Professor Frank Murray:

I am a liver specialist in Dublin. I have been working for 25 years in the hospitals, so I have seen the catastrophic effects of alcohol and that is why I am here today. The Deputy made a good point about how ineffective public health messaging is. That is what the international evidence shows, exactly as Dr. McAvoy said.

The Public Health (Alcohol) Bill was introduced several years ago with a view to reducing alcohol harms. That was evidence-based. The measures within that were based on international evidence, particularly from the WHO, as Dr. McAvoy referred to. The problem with this particular legislation is that it goes against that evidence from a public health point of view. This is not addressing alcohol sales as a health issue and as a societal issue involved in crime, justice and harms to other people, such as children. The data and evidence are very clear. The consumption of alcohol and its harms are directly related to the number of outlets. We also know that the harms from alcohol associated with consumption are directly related to the opening hours. We also know that if you prolong the hours of alcohol sale, as is proposed in this legislation, the amount of harm increases. If you reduce the number of hours that alcohol is on sale, you reduce the amount of harm associated with alcohol. To answer the Deputy’s question, the evidence is that reducing availability, in terms of hours and outlets, is a constructive way to reduce alcohol-related harms. The messaging, as he said, is not particularly effective.

It is worth saying that the alcohol industry will come here and tell us that we should have Irish pubs as international protected structures because their business is to sell more alcohol. They have a conflict of interest with the people lined up here, who are interested in reducing alcohol harms. That should be borne in mind.

The other tragedy of it is that there is no voice here today of those harmed by alcohol. For those of us who work in the various services associated with helping those who are harmed by alcohol, their voice is not here today. Generally, the stigma is so terrible that people are shy and embarrassed about coming forward – or their families coming forward – in relation to describing the problems that they have associated with alcohol.

To get back to the point on public health messaging, in Ireland, half of children have been drunk or very drunk by the time they are 16 or 17. Public health messaging is not going to affect that. It is all about restricting sales and that is what has been shown internationally to be effective.

I wish to make two comments before I finish, in case I do not get a chance. Who pays for alcohol harm? The costs of alcohol harm was mentioned as €3.7 billion a year, which is an underestimate, but I take that. Who is responsible for that? Who pays it? The ordinary taxpayer. The alcohol comes here and makes very substantial profits. I believe there should be a levy on the alcohol industry to recoup the costs of alcohol-associated harms. Second, who is responsible for the harms associated with alcohol? Who does one go to in the State to address these harms and the fact that we did not, for instance, reach the target set by Government to reduce alcohol consumption? Nobody. There is no authority responsible for that. In contrast, there has been fuss this month about the increased number of deaths on the road. Who do you go to? The Road Safety Authority, RSA. We need a statutory authority within Government that is responsible for reducing alcohol harms and would do far more than just the public health messaging that the Deputy described as being such a poor failure.

I thank the committee for letting me speak.