Joint Committee on Health and Children debate -
Thursday, 26 Mar 2015

General Scheme of Public Health (Alcohol) Bill 2015: Discussion (Resumed)

Chairman

In the second segment of the meeting we will continue our pre-legislative scrutiny of the heads of the public health (alcohol) Bill 2015.

I ask witnesses to speak to the heads in their presentations. The committee has a long record of promoting a range of health promotion measures. As part of its pre-legislative scrutiny, it is consulting a wide range of stakeholders on the issue. Today we have a large number of witnesses before us. I ask them to keep to the five minutes of speaking time. I welcome formally to our meeting Professor Joe Barry, chair of population health medicine, Trinity College Dublin; Ms Suzanne Costello, chief executive officer of Alcohol Action Ireland; Ms Evelyn Jones, chairperson of the National Off-Licence Association; Mr. Ross Mac Mathúna, director of the Alcohol Beverage Federation of Ireland; Mr. Donall O'Keeffe, chief executive officer of the Licensed Vintners Association; and Mr. Padraig Cribben, chief executive officer of the Vintners Federation Ireland.

Before we commence, I wish to remind witnesses and members about privilege. Witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they are to give this committee. If they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence in relation to a particular matter and they continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. Witnesses are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise nor make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I welcome all witnesses again and remind members that in their pack for today's meeting there are lengthier versions of the submissions from today's witnesses.

Professor Joe Barry

I thank members of the committee for the opportunity to speak to them today on the important topic of the public health (alcohol) Bill. We welcome this Bill as a watershed in that it represents the first time that the Department of Health is introducing legislation on the public health aspects of our national alcohol problem. I will concentrate on issues relating to labelling and minimum unit pricing.

I have been involved in the issue of labelling and warnings through a variety of working groups since the middle of the last decade, beginning with social partnership. Agreement was reached on labelling in 2007, eight years ago, so this legislation is overdue. It is encouraging to see recommendations of almost ten years ago progressing towards the Statute Book. There is confusion currently about the exact quantity of alcohol in any alcoholic drink. The move to use grams is a step in the right direction. Grams are used to label foods all over Europe and represent the same thing in Ireland, the United Kingdom and continental Europe. Grams are understandable in many languages. Importantly, there is a direct dose response effect between daily intake of grams of alcohol and a variety of alcohol induced health harms. A pint of beer contains 20g of alcohol. If a man drinks 50g to 60g of alcohol every day, his chance of developing liver cirrhosis is increased ninefold. If a woman drinks 20g to 40g of alcohol per day, her chance of developing liver cirrhosis is increased almost tenfold. Epilepsy is increased sevenfold for each gender with each of these intakes. We have a major obesity problem in Ireland and information on the calorie count on alcohol containers will help with weight control. A pint of lager contains more than 200 calories, a standard 175 ml glass of wine, one quarter of a bottle, contains 130 calories, and a pub measure of spirits contains 80 calories, minus the mixer. Accurate information on grams and calories, coupled with images of the harms caused by excess alcohol use, will greatly help individuals take a more proactive role in monitoring their alcohol consumption.

The topic of minimum unit pricing has been discussed at length by Dr. Holmes from Sheffield. This is a proven effective measure with gains in the short term. It is aimed at two groups of vulnerable drinkers: very young drinkers or teenagers who can buy drinks, particularly beer, at pocket money prices, and dependent drinkers or alcoholics for whom any very cheap alcohol is very attractive. The benefits in the short term include reductions in mortality, reductions in crime, a positive impact on the direct costs to health care services and a reduction in workplace absence. Helping young people to delay the onset of heavy drinking, and any drinking, reduces their chances of developing alcohol dependence in later life.

It has been claimed that this strategy is an attack on the poor. That is not the case. It is an attempt based on evidence to provide support to vulnerable drinkers to reduce their drinking regardless of their economic circumstances. I am the chairperson of the north inner city local drugs task force, in which Members of the Oireachtas from the Dublin Central constituency and members of Dublin City Council actively participate. We are all of the view that drinking patterns in the north inner city, one of the most deprived parts of the country, are at a serious level, with a proliferation of off-licences selling cheap drink. The measures outlined in this minimum unit pricing legislation will be very beneficial to the health and well-being of this community and all communities throughout the country, regardless of social class. It will lessen health inequalities when brought in.

The final issue I would like to address briefly is enforcement, which cuts across some of the heads. I welcome that environmental health officers will be given enforcement powers under this legislation. They provide excellent enforcement within the health arena regarding environmental tobacco smoke and food safety. They will have a key role in enforcing section 9 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act 2008, which deals with structural separation in mixed trading stores. Alcohol is not an ordinary commodity and must not be treated as such by our retailers. We thank members for their attention.

Ms Suzanne Costello

I, too, thank the committee for the invitation to appear today. It is a substantial achievement to have brought this legislation forward. The measures it contains have the potential to save many lives and make our society a healthier, safer and better one in which to live. As Professor Barry has focused on labelling, pricing and enforcement, and members have also heard a detailed presentation on minimum unit pricing from Dr. John Holmes, I will focus on alcohol marketing and advertising, including the sponsorship of major sporting events by alcohol brands.

The history of alcohol regulation in Ireland is not one of which we can be proud. We have paid, and continue to pay, a very heavy price for this. We are the second heaviest binge drinkers in the world and our children are growing up in a society where three people die every day due to alcohol. It is a society in which liver disease rates are spiralling, increasing fourfold in the past 20 years, with the greatest level of increase among 15 to 34 year olds, in which more than 100,000 children are suffering due to a parent’s drinking, and in which alcohol is a prominent driving factor in serious issues such as crime, suicide and mental illness, as well as a huge burden on our under-pressure health service and State finances. Prior to the public health (alcohol) Bill the lack of action on alcohol harm is a stark reflection of how we have normalised not only heavy and harmful drinking in Ireland but also the huge costs that come with it, primarily the loss of so many lives and the serious harm suffered by young and vulnerable members of society due to alcohol.

Many people seem to ask why so many children and young people in Ireland start to drink so early and then drink so often and so much, habits which sadly stay with the majority of Irish people into their adult life. When it comes to drinking, young people are, in many ways, a product of their environment and we have created an environment for them that is saturated with alcohol, so much so that many of us fail even to recognise it anymore and are willing to turn a blind eye to the harms that come with it. As Dr. Patrick Kenny pointed out to the committee on Tuesday, there is no longer any debate surrounding the impact of alcohol marketing and advertising, including sponsorship, on children. A significant number of large studies which tracked children over time, measuring their exposure to marketing and their alcohol consumption, have shown that the more alcohol marketing to which children are exposed, the more likely they are to start to consume alcohol and to drink more if they have already started consuming alcohol.

Only vested interests continue to deny this evidence while simultaneously spending millions finding more creative ways to reach and engage people and influence them to drink their products. Even if we were to accept that children are not targeted directly by the alcohol industry, to say that children are not influenced by alcohol marketing is equivalent to saying that they only suddenly begin to see and hear on their 18th birthday. Sport, in which we quite rightly encourage children to participate, both for the physical benefits of exercise and the many other important values it can teach them, is one of the primary vehicles the alcohol industry uses to sell its products in Ireland. Sponsorship of sporting events by alcohol brands is an especially potent form of sales promotion, and comprehensive evidence shows that children are not only exposed to a large amount of alcohol promotion through sports sponsorship, but that their beliefs and behaviour in relation to alcohol are influenced by the alignment of alcohol brands with their sporting heroes and everything they represent. Every day Irish children are continually exposed to positive, risk-free images of alcohol and its use in many different ways and through many different channels, including social media, television, billboards, sports sponsorship, product placement in films and music videos. These all work to reinforce one another and are sophisticated and powerful influences on children’s drinking expectations and behaviour. Ultimately, they all work together to sell more alcohol.

Due to the failure to introduce effective regulations and legislation governing this area, the alcohol industry has in effect become Irish children and young people’s primary educator on alcohol.

Therefore, proposals to place existing voluntary codes governing alcohol advertising and alcohol sponsorship of sport on a statutory footing are deeply concerning. To date, regulation of the promotion of alcohol has been structured and undertaken by the alcohol industry itself, mainly through these voluntary codes of practice. The alcohol industry writes the rules it sees fit to adhere to and decides whether they are being obeyed. Like most systems of self-regulation in Ireland, the alcohol industry’s codes have proven to be wholly ineffective and have done nothing to protect the young and vulnerable members of society from alcohol harm.

Self-regulation is no regulation. We did not allow the tobacco industry to regulate itself and the robust legislation put in place by Government in relation to tobacco, including marketing, advertising and sponsorship, has seen the number of Irish children taking up smoking fall significantly. If the Government fails to act to phase out alcohol sponsorship of sport and allows the existing self-regulatory codes governing marketing and advertising to pass, unexamined by independent experts in public health, onto the Statute Book, it will have allowed the alcohol industry to write the law that governs alcohol marketing and advertising in Ireland and spurned the opportunity to make a significant difference to the health and well-being of future generations of Irish people.

