Skip to main content

Alcohol Labelling Bill [HL]

Volume 702: debated on Wednesday 11 June 2008

Report received.

Clause 8 [Enforcement]:

Page 5, line 16, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert “to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale”

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, before I speak to the amendment, perhaps I may remind the House of my various relevant interests as a former chief executive of the Portman Group and a current non-executive adviser on corporate social responsibility to various companies in the drinks sector. I am also a former member of the Alcohol Education and Research Council.

The purpose of the amendment is to make the penalties for breaching the labelling requirements that the Bill will impose less draconian. I tabled this amendment in Committee and it was fully considered, but I withdrew it once the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, agreed to give it further consideration. I believe that he is now happy to support it, and I hope that it will be uncontentious. I intend to speak briefly.

As the Bill stands, the penalties would be inconsistent and disproportionate. My amendment proposes that the penalty for a breach of the labelling requirements be limited to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, which would bring it in line with that applicable to the Food Labelling Regulations 1996. Any person found guilty of an offence under those regulations is liable simply to a fine not exceeding level 5. The kind of offences we are talking about in this Bill are entirely comparable with offences under the food labelling regulations, such as the provision of misleading nutritional information or selling food after its use-by date. Unlike the provisions of this Bill, no term of imprisonment attaches to the offences and no reference is made to conviction on indictment.

On proportionality, I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, now agrees that we are not dealing with a potential offence that should be capable of putting someone behind bars for two years, or indeed at all. A fine at the highest and most severe level, level 5, is appropriate, and any more than that might prove to be counterproductive in that it could be seen by the courts as being so disproportionate that convictions would be unlikely. That would render the Bill as tokenistic and in effect give drinks producers a licence to ignore it. If we are to have legislation along these lines, let it be realistic and workable. I beg to move.

My Lords, in Committee I joined my noble friend in expressing disquiet at the draconian nature of the penalties proposed in the original Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, has always been extremely reasonable and accommodating during our deliberations, so if it is indeed the case that he will accept the amendment, that is excellent news. I look forward to hearing what he has to say.

My Lords, I, too, support the amendment. A fine at level 5 on the standard scale, which is £5,000, is quite appropriate.

My Lords, again I congratulate my noble friend on the progress that his Bill continues to make through the House. In the interests of not repeating arguments made in Committee, I do not intend to speak at length. My noble friend knows the Government’s position: we are monitoring the progress of the voluntary agreement with the industry on alcohol labelling and I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, was correct when she said in Committee that drinks producers are not as intransigent as the tobacco industry was. However, as we have said, if the agreement is not implemented, we will consult on legislation.

My Lords, on reflection and having considered all the issues I, too, have come to the conclusion that banging someone up for two years for an infringement such as this is somewhat excessive, so I am happy to support the noble Baroness in her amendment.

My Lords, I do not have anything to add to what has been said and I thank all noble Lords for their support.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

[The Sitting was suspended from 7.48 to 8.40 pm.]