Sean Barrett (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister. I second what Senator Norris said about the splendid year the Minister had and his great celebrations because of the result of the constitutional referendum.

This debate might belatedly be informed by some of the facts. The Sheffield study is simulated on page 32 of the Library and Research Service documentation supplied to members. It states that if one implements minimum pricing, overall revenue to the Exchequer will be reduced by €34.4 million and retailers will gain €69 million in the off-licence trade and €9.3 million in the pub trade. Therefore, we are talking about changing retailing. I did not come to this House to make off-licence traders €69 million better off and pub owners €9.3 million better off or to take €34.4 million from the Exchequer. Therefore, let us read what is in the legislation and examine what we are doing. We are making a commodity dearer and the industry gets to keep the money. How does that advance anything?

The legislation is premised on Irish society being some kind of Fr. Jack society. In fact, according to Alcohol Action Ireland, one of the lobby groups against the misuse of alcohol, alcohol consumption in the State has fallen from 14 litres per head per annum to just under 11 since 1994. We are, therefore, actually addressing a reality in Ireland that is approximately 20 years out of date. The was a significant reduction in drink-related crimes, and offences for being drunk and disorderly have reduced by 36% since 2009. The problem of drink driving is much less serious. If we managed to get Irish consumption down to 9 litres per head per annum, it would be the lowest of any country in the European Union. The rate of 11.9 litres per head per annum is approximately half way down the list. I could list many countries where the rate is in excess of ours. The figure is 16.2% in Lithuania, 12.9% in Romania, 12.4% in Hungary, 14.1% in the Czech Republic, 12.5% in Slovakia, 12.5% in Portugal, 11.5% in Poland, 12% in the United Kingdom, 11.6% in France, and 10.9% in Germany, which is the same rate as in Ireland.

We have built up a stereotype in this country, not taking into account what has actually been happening. We have ignored the analysis of what happens when one introduces minimum pricing. People will go across the Border and, of course, the industry is absolutely delighted because, instead of giving the money to the Minister for Health, Minister for Finance and Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform by increasing excise taxes, we are giving the money back to the sector that caused this problem. I do not know how one solves a problem by making the producers richer.

We have got to get away from all the language we use in respect of this matter. One of the words used is “binge”. A “binge” is defined by the World Health Organisation as three drinks. On looking up the practice in the dictionary, I saw references to the words “binge” and “spree”. Imagine a shopping spree where somebody came back with three items. Wow, a really good spree. Let us get the facts right on this.

I will certainly be tabling many amendments. What I see in the Bill is outdated and based on numbers that very often do not stand up to appraisal. We await the decision of the European court on this on 23 December. There is to be an advocate general’s balanced judgment, probably slightly favouring the Minister's decision to proceed with his proposals but other people would interpret it differently. If the objective of this legislation is simply to change retailing from one place to another, through moving from low-cost alcohol to high-cost alcohol, the proposal may well be turned down by the European court. We will see on 23 December.

Suggesting people are eloquent and sober and perform brilliantly in pubs and suddenly go nuts when they go home is a bizarre way to defend drinking in pubs. One could make the opposite case, namely, that most people are more sober in their own houses than in pubs. However, if people want to make this case, pleading on behalf of pubs and off-licences, they may do so but it is not what I am in this House for.

There is a great deal of material provided by the research service, dated 16 December last, that could be usefully studied. The previous document, No. 5 of 2009, in which year this issue also arose, would cast doubt on many of the other measures in this legislation. Zero effectiveness is attributed to voluntary codes of bar practice, promoting alcohol-free activities, promoting alcohol education in schools and colleges, issuing public service messages and printing warning labels. Therefore, we must ask what problem we are addressing. There are aggrieved off-licences and public houses because people have changed the retail pattern, and the industry is aggrieved because we have cut our consumption from 14 litres of alcohol per head per annum to 10.9, which is approximately the European average. I certainly feel aggrieved that the Fr. Jack image of Ireland is promoted in this debate. Let us have the facts. I have lived in a number of countries and do not regard Ireland as one in which people consume alcohol excessively. We should be trying to live down that reputation rather than reinforcing it.

We will see what happens in the court case on 23 December. We could get carried away on a wave of irrationality in regard to this. What we are doing is giving a substantial transfer from supermarkets to off-licences; I have no interest in that. Let the retailers fight it out themselves. The same applies to public houses. There will be less money in the Exchequer if this legislation works, as mentioned in page 32 of the recent evaluation by the Oireachtas Library and Research Service. I caution the Government and ask it to be careful because we could end up spending a lot of money and accomplishing absolutely nothing. The younger generation in the State has already moved substantially away from the world of 1994, as confirmed by the international data.