Mr. Padraig Cribben

I thank the Chairman and members of the committee for the opportunity to address the committee. As the committee will be aware, we represent the publicans in the 25 counties outside Dublin and have a membership of approximately 4,000. These publicans are dotted throughout the country, in urban and rural areas, and provide much-needed employment on the one hand and tourist infrastructure on the other.

We broadly welcome the provisions as set out in this Bill. Many of its provisions have been sought by our federation for a long period. What is important is that the details of the Bill are considered carefully and are implemented in a way that achieves its full aims without unintended consequences. There are four main areas provided for in the Bill: health labelling of alcohol products, minimum unit pricing for retailing of alcohol products, regulation of marketing and advertising of alcohol, and enforcement powers for environmental health officers in relation to some of these provisions.

On the health labelling of alcohol products, we have no problem supporting the objectives set out in the Bill. As we understand it, it would be the responsibility of manufacturers to ensure all bottles, cans and other containers contain the relevant information. In the on-trade, it would be the responsibility of the licensee to display a notice prominently inside the premises with the information required. It is imperative a standardised format be agreed for this notification. We need to avoid different administrative officers having different impressions of what is required. This standardised format should be agreed in advance with the Department of Health to ensure ease of compliance and full disclosure for the consumer.

We fully support the principle of minimum unit pricing. To be effective it needs to be set at a rate that will achieve the stated objectives. The Department of Health has indicated that the minimum unit price will be exclusive of VAT and excise. We fail to see how this can operate. If the minimum price is exclusive of VAT and excise, it will be meaningless unless it is pitched at an enormously high level. It will be meaningless in that supermarkets may decide, when it suits them, to absorb the excise and they will continue to use alcohol as a loss leader. We believe the rate should be the final rate below which alcohol cannot be sold.

We believe there has to be a logic as to how this rate is arrived at. We would suggest that the appropriate logic is to go back to before the abolition of the groceries order in 2006, which was the catalyst for most of the problems in this area today. The average price from the CSO figures at that point should be taken and the rise in the cost of living overall in the interim should be applied to reach a new minimum unit price. This would equate to a minimum unit price of approximately €1.90 per 500 ml can of beer at 4.3% alcohol by volume. This figure should then be used pro rata for other products like wine, spirits, etc. on the basis indicated in the Bill of the price being based on a certain number of cent per 10 grams of alcohol. We believe that is a significant issue that needs to be addressed in the Bill.

In regard to the control of marketing and advertising of alcohol, by and large the issues raised in the Bill do not affect the on-trade and are more centrally issues for brand owners than for the pub trade. However, we have a concern with certain elements in head 9, specifically subsection (3)(g) which states: “A requirement that an advertisement for an alcohol product shall include a notice or statement containing health information”. The committee will be aware that outside of many pubs there are signs, many of which are there for generations, denoting product types and brands. These particular signs do not have that health information or are not amenable to having that information superimposed. While we do not believe it is the intention of the proposed Bill to affect such signs, it could be interpreted by those charged with the responsibility of implementing the measures in the Bill that these signs could be affected. We would ask that this be specifically addressed in the final Bill.

Head 15 of the Bill refers to section 9 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act 2008. It allows for environmental health officers to enforce section 9 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act if and when the Bill is enacted. Our position is that section 9, which covers the segregation of alcohol in mixed trading outlets, that is, supermarkets, should be brought into play immediately. However, in recent discussions with the Department of Justice and Equality, which I understand has jurisdiction in this matter, it has indicated that it has no intention to commence section 9 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act 2008 any time soon. Instead, it intends to put the current voluntary code of practice on a statutory footing for a two-year period and then assess its success or otherwise.

The problem with this is that no one is designated to monitor its enforcement during this two-year period. We suggest the current legislation needs to be amended to allow for the environmental health officers to monitor the workings of the statutory code of practice during the two-year period in order that a valid and objective assessment can be made of its implementation.

We support the objectives and the broad content of the heads of the Bill. We would like to ensure there are no unintended consequences as I have highlighted and that the legislation will be implemented without delay. We believe that addressing the points raised will strengthen the Bill, improve outputs and result in a better situation all round.

Ms Evelyn Jones

I thank the Chairman and members of the committee. The National Off-Licence Association, NOffLA, represents independent, specialist and pure off-licences, generally owner-operated, community-based, and employing local expertise. As alcohol is our primary product, it is a mandatory requirement for membership of NOffLA that all members are trained and examined in NOffLA’s responsible trading certificate. Failure to adhere to the law is not an option for us as loss of licence is loss of livelihood.

NOffLA welcomes the commitment to implement structural separation in tackling under-age exposure to alcohol, the calculated placement of alcohol products with other groceries, and sale of alcohol through self-service terminals. Alcohol is a controlled substance whose purchase must be a conscious decision, transacted under the strictest conditions and supervision.

NOffLA queries why structural separation will not be enacted under the law already in place, that is, section 9 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act 2008. The scheme plans to achieve the same principles of section 9 through a statutory code under the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act. The sanctions set out under the statutory code are notably weaker than section 9 and, as such, will pose much less of a deterrent. For example, a breach of the statutory code provisions is not a criminal offence but merely a possible basis upon which an objection to licence renewal can be made. A breach of section 9 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act 2008 can result in a summary conviction and a fine not exceeding €100,000. These sanctions represent a much more powerful deterrent than a possible objection at renewal time. This proposed code will see continued non-compliance by mixed traders. NOffLA views the undertaking to enact section 9 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act after two years as something that should be commenced now.

The Bill will amend section 16 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act 2008 which will allow the Minister for Justice and Equality to make regulations to restrict certain advertisements and promotions. In the absence of a ban on below invoice cost selling, section 16 can be implemented.

NOffLA accepts that alcohol marketing needs to be regulated. The restriction on alcohol advertisements in the media in relation to volume and type of publication is a vital step in establishing a responsible retailing platform. Minimum pricing in isolation will not tackle irresponsible promotions because premium branded alcohol can still be heavily discounted. Many of the promotions in the media currently are priced at a level that will still be legal under minimum unit pricing. Indirect marketing is not an appropriate tool for the sale of alcohol. Alcohol should not attract loyalty points, money back vouchers and meal deals, and promotions earned on groceries, petrol and so on should not be applied against alcohol purchases.

NOffLA welcomes the policy change on alcohol pricing away from excise duty while still addressing the issue.

Excise duty increases upfront cash requirements and therefore costs jobs. We support the introduction of minimum unit pricing, MUP, and see it working at approximately €1 or more. Some might wish it to be higher but we must be conscious of the proportionality of the measure on health grounds versus the freedom of movement of goods under EU law for it to have any chance of approval. However, there is no backup plan should it prove illegal or to address the fact that minimum unit pricing does not deal with the discounting of premium brands. Minimum unit pricing targets one socio-economic group and age profile. The legislation is an opportunity to introduce a ban on below invoice cost selling, which will work in tandem with MUP to ensure alcohol is sold responsibly across all social strata and ages.

Appendix 4 in the submission shows that minimum unit pricing and banning below invoice cost selling have complementary merits. Where minimum unit pricing legally permits a six pack to be discounted by €4.50 from its invoice cost, this could not happen with a ban on below invoice cost selling. Appendix 6 highlights that while some supermarket promotions may not be legal under minimum unit pricing, the discounting of premium brands will continue untouched. A ban on below invoice cost selling would also save the State an estimated €24 million in VAT rebates per annum. NOffLA suggests that a ban on below invoice cost selling using the regulation in section 16 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act 2008 prohibiting the sale of alcohol at a reduced price would be very useful.

This Bill has potential but it might be a missed opportunity if section 9 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act 2008 continues to be unimplemented or if section 16 continues to permit the sale of alcohol below invoice cost price. I wish to add a note of caution from someone who had high hopes for the reforms in 2008. In appendix 1 members will see that we are in the current position as a direct result of decisions taken by the Department of Justice and Equality to deregulate certain laws and not to enact others, all of which have had a negative consequence from a health perspective due to increased availability. I ask the committee to be vigilant in this regard.

Mr. Ross Mac Mathúna

I thank the Deputies and Senators for the opportunity to address the committee on the heads of the public health (alcohol) Bill. I am the director of the Alcohol Beverage Federation of Ireland, ABFI. We represent manufacturers and distributors of alcoholic beverages on the island of Ireland.

To give the members some background information on the sector, in economic terms it generates in excess of €2 billion in excise and VAT receipts annually for the State, makes more than €1 billion in purchases and has exports of more than €1.2 billion. It also supports in excess of 92,000 jobs in rural and urban Ireland.

The ABFI recognises that alcohol misuse, which manifests itself in harmful drinking, drinking to excess and under-age drinking, must be addressed. The ABFI fully supports efforts to reduce alcohol misuse and welcomes the opportunity to engage with the Oireachtas on this important legislation. We support the education of consumers to allow them to make the right choices about their alcohol consumption, and we support the use of evidence-based approaches that will reduce the harm associated with the abuse of alcohol.

The consumption of alcohol has fallen by approximately 25% over the past 15 years, based on Revenue Commissioners clearance and Central Statistics Office population data. The most recent research from the European School Survey Project on Alcohol and Drugs, ESPAD, showed under-age drinking in Ireland has declined across many metrics between 1999 and 2011. While the trends are moving in the right direction, there is still much work to be done.

With regard to specific elements of the Bill, we welcome the intention to move the voluntary codes of behaviour on advertising, marketing and sponsorship to a statutory basis. The voluntary codes already in existence work well and this move will strengthen them. Marketing and sponsorship activities undertaken by companies operate under the principle of audience profiling. This means that at least 75% of the audience for any marketing initiative must be older than 18 years of age. We work closely with the Government and industry body, the alcohol marketing communications monitoring body, AMCMB, independently chaired by Mr. Peter Cassells, which has strict rules on the volume and placement of all alcohol advertisements in all media, that is, how much advertising and where an alcohol advertisement is permitted to be placed. These codes were drawn up between the Department of Health and the industry and were reviewed and updated in 2008.

We also work with the Advertising Standards Association of Ireland the independent self-regulatory body set up and financed by the advertising industry and committed, in the public interest, to promoting the highest standards of marketing communications. Since 2003, an independent pre-clearance house, CopyClear, has been in existence. All advertising copy is sent for pre-clearance to CopyClear, a group of independent advertising professionals who vet any marketing for compliance with the ASAI codes on content. This process is unique to Ireland. No other market puts its alcohol advertising through such rigorous scrutiny to ensure it complies with both the letter and spirit of the codes.

The codes in operation today function well, and the ABFI welcomes the intention to move them to a statutory basis. The statutory code system should cover the general areas of volume, content and placement. There should be strict penalties for non-compliance with the codes. There should be a strong and comparative evidence base for all measures arising out of the detailed information available on viewership and readership profiles. The drafting of the regulations should involve a wide group of stakeholders, including the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland and other regulatory bodies, to ensure the system functions correctly and does not unfairly disadvantage domestic media companies.

Regarding the proposal to introduce a watershed ban on advertising on television and radio, a watershed will only apply to domestic broadcasters. It will not apply to broadcasters operating outside the jurisdiction. A watershed will not apply to programming that is viewed on demand or online. The ABFI restates its view that the best way to limit the exposure of those under 18 to alcohol advertising is through audience profiling.

Regarding structural separation, the ABFI welcomes the proposal in the heads of the Bill to move the Responsible Retailing of Alcohol in Ireland voluntary code to a statutory basis and to review the effectiveness of the code in two years. We believe this takes into account the success of the code. Compliance with the code is high, at 83% overall and 95% at multiple level in the latest annual report. It is an example of an industry code that works well.

The ABFI welcomes appropriate labelling which enables the consumer to make informed decisions when purchasing alcohol. The purpose of labelling on alcohol products, much like food, is for consumers to be provided with accurate information that is clear, consistent and easily understood. The ABFI recognises that calorific information, when portrayed in a consumer-friendly and scientifically verifiable manner, is of use to the consumer. The industry welcomes the Government’s proposed introduction of labels indicating the dangers of drinking while pregnant. In fact, some companies, such as Irish Distillers and Heineken, already do this on a voluntary basis. The ABFI has consistently called on the Department of Health to introduce a requirement for this labelling since 2007. It is essential the proposed inclusion of any health warning labels on packaged alcohol products is proportionate, measured and informative.

For consumers to understand the amount of alcohol they are consuming, the ABFI supports the inclusion of alcohol content information in the form of a standard drink or unit. The proposed introduction of grams as the measure of alcohol content will confuse consumers and compromise their ability to make an informed decision when purchasing or consuming alcohol. The research performed by Stockwell and Kerr that the heads of the Bill references also states that “grams or other weight-based measures are unlikely to be useful in helping drinkers to understand alcohol”.

Member states take their lead on alcohol labelling from EU legislation. An EU committee is reviewing the potential for a harmonised unit at EU level. It is also evaluating the various issues associated with alcohol products, specifically around nutrition and calories. The Commission is expected to publish the findings of its research in a report due in 2015, and as the issues are being considered formally at EU level, now might not be the most appropriate time to develop national measures.

Regarding minimum unit pricing, the ABFI supports the Government’s intention to address the sale of cheap alcohol. In 2014, an industry-wide initiative called on the Government to address the sale of cheap alcohol, introduce a statutory ban on price-based advertising and introduce statutory codes to regulate the merchandising of alcohol. There is full agreement in the ABFI that the best and quickest way to do this is by the reintroduction of a ban on below-cost selling of alcohol. The ABFI calls on the Government to reintroduce the relevant section of the groceries order to deliver this.

Our view is that minimum unit pricing will be ineffective as a measure to address the sale of cheap alcohol. It is based on a theoretical model with a multiplicity of assumptions, some of which might not be relevant to Ireland. Specifically, the model deals with the impact of a change in price on demand for alcohol or price elasticity. There is no price elasticity data available for Ireland. The Sheffield report states: "While we have attempted to estimate Irish-specific elasticities, the current data do not allow this to be done robustly". This calls into question the validity of the model for MUP that is used and the outputs it delivered in an Irish context, particularly how individual groups respond to changes in price, which is the foundation for the model and the conclusions drawn. Minimum unit pricing is also currently before the European Court of Justice and it might be a number of years before its legality is ruled upon.

Chairman

I ask Mr. Mac Mathúna to conclude.

Mr. Ross Mac Mathúna

Regarding education and the responsible serving of alcohol, these are two important elements which are not included in the Bill. We ask the committee to examine them and ensure they are dealt with in this important legislation.

The ABFI wishes to work with the Government to address the important issue of alcohol misuse. We call on Government to work with industry to ensure speedy enactment of the legislation.

Mr. Donall O'Keeffe

I thank the Chairman and members of the committee for the opportunity to present the views of the Licensed Vintners Association, LVA on this important Bill. We are the representative organisation for the publicans of Dublin. Collectively, our members sell almost 30% of the alcohol in the on-trade in Ireland and employ more than 12,000 people.

We broadly welcome the thrust of this Bill and feel that many of its provisions are long overdue. I will outline specific comments on each of the main headings of the Bill. With regard to head 5 – labelling of alcohol products, in principle, the LVA does not oppose the requirement that alcohol product containers set out the specified information. However, we believe that the information about quantity in grams of alcohol will be of no benefit to consumers as they will not understand it. We note that subhead 5(4) requires licensees with an on-licence to display a notice prominently inside the premises setting out this information. We believe that this is the most appropriate and feasible means for publicans to comply with the labelling requirements. In addition, to minimise the administration and bureaucracy required to comply with the labelling requirement, we propose that a standard notice template be developed, in conjunction with the Department of Health, that sets out the required information by category rather than by brand. This information would also be supplied by standard pub serving. Providing this information by brand would be an administrative nightmare and prove overwhelming for consumers.

On head 6, the LVA fully supports the proposed introduction of a minimum price for alcohol. In addition, we believe that the minimum price must be set at a high enough level to make a significant impact on consumption patterns. The minimum price must be significantly higher than the off-trade market price levels in March 2015. We also fully support subhead 1(e) but propose it should go further, namely, that alcohol should not be permitted to be sold as part of a so-called bundled offer under any circumstances. Our concern is that the other bundled products would be deeply discounted to drive alcohol sales. Such promotions could potentially be funded by the increased retailer margins under minimum price. This scenario should not be permitted by the legislation.

The LVA argues that the policy objective under head 7, calculation of minimum unit price of alcoholic products, should be to return off-trade alcohol price levels to those existing at the time of the abolition of the groceries order in March 2006, adjusting for inflation in the intervening period. Accordingly, based on CSO price levels applying at the time of abolishing the groceries order, and adjusting for inflation of 13.6% since, the rounded off-trade prices that should apply today should be: €2 for a 500 ml can of lager, €23.50 for a 700 ml bottle of vodka, and €10 for a 75 cl bottle of table wine. We understand that the minimum price will be exclusive of VAT and excise and that it is intended to be applied at the same rate, whether the alcohol is sold in beer, cider, spirits or wine form. However, excise is levied at varying rates depending on the alcohol category involved. Excise levels in Ireland are extraordinarily high and VAT at 23% is further applied to all alcohol categories. The Government needs to take care that in the imposition of a minimum price, excise and VAT applies fairly and equally across all alcohol categories. The LVA recommends that the focus be to achieve minimum retail prices, inclusive of the minimum price, excise and VAT, similar to March 2006 levels adjusted in real terms. This may require the minimum price to vary by category. Ultimately, the aim of a minimum unit price is to impact the retail price. Accordingly, it needs to be communicated in retail price terms, including all taxes, to consumers and the public. The retail price levels proposed will eliminate deep price discounting in all categories, and will have an immediate and direct impact on alcohol consumption levels and patterns.

Head 9 relates to the control of marketing and advertising of alcohol products. The LVA supports the provision to prohibit the marketing and advertising of alcohol in a manner that is intended or likely to appeal to children. The main brand owners are responsible in this regard. We urge the Government to ensure a fair and appropriate balance between prohibiting advertising and marketing likely to appeal to children, which is a priority, and facilitating brand owners to invest in their brands and implement responsible advertising and marketing programmes. We urge the joint committee to consider the prohibition of price-based advertising of alcohol as this would have a much more immediate and direct impact on consumer behaviour.

