Westminster blog

The House of Lords saga continues, with the BBC today reporting criticism of four Lords who have sought to amend legislation in the House.

One of them, Baroness Coussins, was the subject of an FT report last Thursday which you may have missed:

Paid peer watered down law on alcohol

By Alex Barker and Jim Pickard 

A peer who is paid by drinks companies tabled amendments to water down proposed laws on making alcohol carry health warnings for pregnant women, the Financial Times has learned.

The private member’s bill last year sought to impose mandatory rules on drinks labelling, including prison sentences of up to two years for executives of companies who failed to comply.

Lady Coussins, a crossbench peer, opposed aspects of the proposals as “draconian” and submitted 27 amendments.

The bill was later changed to downgrade the custodial penalty to a fine.

The peer is an advocate of self-regulation. She previously led the Portman Group, an industry backed body that aims to promote sensible drinking. In that post Lady Coussins often spoke in favour of more flexible opening hours for pubs.

She now runs a consultancy advising food and drink companies on corporate responsibility, according to her declaration of interests, which classifies the roles as “nonparliamentary consultancies”. The names of the clients are not disclosed on the Lords’ register or in the accounts of Jean Coussins Consulting. Her amendments last summer sought to change the bill to soften penalties, relax the requirements on producers and change the wording on labels from “government warning: avoid alcohol if pregnant” to “government advice”.

Lady Coussins did not return the FT’s calls on Wednesday or yesterday.

Angus MacNeil, the SNP MP who triggered a police inquiry into the cash-for-honours affair in 2006, said Lady Coussins should disclose the names of her clients to determine whether they could have benefited from her amendments.

She declared all of her interests in the debate and said her amendments had been prepared with the help of the Wine and Spirit Trade Association and the British Beer and Pub Association. The amendments were also supported by the Gin and Vodka Association and the National Association of Cider Makers.

Lady Coussins argued that the new regulations would be a burden on small business and that it was not necessary to have all labels carry health warnings: “Labels are only part of the information stream bringing this vital message to women,” she said.

Her argument was controversial, with Baroness Harris of Richmond, a Liberal Democrat peer, expressing concerns about the 353,000 people taken to hospital annually in England for alcohol abuse. “Clearly and unambiguously, labelling is now necessary,” she said.

Another peer, Baroness Finlay of Llandaff, said she had “grave concerns” about one of the amendments, while the Earl of Listowel said he was “disappointed” about the changes.

Lord Mitchell, who tabled the bill, added his name to most of Lady Coussins’ amendments in order to reach a compromise. He accepted the amendment on penalties having come to the conclusion that “banging someone up for two years for an infringement such as this is somewhat excessive”.

Lady Coussins has also asked questions in the Lords related to the food and drink industry. She asked in February whether alcohol abuse was due less to advertising than to “TV soaps and reality shows”.

The prominent role played by Lady Coussins will raise more questions over the Lords code of conduct. Point 4d of the code says members of the House “must not vote on any bill or motion, or ask any question in the House or a committee, or promote any matter, in return for payment or any other material benefit (the ‘no paid advocacy rule’)”.

Many Lords interpret this as applying only to “parliamentary consultancy” roles, rather than other agreements such as remunerated directorships or non-parliamentary consultancies.

Here is Coussins’ reply in a letter to the FT published today:

Sir, Your report (January 30) on my amendments to Lord Mitchell’s bill on alcohol labelling was misleading. My amendments, the vast majority of which were accepted by Lord Mitchell, were designed to strengthen the bill by making it more workable in practice and more consistent with other regulation in the food and drinks sector.

At both second reading and committee stage of the bill, I declared my various interests in full, including the name of the one drinks company for whom I was a paid non-executive adviser on corporate social responsibility. I also said at second reading that this company (Brown-Forman) was already committed to taking the action that the bill sought to impose; it therefore had nothing to gain from my amendments. I do not provide this or any other company with parliamentary consultancy, only advice on social responsibility issues.

As an Independent Crossbencher, I am a paid advocate for no one.

Jean Coussins,
House of Lords