Ms Evelyn Jones:

I thank the Chairman and members of the committee. The National Off-Licence Association, NOffLA, represents independent, specialist and pure off-licences, generally owner-operated, community-based, and employing local expertise. As alcohol is our primary product, it is a mandatory requirement for membership of NOffLA that all members are trained and examined in NOffLA’s responsible trading certificate. Failure to adhere to the law is not an option for us as loss of licence is loss of livelihood.

NOffLA welcomes the commitment to implement structural separation in tackling under-age exposure to alcohol, the calculated placement of alcohol products with other groceries, and sale of alcohol through self-service terminals. Alcohol is a controlled substance whose purchase must be a conscious decision, transacted under the strictest conditions and supervision.

NOffLA queries why structural separation will not be enacted under the law already in place, that is, section 9 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act 2008. The scheme plans to achieve the same principles of section 9 through a statutory code under the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act. The sanctions set out under the statutory code are notably weaker than section 9 and, as such, will pose much less of a deterrent. For example, a breach of the statutory code provisions is not a criminal offence but merely a possible basis upon which an objection to licence renewal can be made. A breach of section 9 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act 2008can result in a summary conviction and a fine not exceeding €100,000. These sanctions represent a much more powerful deterrent than a possible objection at renewal time. This proposed code will see continued non-compliance by mixed traders. NOffLA views the undertaking to enact section 9 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act after two years as something that should be commenced now.

The Bill will amend section 16 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act 2008 which will allow the Minister for Justice and Equality to make regulations to restrict certain advertisements and promotions. In the absence of a ban on below invoice cost selling, section 16 can be implemented.

NOffLA accepts that alcohol marketing needs to be regulated. The restriction on alcohol advertisements in the media in relation to volume and type of publication is a vital step in establishing a responsible retailing platform. Minimum pricing in isolation will not tackle irresponsible promotions because premium branded alcohol can still be heavily discounted. Many of the promotions in the media currently are priced at a level that will still be legal under minimum unit pricing. Indirect marketing is not an appropriate tool for the sale of alcohol. Alcohol should not attract loyalty points, money back vouchers and meal deals, and promotions earned on groceries, petrol and so on should not be applied against alcohol purchases.

NOffLA welcomes the policy change on alcohol pricing away from excise duty while still addressing the issue.

Excise duty increases upfront cash requirements and therefore costs jobs. We support the introduction of minimum unit pricing, MUP, and see it working at approximately €1 or more. Some might wish it to be higher but we must be conscious of the proportionality of the measure on health grounds versus the freedom of movement of goods under EU law for it to have any chance of approval. However, there is no backup plan should it prove illegal or to address the fact that minimum unit pricing does not deal with the discounting of premium brands. Minimum unit pricing targets one socio-economic group and age profile. The legislation is an opportunity to introduce a ban on below invoice cost selling, which will work in tandem with MUP to ensure alcohol is sold responsibly across all social strata and ages.

Appendix 4 in the submission shows that minimum unit pricing and banning below invoice cost selling have complementary merits. Where minimum unit pricing legally permits a six pack to be discounted by €4.50 from its invoice cost, this could not happen with a ban on below invoice cost selling. Appendix 6 highlights that while some supermarket promotions may not be legal under minimum unit pricing, the discounting of premium brands will continue untouched. A ban on below invoice cost selling would also save the State an estimated €24 million in VAT rebates per annum. NOffLA suggests that a ban on below invoice cost selling using the regulation in section 16 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act 2008 prohibiting the sale of alcohol at a reduced price would be very useful.

This Bill has potential but it might be a missed opportunity if section 9 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act 2008 continues to be unimplemented or if section 16 continues to permit the sale of alcohol below invoice cost price. I wish to add a note of caution from someone who had high hopes for the reforms in 2008. In appendix 1 members will see that we are in the current position as a direct result of decisions taken by the Department of Justice and Equality to deregulate certain laws and not to enact others, all of which have had a negative consequence from a health perspective due to increased availability. I ask the committee to be vigilant in this regard.