Head 15 concerns the amendment of section 9 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act 2008. The LVA's position is that section 9 of the 2008 Act should be commenced immediately. Developing and implementing a statutory code for a two-year period is a poor substitute for full structural separation. We believe there is no scenario where such a statutory code could prove more effective than structural separation. The LVA notes that the current voluntary code operated and monitored by Responsible Retailing of Alcohol Ireland, RRAI, is completely ineffective. Full structural separation would achieve the aim of dramatically reducing the visibility of alcohol in mixed trading retail environments. In addition, the structurally separate unit must be required to have its own dedicated staff and its own customer pay points and till systems. These are required to ensure there is specific staff accountability for alcohol retail sales, to facilitate specific staff training in the responsible retailing of alcohol and to provide for effective point-of-sale control. This head provides environmental health officers with the powers to enforce the provisions of section 9 in the event of its commencement. There appears to be no clarity on which State organisation or officers are responsible for enforcing the proposed statutory code on the display, sale, supply, advertising, promotion or marketing of alcohol, and this needs to be made explicit.

The LVA welcomes the publication of the general scheme of the Bill and supports many of its key provisions. In particular, we urge the Government to ensure a minimum price, including excise and VAT, is achieved that results in significant change in consumer behaviour and purchasing patterns. Returning alcohol prices, in real terms, to the levels that applied prior to the abolition of the groceries order is a rational approach and would be a positive step. In addition, reducing the availability and in-store visibility of alcohol via structural separation is also essential and we urge the committee to recommend full structural separation in this regard. There is no scenario where a statutory code would prove more effective than structural separation.

Senator Thomas Byrne

I will have to leave shortly, as I am due in the Seanad to move a matter. I note what has been said and will take into consideration all the viewpoints. There seems to be an issue about the labelling of products. I cannot envisage customers demanding the calorific or gram content of a pint of beer at midnight in a pub and I do not know if that is a huge issue. It is a positive move and I do not see it placing a major burden on pubs. The drinks industry can provide such labelling in the same way it provides free beer mats and so on. Perhaps the information could be put on beer mats, although it probably would put people off their drink.

Previously, in a different role, I dealt with the issue of light alcohol. I missed some of the submissions and this may have been mentioned. Has the labelling of light alcohol ever been addressed? Many years ago, there was a debate about whether such products were light in alcohol or in calories. Does that issue come up? If so, does it need to be addressed?

Senator Jillian van Turnhout

I thank all the witnesses. I will focus on three issues: price, availability and promotion. It is interesting to hear divergence in opinion on minimum unit pricing. I will read up more about it and take these views into consideration. We heard compelling evidence from Dr. John Holmes of the University of Sheffield, to whom some of the witnesses referred. Perhaps the committee could put supplementary questions that have arisen today to him in order that he can give his perspective to members. His evidence was compelling but I would also like to consider what today's witnesses have said. Mr. Mac Mathúna said the minimum unit pricing issue is before the European courts, but that is because the drinks industry is taking an action against the EU and, therefore, that will not stop me on the issue.

I have raised in the Seanad on several occasions the issue of structural separation of products because I strongly believe in this. I do not understand why the Government has not moved to commence this section of the legislation. I have a difficulty with putting the voluntary code on a statutory basis because legislation is in place. It is a first in my experience for a Minister to have a choice provided for in legislation rather than having to make the choice before the legislation goes through the Oireachtas. However, even with that provision, I do not understand why section 9 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act 2008 has not been enacted. The committee should take this into consideration when we discuss our feedback to the Minister.

I come to the issue of the promotion of alcohol wearing my children's rights hat.

I can understand that people will say that alcohol is not being marketed at children, but the evidence in the reports I am reading is that regardless of whether it is intentional, the fact is it is being marketed at children. All the evidence that I in research clearly concurs with that point of view. Dr. Patrick Kenny and Mr. James Doorley, deputy director of the National Youth Council, who appeared before the committee on Tuesday, concur with that point.

The effect of sponsorship of sport by the alcohol industry, in particular the effect on children and young people, has been raised at the committee on a number of occasions. We need to discuss how the committee can feed back this information. I do not understand why we do not set a date and agree when the industry's sponsorship of sport should cease. We all know the cessation of the link of alcohol to sports sponsorship will come in the future. We need to look at that issue.

There is an issue with marketing and I have a difficulty with the code of practice. Again, we heard that drinks industry advertising is limited at a bus stop, but we are all aware of the advertisement at successive bus stops. Anyone driving or taking the bus will see the effects of advertising. I see its effect on my young passengers whom I bring to school each morning. In terms of the advertisements they see, having the advertisement appear at a succession of bus stops has an impact. Another example is audience profiling. One of the issues Mr. James Doorley raised on Tuesday is that if 1 million people watched a rugby match, approximately 250,000 could be under 18 years, so it will have an effect. That is an issue for me.

I have a question on the role of education. This was mentioned in the course of the presentations by the Alcohol Beverage Federation of Ireland and Alcohol Action Ireland. We are getting conflicting messages on education. Certainly the Alcohol Beverage Federation of Ireland supports the initiative of an education programme by DrinkAware in schools. The HSE has been very involved recently with the revision of the social, personal and health education programme in schools. Certainly I understand from the DrinkAware Trust in the United Kingdom that its experience is not what it has been purported to be in our reports. Certainly the National Youth Council of Ireland says that education has a role, but it is not education that stops us speeding or changes behaviour. I do not pick up my mobile phone in my car now. I probably swear once a day about the current Minister for Health, who was the previous Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport who introduced legislation on the use of mobile phones in the car. I knew it was wrong to use the phone. I need the legislation to ensure I will not use my mobile phone when driving. That is the reality, when I look at other areas, such as speeding and so on. I would like to tease that point out further. These are the questions I would like discussed.

Senator Colm Burke

I thank each of the delegates for their comprehensive and constructive presentations. Has the Department given a logical reason as to why it will not implement section 9 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act 2008? If the terms of section 9 were to be implemented, what period would be envisaged to allow outlets carry out the necessary changes? Would it be proposed to allow them three, six or 12 months or longer to carry out the changes? What period should be allowed for that to occur?

The point was made that sporting organisations are dependent on sponsorship. If the alcohol industry is banned from sponsoring sporting events or organisations, do the delegates think that part of the money raised from minimum pricing should be ring-fenced for sporting organisations? What level of funding would be required to replace the funding from the alcohol industry? I understand substantial sponsorship money goes to sporting organisations. If we propose to ban that, it must be replaced by other funding. What level of expenditure would be involved?

My colleague has touched on the subject of education. The winners of the Young Scientist Exhibition this year conducted research into young people and their drinking habits. In their project they raised the issue of the attitude of parents and how that affects children and their attitude to drink. I understand they will appear before the committee and make a presentation on 16 April. No matter what programme of education we provide, children are influenced by the attitudes of their parents. We need to consider where we should focus our attention. We can focus on schools, but do we need to do additional work by focusing it on parents? How would we go about that? Would we need to focus on a number of different areas or is there a specific area on which we need to focus in respect of the role of parents?

I thank the delegates for their presentations which were comprehensive and constructive.

Deputy Mary Mitchell O'Connor

I have spoken to many of the delegates and I know they have put a great deal of work into this subject. Our interest is patient health and we are here for the good of society. I have had a number of e-mails and messages on social media pointing out that people should be able to drink cheap alcohol, and how dare we try to raise the price of alcohol. People sent personal details to me. I heard Professor Barry speak about drug addiction and in the course of the discussion he said there was no big difference between drug addiction and alcohol addiction. I think what Professor Barry meant is that one has to deal with it in a similar way to an addiction. It is a major medical problem.

I was not present when Ms Evelyn Jones made her presentation but I listened to it in my office. Both Ms Jones and Mr. Donall O'Keeffe spoke about structural separation. I have been in different shops and supermarkets where the point has been made to me that it will be a significant cost to put this in place and they raised issues on how will they regulate and watch this area. Has Ms Jones an idea of the costs involved to a supermarket? Minimum unit pricing is an important issue. There is no point bringing in minimum unit pricing unless it is set at a realistic rate. Will Ms Jones indicate what she thinks is a realistic minimum unit price?

We all know from the previous meeting on drugs that it comes down to parenting. We all know that we should be responsible for our children. We know they are binge drinking when they should be under our care. As a parent and a former school principal, parents need to know where their children are. It is no good complaining to Government or complaining that it is everyone's fault if they are out in the park binge drinking and then perhaps have to be brought to accident and emergency departments. Parents are the primary carers of their children. That is the message we have to send out. It is all very well to say the school will do its part, and while I believe schools play their part, the primary educator of a child is the parent, and he or she is not just the educator but the carer as well. Parents have a responsibility to their child and to society.

My questions are on structural separation and the minimum unit price.

Senator Imelda Henry

I thank the delegates for their presentation. People will know that I have spoken regularly for the past four years on this issue. It has taken far too long for us to get to this stage, but it is welcome we are at it now.

