Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I warmly welcome Dr. Holmes and Mr. Angus, and thank them for their submission and oral presentation. I have already indicated that I will support the Bill, but I have some concerns about minimum unit pricing. I do not wish to be obstructive, but I want to tease out the issues, because I have concerns about the effectiveness of minimum unit pricing and its impact across society. I have some concern for those who are least well off, who I fear may bear the greatest impact. Their general health may improve from drinking less. Even in the submission we heard on Tuesday, I had a sense that there was a targeting of those on lower incomes because of the expectation that the statistics will show greater improvement from the targeting of this group of people. I would like to see the targeting equalised because I do not believe that alcohol abuse is the reserve of those who are least well off in our society. I am cognisant of the cases I know personally of people who are very comfortably well off but are in difficulties because of abusing drink.

It is interesting that Dr. Holmes referred to research in the US that proposes to double alcohol taxes in the United States. I am not opposed to increasing the cost of alcohol, but I have argued consistently that we should look at increasing the excise duty on alcohol per unit measure right across the board. This would have a greater impact across the board. Contrary to what was said in the presentation - I mean no disrespect to retailers such as shops and supermarkets - we should take alcohol sales out of these settings. It is inappropriate that, as Dr. Holmes has acknowledged, shops and supermarkets will make some €69 million extra from alcohol sales on the basis of €1 minimum unit pricing.

This is from what has been put on the record this morning. I argue that if we were to increase excise duties, that €69 million would be in the public purse and could be employed to address the consequences of alcohol abuse not only in direct assistance for the abuser but for those who suffer most as a consequence of alcohol abuse. I am particularly mindful of the fact that the incidence is greater among men, so I refer to wives, partners and children or those in immediate contact, who can suffer inordinately.

I have put this argument all along, but I concede that I have not won it, as the thrust is going in the other direction. I am giving everything I can if it will be of benefit. My concern is that we could better utilise this money if it were ring-fenced for the purpose I describe. In this instance, we will see greater profits created, and I am not convinced that we will see such a significant decrease in sales of products. Diageo in Ireland, for example, will have very little to fear. I would prefer for these companies to be worried, but they are not. That also applies to other manufacturers and those international companies which sell their products here through various outlets. Will the witnesses comment on some of the points I made? I have not posed them as direct questions but I am giving a view on the matter.

Will the witnesses comment on who would be affected by minimum unit pricing? I get the sense that the witnesses are concurring with my view when they indicate that minimum unit pricing does not affect all drinkers equally, as it will not. I have traditionally been a voice for those who are more marginalised and are from lower to middle-income backgrounds. I am concerned because they are not all alcohol abusers. We should make no mistake about that. Nevertheless, for the vast majority, this will have a deleterious impact on their weekly financial condition. The delegation has indicated that those on higher incomes are still buying these products and will be affected by the policy. That is true for those who buy these products, but it is not a case of equal impact.

I thank the witnesses for coming here and giving their insight. I wish both of them well.