Proposition 54K0406

Proposition de résolution relative à la mise en place d'une politique adaptée dans le cadre de la lutte contre la consommation abusive d'alcool.

General information ¶

Authors

MR Luc Gustin, Benoît Piedboeuf, Damien Thiéry

Submission date

Oct. 7, 2014

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

alcoholism health risk young person infancy resolution of parliament

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR PP VB

Abstained from voting

Groen Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP DéFI PVDA | PTB

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

July 14, 2016 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The rapporteur, Mr. Senesael, refers to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, from the very beginning, I would like to thank all the colleagues who participated in the discussions in the committee on this proposal for a resolution. These discussions were constructive. Even if the result may not satisfy everyone, it is a specific advance awaiting the National Alcohol Action Plan.

I would like to come back to some points related, in particular, to the consumption of alcohol among young people. Initially, this resolution was aimed at them as a priority. But following discussions, it tends to touch all segments of the population by abstraction from the gender problem.

Very often alcohol is banalized and its consumption is perceived as a social gesture with warm connotation and evoking sharing between friends and family. Or today for men, at the bar, watching the Tour de France.

Young people are a ⁇ vulnerable group and this is why this resolution specifically targeted them. But a new phenomenon has emerged: binge drinking. At any event, where you meet young people between 15 and 25 years old, it has become a habit. It is disastrous, of course.

I would like to communicate elements that have not been given in the commission by returning to the finding drawn up by the Intermutualist Agency which shows how significant the damage is. In 2014, 47 young people between the ages of 12 and 17 were admitted every week to emergencies due to alcohol abuse. Out of 10,000 young people in the same age group, the number of weekly victims of alleged alcohol poisoning increased from 30 in 2008 to 34 in 2014. In absolute figures, we are talking about 2,433 cases for 2014. Over fifteen years, the progression is approximately 50%.

For the first time, among 12-17 years of age, and it is important to no longer make the gender distinction, the number of girls joined that of boys. It is among 17-year-olds that the phenomenon takes really worrying proportions with 996 cases, 6% more than the previous year.

Alcohol abuse can lead to violent and aggressive behavior, risky sexual acts, ethyl coma, and other risky conduct, ⁇ drunk driving. These situations are worrying.

The problem is not limited to young people because among adult men aged 45 to 64 years, alcohol consumption is also ⁇ high. Added to this are risk groups (such as pregnant women) and risk situations (alcohol on the workplace or in traffic). No one knows that abuse of alcohol has considerable health impacts and contributes significantly to premature mortality from cirrhosis and other diseases due to overconsumption of alcohol. If you believe the SPF Public Health, one in ten Belgians actually has a problematic consumption of alcohol.

The social cost for Belgium is estimated at 4.2 billion euros on an annual basis and at European level, we are talking about 155 billion euros. Consumption in Belgium is within the European average; it is equivalent to 10 liters of pure alcohol per year per capita.

That is why this resolution laid the necessary foundations for a plan to combat alcohol abuse in a way that protects and raises awareness among the public, and in particular among young people.

Of course, the will is to work closely with the Communities and local authorities. Communities, provinces and municipalities have an extremely important role to play in preventing and empowering families and young people from the dangers of alcohol abuse. For this reason, we wish to conduct, in close consultation with the Communities and involving the provinces and municipalities, an active prevention and accountability campaign aimed at alerting families and young people to the dangers of alcohol and the risks associated with abuse.

It also seems important to operate at the municipal level to develop, with respect to young people, projects to raise awareness of the dangers posed by alcohol abuse. Local authorities should strengthen their collaboration with field actors in order to ⁇ this goal. I use this to say that, in some municipalities, at least to my knowledge in Nivelles, in Uccle and in my municipality of Linkebeek, there is a will to put in place a police order that prohibits the consumption of alcohol in public environments, unless exceptional permission, for example in the event of the organization of a festival or other. This decision, taken at the local level by the municipal council, has already shown its full effects.

Mr. Thiery, at first, I did not intend to interrupt you at all.

You are talking about the specificities of the municipalities. This is all but insignificant. Nevertheless, I would like to remind the majority that many opportunities have emerged to solve an important problem relating to night shops selling alcohol. These provisions need to be adjusted legislatively.

Existing laws and regulations are bypassed so that these night-shops can continue to sell alcohol at night. And alcohol sold at night is not only the source in a number of cases of excessive and harmful consumption, but it is also the source of famous problems of ⁇ ining public order, whether in terms of public safety, health or public tranquility.

Mr. Thiery, there were debates in the Economic Committee and several texts were put on the agenda. Several weeks ago, the majority had the opportunity to move forward on this issue. It makes me a little smile that, in a second time, in a resolution proposal, one comes all of a sudden to say, oh how, in the bottom, it would be equally important to work on this topic.

To advance and above all be effective in this matter, some aspects of the law of 10 November 2006 had to be revised. This has not been done. This was rejected with a reverse arm by the majority. I call for a little consistency on the part of the majority. It is too easy, afterwards, to come to say that this should also be accomplished.

In this regard, I can only regret the double play of the majority.

Madame Fonck, it is true that we had this discussion in the committee. Two elements are opposed. Some initiatives have already been taken at the local level. They showed that they were bearing fruit. The purpose of the resolution is to refer to these positive experiences and to encourage local authorities to move in the same direction.

I understand your will, I think, in one of the amendments you had submitted, to ban the sale of alcohol in nightshops, or even in service stations. This is where our ideas conflict. There is a law in this matter. First, it must be implemented. Second, as I said in committee, I do not think that the systematic purchase of alcohol in a night-shop is intended for direct consumption on the ground, in public environments or at the wheel. A number of people will buy alcohol after the opening hours of normal stores for consumption at home or with friends. Our position is as follows: no, we do not want to prohibit, but regulate and we want the law to be enforced. This is another approach.

It was refused, in the Economy Committee, to adapt the law of November 2006, which, precisely, would have actually allowed the municipalities to have all the possible and imaginable tools to make, when necessary, decisions on the opening of these stores and on the sale of alcohol during the night more ⁇ . The problem is that these communes now find themselves well impoverished, because these stores have found subtleties in the law to bypass the meaning of what was originally planned.

Fortunately, we had special features for bookstores, for example. In this case, it is the subterfuge found by these night-shops to continue, without any limitation, even when the municipalities would like to impose them. I find it a shame that we have not given all the tools to municipalities to enable them to conduct more incisive policies when needed.

I will also return indirectly to this problem because ultimately there are legal measures that are at the disposal of the legislator. The problem is that they are not always implemented. As a rule, they are even circumvented. In this case, the law should be enforced as it is. I would also like to emphasize the willingness we have to increase the controls.

I had made this intervention in the committee also because it is not only about increasing the number of checks but also the effectiveness of these and in places much more strategic, such as exam purposes, during organized evenings, during carnival, festivals. Following the discussion we had in the committee, there was a very clear commitment from the SPF Public Health to say that additional checks will be carried out, at certain frequencies. People will be trained for this purpose.

I don’t want to repeat the whole debate here, but I had given in committee the number of alcohol controls that had been carried out from 2010 to 2014. I simply say that in 2014, we had reached, Mr. President, more than 4,000 checks. The future goal is to reach 5,000. I believe that positive elements will progressively intervene at this level.

In my opinion, it will also be necessary to review, in any case refine, the Arnoldus Convention before strengthening it this, in collaboration with the sector because ultimately, it allows a kind of self-regulation. Ultimately - it is a shock element that has been taken back in commission - we can make all the decisions we want at the political level, if we do not do so with the different stakeholders, in this case the sector, if we do not make it realize the importance of regulating the use of alcohol with us, we lose an element, a complementary weapon, which allows us to move in the right direction.

The Arnoldus Convention has a number of objectives. The example I quickly recall is that it prohibits the distribution or offering of alcoholic beverages free of charge or at a symbolic price on public roads. This corresponds exactly to the very essence of this resolution. The Arnoldus Convention encompasses advertising for alcohol and in particular minors. It also covers road safety, workplace, sports, alcohol content, etc. This convention is well done. It will probably need to be revised at certain levels but it needs to be discussed again with the sector.

In terms of care, we believe that the alcohol link project should be supported and expanded to as many hospitals as possible. I said this in the committee, too. It is estimated at 20% the percentage of patients hospitalized in general hospital who have harmful or risk alcohol consumption. The treatment of alcohol problems in general hospitals must be strengthened.

With this in mind, a project called Alcohol Relationship-Emergency has been in place since 2009. Care personnel are trained and sensitized, which is fundamental for good care. An assessment as well as a brief intervention with patients at risk is offered within the emergency services. The goal is not to offer itself as a substitute for potential "alcohol" interventions, but, on the contrary, to value the acquisition for the caring staff with good know-how. It is about providing basic tools and bringing caregivers to a sensitivity to alcohol. And, in the most complex cases, stakeholders can be supported by specialized teams.

Finally, dear colleagues, if I believe the information of SPF Public Health, 9 out of 10 people with a serious alcoholism problem are not treated. This is probably a fundamental element. This is commonly called the treatment gap. This can be explained by several factors, either at the level of society, since alcoholism remains a taboo, at the level of healthcare providers, of the organization of care and finally at the level of the person affected by the problematic consumption of alcohol itself, because, by definition, she will not recognize her dependence. Not to mention what is called social alcoholism, which is nothing but alcoholism too.

These factors are interconnected and interact. Our role is to develop treatment methods in order to increase the opportunities for these people to be admitted to health care.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. I’ve heard the criticisms and I’m going to hear them again today: we’re not going far enough. Some would have liked to make an alcohol plan on their side, but that wasn’t the goal. It is also not our goal to prohibit everything.

Our goal is to prevent excessive and harmful consumption of alcohol. We therefore want, through this resolution, to lay the foundations for a alcohol plan to protect and raise awareness of the public and, in particular, young people. This is fundamental to my approach today.

The Minister of Health has already announced that this alcohol plan will arrive by the end of the year. I think we can believe in those premises that the resolution represents and, then, in the arrival of this alcohol plan that may be even a little more precise in dealing with this phenomenon.

We are convinced that the ambitious measures will come to fruition as alcohol abuse has become a problem that currently affects too many citizens and ⁇ our young people.

It should be noted that there is a firm request to review this resolution in a committee after a year to be able to estimate the progress.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, I obviously do not share the so optimistic vision of my excellent colleague, Damien Thiéry, even though I admit that we have been able to discuss it, not enough to my taste. As you have just pointed out, we have not gone far enough.

I will explain in a few words why my group will abstain. Excessive alcohol consumption and its impact on society’s health are obviously no longer to be demonstrated. Therefore, I will not extend to those findings that we all know. When the colleagues of Mr. Thiery in the lead, put their text on the table, my group was delighted that this so important debate could finally take place. This, of course, will not surprise anyone.

This will not surprise anyone in view of the work carried out during the previous legislature. I was not a member of the Health Committee but I know that the debate took place under the auspices of my colleague, Laurette Onkelinx. Should I recall the broad alcohol plan that, as Minister of Health, she worked hard to implement with all the ministers of the competent federal entities, a plan to which, I am told, a number of political groups at the time, including that of the current Minister of Health, were opposed to the satisfaction, I imagine, of brassicole lobbies and alcohol?

This will not surprise anyone in view of the recommendation we had addressed to Ms. De Block when she took office, which concerned the establishment of a alcohol plan based on the principles contained in the Global Strategy to Reduce Harmful Alcohol Use and the European Action Plan to Reduce Harmful Alcohol Use 2012-2020. Also in view of the topical question raised in May 2015 and in which we regret that the government gives little or no importance to this problem. At present, there is little progress in this regard.

I say to the majority that the recurring increase in excise taxes on alcoholic beverages is not going in that direction. It was by no means a public health measure but merely a budget measure, which did not ⁇ any health objectives in addition to being counterproductive for the budget since consumers would buy these products abroad.

We were therefore pleased, and yet my group will abstain from this text of resolution, for simple reasons. First of all, how the work went. Several interesting items were on the table. It had been agreed to have a broad debate on the various elements constituting an effective policy to combat alcohol abuse, but it did not. A comprehensive amendment was submitted quickly by the majority, which then pretended to take into consideration a series of amendments that we co-signed. The discussions were short and the debate broke. Mr. Thiéry, you said that you took into account the amendments and that the text has evolved. We had submitted 27 interesting amendments – and we are submitting them again to the plenary – and after a ten-minute consultation of the majority, you accepted one. However, there was very little openness.

At the bottom, we are faced with a text that clearly lacks ambition. To vote on a resolution to say to vote on a resolution is meaningless, especially on such an important topic. The demands remain inaccurate, some elements have been deliberately evaded; I think in particular of the regulation regarding the availability of drinks in nightshops, gas stations, automates.

I therefore agree, Mr. Thiery, with your comment in committee. You said it was just a first step; I said it was, in my opinion, a very small step.

The government – you referred to it – announced to us the implementation of a comprehensive strategy to combat excessive alcohol consumption by October next year. October is tomorrow. We will be extremely attentive to ensure that this plan, Mrs. Minister, does not disappear at the last minute and this, once again, at the expense of public health.

I thank you.

Alcohol abuse.

We all agree on one thing: Alcohol abuse has a significant social cost in terms of health care for the individual and society, but also in terms of work injuries, accidents, traffic victims, road deaths. Preventing and, in the worst case, remedying alcohol abuse is therefore indeed a task of the government. It is very right that the resolution calls on all levels, Communities and subordinate governments to take action to address this health and social problem. Fighting addiction is difficult. It is therefore essential that all governments convey the same message. It is important that governments make agreements so that the measures strengthen each other. That is why it is so important that the Minister today reaches agreements with its colleagues of the federal government and with the colleagues of the Communities in order to reach a single coherent set of measures.

Three points are important in this resolution.

First, there is the ambition to prevent alcohol abuse. Learning to handle the means of enjoyment in a prudent manner is a task of the Communities. It belongs to the powers of prevention and awareness-raising. The federal role in prevention lies in terms of limiting the supply and advertising of alcohol products. This resolution clearly calls for action in the field of advertising for alcoholic beverages. There is an agreement with the sector, but we must dare to admit that there is also dissatisfaction with the functioning of the JEP. With this resolution we call on the Minister to come up with an independent analysis of the current arrangement and of the functioning of the JEP in order to come up with an efficient control system.

We are committed to the correct implementation of the prohibition on the sale to minors and call for greater efforts on controls.

On all other proposals of measures aimed at tightening the prohibition of sale to minors and aiming to limit the number of points of sale, we will return after the recess.

A second element in the important struggle against alcohol abuse is that it is a struggle at all levels of policy: Flemish, federal, but also important, of local authorities. It is the local authorities who, by their good knowledge of the field, know where to intervene. As a federal government, it is important to continue to appeal to local authorities and remind them of the legal instruments they have to act.

The third ambition is to provide medical guidance to people with addiction. First, we need to address the treatment gap that exists today. That means that we need to pay more attention to screening for alcohol abuse and short interventions and that we need to work on continuity of treatment by expanding the “liaison alcohol” project to multiple hospitals.

We look forward to the results of the negotiations of Minister De Block. We will discuss this in the autumn, taking clear account of these recommendations.

Alcohol consumption is a widespread phenomenon in our society and actually somewhat inherent in our culture. The vast majority consume alcohol without significant risks or harm, but alcohol can also be used in a risky and harmful way. The consequences of this are significant for the person concerned, for his or her environment, but also for society.

Since we would all know exactly what this is about, so that it would not be removed as an ackefiette, I would like to give a few figures.

Alcohol consumption is the third leading cause of illness and premature death worldwide, after low birth weight and unprotected sexual contacts, for which alcohol is also an important risk factor. There is also tobacco use. Alcohol is the cause of more than 200 diseases and injuries.

I will give a snap from a number of studies that have been conducted in recent years.

It is noted, among other things, that higher educated women are everywhere making a so-called pick-up movement on men when it comes to problematic drinking behavior. Problematic use among young people continues to peak in our country. In all Western countries, alcohol consumption among children under 15 years of age will increase. Young people aged 15 to 24, especially young men, are at high risk.

Despite the slight overall decline, problematic alcohol consumption is steadily increasing. In 2013, for example, 2,376 young people aged 12 to 17 with a suspicion of alcohol intoxication ended up in emergency services or were hospitalized for a night in our country.

The social costs of alcohol abuse are very high. In 2008, public expenditures for the treatment of people with alcohol disorders in the hospital sector totalled EUR 553 217 388. That is not wrong.

Well, what has happened over the past few years that increased alcohol abuse in some groups? In 2008, the then Ministers in charge of Public Health signed a joint declaration on future alcohol consumption. In 2012, it was then decided that the declaration was to be updated and expanded. A policy on harmful alcohol consumption does not limit itself to health issues, but also concerns economics, publicity, prices, mobility, education, employment and civil society, aspects already cited here by the colleagues.

It is essential to pursue a global and integrated policy. The Joint Declaration of the Interministerial Conference on Drugs of January 2010 therefore reaffirms the need for a global and integrated policy. That inter-ministerial conference later also assumed the task of drawing up a 2014-2018 alcohol plan. That plan was then to be seen as a complement to the initiatives and policies of the various governments in that field already in progress. However, due to disagreement among the then-government majorities, the draft was rejected at the inter-ministerial conference and no further implementation has been given to that mandate of the inter-ministerial conference Drugs.

However, there are many reasons, apart from the numbers I have already given, to do so. Belgium performs very poorly in measures to prevent harm to health from excessive and problematic alcohol consumption. According to the World Health Organization, Belgium is at the bottom of the European ranking of measures against alcohol abuse. Only Armenia, Georgia, San Marino and Andorra are worse. Also, the VAD, the Association for Alcohol and Other Drugs Problems, states in a memorandum following the 2014 elections that a national alcohol plan is essential to addressing the complex and diverse alcohol problem.

The FOD Public Health also called for a new alcohol plan in 2014. Also, a resolution of the European Parliament of 29 April 2015 calls on the Commission to work immediately on a new EU alcohol strategy for the period 2016-2022. I have described what it is about and how important the issue is. We are doing well not to laugh.

I know you are working on a plan, Mrs. For all of the reasons mentioned above and in support of your upcoming plan, we have submitted a resolution calling on the government to fulfill its 2012 promise.

Our resolution is very broad and highlights all aspects of excessive alcohol consumption in our society. I am talking about, among other things, reducing problematic alcohol consumption in general, addressing alcohol consumption at an early age, reducing binge drinking, clear labelling with standard units, measures to regulate advertising, clarifying the applicable age limit, prohibiting the sale of alcohol in automatic machines and discouraging sales through night shops and gas stations, especially at night. There were also a number of health care measures and recommendations for pregnant women as well as a number of measures on alcohol at work.

The resolution proposal presented by the majority today goes a lot less far. It definitely contains some very good elements. We also immediately acknowledged this. We believe that problematic alcohol consumption should be addressed in as many areas as possible. Alcohol abuse interferes with many areas of life, and we believe it requires a broad scope, with in-depth action. The present proposal does not provide that!

For this reason, we have submitted a number of amendments that outline all the aspects I have just cited. For a moment we thought that the majority was really serious when they pledged to examine our amendments. Unfortunately, we were once again disappointed. After a small detail, all our additions were rejected. That is why we present them to you again today.

After all, we are convinced that our citizens deserve better than the faint, superficial text that now prevails. The younger, the pregnant woman, the addict, they really deserve attention and a real approach to the problem. We will not get there at all, Mr. Thiéry, with the proposed marble in the margin.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. We voted in favour of your proposals, hoping that we would see an opportunity to give the text a little more body in terms of content, thanks in part to the contribution of our amendments, which we will submit again today.

Together we tried to come to a strong statement and give a clear signal: strict regulation through better control. However, like colleague Jiroflée, we have had to experience that only our amendment on binge drinking among young people was accepted. This is a weak offer.

My colleague has listed some facts, I will not repeat them all. The figures are clear, you have also quoted them, the amount for the social costs, the number of young people who drink, the risk for men, the risk for women, it is expressly said here by everyone, and there is the cost of 4.5 billion euros.

So we are actually talking about the facts, about the analysis and about the share of alcohol in health costs. The tax increases that have been there so far are actually just a cloth for the bleeding. These are facts and very disturbing figures, which we must do something about. You know that we would have liked that more drastic measures were taken and that this had been stated in that resolution. We regret that the texts that were submitted were weakened, also because our amendments were only very limited or not taken into account.

Colleagues, with only the additional checks, which our minister has promised, we will not come there, even if they are good and even if they are aimed at schools and in places where young people come and gather. It is good to also give responsibility to the organizers of fuves, as these are usually youth groups, and to sensitize them so that young people do not come into or leave drunk. But that is clearly not enough, this government must take its responsibility and implement a real alcohol plan that addresses abuse instead of stiffing the State Treasury with increased excise duties.

We should not wait until the end of this year for a joint alcohol strategy. We should not wait until next year, for the analysis of measures on alcohol advertising, including a alcohol convention. We should also not wait for the priorities of the general cell Drug Policy to be implemented. My colleague said it already, the need is high, the WHO figures show that Belgium is at the bottom of the European ranking. Only Armenia, Georgia, San Marino and Andorra are politically worse. Therefore, we must now take measures and stricter regulation and control of alcohol advertising.

A resolution must have ambition. Unfortunately, it does not have them enough. Therefore, our group will abstain.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. and Mr. Ministers, dear colleagues, the worst would be to be frilant, I said at our first committee meeting dedicated to the Alcohol Plan. Indeed, we have the responsibility and obligation to be ambitious in contributing to the reduction of harmful alcohol consumption. The findings in terms of mortality and morbidity as well as health figures are ⁇ explicit. Similarly, the numbers of deaths and serious injuries on our roads following drunk driving are eloquent. I will not repeat statistics on the evolution of alcohol consumption, nor will I recall new consumption patterns.

If we share these findings, the same does not apply to all measures and the way you have decided to incorporate them in this proposal for a resolution. The worst thing would be to be crazy. However, the majority decided to do so in this regard. Unlike us, you have chosen to be a “chicken-shooter”. We wanted to be more ambitious in a whole range of topics. If you allow me, I will cite a few of them.

