| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
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.
Noble Lords will be delighted to hear that I am not going to repeat the speech that I gave at the previous Second Reading. The list of speakers today is relatively small, but noble Lords who are speaking have great expertise in this area and I am sure that all the issues will be addressed. What I will do is repeat in summary the background to the Bill, highlight how it differs from the previous one and go through the important developments that have taken place in the past year. Finally, I shall address the fair question of why am I introducing this Bill when the industry has already voluntarily agreed to a code to include labelling at the end of this year.
We barely need reminding just how dire alcohol abuse is in our country. One comment that I made last time seems to have found a wider audience: that if at the upcoming Olympic Games in Beijing binge drinking were to be an official event, our country would walk away not only with the gold medal, but also with the silver and bronze. It is not much to be proud of. In London just 18 days ago, during the first hours of 2008, calls to the ambulance service on drink-related incidents rose 16 per cent over the same period in 2007 and by 30 per cent over 2006. The epidemic continues. This epidemic is not just a male problem; more and more young women seem to regard each weekend as an opportunity to go out on the lash. We do not need to look too far to see how true that is.
Foetal alcohol spectrum disorder occurs when alcohol passes from the mother’s bloodstream into the bloodstream of the foetus. Because the foetus has no functioning liver and because organ and neurological development proceeds throughout the pregnancy, extensive damage can be done to the unborn baby. FASD is the wider disorder affecting one in 100 babies. Sometimes its effect is mild; sometimes it is severe. Foetal alcohol syndrome is a severe disorder affecting one in 1,000 babies. Its effect is catastrophic. It causes brain damage and often organ malfunction resulting in a baby being born severely handicapped, mentally and sometimes physically.
My Bill starts from the premise that we as a legislative assembly and the Government themselves have the duty to inform women, in particular young women, of the dangers of drinking any alcohol when
18 Jan 2008 : Column 1553
Why is it important to put this message across so starkly? The evidence now is strong that mothers who drink at any stage of their pregnancy run the risk that their baby can be damaged. This damage can be slight or severe and in its worse form can cause terrible damage. What is undeniable is that it is preventable. If a mother refrains from drinking during pregnancy, foetal alcohol spectrum disorder will not happen. That seems a pretty open and shut case, yet there are many who are against labelling, who say that it is one more instance of the nanny state interfering in our ancient liberties. They fail to appreciate that what is planned to be mandatory is labelling, not not drinking while pregnant. If a woman chooses to drink in these circumstances, that is her choice. I believe passionately that we as a Parliament have the duty to inform the public of the risks and how they might affect an unborn baby.
Sadly, many women today are confused about the quantity that they can drink while pregnant. Sometimes the messages that are sent out by the authorities and the media are conflicting. This Bill seeks to remedy this confusion. It is not about more nannying; it is about more information. Many women believe that some alcohol consumption while pregnant is fine. Some say that a few units now and then are harmless. The medical profession itself sends out mixed messages. We measure alcohol consumption in units, as if members of the public have any idea what a unit is. Is it a glass of wine? Well, what is a glass of wine? Today a large glass of wine in a pub or bar can be as much as one-quarter of a litre. Moreover, are we talking about the kind of wine with which we are familiar, which has an alcohol content of 12 per cent, or is it some newer concoction that reaches 15 per cent? How about alcopops? How many units are there in a Bacardi Breezer? I must admit that I have no clue.
I suspect that it is only human, when we use the number of units as a guide, to regard such advice with scepticism. If 14 units per week is the limit, what harm is 16? While we are at it, let us go for a round 20. Sometimes I have a vision of endless meetings at the Department of Health discussing the importance of units. I bet that officials get very worked up on the subject. Everything they do is reduced to the number of units. But I wonder just how many people in the King of Prussia on a Friday night have a clue what a unit is. When I have asked my friends, I have received blank stares.
Since the Bill was previously introduced, there have been many developments. First, the Department of Health published its position that women who are pregnant or thinking of becoming pregnant should avoid all alcohol. “Avoid” is the key word. That was good news. It received massive publicity and, as a result, many more women have become aware of the issue and the dangers. But memories fade fast.
