| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
We also know from research over several years that people’s responses to so-called health warnings are not positive and can even be counterproductive. It is much more sensible to position this in terms of advice. I propose to delete the words “GOVERNMENT WARNING” from the beginning of the prescribed text because we must start from the consumer and what we know about how they would respond to public health messages. Having what is called a warning would be bad enough, but I am afraid that something calling itself a government warning is doubly bad for the chances of its being taken seriously. There is simply no need for it; let us concentrate on advice. In any case, all labels will carry the Drinkaware website address, which has detailed information about alcohol and pregnancy. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: 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me if I am wrong, but I do not think that any mention of pictograms was made in his earlier Bill, which had to be withdrawn.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.
Lord Mitchell: 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
1 May 2008 : Column 415
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.
Baroness Coussins moved Amendments Nos. 4 and 5:
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 6:
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment, but the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, chose not to respond to it when replying to Amendment No. 2. However, it is an important amendment because the wording here is anomalous and does not chime well with Amendment No. 29, which deletes precisely the same words in Clause 14. I wonder whether he might give his view on whether he mistakenly left these words in and would be prepared to remove them, if not at this stage, at the next one. I beg to move.
Lord Mitchell: 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.
Baroness Coussins moved Amendments Nos. 7 and 8:
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Coussins moved Amendment No. 9:
“(4) No advice as required by subsections (1) and (2) shall be required on any container if the producer of that container is in compliance with the voluntary labelling agreement between the alcoholic drinks industry and the Department of Health as expressed in the Memorandum of Understanding dated 24th May 2007.”
The noble Baroness said: This additional subsection would prevent the most responsible producer companies in the industry being penalised for their leadership by having to go to the trouble and expense of changing
1 May 2008 : Column 416
The memorandum of understanding setting out the voluntary scheme deals with pregnancy advice as an important integrated aspect of the sensible drinking message and there is no good reason to separate it out, as the Bill requires. It would be a crying shame for the Bill to undermine the voluntary agreement which has been reached following detailed negotiations between the Government and the industry. It would risk sending out a negative message to the industry about how worth while it may or may not be in the future to work in partnership with the Government and, indeed, with other stakeholders in this way.
As we heard from the Minister, the Government intend to review progress on implementation of the scheme towards the end of 2008 and they hope that the majority of product labels will be suitably amended by then. Compliance levels, or commitments to introducing the new production cycles required to achieve compliance, are already respectably high across the industry; I referred to some figures in the Second Reading debate which I shall not repeat here. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, by adding his name to the amendment, seems happy to accept that it would be fair and just to expect the provisions of his Bill to apply only to those who have not complied already with the voluntary scheme. I beg to move.
Lord Mitchell: 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.
Baroness Coussins moved Amendments Nos. 10 to 13:
On Question, amendments agreed to.
1 May 2008 : Column 417
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Coussins: 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.
The Lord Speaker: It might assist the Committee if the noble Baroness did so, although I shall call the amendments as they appear in the individual clauses.
Baroness Coussins: 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,
- “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.
5.30 pm
Industry needs flexibility to research and introduce improved logos or pictograms as well. We have been talking about the French logo and heard a description of it, but producers need the freedom to investigate consumer insights so that they could possibly offer improved variations on that in future. I am aware of consumer research recently done in Japan that showed
1 May 2008 : Column 418
There is a short and simple reason for Clause 4 not to stand part: it is not necessary. It is already a legal requirement under food safety legislation, which covers alcoholic drinks, that manageable product recalls should be facilitated. The Food (Lot Marking) Regulations 1996 require containers to be marked in order to identify the batch to which the container belongs. Many of those markings are actually minute codes, providing precise information on the time of packaging and the line number on which the product was packaged. I simply cannot see what additional reasons relating to alcohol and pregnancy would require anything further, or for the existing law to be restated.
Lord Monson: Once again, the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, has made her case so well that there is no need for me to embellish it. We are pushing against an open door, in that the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, has been kind enough to accept the deletion of these clauses. I must express some peripheral regret at the disappearance of Clause 2, which demonstrates—if demonstration were needed—the way in which imperial and metric measurements can coexist in perfect harmony in a potential Act of Parliament. There is no need for heavy-handed bureaucracy or the heavy hand of the law to outlaw one form of measurement. I suppose I should declare an interest as a patron of the British Weights and Measures Association, as was the late Gwyneth Dunwoody, whom we shall all miss.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: 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.
Lord Monson: 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]:
Baroness Coussins moved Amendments Nos. 14 to 20:
1 May 2008 : Column 419
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, negatived.
Clause 5 [Product description]:
Baroness Coussins moved Amendment No. 21:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 5, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Monson: 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.
Baroness Coussins moved Amendment No. 22:
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that we do not leave any enforcement loopholes. The best way of doing that is to go for simplicity. It may seem at first sight that to delete every paragraph and replace them just with the words “local authority” is a little imprecise, but I have proposed this catch-all wording because of advice that I have received from LACORS, the local authority co-ordinating body for regulatory services. Taking the remit of the food labelling regulations, which also cover the labelling of alcoholic drinks, LACORS states that the enforcement authority would be,
- “a combination of TSOs in County Councils and Unitary Authorities in England and Wales; EHOs in London Boroughs, Metropolitan Authorities in England and in Scotland and Northern Ireland. In other words, enforcement by ‘Local Authorities’ would cover all eventualities”.
So, for simplicity’s sake, the experts suggest that “local authorities” would catch everybody and not expose us to the risk of possibly leaving somebody out. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
The Lord Speaker (Baroness Hayman): 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.
1 May 2008 : Column 420
Baroness Coussins moved Amendment No. 23:
Clause 11, page 6, line 27, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert “to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale”
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |