Mr. James Doorley:

I thank the Chairman, Deputies and Senators for the invitation. We welcome the opportunity to meet the committee to outline our views on the draft heads of the public health (alcohol) Bill 2015.

The National Youth Council of Ireland is the representative body for 47 national youth organisations working with young people in every community in Ireland. We represent the interests of our member organisations and use our collective experience to act on issues that impact on young people. I will not go through lots of statistics on children and young people's consumption of alcohol because it is in our submission. The committee has received our data. I have no doubt that, as politicians active at local level, members of the committee are aware that we have a problem in Ireland.

As outlined in our submission, since about 2000, we have participated on a number of statutory groups and committees. We are concerned that children and young people are beginning to start drinking at a younger age, are drinking greater volumes of alcohol, and are drinking more frequently with all the associated negative consequences. We are also concerned about the impact of alcohol related harm on children and young people in households where alcohol misuse is a problem.

The nature and means by which alcohol is promoted, sold and consumed has changed radically in the past 20 years. When alcohol is widely available in supermarkets and convenience stores, is sold at cheap and pocket money prices with sophisticated and pervasive advertising and marketing, we should not be at all surprised by our current consumption patterns and subsequent problems. Public policy has not kept pace with these changes. It is not a lack of research, analysis or recommendation on what works and what needs to be done that has stopped us. As noted by a 2009 Children’s Rights Alliance report, there were eight committees and 13 reports between 1990 and 2009, and we have had a few more since then. We have lots of reports and lots of recommendations. That is why we welcome this legislation because it is a step in the right direction. For the first time a Government is implementing evidence-informed legislative actions to address the problem.

While we welcome the Bill overall and as a member of the national substance misuse strategy steering group, we are disappointed that a number of recommendations, such as the recommendation to phase out the sponsorship of sport by the drinks industry, have been sidelined. That is a missed opportunity. We are also disappointed that the recommendation supported by us to have a social responsibility levy on the industry is not included in the measures.

Regarding head 5 on labelling, we welcome the proposal to enhance the current labelling requirements of alcohol products but it is important that this information should be presented in a concise, conspicuous and understandable way. In particular we welcome the proposal to include calorie content information on alcohol products because we believe many young people, indeed consumers of all ages, are not aware of the calories in each drink.

We strongly support the introduction of minimum pricing because international evidence indicates that this is an effective means by which to reduce alcohol consumption among children and young people. Children and young people under 18 are price sensitive and therefore this measure will ensure they will purchase and consume less alcohol and drink less frequently. We note in our submission that the minimum price at which this should be set should be at a level that is effective and must be reviewed regularly. I will not go into much detail on this because I understand the committee has had international expertise from the Sheffield Alcohol Research Group.

In relation to advertising and marketing, we have outlined in our submission the really strong evidence about the impact and role of advertising and marketing on young people's attitude to drinking and their drinking behaviour. This is not just our view. The first report of the alcohol marketing communications monitoring body, whose members include representatives of the drinks and advertising industry, quoted a WHO report which stated "exposure to and enjoyment of alcohol advertising predicts heavier drinking and more frequent drinking among young people". The public favours action in this area. A Eurobarometer report from 2010 found that 81% of the public was in favour of banning alcohol advertising targeting young people. As has been said, children and young people are particularly drawn to music, characters, humour and stories, and if one watches the advertisements on TV they have all these elements. The report links alcohol and drinking with fun, success, popularity and excitement without any of the negative effects. In 2009, we conducted a study, entitled "Get 'em Young", which tracked young people's exposure to alcohol advertising and marketing. While I admit that it is a number years out of date, it did show at that time that young people were exposed to a high level of marketing and advertising through 16 different communications channels. Our 2009 report found that television was the most dominant channel of exposure to alcohol advertising recorded by young people. It would have changed a bit since then. I would imagine that the online element has increased quite a lot.

The national substance misuse strategy steering group recommended a 9 p.m. watershed for alcohol advertising on television, and we are disappointed this is not in the legislation. At present, the only restrictions on drinks advertising are between 6 a.m. and 10 a.m. and where more than 25% of the audience is under 18 years. I do not know if that many people are watching breakfast TV and watching drinks advertising but it is not on at those times. At present if there is a match on, for example, a GAA or rugby match, which obviously many people have been watching over recent weeks, and there are 1 million people watching it, if fewer than 250,000 of those people are under 18, it is fine to have alcohol advertising. If 240,000 children and young people are watching it, that is fine. That is permissible under the current codes. We are out of line with many EU countries in this regard.

We are also disappointed the draft legislation ignores the recommendations of the national substance misuse strategy steering group to prohibit outdoor advertising.

The current voluntary codes were agreed by the drinks industry with the advertisers and, in our view, are designed to be ineffective and, in many cases, unworkable. One provision in the code suggested there should be no alcohol advertising within 100 m of the entrance to a school. A list was to be drawn up by the Department of Health but it was never drawn up because it is impossible to define the entrance to a school. Is it the door or the gate? Even if we agreed it was the gate, we are saying that it is okay to have alcohol advertising within 101 m of a school. It is bizarre and unworkable.

We also are opposed to suggestions the current flawed codes are enshrined in law. We need to develop new codes with youth, public health and other interests involved in the process because the ban on outdoor advertising is the only workable and effective solution. We support the proposal to commence section 9 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act 2008 and a move towards structured separation of alcohol products from ordinary products in mixed trading premises such as petrol stations, supermarkets and convenience stores. There has been a major increase in the availability of alcohol to young people. There has been a fivefold increase in the number of off-licences, including exclusive off-licences and mixed trading premises, and the introduction of statutory structural separation will reduce the availability and perception that the sale of alcohol is just another ordinary product. While the current voluntary code has led to some improvements in the large supermarkets, the situation in convenience stores and petrol stations has not improved. The provisions in the voluntary code allowing for structural separation in as far as possible is a get-out clause for many mixed trading premises. Application of section 9 is very clear and will require physical structural separation. Where retailers cannot currently comply, they have a year following commencement of the section to adapt their premises. We urge the committee and the Government to move forward on structural separation because the availability of alcohol and the perception that it is an ordinary product in the mixed trading premises is creating a problem. I thank the Chairman and the members and I am happy to answer questions.