Extracts from Westminster
Hall debate on alcohol harm
(Luton North)
(Lab):...By far the most tragic of all the problems caused
by alcohol, in my view—this view is probably shared more widely—are
foetal alcohol spectrum disorders. Estimates suggest that each year
some 6,000 babies are born damaged for life by alcohol consumed in
pregnancy. It causes misery for those children and their families
and costs the state vast sums of public money every year.
In Canada, the lifetime cost to the state has been
calculated as up to $3 million dollars for every child suffering
from FASD. The children concerned are referred to, somewhat
unkindly, as “$1 million-dollar babies”. I have a good friend who
lives in Canada—a former school friend—and he tells me
about the situation there.
FASD also causes learning difficulties and behavioural problems.
A high proportion of people convicted of crimes and in our
prisons are victims of FASD. Research by the Medical Research
Council has concluded that even moderate drinking in pregnancy
has an impact on IQ and learning abilities. There is no safe
level, and that must be communicated to all women planning and
experiencing pregnancy and, above all, to all professional
medical staff. The recent report by the all-party parliamentary
group on foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, which I was happy to
contribute to, made strong recommendations on such information; I
was pleased to emphasise the information that is required. FASD
is the leading known cause of learning disabilities, and much of
what is thought to be autism is actually the effects of alcohol
consumed in pregnancy. The Government must wake up to the tragedy
of FASD and take urgent action to ensure that all women know
about it.
Again, in Canada the Government take the matter so
seriously that girls are made aware of the problem in primary
school. They are asked in class what they must not drink when
they have a baby in their tummy, and they all say, “Alcohol.”
They know about the problem. In the US and elsewhere, alcoholic
drinks containers are required to have warning labels—not just a
small symbol of a pregnant woman, and not on a voluntary basis.
The Government warning in the US states:
“According to the Surgeon General, women should not drink
alcoholic beverages during pregnancy because of the risk of birth
defects.”
(Birmingham, Hodge Hill)
(Lab):...As the hon. Member for Congleton said, we need
to develop a plan to change public attitudes, and we need to
revise the national strategy to focus on price and availability.
The evidence from Canada and Ireland—and I hope soon
from Scotland—is very clear that price makes an important
difference...
(Linlithgow and East
Falkirk) (SNP):...As my hon. Friend the Member for North
Ayrshire and Arran informed us, evidence
from Canada suggests that there is a
direct link between changes in minimum price and changes in
consumption. It is estimated that a 10% increase in minimum price
might be associated with a 32% reduction in wholly
alcohol-attributable deaths. That is significant, and it is an
approach worth taking. As we heard, using updated modelling from
the University of Sheffield, it was estimated that a minimum unit
price of 50p would result in 121 fewer deaths and a fall in
hospital admissions of about 2,000 per annum in Scotland.
Significantly, 51% of off-sales are sold for less than 50p per
unit—some for as little as 18p...
(Sefton Central)
(Lab):...As part of our strategy, we have to increase
awareness, not only among professionals but among the wider
population, of the support needed for women before pregnancy. In
north America, which my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North
mentioned, information is displayed in all the health facilities,
education facilities and even airports—I have seen big signs in
Canadian airports that say “Don’t drink if you’re pregnant or
trying to conceive”...
To read the whole debate, CLICK
HERE
Extract from Lords
statement on Brexit White Paper
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State,
Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Bridges of Headley)
(Con):...On the customs union, as I have said before, we
should start thinking about the customs union in terms of its
component parts. Yes, there is the component part with regard to
the common external tariff and the CDCP, from which my right
honourable friend the Prime Minister has said we wish to withdraw.
However, there are other aspects of it, as the noble Baroness well
knows, regarding the processes around frictionless trade, such as
authorised economic operators and trusted trader schemes, and
precedents that one could point to on the borders
between Canada and North America to ensure
very free and frictionless trade. Therefore, it is slightly
premature to say that we are somehow going to lose all these
points. We are focused on it and are determined to ensure that we
achieve trade that is as frictionless as possible...
