Michelle Mulherin (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Section 20 has been a particular sticking point in the Bill. As legislators, we must always consider whether a proposed measure is proportionate and reasonable. The answer quite a number of us on all sides of the House came up with in this case was that this provision would probably constitute too great a burden, if implemented, on small shops as compared to multiple retailers. When it was drafted, no distinction was made between multiple retailers and the small shop. The multiple retailers are a totally different animal and the issues around the power they have arise again and again. As a member of the agriculture committee, I have seen that they engage in below-cost selling of horticultural products, milk, as a loss leader, and alcohol. They have some power and sway. Today, of course, we are discussing alcohol and we are entitled to ask about this and to get it teased out. We are entitled to consider the position of the small shop which is put to the pin of its collar to survive on tight margins in competition on so many levels with these multiples.

Like everyone has said, we have been lobbied on all sides. We have taken on board a lot of valid points and sincere cases which were made on all sides, both for and against the legislation. I am mindful of one particular lobbying session organised this time last year by Alcohol Action Ireland whose representatives spoke to a number of Fine Gael Senators. A number of physicians were in attendance. I see Professor Frank Murray in the Gallery and I thank him and his colleagues for coming along. Nobody in the House has said otherwise than that the consequences of the abuse of alcohol on the body and mind are terrible and shocking. Such abuse is something we should seek to curb and reduce as a policy measure in our health service for the well-being of citizens and society. That is not to mention the financial cost and the way in which it undermines the fabric of our society. How do we curb alcohol abuse and binge drinking and remove people from addiction by getting them to go down another path?

At the lobbying meeting to which I have referred, we had access to a marketing expert from DCU. Structural separation and blocking the visibility of alcohol was discussed. We were anxious to know about impulse buying and the correlation between what one sees and what one buys. A number of us asked what evidence there was that blanking out alcohol with darkened doors or frosted glass would change people's purchasing patterns and get them away from this abuse. We were told there was no evidence. We also know that this has not been done elsewhere. There is evidence that people engage in impulse buying at the point of sale. For example, some supermarkets avoid putting sweets at certain checkouts because they are a temptation for kids. That evidence is also there for alcohol. That is the only empirical evidence that was offered to us. We are talking about evidence-based approaches. Without a doubt, there is a problem with binge drinking which we are trying to address. However, this is not evidence-based in the way the minimum unit pricing proposal is evidence-based.

We are being asked to take a step and see if it works. I go back to proportionality and reasonableness. It seems to me that small business will pay the price here. Not to labour on this too long as we have discussed it, but I cannot understand how anyone could not see that most small shops do not have the space to section off a whole area with its own-door access. The multiples can do it, but a lot of small shops cannot. As I understand it, they will have to have blackened-out doors or some variation on that. Previously, it was suggested that, to minimise the cost, curtains would be put up and that got a fair bit of ridicule. It is generally accepted that people are not going to these shops to buy low-cost or below-cost alcohol but if it is going to be made so difficult for someone who just wants to buy a bottle of wine, he or she will just go to the bigger store. It stands to reason. That is aside from the cost to the small retailer of carrying out works, fitting doors and whatever else.If the Minister does not address this issue, he will not stop people drinking. He will drive them to a supermarket, a multiple retailer, where they can have a leisurely experience, bringing their children with them because they want only one bottle of wine. Lo and behold they will see there is a series of bottles of wine being sold below cost and they will buy several bottles. That is not solving a problem. The Minister is shifting the market and favouring these multiple retailers. The Minister needs to address this issue. Not implementing minimum unit pricing is not a problem for multiple retailers. I welcome the Minister's initial proposal for an amendment here, which recognises that the small retailer is completely different from the multiple retailer. Whatever the Minister brings forward must be workable. It cannot be 1 cu. m, as that is not workable. It needs to be more than he has brought forward. That he is going to engage is welcome. There have been complaints that there has not been meaningful engagement with the small shops and their representative organisations until now. This is constructive and positive and I hope we can proceed and achieve the objective we want, which is to continue the trend towards a reduction in overall alcohol consumption and to address binge drinking and other abuses of alcohol without sacrificing small shops in rural areas and elsewhere. They employ local people and provide sponsorship. Facts and figures show that a larger percentage of a euro spent in a local shop is redistributed in the local economy than of a euro spent at a multiple retailer. We want these shops to stay and they deserve consideration and support on this issue.