Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

On amendment No. 14, I agree fully with what it is trying to do. I do not think anyone here could disagree with it. It is clearly trying to ensure that the Minister of the day has regard to data from health services relating to alcohol-related presentations at health facilities. That makes sense. I have examined the matter in a supportive manner but I believe section 10(5), as Senator Burke stated, provides the Minister for Health with that opportunity. I assure the House that the data is available to my Department and this subsection will mandate the Minister of the day to take that into consideration. The data is available through the hospital in-patient enquiry, HIPE, system. I am happy to further engage between now and Report Stage, if the Senator wishes, but I am satisfied that I have the information.

We are after having a significant round of contributions on minimum unit pricing. Contrary to what I sometimes read or hear, or people whisper, on Senators' views on the Bill, I am after hearing extraordinarily strong support for the fundamental principle of minimum unit pricing from Senators on all sides of this House, and the significance of that should not be lost on us. The Leader, Senator Buttimer, mentioned Professor Barry's strong comments during pre-legislative scrutiny on the Bill, and I thank him for his work. I also note the World Health Organization's view in its report of 2009 and thank Senator Mulherin for her comments on the need for an evidence base to what we are doing. The World Health Organization stated that there is indisputable evidence that the price of alcohol matters and that alcohol related-harm goes down if the price of alcohol goes up. Therefore, we are following an evidence base in what we are trying to do.

I wish to make it absolutely clear that minimum unit pricing is a key part to the Bill and an important tenet of the change we need to bring about. The influence of price on alcohol consumption in Ireland, particularly on young people, and many Senators have spoken about young people, was also highlighted by the Health Research Board. It carried out a survey, Alcohol: Public Knowledge, Attitudes and Behaviours, in 2012. Interestingly, it found that 24% of respondents said they would buy more alcohol if the price of alcohol was to decrease further. The figure increased to 50% for respondents in the 18 to 24 years age bracket. Therefore, we know that price is an issue in terms of how much alcohol we consume and we know that price can be a particular deterrent in terms of consumption and over-consumption for those who are young but legally old enough to drink.

Minimum unit pricing is about targeting cheaper alcohol relative to its strength, which is how this is different to past models. It is about targeting alcohol products based on the amount and strength of alcohol in it. The price is directly proportionate to the amount of pure alcohol in the drink which is why it is such an important policy framework. It means that the price of individual products will depend on their strength. It sets a floor price beneath which alcohol cannot be legally sold and it targets products that are currently very cheap relative to their strength. Strong and cheap drinks, as we all know, are alcohol products favoured by the heaviest drinkers among us. An interesting statistic to put on the record of the House is that at current prices it is possible for a woman to reach her weekly recommended low risk limit of 11 standard drinks for €4.95. That is quite astonishing. It is possible for a man to reach his weekly recommended low risk limit of 17 standard drinks for €7.65.

Spurious arguments put forward by some in the drinks industry about me trying to put up the price of a pint are complete and utter baloney. This is about ensuring that drinks which are extraordinarily cheap yet extraordinarily high in alcohol content have a floor price. Senator McDowell rightly asked me to translate that into what it actually means in a practical sense for people. Therefore, let me put a few figures on the record of the House. The majority of alcohol products sold in an off-licence premises will not be impacted at all by the proposed application of minimum unit pricing of 10 cent per gram of alcohol. A 500 ml can of Guinness will have a minimum unit price of €1.66; a 440 ml can of Tesco lager will have a minimum unit price of €1.32; a 750 ml bottle of Jacob's Creek classic Chardonnay will have a minimum unit price of €7.52; a 700 ml bottle of Gordon's dry gin will have a minimum unit price of €20.71; a 700 ml bottle of Smirnoff Ice will have a minimum unit price of €20.71; and a 700 ml bottle of Jameson whiskey will have a minimum unit price of €22.09. These are just examples but, in other words, the only product whose price will be affected is Tesco lager. The Senator asked specifically about Dutch Gold. A 500 ml can of Dutch Gold will have a minimum unit price of €1.58. As of May this year, it was retailing at €1.13. These are practical measures.

We need to debunk the accusation that we are trying to increase the price of a pint and that the Minister will put up the price of the gin and tonic of the man or woman on the street. Let us debunk that myth as well because we have a lot of myths but not many facts in some of the arguments put forward by industry. In pubs the proposed minimum unit pricing of 10 cent per gram of alcohol will mean that a price of Heineken will have a minimum unit price of €2.25 cent. I have never seen it retail for that. A pint of Budweiser will have a minimum unit price of €1.80; a pint of Bulmer's will have a minimum unit price of €2.02; a measure of Jameson whiskey will have a minimum unit price of €1.12; and a measure of Huzzar vodka will have a minimum unit price of €1.05. This is about targeting the cheapest drinks which have high alcohol content and, in the session we just had, we all noted it is about ensuring that we are having a particular impact on our younger citizens and the next generation of citizens and decision makers in this country.I take the point about Northern Ireland and acknowledge Senators from the Border area, including Senators O'Reilly, Wilson, Gallagher and any I have missed, who raised this issue. I understand that we always have to be conscious on the island of Ireland of the impact of what we do in one area on the other. We are asking Senators now to put the legislative framework in place. There is a Government decision on trying to do this alongside Northern Ireland. We need a government to talk to in Northern Ireland but that is for another day. Northern Ireland was moving in this direction but the Government will commence this at an appropriate time. The purpose of the Bill is to put the legislative framework in place to enable the Government do that.

I have heard about below-cost selling and I thank colleagues for wanting to see an impact on price because of the evidence base and considering other options. The Department did copious research on the most effective way and that is how minimum unit pricing came out. It published a report in 2013, prepared by CJP Consultants, which found that minimum unit pricing was much more effective than the ban on below-cost selling. That is why it is a fundamental tenet of the Bill.

I take Senator Lombard's point on what to do if there is a large lacuna, because people are eager to see movement on this. Minimum unit pricing needs to be in this Bill. I think there is cross-party support for it. As Minister for Health, I will always consider other opportunities. There are some opportunities in respect of regulating some of the promotional issues that can help, particularly for promotions which are often aimed at young people. Senator McDowell asked me particularly about price-based promotions. I am informed that sections 21(1)(a)(i) and 21(1)(a)(ii) of the Bill give the Minister for Health of the day the ability to prohibit that price-based promotion, such as six for the price of five. That is an important tool that we need to use.

Senator Colm Burke asked me three questions about the offences. I have been told that in section 10(6) a person who "sells or causes to be sold an alcohol product at a price that is below the minimum price of the alcohol product" or "advertises, promotes or causes to be advertised or promoted the sale of an alcohol product at a price that is below the minimum price" on summary conviction receives a class A fine or up to six months imprisonment or both. A conviction on indictment has more serious consequences with a fine of up to €250,000 or up to three years in prison, or both Facebook, regardless of where that is promoted, is a factor that can be taken into account. It is included. On the third question about a fake product, that is, a product advertised that is not for sale, is not included in this Bill. Whether it is included in other legislation is beyond my knowledge.

I do not believe in shutting down debate. It is right that people question and get this landmark Bill right. I refer Senators to the edition of The Lancetof 15 April 2017, which contains a rapid evidence review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of alcohol control policies. It is an English perspective. It goes through a variety of policy measures including cost, taxation, marketing, advertising, regulating the marketing and their impact. I will arrange for it to be circulated to Senators between now and Report Stage.

I thank Senator Black and others for their support for the Government amendment in this section, amendment No. 49, which is a better wording of what we are trying to achieve.