The two main problems we have with alcohol abuse in this country are availability and price. Some members have mentioned segregation of alcohol in supermarkets and why section 9 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act 2008 has not been implemented for many years. The supermarket industry is a very strong lobby. That is probably the reason it has not happened, which is shocking. Cost should not come into it. When the Government decided to ban smoking from pubs, did anyone ask publicans how much it was going to cost? The alcohol for sale in supermarkets is far too cheap. I remember photographs submitted to this committee two years ago of selection boxes on top of slabs of beer. This issue has gone on far too long. I welcome the fact we will have minimum pricing, but as Mr. Padraig Cribben has said, it has to be at the correct price.

Professor Joe Barry

There are a few themes coming through. It is important to say we welcome the thrust of this legislation because it is in a wider World Health Organization framework. The one area of alcohol legislation on which this country has worked successfully is drink driving, and one can see the immediate effect that has had. While education is important, regulation is required for certain things. The reason drink driving has dropped is because of regulation. I listened to the committee's live stream from Tuesday and it was mentioned why structural separation did not come in. It was because interests lobbied a former Minister for Justice and Equality. Comments were made about the Department of Justice and Equality with which I would agree. We have sleepwalked into a situation where alcohol is way too available. When we were all growing up, one bought alcohol in a pub. After a while off-licences came into being, but now alcohol is everywhere. Specialist off-licences and pubs are not the issue; mixed trading stores are the issue. I agree with Senator Henry that the interests will not want change and they will raise the costs issue, as was raised this morning. If we are interested in dealing with the health and safety of our population, and not just children because adults also have a problem with drink, then structural separation is required.

Chairman

Could Professor Barry argue that had he heard Mr. White's testimony on Tuesday, when figures were presented to this committee on Responsible Retailing of Alcohol Ireland's inspections of, court cases and challenges against its members, and coming back to Ms Costello's point that self-regulation does not work in the tobacco industry-----

Professor Joe Barry

I do not believe it does. I know Mr. Padraic White because he was chairman of the national drugs strategy team when I was on it. I have a lot of time for him. I do not think self-regulation works. It does not work in the banks. Intuitively, there has to be regulation of corporations which make money and are publicly listed. That comes down to the State and the Members of the Oireachtas whom we elect on our behalf.

Chairman

I gather he is an independent chair or is that too much of-----

Professor Joe Barry

The issue with the responsible retailing of alcohol, given that is not on a statutory basis, is compliance. Mr. Ross Mac Mathúna mentioned there was 83% compliance, but for mixed trading stores it is 74% compliance. That is 26% non-compliance, which is massive, and nothing has happened about it. These are the stores that have signed up. Regulation does away with all that. We have to take this much more seriously. I was involved in the alcohol monitoring body in the previous decade. We asked that the public health institutes be allowed on that monitoring body and we were explicitly excluded. That was before Mr. Mac Mathúna's time, but we were excluded, so it is not an independent body. One cannot have self-regulation, it does not work in any walk of life and intuitively one can see why. The legal obligation of the manufacturers is to maximise shareholder value. That is fine. The role of the State is to decide when to regulate. We have such a problem in this country. According to the Health Research Board, 10% of people who drink are alcohol dependent. That is huge.

No one likes getting abusive texts or messages as received by Deputy Mitchell O'Connor, but the silent majority want the State and the Government to do something about this. Any time politicians legislate on public health issues, they get huge praise because that is what we elect them to do - to take the balance of all the evidence. In this issue the evidence is overwhelming that we need to be much more proactive.

Chairman

Professor Barry said in his presentation that minimum pricing would lessen health inequalities, yet some would argue, and have argued on this committee, that the introduction of minimum pricing would affect, more than anyone else, the most lowly paid, the unemployed and those depending on State aid.

Professor Joe Barry

We would all rather have cheap anything, but alcohol is not an ordinary commodity because it causes huge harm. Did I mention that I am chair of a local inner city drugs task force? It is a very deprived part of the country. There is a proliferation of off-licences. The difficulty with off-licences is that greater availability drives prices down. The evidence is that this causes harm. If marketers want to increase the sale of the product, they make it available. It is fairly straightforward. This is an unusual meeting today because quite a few industry people have differing views on the issues, but we are always consistently on the public health side and that is our brief. Obviously this is a health committee and the Government has decided to bring in this legislation and we want it brought in. I will let Ms Costello comment on the marketing.

Strict penalties for voluntary codes is a bit of an oxymoron. Voluntary codes mean voluntary. They do not work on this issue. It has been said that people will not understand grams, but they will understand grams if it is supplemented with information. The importance of grams is that epidemiological evidence on harm is linked to grams. I do not believe we should underestimate the intelligence of people. Obviously labelling and education on its own will not work, but this is part of a bigger package.

Chairman

If Professor Barry had his choice, would he envisage labelling going the route of tobacco in terms of graphics on bottles? Could it be put onto a pint glass or a wine glass?

Professor Joe Barry

There is huge detail in this. My understanding is it will be on packages. A pint in a pub is different. We want to get the public aware in a way currently it is not because of the alcohol by volume. How much alcohol are we consuming? It sounds like a no-brainer that we should have that information. In fairness it was agreed by the industry as well under social partnership eight years ago, but it has not happened. We are just moving along leisurely. At least the Minister for Health, Deputy Varadkar, has put a Bill on the table and we welcome that. It will help in reducing harm. While everyone says they do not want harm, some of us, more than others, want less harm. The minimum unit pricing is being challenged in the EU courts which does not imply that people see this in the same light.

Advertising works. I have been at meetings over recent years where I have argued with advertisers. I have been saying that advertising works and they have been trying to disagree with me. It works and any human being who says they are not influenced by advertising is fooling themselves because most of it is subliminal. We will not go near social media and yet that is where the real education is. That is where young people are getting their information. That cannot be regulated. It is huge, and pop-ups can be done and so on. The marketing spend by some companies in the industry is 20% on social media.

That is because this is the future and the area in which young people are engaged. This issue has to be addressed also because it counters what students receive under the social, personal and health education programme.

Senator Colm Burke referred to the Young Scientist competition. Of course, parents are the primary educators, but in some situations there is a trend for them to be their children's friends. They are meant to be their parents, not their friends, and there is a difference.

We are disappointed that the opportunity has not been taken to deal with the issue of sports sponsorship. One committee member asked about the money being pumped into sports by the alcohol industry. We do not know what the figure is. I was part of the groups which dealt with the matter and during the years have come to know many of those involved on the alcohol side. For commercial reasons they do not say how much is being spent. Therefore, we do not actually know what the loss to sports organisations would be.

The national substance misuse strategy had rather modest aspirations. It was published in 2012. The idea was that it would be phased out from 2016 and no more by 2020; in other words, there is plenty of time for alternatives to be considered. Surely, if the country is on the up, there are other companies, apart from those involved in the alcohol industry, that could support sports.

Ms Suzanne Costello

I am keen to add to what has been said. There have been some comments on the external environment and how we are all heavily influenced by it. One of the major influences is advertising. I do not want to bore people with a detailed examination of the codes, but I am keen to examine one aspect in particular, that is, audience profiling. This tenet of the existing voluntary code is inherently flawed and it is worth bearing with me on the matter.

In audience profiling a threshold is set for the number of under 18 year olds who can be exposed to alcohol advertising. It is rather limited in its ambition because it is set at 25%. The reason this is difficult is that the population structure in Ireland is somewhat different from that elsewhere. We have a larger number of children and young people. A high threshold allows many children to be exposed to alcohol advertising without breaching the code. For example, reference was made to a sports event with 600,000 viewers. It could feature alcohol advertising, even if the viewership included 150,000 children and young people. It should be borne in mind that babies and children under four years of years usually do not attend sports events and that children between the ages of five and 17 years account for 19.3% of the population over five years. Therefore, some 19.3% of the attendees at a well-attended sports event could be children, which means that we would be well below the threshold. It is virtually impossible, therefore, to breach the threshold for a sports event. That is one of the flaws in the existing audience profiling figure and why we are suggesting the threshold ought to be brought down to 10%, similar to the figure in other countries, in particular, New Zealand.

There was a discussion about the alcohol monitoring communications body. When it started, the idea was that there would be co-regulation, but in practice it is self-regulation. Reference was made to the codes of the Advertising Standards Authority for Ireland, to which Alcohol Action Ireland makes several complaints each year which largely are not upheld, but that could say more about us than it does about it. I figured it would be useful to bring forward a case report. We complained about a well-known alcohol brand. Committee members are probably familiar with the advertisement which involves a small furry squirrel making beer in a cute acorn cup. Within the code alcohol advertising is not supposed to appeal to children, but, generally, small furry animals appeal to children. We made the complaint on the basis of what was included in the code, as well as on the reaction of my colleague's three year old daughter who ran at the screen shouting, "Mummy, look at the squirrel." Our complaint was not upheld. The response of the advertiser was that the company took its commitment to market brands in a responsible way seriously. It claimed that the campaign did not appeal to children based on the appearance of the squirrel which has been deliberately designed to look old, grey, wizened and dishevelled. It also claimed that the animation was not cartoonish or Disney-like in nature but instead had a harder or older edge to it. The argument was that this had been done to ensure the squirrel did not look cute or appeal to children. The company stated the squirrel's character had been carefully crafted to appeal to adults, portraying it as crafty, experienced and nosy, not cute, comical or cartoonish. The correspondence continued at length about the dark setting and the music chosen. The company had chosen a Kaiser Chiefs song designed to appeal to adults rather than children and restated the audience profile of the band.

