Mr. Padraig Cribben:

I thank the Chairman and members of the committee for the opportunity to address the committee. As the committee will be aware, we represent the publicans in the 25 counties outside Dublin and have a membership of approximately 4,000. These publicans are dotted throughout the country, in urban and rural areas, and provide much-needed employment on the one hand and tourist infrastructure on the other.

We broadly welcome the provisions as set out in this Bill. Many of its provisions have been sought by our federation for a long period. What is important is that the details of the Bill are considered carefully and are implemented in a way that achieves its full aims without unintended consequences. There are four main areas provided for in the Bill: health labelling of alcohol products, minimum unit pricing for retailing of alcohol products, regulation of marketing and advertising of alcohol, and enforcement powers for environmental health officers in relation to some of these provisions.

On the health labelling of alcohol products, we have no problem supporting the objectives set out in the Bill. As we understand it, it would be the responsibility of manufacturers to ensure all bottles, cans and other containers contain the relevant information. In the on-trade, it would be the responsibility of the licensee to display a notice prominently inside the premises with the information required. It is imperative a standardised format be agreed for this notification. We need to avoid different administrative officers having different impressions of what is required. This standardised format should be agreed in advance with the Department of Health to ensure ease of compliance and full disclosure for the consumer.

We fully support the principle of minimum unit pricing. To be effective it needs to be set at a rate that will achieve the stated objectives. The Department of Health has indicated that the minimum unit price will be exclusive of VAT and excise. We fail to see how this can operate. If the minimum price is exclusive of VAT and excise, it will be meaningless unless it is pitched at an enormously high level. It will be meaningless in that supermarkets may decide, when it suits them, to absorb the excise and they will continue to use alcohol as a loss leader. We believe the rate should be the final rate below which alcohol cannot be sold.

We believe there has to be a logic as to how this rate is arrived at. We would suggest that the appropriate logic is to go back to before the abolition of the groceries order in 2006, which was the catalyst for most of the problems in this area today. The average price from the CSO figures at that point should be taken and the rise in the cost of living overall in the interim should be applied to reach a new minimum unit price. This would equate to a minimum unit price of approximately €1.90 per 500 ml can of beer at 4.3% alcohol by volume. This figure should then be used pro ratafor other products like wine, spirits, etc. on the basis indicated in the Bill of the price being based on a certain number of cent per 10 grams of alcohol. We believe that is a significant issue that needs to be addressed in the Bill.

In regard to the control of marketing and advertising of alcohol,by and large the issues raised in the Bill do not affect the on-trade and are more centrally issues for brand owners than for the pub trade. However, we have a concern with certain elements in head 9, specifically subsection (3)(g) which states: “A requirement that an advertisement for an alcohol product shall include a notice or statement containing health information”. The committee will be aware that outside of many pubs there are signs, many of which are there for generations, denoting product types and brands. These particular signs do not have that health information or are not amenable to having that information superimposed. While we do not believe it is the intention of the proposed Bill to affect such signs, it could be interpreted by those charged with the responsibility of implementing the measures in the Bill that these signs could be affected. We would ask that this be specifically addressed in the final Bill.

Head 15 of the Bill refers to section 9 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act 2008. It allows for environmental health officers to enforce section 9 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act if and when the Bill is enacted. Our position is that section 9, which covers the segregation of alcohol in mixed trading outlets, that is, supermarkets, should be brought into play immediately. However, in recent discussions with the Department of Justice and Equality, which I understand has jurisdiction in this matter, it has indicated that it has no intention to commence section 9 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act 2008 any time soon. Instead, it intends to put the current voluntary code of practice on a statutory footing for a two-year period and then assess its success or otherwise.

The problem with this is that no one is designated to monitor its enforcement during this two-year period. We suggest the current legislation needs to be amended to allow for the environmental health officers to monitor the workings of the statutory code of practice during the two-year period in order that a valid and objective assessment can be made of its implementation.

We support the objectives and the broad content of the heads of the Bill. We would like to ensure there are no unintended consequences as I have highlighted and that the legislation will be implemented without delay. We believe that addressing the points raised will strengthen the Bill, improve outputs and result in a better situation all round.