost identical to the Bill
that I introduced into your Lordships’ House last
year. It differs in one respect only, which I will come
to later. Last year’s Bill hit the buffers when
an amendment was introduced by one noble Lord, which
effectively killed it off; the usual channels told me
that no time would be made available later in the parliamentary
Session. This time around, I have reintroduced the Bill
much earlier in the Session. Private Members’
Bills always have to battle against the constraints
of parliamentary time both here and in the other place.
