Alcohol Labelling Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 1: 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.