Colm Burke (Fine Gael)

I second the motion and thank my colleague for taking the initiative at a Fine Gael Parliamentary Party to research and draft the proposals contained therein.

I was a member of Cork City Council for 12 years. I represented an area around UCC where huge changes have occurred in alcohol consumption patterns over that period. Whereas pubs were previously a common social outlet for young people, four have closed within a half mile radius of UCC over the past five years because increasing numbers of people are drinking at home. The off-trade has increased dramatically and it is not unusual to see students carrying slabs of beer out of off-licences on Tuesday and Thursday evenings. This will impact on our health services because, while bar owners decide when a customer has consumed sufficient alcohol, there is no such control over people who drink at home.

A series of reports on alcohol consumption have been produced since the 1960s by the Commission on Liquor Licensing, the advisory council on health promotion and the national council on alcoholism. However, the problems appear to have increased over the past ten years. According to one recent report, 8,000 people presented with drinking problems in one year. Each of these individuals will affect ten people, which means that more than 80,000 people are directly or indirectly affected by problem drinking.

The price of alcohol in Ireland has decreased and it has become more accessible. It is important that we approach the issue in a constructive manner and the motion before the House is the appropriate way to deal with it. Below cost selling is certainly not helping. We must put in place more severe restrictions to ensure that if people want to buy alcohol, they will have to pay the price for it. There is also the issue of taxation and whether we should seriously consider tax on alcohol. If people are consuming a large amount of alcohol, the net cost is to the State in real terms. As my colleague said, the accident and emergency departments have to provide the after-care in many cases and that is a direct cost to the taxpayer.

It is time to change the existing regulations. Now is the appropriate time to review the matter and to move forward on it. I formally second the proposal put forward by my colleague.