All of this is complete nonsense to me and really makes a mockery of regulation. It does not do justice to the advertising industry and certainly does not do anything to protect children from this exposure. That is why we believe so strongly in the need for an independent examination of the current codes which need to be strengthened. Of course, the monitoring body needs to include people from the industry because of their expertise, but this is a health matter. The regulations are to protect the health of children and young people. Moreover, it is useful to reflect on the fact that the Government is committed to a long-term health strategy, Healthy Ireland, to create an environment in which people's health and well-being, including their physical health and mental well-being, will be priorities. If the State is prioritising this issue, I imagine committee members should automatically see the relevance of these pieces and how they fit. To achieve the goals of Healthy Ireland, we must have the constituent pieces that are robust and meaningful, rather than continue with this set-up. I accept that the intent of advertisers may not be to target children, but that is the effect, particularly in cases such as the one I have outlined.

Mr. Padraig Cribben

I will deal with two or three issues that have been raised, the first of which relates to structural separation. In terms of compliance, figures were quoted in respect of the Responsible Retailing of Alcohol in Ireland code. Reference was made to figures of 83% and 74%. The question is: with what were they compliant? Has anyone actually read the RRAI's voluntary code on segregation? It states alcohol should be placed at the back of a store and that customers should not have to pass alcohol products to get to others. However, there are four words in a two or three page code which render it absolutely meaningless. They are "as far as possible". Let us consider a store in which there is refrigeration equipment along the side. The store owner can have rashers and sausages in one fridge and alcohol in another beside it. It is possible for a shopper to place his or her trolley in one place, put his or her left hand in one fridge and take out sausages and put his or her right hand in in the other and take out beer. That is in compliance with the code which is rubbish and meaningless because of the four words "as far as possible".

Chairman

Does Mr. Cribben accept that they have made significant progress?

Mr. Padraig Cribben

Absolutely none. We are all consumers. Let us suppose a person goes into his or her local store or a filling station. Are you telling me he or she has to go to the back of the store and pass everything else before he or she gets to the alcohol products? The compliance figure is 83%. I maintain that is rubbish; that is not the reality. The reality is very different. It is that the code has been written in a particular way to suit the objectives of those who set it up in order that they can go back to the Government to make the case for not introducing section 9 because the voluntary code of practice in place is working. It is a fraud.

Chairman

They are not here, but could they argue in defence that, given the prism of Mr. Cribben's viewpoint, "he would say that anyway"?

Mr. Padraig Cribben

No, I am stating precisely what is in the code. The compliance level is 83%. When we receive figures from the RRAI, we should be cognisant of what it is it claims people are compliant with.

Senator Colm Burke asked whether the Department had given a reason section 9 was not being introduced. The answer is no, but we are all big boys and know what the reason is. It has been said to us unofficially that for small stores the cost would be too great. As pointed out by Senator Imelda Henry, when the smoking ban was introduced, pubs were not asked how much it would cost them. It was a matter of it being the right thing to do. The same applies in this instance. Everyone recognises-----

Chairman

Many of Mr. Cribben's members fought against it.

Mr. Padraig Cribben

Absolutely and they lost.

Chairman

They did not walk voluntarily with their hands up in full compliance. That is the case in this instance also.

Mr. Padraig Cribben

Absolutely not, but the point is that we were made to comply. If this is the right thing to do, vested interests should not stop it.

These issues are important.

This measure has to be introduced in a reasonable timeframe. We cannot flick a switch and say it has to be in place by the beginning of May. It probably should be introduced within a six, nine or 12 month timeframe, but what is important is the commitment to do it and it is not there.

Senator Thomas Byrne spoke about the issue of labelling. We do not have a particular concern about it, other than if there is a requirement in the on-trade for labelling or notification, we do not want 40 to 50 administrative officers with 40 to 50 interpretations of what it should be. It then becomes a nightmare where one thing is needed in one county but something different in another. What we are saying is that we should sit down with the Department of Health and work out what needs to be done.

Deputy Mary Mitchell O'Connor raised the question of what the rate should be. Our view is that there has to be logic to it. There is a need to go back to when the problem started in 2006 with the abolition of the groceries order. The consumer price index figure for the interim period would be applied, which would give us, in round terms, a price for a 500 ml can of 4.3% lager of roughly €1.90 to €1.95, with a pro rata figure for other products.

Chairman

To go back to Mr. Cribben's comment in the presentation on head 15 concerning environmental health officers, in the event that the Government does not implement the measure on structural separation, is he calling for an enhanced role for environmental health officers? How would this work?

Mr. Padraig Cribben

If the statutory code is meaningful and the words "as far as possible" are taken out, they can very easily go in and assess whether a particular outlet is compliant with the code. If it is not compliant, it should have a period of time in which to become compliant. If it does not, there should be an objection to the renewal of its licence. It is as simple as that.

Ms Evelyn Jones

On the question of structural separation, the implementation of section 9 versus section 17 and whether there is a logical reason in this regard, Professor Barry is correct that there is no logical reason. The reality is that my predecessor, Mr. Jim McCabe, chairman of the National Off-Licence Association, was present at a public meeting in Jury's Hotel Croke Park, at which an appeal was made to the Minister by the chief executives of all of the major multiples in Ireland. They pleaded with him not to enact section 9 and promised to develop a code under section 17 which would have the same impact a section 9 but without the regulation. That is how it happened. We remember it well because it was the day they made us close at 10 p.m. Although sections 9 and 16 were meant to impact on everybody else, nothing happened. That is the reality. I also sat down with subsequent Ministers for Justice and Equality. There is no obvious reason coming across the table, except my own personal impression that the Minister takes guidance from the relevant civil servants within the Department.

On the expense associated with structural separation, I always find it quite amusing because I am a shopkeeper. When a shop is built, the first thing that is put up is a shelf and the first thing that is put beside is another shelf. A structure is not a wall but a shelf, in this case, back-to-back shelving with two turnstiles. If members look at pages 9 and 10 of the appendix, there are architectural drawings showing how simple it is to achieve this.

Chairman

Would Ms Jones have a glass partition? I also asked this question last week.

Ms Evelyn Jones

We can get hung up on the structure provided.

Chairman

No, but it is-----

Ms Evelyn Jones

A structure is a structure. We see stainless steel bars in check-out areas, airports and so on. We are looking to have a defined area to isolate alcohol products from the rest of the products on sale so as not to expose young people or children in buggies as they are pushed around when a parent is buying bread, nappies and the odd bottle of wine. Alcohol products must be located in an area that is structurally separate. All I am saying is that a structure is a shelf, with access through a little turnstile.

Chairman

Ms Jones did not cost her proposals on page 9.

Ms Evelyn Jones

No, I am a shopkeeper, not an architect or an engineer.

Chairman

No, but in fairness Ms Jones went to the trouble of producing them professionally.

Ms Evelyn Jones

We generally try to do things professionally, but I do not think two turnstiles, one at the entrance and other at the exit, would cost much. The reality is that the shelving is already in place.

Another point I would like to flag, bearing in mind the abuse mentioned, is that it is the very small shopkeeper who has been set up by the larger players in the marketplace to convince people like the committee members that he or she cannot afford to do something a major multinational needs to do. There is radio silence from the big players in the industry. Meanwhile, the little lads-----

Chairman

Does Ms Jones mean the large retailers?

Ms Evelyn Jones

Absolutely. At the meeting in Croke Park it was not the drinks industry that asked the question but the chief executives of the large multiples. The committee can take this for what it is worth.

On the Chairman's point about breaches of the RRAI's code, if we turn to page 13 of the appendix, there is a photograph of alcohol products located opposite the till area. This was a complaint we had made on behalf of one of our members, but it was held not to be relevant. The reply we received from the RRAI was that people did not have to pass through the area in which alcohol products were on sale to get to the food products. However, they do have to pass through it to get to the till.

Chairman

I made a complaint on two occasions. In fairness to Ms Jones, I have encountered what is depicted in the first illustration on page 13. I rang Mr. White's office and within 48 hours it was gone.

Mr. Padraig Cribben

That was always going to happen when it was Deputy Jerry Buttimer who was making the call.

Ms Evelyn Jones

The recent picture of alcohol products on sale beside the till was taken in a shop in Rathmines.

Chairman

The bottom photograph.

Ms Evelyn Jones

No, I am talking about the first one, in which we can see the till.

Chairman

Ms Jones might refrain from mentioning locations because people are not here to defend themselves.

Ms Evelyn Jones

I just mentioned the area - Rathmines. The photographs were taken very recently.

Chairman

This one was taken last Christmas.