18 Jan 2008 : Column 1554
Then, in June 2007, the British Medical Association’s board of science published a report entitled, Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder—AGuide for Healthcare Professionals. It made many recommendations but recommended in particular that women who are pregnant, or who are considering a pregnancy, should be advised not to consume any alcohol and that consistent and clear advice be given to healthcare professionals and the general public regarding the sensible drinking message and the risks of alcohol consumption during pregnancy.
There have been significant developments in other countries. In the United States, labelling has been compulsory since the passing of the Alcoholic Beverage Labeling Act in 1988. In France, labelling is compulsory. In South Africa, the Government plan to have compulsory labelling. In Finland, labelling is compulsory, as it is in Sweden on all products containing more than 2.25 per cent alcohol. Many other countries are moving in that direction.
I remain sceptical about a voluntary code for labelling. I am no fan of self-regulation. I know that it is the preferred route of the Department of Health and I know that the industry, to its credit, is moving in that direction. But I simply do not believe that it is good enough; those who choose to ignore it will be able to do so. When we introduced labelling on tobacco products, we did not ask the tobacco manufacturers to volunteer to a labelling code, perhaps because we knew what the answer would be. We told them what they had to do, as did legislators in most other countries, and they did it. Surely the same should apply to this form of labelling.
I fail to understand why the alcoholic beverage industry, which is compelled by law to include labelling of the type that we are suggesting in other countries, is kicking up such a fuss. I simply do not understand the logic that says that one consignment of Johnnie Walker Black Label whisky bound for New York has a label while the next consignment of an identical bottle of whisky bound for London does not.
I see confusion everywhere. I see confusion on what constitutes a unit. How big is the glass and how potent is the brew? Also, as I have asked, what is a unit? I see confusion when the Government say, “Avoid all alcohol when pregnant”, but some commentators in the media say, “Drink sensibly”. I see confusion when, in October 2007, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence produced guidelines that stated that pregnant women can consume 1.5 units of alcohol per day after the first three months of pregnancy, whereas the BMA says, “Avoid all alcohol”. I see confusion when the Portman Group, the industry’s mouthpiece on social responsibility, says that it is holding back from labelling due to the uncertainties about the dangers of drinking when pregnant. If all the experts are confused, how about the young woman going out on a Friday night to enjoy herself? What is she supposed to make of it? What about the babies who in the mean time are being born with FASD and FAS, disorders that are totally preventable? It is simply not good enough for us to allow this confusion to continue.
18 Jan 2008 : Column 1555
At Second Reading of the previous Bill in your Lordships’ House, the Minister, my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, concluded his wind-up speech by saying,
- “if talks became protracted and it looked as if there would not be a successful outcome, noble Lords would be absolutely right to come back and say to the Government, ‘The time for talking is over; let’s see some action’”.—[Official Report, 20/4/07; col. 479.]
Well, here we are, nine months later. The voluntary code is less than certain and, when and if it comes into effect, it is clear that adherence will be less than 100 per cent. I end by saying to my noble friend the Minister, “The time for talking is over; let’s see some action”.
10.44 am
Lord Addington: My Lords, the Bill before us is based on the concept that one has to do something to address a problem. The noble Lord has made a good job of describing the problem, but the question is: what is the correct action to be taken? An argument between self-regulation and compulsory regulation is going on. What will self-regulation do? How will the Government monitor it to see whether it is successful?
About the confusion of information, the Government can do something: they can make sure that one message is coming out. That would help. Let us remember what we would achieve by having labelling on a bottle. It would be part of a drip-drip process to reinforce other messages at other points in the process. It will not be a cure-all.
The ban on cigarette advertising took a long time to get anywhere. You build consensus; you then achieve something. I was recently in Brussels, where there is a smoking ban. Everybody lit up in a restaurant because it was not being enforced. How we address that and how we get into people’s minds is something that the Minister can start to tell us about in a few minutes. What is the process?
The noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, did a good job in describing the problem. He said that it causes damage. He asked where we were going and said there was no absolutely safe limit in all cases. I am afraid that the answer is that most people will be able to get away with a little, but are we prepared to take the risk? That muddle might be addressed in a better campaign, of which it would be a small part. Without clarification on that, our arguments about self-regulation, when it will be reviewed and updated, about what is going on, about the Government’s current position and the message that must absolutely be enforced will go round in circles. Clarification will help us.