So, we want to be much more ambitious in terms of advertising. You continue to praise self-regulation. But let’s be honest, it has its limits. A drawing is better than a long speech. Remember the 24 Hours Cycling of Louvain-la-Neuve in October 2014. Jupiler had conducted an advertising campaign using folders, discount vouchers and slogans such as “Good points deserve good pints.” We are here in full in the non-respect of this famous self-regulation. However, the Advertising Ethics Jury found that this was not a problem.

The Arnoldus Convention provides for the prohibition of praising the positive effects of alcohol and targeting young people. It is the perfect demonstration that convention and self-regulation have limits. The issues are important. Remember that experts say and repeat that alcohol is the first drug in Belgium and that it is unfortunately not, in many cases, considered as such.

We also wanted to be much more ambitious, and this is related to advertising, about sponsorship. Today, we continue to sponsor through alcohol, which is unacceptable. We wanted to be more ambitious at the point of sale. Do you find it normal that even today you can buy alcohol on the highway areas? "Drink or drive, you have to choose," says this famous prevention campaign. "Drink or drive, you have to choose" and, in practice, the stations along the highways allow you to drive while drinking.

We wanted to reduce the availability at night shops level; I explained this to my MR colleague. Indeed, the law presents gaps which are exploited to circumvent in practice the existing legislation, which prevents communes from deciding on stronger measures which are however indispensable. We also wanted to reduce the availability in automatic distributors.

Finally, another example for which we would have wanted to be much more ambitious: binge drinking. We are looking forward to new modes of consumption. We often talk about binge drinking but there is a new fashion, that of associating high-caffeine drinks with alcohol. The European Scientific Authority has recalled: the mixture of energy drinks and alcohol gives an explosive cocktail that can be deadly, which the majority of citizens ignore. However, we have seen deaths among young people.

You will, as always, when it is convenient for you, return to Europe. It is true that discussions on this subject are ongoing and that other Member States have made progress. In anticipation of regulation, which should be much more demanding, we could at least advance on information allowing the consumer to make a critical analysis from accurate data on the amount of energy drink consumed and on the explosive implications of cocktails associating high-dose alcohol and caffeine.

That is why I proposed this system. Energy drink manufacturers claim to recommend a maximum dose. But a 25 cl can is enough to reach it! If you combine it with alcohol, it is obviously faster. Experts say that this makes the bed of problematic alcohol consumption. I had submitted this bill so that we could give, in anticipation of European decisions, a very clear warning. The information on the canets is partial and written in very small characters. While some have tried to indicate the amount of caffeine contained in these beverages, many do not report the health risks associated with alcohol. Furthermore, there are no warnings for target groups, such as young people and pregnant women.

Ms. Fonck, I let you develop a number of examples that it was important to give. I would like to return 15 seconds to the Jury of Advertising Ethics (JEP). You have cited the example of Louvain-la-Neuve, which is indeed a bad example in the absolute.

However, I would like to point out that the JEP, in 2015, handled 127 cases on the basis of 236 complaints. You have given only one example of 127 files. Of the 127 cases handled, in 68% of cases, the JEP considered that there were no comments to be made. In 27.5% of cases, or 35 cases, the JEP was forced to take a decision to suspend or modify, as the advertisements concerned appeared to be in breach of the above rules.

What I mean is that, of course, there will always be negative examples. You mentioned someone who was. In addition to this, the JEP does its job in terms of regulation. I talked about the Arnoldus Convention in my speech. Some things can and should be revised and improved. However, it cannot be said that the measures implemented so far are completely ineffective. Nevertheless, I wanted to point out this.

Sorry, I had just continued because I thought you wanted to talk about energy drinks again. I should have stopped earlier.

As for the JEP, in essence, the concern is that this convention is also interpretable. It can be interpreted by wish. It is not flooded into any legal and regulatory provisions that would impose, leaving no possibility to escape it. Remember also that the cases you mentioned are handled, following a complaint. But in the absence of a complaint, there is then a void that allows, in some cases, to escape this self-regulation.

A few years ago, the same debate was held on tobacco advertising. At some point, dear colleagues, it will take a bit of courage. “Five Minutes of Political Courage” can also apply to health. The impact is not negligible. In terms of advertising, we will need to be much more courageous than we are today.

Madame Fonck, I agree with you in your approach.

That said, in the framework of the proposed resolution, in points 6 and 7, but especially in point 7, the government is clearly asked to inform the public more and to provide for a system allowing the citizen to file a complaint against a advertisement for any alcoholic beverage. One step is obviously, as part of this approach to advertising and complaints, passed through the resolution

I also did not want to interrupt and react, but, Mr. Thiéry, we are still in different registers.

Inform the citizen to tell him that he can file a complaint: which citizens can file a complaint will you touch? Ultimately, the responsibility for things going well will be theirs. Another register is possible, like when we say that advertising for alcohol can only have negative impacts since alcohol consumption is a problem. I do not understand that you are being robbed like this, in order to preserve the interests of alcoholics.

You know, as long as we do not float things into law-enforced provisions on control of alcohol advertising, we will not move forward. This is not enough and we will need to go further. This will require courage and a real debate about the place of advertising for products whose toxicity is demonstrated. This toxicity is demonstrated in the case of harmful consumption and it is not me, but the experts who say it. Mr. Thiéry, should you refer to the statements made by the various speakers, whether it is scientists, representatives of universities, who have spoken on the subject, or even the health actors who have given us a series of positions on the subject? Those positions were much less goat-shooter than yours today.

We are not going to repeat the debate that has taken place in the European Parliament. In conclusion, I would like to send two or three messages.

The first, you have understood, is that this text is far too fuzzy for us to support. We will abstain. I will continue to fight like before. I have submitted a number of amendments to this resolution. I think I have understood that the majority will not move. Behind your frilance and your goat-chutism is obviously the powerful lobby of alcoholics. I am not the only one to say that. The experts themselves state this very clearly.

In the light of this, I would like to disagree with the text of this resolution. Indeed, the minister should nevertheless bring this project to fruition, if her party does not block this national alcohol plan as it did in the previous legislature.

In conclusion, I would like to leave the floor to the experts, who have made a lot of remarks. I will quote here Dr. Raymond Gueibe of the Saint-Pierre Clinic in Ottignies, who is an alcoholist. Here’s what he says: “As long as drastic and clear measures are not taken at the political level, they will always be just measures.”Dear colleagues of the majority, these are measures you have taken and I am terribly sorry for those who today and tomorrow will be directly affected, concerned, sick, or even die because of alcohol.

We take note that you have decided to... uw voorstel uit de lijst te halen.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, we are dealing today with an important topic even though, socially, culturally, alcohol has a place associated with good mood, at the party, at a pleasant moment that we are going through. Per ⁇ that is where the difficulty lies in working properly on this subject.

Ecolo-Groen – of course no one I think in this assembly – does not support or defend the total prohibition of sale since it is known that these are policies that lead to clandestine consumption and that it is the opposite effect that is achieved. From not taking measures that are actually policy-regulated, so that the policy takes its responsibilities to avoid risks at the level of consumers, and in particular the most vulnerable consumers, there is a margin. This resolution is more than disappointing.

It is more than disappointing because it does not allow politicians to assume their responsibilities and to clearly identify the consequences of alcohol consumption that justify action. We speak of excessive consumption, of problematic consumption, which is the first target of the measures and policies to be carried out. But regular and daily consumption of alcohol – 14% of the population over 15 years of age consume alcohol every day – if it does not pose a problem on the social level, it poses a health problem on the level of cardiovascular disease, obesity, diabetes, etc. The interest in alcohol consumption and the interest in informing citizens about the consequences of such consumption are also important and should also appear in this resolution. It is also known that a percentage of people who consume regularly come to abuse and problematic consumption of alcohol.

The press released an interesting figure this morning, according to which alcohol excise taxes account for 1.5 billion to the state, while the negative consequences of its consumption cost 4.2. Therefore, we should not be afraid to invest in policies that will reduce this consumption, since we know that financial profitability for the state will be as positive as the impact on the health of the population.

What measures are not included in this resolution, but should have definitely been included? It was necessary to include bold provisions in terms of limiting alcohol advertising. When consumed regularly and worryingly, it develops the effects of a drug. Sure, it is a drug that is culturally accepted in our society, but advertising for alcohol is problematic. It is unthinkable that tobacco advertising is still allowed today. For alcohol, this is normal. Not only is advertising delivered directly through panels, posters and price discounts, but moreover – they are talented! – the portrait of a young leader or a young leader is used with a gang having fun around, so that the desire to consume is aroused just as much as the desire to follow the consumer. These are mechanisms that serve to increase risk consumption, while we want to reduce it.

The case of sponsorship was previously cited with the example of an advertisement aimed at young people, promising them a trip during which they will be able to consume at gogo and at prices challenging any competition. In addition, it has become common to sponsor sports events. I admit it’s fun to drink a good beer while watching a game. Nevertheless, is it normal, while we are working on reducing alcohol consumption, that all football championships and other events be systematically sponsored by a beer producer?

On June 20, as MPs, we received – ⁇ to avoid our resolution proposal being too severe – a newsletter from InBev covering all the events they sponsor. They explain to us that they have interesting policies aimed at informing people that they should consume responsibly. It’s good to say it, but their profession is also to produce and sell. I cannot blame them. They also hold speeches saying that the Leffe awakens the senses. This is, according to them, a great way to show us that they support local production and employment. Finally, they highlight the fact that they make advertising spots encouraging to resort to the "Bob". It is not the role of a producer of alcohol to make such advertising campaigns, with mention of their brand, because it is an indirect way of encouraging consumption.

As politicians, we sometimes participate in this advertising. Remember, in 2014 or 2015, on the occasion of Women’s Day, the Secretary of State, Ms. Sleurs, and the Minister, Ms. Galant, invited us to drink a good beer. It should be emphasized that beer should not be associated only with men. But is it really a message to be sent by two federal government ministers than to say: the thing to do, the symbolic action of Women’s Day is to drink beer or alcohol? In advertisements or folders sent by InBeV, the Prime Minister plays golf with the InBeV manager. These messages are not consistent with a precautionary, preventive policy that marks a willingness to reduce alcohol consumption.

With regard to the Convention, past agreements and self-regulation, I think that this mechanism has shown its limits not only in view of the examples I just cited but also because, as long as the producer is allowed to play a role of limiting consumption, there can only be inconsistencies. In fact, the party to the convention being a producer and distributor of alcohol, the latter must find its interest. The political actor will refuse to use the entrance doors and the tools at his disposal. Stop this circus! If we want to reduce consumption, we must take measures, legalize, say what is allowed and what is not, thus limiting the opportunities and possibilities of problematic consumption.

Among these restrictions on consumption, it is regrettable that the text does not include the absence of alcohol sales in shops along the highways. It is also important to have a consistent speech. If you say you don’t drink while driving, then you don’t sell beer in a store located along the road. I’m sure that people who need a bottle at some point, if they know they can’t buy it along the highway, will take their precautions and go buy it elsewhere, during the store’s opening hours. Let’s stop saying that everyone should be able to buy a bottle of alcohol whenever they want it! The message you want to send must be consistent and clear.

This is obviously the same if you want to avoid fast and intense consumption at certain times in certain neighborhoods. We must be able to act on limiting the sale of beverages and their access to night shops and distributors. The clear distinction between alcoholic beverages and soft drinks and especially sweetened beverages with a low alcohol content must be clearly respected in the stores, for this is how alcoholics spoil youth from an early age.

As missing elements in this resolution, let us still note the information on labelling or the emphasis to be placed on target audiences. I do not understand, Mr. Thiéry, the absolute will you have shown to never say that target audiences require specific measures. You say you do not want to stigmatize certain categories of the population. It is not about stigmatizing; it is, as politicians, as parliamentarians, in the message we give to our Minister of Health, to our Minister of Economy or to our Minister of Federal Entities, to say that they must take action concerning the whole population but taking into account more fragile populations such as young people or pregnant women, in terms of information and measures. This point is absent and has been removed from the resolution. It was rejected by the rejection of the amendments we submitted to the final text.

In other words, of course, as Anne Dedry has already said, our group will abstain. It was time to have a text, even minimalist, that allows parliament to send a message to our minister for his work with the federal entities, but also in the federal powers, but all the shortcomings I just mentioned prevent us from supporting it. They reflect a lack of ambition and belief in the power of political actors in the face of economic actors who, indeed, create jobs and activity, but can also change name and sell other products if alcohol consumption ever decreases. The committee missed this opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I would like to thank the members of the Committee on Public Health for this resolution. Thus, the issue of problematic alcohol consumption has been put again on the agenda of this plenary session.

Addressing problematic alcohol consumption is ⁇ necessary in our country because its harmful consequences for health and society are very large.

As my representative said at the Interministerial Conference on Public Health, the General Drug Cell has defined this matter as a priority. A working group was established. It comprises the representatives of the ministers in charge of Mobility, Labour, Public Health as well as the competent ministers of the federal entities.

As repeatedly stated during the questions in the committee, it is intended to propose a comprehensive strategy on problematic alcohol consumption by October 2016 at the latest. All aspects envisaged in the proposals are part of the ongoing discussions, as are the supporting studies of the Federal Knowledge Centre for Healthcare. Particular attention is also paid to mental health care and the problem with the emergency services.

This issue is taken seriously by the public health services.