Ms Evelyn Jones

Yes. We have the documentary replies which state placing alcohol products beside a till is not in breach of the code because customers do not have to pass through the area in which alcohol products are located to get to food products. It is a double standard because, as Mr. Cribben said, the code states that, as far as possible, alcohol products should be located in a place through which people do not have to pass to get to food products.

On minimum unit pricing, there is a formula included in the legislation. At a figure of €1, we are looking at a price of a can of 5% beer of about €1.97, a can of 4.3% beer of about €1.50 and a bottle of vodka of about €20. Will it be legal and will it get through the European court? These are very big questions, about which I have reservations. That is the reason I am suggesting we have nothing to lose in bringing forward in tandem a ban on invoice cost selling. Let us introduce minimum pricing, but what will happen if it is not legal? What is our back-up plan? I say this because it is going to be argued that it is proportional on health grounds to impose a minimum unit price. These are my thoughts. If I am a farmer in Bulgaria, I have access to cheap land and cheap labour and can make a wine for €1.

Who is to say my bottle of wine is less healthy than a similar bottle of wine manufactured in France but which costs €5? Bulgaria is objecting to the introduction of minimum unit pricing because one cannot say that just because it can produce something inexpensively, it is less healthy. Unfortunately, my fear is that this could happen.

Chairman

Does Ms Jones think we have too many off-licences?

Ms Evelyn Jones

There was a great law in force for 98 years from 1902 to 2000, under which one was not allowed to create a new off-licence, that if one wished to open one in a city, one had to close down two to do so. Then somebody came along in 2000 with the bright idea of swapping one for one and removing the requirement to extinguish two licences. If we had continued with the situation in 2000, each year somebody opened an off-licence there would have been a closure of two and gradually there would have been a reduction in the number. Unfortunately, however, the Department of Justice and Equality went down this road after 2000 and destroyed 98 years of good work.

Chairman

The reason I asked Ms Jones the question is that she referred to it in her submission.

Ms Evelyn Jones

Yes. Appendix 1 outlines exactly why we are in the current position.

Chairman

Where I live, if one draws a straight line from my house to a distance of one mile, one will encounter five off-licences.

Ms Evelyn Jones

Are they pure off-licences or mixed traders?

Chairman

Both.

Ms Evelyn Jones

All I can say is the pure off-licence was always in place.

Chairman

One is a stand-alone concern. The other four are mixed.

Ms Evelyn Jones

Yes. Was the stand-alone off-licence always there when you were growing up?

Chairman

No.

Ms Evelyn Jones

It is a new one.

Chairman

Yes, within reason.

Ms Evelyn Jones

It is relatively new. In my experience, we are seeing a proliferation of mixed trading. It is an add-on to the product mix, not really a vital part of the business. Therefore, it is not policed or considered to be an important aspect of it. For a pure off-licence, loss of licence means loss of livelihood.

Chairman

How would Ms Jones envisage revisiting the 2000 Act?

Ms Evelyn Jones

It is unbelievable. I do not know if we can legally take away licences that have been granted. However, the extinguishment requirement could be reintroduced, be it two for one or whatever one wishes.

Professor Joe Barry

I wish to comment on what Ms Jones said. The strategic task force on alcohol was established in 2002 when this first became an issue. Before that, it was not really seen as a problem, but it has been for approximately 15 years. The general idea was that alcohol was not an ordinary commodity and that it was causing huge harm. The feeling was that it should only be sold by people for whom it was their livelihood, whether it be a specialist off-licence or a pub. It was recommended that there be no increase in the number of licences. The mixed trading stores, whether they are multiples or corner shops, now present a huge problem. One probably cannot take licences from people, but it is certainly possible to stop issuing new ones. It has been obvious for a long time that the mixed trading stores are the problem. The structural separation provision was lobbied against successfully six years ago. That is the reason it is such a problem. I was listening to what was said on Tuesday. Obviously, the advertisers see alcohol as an ordinary commodity. There was the discussion about Barry's Tea and Lyons Tea, but the alcohol problem is much more serious.

Chairman

I accept that.

Professor Joe Barry

We must act far more proactively. There must be a serious discussion with the Department of Justice and Equality. I have heard things today that I had not heard previously which are extremely serious. If that is really what is happening, I do not know if it is in the public domain.

Mr. Ross Mac Mathúna

I thank Deputies and Senators for their questions. There were probably three broad groups of questions. One was about sponsorship and advertising; one was about education, while one was related to labelling.

With regard to advertising, there is a large body of research and it is probably fair to say it is split, with a large body of evidence on each side. The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism in the United States produced a special report for the US Congress on alcohol and health. It stated that when all of the studies were considered, the results of research on the effects of alcohol advertising were mixed and not conclusive. The balance of evidence in general does not support a direct causal relationship between overall alcohol marketing and drinking levels or harmful drinking patterns, whether chronic or episodic.

It is important to outline what the producers of alcohol do when they advertise. It is about trying to drive market share or trying to compete with the brands competing with each other. None of the brands markets to children. That is both forbidden-----

Chairman

Does Mr. Mac Mathúna accept that it happens subliminally?

Mr. Ross Mac Mathúna

If people walk past an advertisement and see it, they see an advertisement. To be fair-----

Chairman

I do not wish to put Mr. Mac Mathúna on the spot, but I wish to mention something that was said last Tuesday. If one was to ask children to name their top three advertisements, at least two would be by alcohol companies advertising a product.

Mr. Ross Mac Mathúna

There are a number of issues, one of which is that awareness of a brand is not linked with an intention to do something. I am not trying to simplify it. We all know of various brands, but that does not mean that we will buy a particular brand or increase our consumption of that product. In relative terms, the market for alcohol in Ireland is mature; it is unlikely, therefore, that advertising has the ability to influence or expand the market. If that was the case, companies would just keep advertising and people would keep buying products for which they had no need.

Chairman

Why advertise at all?

Mr. Ross Mac Mathúna

It is about market share and competition between brands.

Chairman

Could one not do that internally within the on-licence or off-licence trade?

Mr. Ross Mac Mathúna

The question is how one would do it. Price would be one element. We have a view that there should be a ban on below cost selling of product. As we said, the consumption figures for the past 15 or 20 years show marked declines. There are up and down periods, but overall the trend is down. In that time there has been a great deal of advertising. As there is much competition, sales of individual brands will grow or contract from time to time based on this, but the overall market is declining. Our view is that we welcome the intention to move the voluntary codes to a statutory basis. It is welcome that sanctions will be put in place for those who step outside the codes.

With regard to CopyClear, an independent group-----

Chairman

Its representatives appeared before the committee.

Mr. Ross Mac Mathúna

It is an independent group of people who are independent of the industry. Occasionally I hear members complain because advertisements they wish to use are rejected by CopyClear. That is good, as it means it is doing its job, which we welcome. That process is unique to Ireland. One cannot have an advertisement on television, radio or in a magazine without having a clearance number, which means it must be pre-vetted.

There was a comment about social media, digital advertising and advertising online. The industry would welcome regulation in that space. It is a place to which young people, in particular, are migrating. They are online a great deal; for example, they spend much more time online than they do watching television. All of us present probably watch television, but young people consume media in a very different way. They are either online or watching television programmes that are delayed or on demand. We would welcome legislation in that regard.

Chairman

How would Mr. Mac Mathúna introduce it in terms of apps on an iPhone or on other devices?

Mr. Ross Mac Mathúna

There are a number of ways in which one might go about it. People can have parental controls on televisions, iPhones or computers. We have some of the foremost minds in information technology in Google, YouTube, Facebook and the like which are based in Dublin. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that there is a system of age verification that is robust which we could use to prevent children from having access to advertising or information that may not be appropriate to them.

From my perspective, sponsorship comes within the advertising piece. Brands sponsoring sports events is a particularly emotive topic for obvious reasons. The market in the consumption of alcohol has declined a great deal in the past 15 years. The companies that sponsor sports events are typically beer companies, but the level of consumption of their product has declined probably faster than the market has. It is interesting to look at the consumption figures for various product categories. The level of wine consumption is increasing, yet the spend on advertising by wine companies is probably lower than for the rest of the companies and they do not sponsor sports events.

We need to be very careful in drawing conclusions about what may seem at first glance like something that is logical but on which the evidence does not stack up.

Senator Jillian van Turnhout

Did the level of consumption of beer not go up last year by 4%?

Mr. Ross Mac Mathúna

I said that, overall, the trend was down, although there will be years when the rate will go up and down. Overall, it is fair to say the level of consumption is down dramatically since 2000.

Deputy Mary Mitchell O'Connor

I have notes which indicate that the number of people, particularly women, dying from cirrhosis of the liver has increased significantly. People could not be drinking less if doctors are telling us this. I am not sure about it.

Chairman

Sales of wine have increased.

Mr. Ross Mac Mathúna

Individual groups of consumers are drinking in different ways. There are clear issues for people who abuse alcohol. I am not trying to suggest this is not a problem, but I am trying to put the figures in context.

Deputy Mary Mitchell O'Connor

I am trying to understand the context.

Chairman

The numbers with liver issues, particularly women, are affected by the increase in wine sales.

Deputy Mary Mitchell O'Connor

There is also a connection between breast cancer and drinking.

Chairman

Why do wine companies not sponsor sports events?

Mr. Ross Mac Mathúna

The target market for wine companies is probably a group of people who do not watch sports events. Beer consumers are usually middle-aged men, which is why the companies go after them to buy their product.

There were two other issues concerning education and it is interesting to note that its role was acknowledged. Like many things in life, there is good and bad education and what is in the middle. The industry would like to see initiatives that would work well being promoted. It is interesting to hear about the role of the parent, as I am the parent of three young children and focused on the fact that I am primarily responsible for when or how they will consume alcohol. That is up to me and I want to ensure they will not drink until it is appropriate and legal to do so. People must be very careful about when they consume alcohol. There is an educational role and we could spend much time discussing who should play it. We should provide relevant information for students to allow them make proper and informed decisions to avoid consuming alcohol until it was appropriate for them to do so.

Senator Jillian van Turnhout

It is part of the social, personal and health education programme.

Mr. Ross Mac Mathúna

Labelling comes under the provision of trying to help people to make an informed choice about consumption. We need to be mindful of the fact that in giving them information, the label may not be the most appropriate point. We live in the age of technology and people have applications on their phones that may be able to give them information on the volume or content of alcohol in a product. That may be easier for them to recognise than information on a label that could become very crowded. We want to ensure they can be given the right information that will allow them to make an informed choice about the alcohol being consumed. It is appropriate for this to continue. There is a body of work ongoing in the European Commission on alcohol and labelling and it may be appropriate for us to take our guidance in Ireland from that piece of work.

Chairman

Do the French have pictograms on their alcohol packaging?

Mr. Ross Mac Mathúna

That relates to information on drinking while pregnant. As far back as 2007, we are on the record as saying we would like to have such labelling on products. Many suppliers already do this on a voluntary basis.

Mr. Donall O'Keeffe

Most of the points I wanted to make have been covered by the group. I will emphasise a few points for Deputy Mary Mitchell O'Connor on structural separation and minimum prices.

On structural separation, it is our clear view that section 9 should be commenced immediately and that there should be full structural separation. In addition, there would be a requirement to have dedicated staff rather than general retail personnel and a dedicated till system. The operation should be that of a business within a business. That would force the retailer to train staff specifically on their responsibilities and the responsible sale of alcohol and ensure clarity in enforcement, including who was responsible for selling to customers in the store. Structural separation is not sufficient without a dedicated staff and till systems. In our submission we have argued that the Responsible Retailers of Alcohol in Ireland is completely ineffective and a waste of time. I do not understand why we would debate it at all.

With respect to minimum price, our figures are broadly similar to what has been put forward by other groups. We propose a minimum price of €2 per 500 ml can of beer and €23.50 for a bottle of vodka which is 37.5% proof. It would be €10 for a bottle of wine. That is based simply on taking the pre-groceries order price and adjusting for inflation. The committee must think carefully about how to handle the issue of excise duty in this case, as excise duty rates vary by category, and for spirits and wine they are extremely high. If there was a high minimum price of 90 cent and excise duty and VAT were loaded on top, the price could become completely unrealistic. Focusing on a retail price to include the minimum unit price and excise duty and VAT must come to a retail price that customers will understand. That is key.

Chairman

How will the organisation help to reduce the consumption of alcohol and change the attitude and behaviour surrounding it?

Mr. Donall O'Keeffe

Everybody up to the Minister for Health has made the point that the pub is a controlled environment in which to consume alcohol, with the publican having a duty of care to his or her customers and staff to run an orderly premises. No self-respecting publican wants-----

Chairman

Is that happening?

Mr. Donall O'Keeffe

Absolutely. No good publican wants to have a pub full of customers who are out of control. That is not an attractive environment and business will worsen if that is the case. A publican wants to have an environment in which people can enjoy themselves and have a few drinks. It is a social environment and it should be fun to be in it. That is what good publicans strive to achieve.

Since the abolition of the groceries order, we have seen a fundamental shift in patterns of consumption from the on-trade to the off-trade. When I joined the Licensed Vintners Association ten years ago, 70% of all alcohol was consumed in pubs and hotels. Today, 60% is accounted for by the off-trade, while 40% is consumed in pubs and hotels. That will shift to 70%:30% in the next five years. We have public health issues because of the changing nature of consumption at home, as well as a changing product mix. As people shift from pubs to the off-trade, they shift from beer to wine and spirits. There are different public health concerns as a result. The pub trade is absolutely the best environment in which to consume alcohol and good publicans take their responsibilities seriously.

Under the law, there are enforcement mechanisms. Every year we see a publican or two or three in trouble with the Garda because of public order problems in enforcement. That does not apply to off-trade sales. Sanctions under the RRAI code are non-existent. What is the penalty for not complying with the code?

Chairman

The presentation referred to the standard note to be developed on labelling.

Mr. Donall O'Keeffe

There are 7,300 pubs and 1,000 hotels in the country, amounting to 8,300 individual businesses. If we let them loose, there will be 8,300 interpretations and an enforcement authority that may have a different interpretation again. It seems like common sense to have a standard template to be agreed by the Department of Health that would make it mandatory for all businesses.

Chairman

What would it state?

Mr. Donall O'Keeffe

It should be by category, including stout, ale, lager, cider, as well as the main spirit categories of vodka, gin and whiskey, red and white wine, rosé and sparkling wine. It would also take in pub measures of pint, half pint and glass. It would indicate grammes of alcohol, calorie count and a standard warning label. If we were to get into individual brands, we would have to give some of the bigger pubs up and down the country a booklet that would be completely disregarded by everybody as the information provided would be overwhelming. People must understand that in the case of stout, it would be X; in the case of lager, Y; and in the case of spirits, Z with respect to both grammes and calorie count. We have no issue with providing information which is straightforward, but it must be uniformly applied. If there was a mandatory format for the display of information, agreed by the Department of Health, it would be the most effective way to do it.

Senator Colm Burke

With respect to the claims of decreasing levels of alcohol consumption, in the case of young people, the level has gone up, particularly of spirits. I have seen this in colleges, in particular. In the first eight weeks after colleges return after the summer, there is a major increase in the drinking culture, particularly in the case of first-year students. There has been a switch to spirits, which also relates to advertising. Advertising has an effect on attitudes and spirits are seen by young people as fashionable.

Mr. Padraig Cribben

A member asked how we can redress the problems created by what happened in 2000 and the availability. Structural separation will go a long way towards solving many of those problems.

Ms Suzanne Costello

On two points made by Mr. Mac Mathúna, while the copy clearance has some merit, all the advertisements we see have passed copy clearance, including the squirrel advertisement I mentioned earlier. We hear much about market share. Alcohol companies have to create markets for good. Alcohol is not necessarily for life, and good marketing creates a need for it. Advertising targets competitors' customers but also tries to increase consumption by existing customers and recruit new customers. It is important we remember this, given that it sometimes gets lost in the market share argument. We talk a lot about alcohol brands sponsoring sports. Increasingly, women's events, such as ladies' days and fashion shows, are being sponsored by alcohol brands. This, too, is a particularly potent form of sponsorship. There has been a complete change in women's drinking habits over the past ten years, and the association of alcohol brands, especially wine brands, with fashion shows and ladies' day events is very much part of it.

Professor Joe Barry

Given that the alcohol companies are also chasing women for beer, it will be a future trend and another problem for women, on top of wine and spirits. Alcohol consumption peaked in 2002. The major contributor to the reduction occurred immediately after that when the Government was worried about alcopops and imposed a 20% excise duty on spirits. Consumption decreased precipitously because of this. It then reached a plateau and has increased in the past year. It has not been dropping steadily but dropped because of legislation. It has been mentioned today that perhaps we should defer to Europe on some of these matters. This would be kicking the can down the road and we cannot do it. We would be postponing it.

One of the greatest things a parent can do for his or her children is delay the age at which they start drinking. This must be an unambiguous message for parents. It is a bad idea to introduce alcohol to children in the home. Children who begin drinking at the age of 14 or 15 have a fourfold increase in dependency in adulthood. This is why it is important the issue is taken more seriously than it has been through regulation balanced with education. The Bill is not just about children but also adults.

Ms Evelyn Jones

I wonder that anyone is surprised at women's consumption of wine, given that it is brandished under their noses every day when they go to the supermarket to buy the bread and milk for the house. Although I do not have children, given that parents frequently drink to excess, often in front of their children, they find it difficult to take the high moral ground.

Chairman

It is a fair point.

Mr. Ross Mac Mathúna

Given that there are people who drink too much and others who do not, legislation must be balanced. As part of the Sheffield study, 6,000 people kept an alcohol diary, and approximately 20% of the participants consumed approximately 66% of the alcohol, which was stark. Some people have a serious issue with alcohol. The industry supports the use of effective, evidence-based measures to address the misuse of alcohol.

Chairman

I thank all our witnesses for a very challenging and illuminating presentation and question and answer session. The committee will not sit next Thursday morning and questions for the quarterly meeting on health, which will take place on 14 May, must be submitted by next Thursday.

The joint committee adjourned at 1.15 p.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Thursday, 16 April 2015.