We are all worried about alcohol, because it is misused and being consumed by people of younger ages, and because we have managed—I do not know how—to create a culture of binge drinking, which is blamed on 24-hour drinking, despite the fact that it existed long before that was introduced. Binge drinking was helped to be created by the “get your round in before the pub shuts early” culture. Anybody who has not seen that was not in a pub when it shut at 11 pm. And if you wanted something to encourage you to be wrecked in the afternoon, it was lunchtime drinking.
18 Jan 2008 : Column 1556
How do we get the message across to society? If we are going to deal with excessive alcohol consumption, we have to address one of the big players in society; that is, supermarkets and retailers, which often use alcohol as loss leaders. We all saw it on television during the Christmas period: “Buy X cans at X price, and come in and do the rest of your shopping as well”. If the drinks industry really wants to address the drinking culture, I would take it much more seriously if it did something in that area. That might be a more constructive approach to the problem as a whole. I do not underestimate this element of the problem, but I am afraid that it must be seen as part of a whole at certain points.
As the Bill progresses, I hope that the drinks industry and retailers will give me some idea of what they are going to do to address the problem. If you have a pile of cans at home, and your 14 year-old son or daughter grabs them to go out with their friends, somebody who is very young will be drinking out on the streets without any supervision. Many of the horror stories which the press delights in giving us may relate to those situations.
The alcopop industry—or, to use the correct name, the pre-mix cocktail industry—initially aimed its products at people whose palates liked them. I have tried alcopops a couple of times and they suggest to me petrol mixed with syrup. Young palates apparently like them. The advertising goes along the lines of, “Are you a KWV moment?”, which means, “Are you prepared to wreck somebody else’s evening for a laugh?”. That sort of advertising and culture must be addressed at some point.
Can the Government give us an idea about their overall strategy? They are doing something. They have good adverts which demonstrate what happens if you drink too much and what you look like. A friend of mine pointed out that these are great adverts, designed to be shown when people come in from the pub. Showing them slightly earlier might be better.
Do the Government think that the industry has moved fast enough to achieve greater warnings in key areas? What is their monitoring process of that voluntary code, and how successful is it? At what point are they prepared to take action if it is not good enough? That would be very helpful to the debate.
10.50 am
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, I too add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, for introducing this Bill and recognise his dogged determination and his splendid work with the National Organisation on Foetal Alcohol Syndrome.
This Bill is about protecting the vulnerable because it is generally accepted that alcohol is a poison, although it is not included in the Poisons Act 1972. The mechanism by which it damages is not fully understood, but it probably disrupts the synthesis of protein. It may be related to poor diet, especially a deficiency of vitamin B. It depresses the functions of the body and it stimulates conversation by depressing our inhibitions. Lest your Lordships should think that I am about to recommend prohibition, I quote from the good book:
18 Jan 2008 : Column 1557
When I mention another verse to my wife, which says,
she says, “Yes, and it says ‘a little’”. I always knew when she was pregnant because half a glass of sherry would make her very talkative.
These comments simply emphasise the importance of the dosage of alcohol and its dangers during pregnancy. As it is not certain whether small doses are harmful, the advice of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the Royal College of Midwives seems the most sensible: avoid alcohol in pregnancy altogether—a matter mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell.
Binge drinking is especially harmful to both mother and baby, particularly around conception. As women are not aware of precisely when they are actually conceiving, all women of child-bearing age should avoid binge drinking like the plague.
While we are dealing with the subject of dosage, I have noticed that there are many ex cathedra statements about how much alcohol one can drink, quite apart from pregnancy. We are told that women can have 14 units and men can have 21 units a week. What that completely fails to point out is that these figures refer only to those who weigh 11 stone or 70 kilos. A little old lady of 7 stone or 45 kilos should have only nine units per week and a man of 7 stone only 13 units a week. Would the Minister undertake to look into the anomaly of why there is no emphasis on the dose of alcohol?
As far as concerns the actual labelling, have noble Lords noticed that many bottles of wine display a notice stating: “Contains sulphites”? The printing is usually 1 millimetre high. One bottle of Chianti had this notice in 17 different languages. Two points arise from that. If it is considered essential to put a notice about sulphites on bottles of wine, surely it must be much more important to indicate the more serious dangers of alcohol, especially in pregnancy. I have advised the Minister that I would like to know the history of the sulphites notice. Sulphites are added as a preservative. Some people believe that sulphites provoke an adverse respiratory effect in sensitive people, but this kind of reaction is complex and multifactorial and may be quite unrelated to the sulphites.
When it becomes common practice to label bottles of alcohol, I hope that the size of the print can be at least 2 millimetres. Having gone to all this trouble it seems a shame if people cannot read the notice that has been put on there.
Last weekend I scrutinised a number of wine bottles. My host was a little apprehensive as I went through his wine cellar. He thought that I had designs on it, but I was really scrutinising the labels. I was surprised at how much information is already displayed on bottles. On some French wine bottled in Manchester there is quite a large notice which reads:
“BEFORE/DURING PREGNANCY: Most studies show that 1-2 units of alcohol once or twice a week do not cause any harm in pregnancy”.
18 Jan 2008 : Column 1558
That is a positive approach, but I would have preferred a more cautious wording, such as:
“Although some studies suggest that one to two units once or twice a week do not cause harm in pregnancy, the safest policy is to avoid it during the first half of pregnancy altogether”.
The French have designed a wine bottle label with an unusual warning. It consists of a traffic “no entry” sign containing a silhouette of a pregnant lady with a glass of wine in her hand. I am not sure how well that will be received by the British wine industry, but one never knows.
Some wine companies already indicate the number of units in a bottle. For instance, the Co-op in Manchester has on the back of its bottles of French wine a 3x4-inch notice entitled “Customer information”, which not only lists the ingredients but states the maximum safe number of units. It states:
“Use the DAILY guidelines for sensible drinking. Refraining in one day should not mean excess on another”.
It goes on further to list the number of units in each bottle, namely 10 units in a 750-millilitre bottle of wine, the calorie content and number of glasses. Many people are unaware of how many calories can be consumed by alcoholic drinks. Three Mai Tai cocktails contain 1,000 calories.
Perhaps stimulated by this Bill, the wine industry has reached agreement with the Government, as has been said already, that by the end of the year all alcoholic drink labels will include information about the number of units. Recent surveys suggest that 75 per cent of the population agree with labelling and that 69 per cent know the maximum number of units which should be consumed. The problem is that only 13 per cent actually keep an eye on how much they drink. By displaying the number of units on the labels, together with the safe levels of consumption, we hope this will encourage people to avoid dangerous levels of drinking.
Unfortunately, many people still think that a glass of wine is just one unit—a matter mentioned already. I have been unable to find a single glass in the Palace of Westminster that contains one unit. The standard glass in the Bishops’ Bar holds 175 millilitres, which is over two units if the wine is the usual 13.5 per cent strength. Of course 13.5 per cent means 13.5 grams per 100 millilitres. The largest glass is 250 millilitres, which is over three units. As there is little appreciation of how many units people are drinking, even in your Lordships' House, perhaps it is not surprising that more than 7 million people in this country drink in a harmful way.
In conclusion, the efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, have already been partially rewarded and by the end of the year most bottles will be labelled, but we still need to persuade the wine industry to include warnings about pregnancy. As far as mandatory labelling is concerned, I am very much inclined to agree with the views expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, in her excellent speech. The Bill seems to have been overtaken by events, making it unnecessary.
18 Jan 2008 : Column 1559
11 am
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Mitchell on introducing his Bill. I well understand that he must be extremely frustrated to have missed the first part of the debate. We well understand why that was the case. It is not a criticism but our noble friend Lord Griffiths did an excellent job with his reference to a minister with a wine cellar. He is absolutely right that no one can be against the important ethos behind this Bill. We wish his daughter well. My noble friend Lord Mitchell is a formidable standard bearer for the National Organisation for Foetal Alcohol Syndrome. We all admire his great and growing expertise. I commend him especially on his tenacity and commitment in seeking to place a legal obligation on alcohol producers to provide information on product labels warning women of the potential risks to the unborn child of alcohol misuse.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |