We need to have less availability of alcohol, not more

The Government should stand up to powerful drink companies for the sake of people's health and welfare, writes Dr Joe Barry

The Government should stand up to powerful drink companies for the sake of people's health and welfare, writes Dr Joe Barry

We have had a lively debate since Minister for Justice Michael McDowell invited comment two months ago on his proposed Intoxicating Liquor Bill.

A broad coalition of groups, approaching the matter from a public health and/or social perspective, has expressed reservations about the package of measures contained in the 288-page draft heads of the Bill. Another grouping, primarily the Competition Authority and the Office of the Director of Consumer Affairs, has welcomed the package, presumably because they believe alcohol is an ordinary commodity, like taxis. The vintners have been against the cafe bar component. The debate reached the floor of Dáil Éireann on Tuesday night.

Interestingly, the major producers and suppliers of alcohol, those who profit hugely from our alcohol problem, have been silent.

READ MORE

Once the dust settles on the immediate political fall-out of the past few days' events, we will still have to find a way to deal with our alcohol problem. Whether or not alcohol is an ordinary commodity gets to the heart of the matter. The Strategic Task Force on Alcohol does not believe it is and that is why, on the best available evidence, we recommended that there be no further increase in the physical availability of alcohol. That is why this Bill is being opposed on health grounds.

Although almost all of the debate has been about cafe bars, and latterly restaurants, the real problem, increased availability, has not been discussed much.

The most worrying proposal is the provision being made for distance sales. If enacted, it would mean that alcohol - the quantity is not specified so presumably a keg of beer or a case of spirits or two - could be ordered by phone and delivered to a named address.

I do not think this measure will do much to counteract binge drinking or underage drinking. It is there in black and white in head 74 of the Bill, on pages 108 to 110. A country with a recent 41 per cent increase in per capita consumption does not need this. We already have a laissez faire approach to alcohol availability, which has resulted in the following: bigger (super) pubs, more off-licences (including many petrol stations) and extended opening hours.

In 1994 there were 55,290 exemption orders granted by the courts and in 2002 there were 81,933. To claim we already have strictly regulated availability is not correct.

The Government is rightly concerned about underage drinking. Based on research carried out for the Department of Health by the Centre for Health Promotion Studies at the National University of Ireland, Galway, it is estimated that in 2002 approximately 70,000 boys and 56,000 girls in Ireland under the age of 18 were drinkers. These numbers must be borne in mind before easier access to alcohol by underage drinkers is unwittingly facilitated by legislation. The chair of the Joint Committee on Health and Children, John Moloney TD, has been prominent in opposing this Bill. That committee published an excellent report in June 2004; its recommendations have been largely ignored.

The National Safety Council, represented on the Strategic Task Force on Alcohol, has recently reported that of the increase in fatal house fires in the last year half were alcohol related - another example of how it is no ordinary commodity.

Meanwhile, the biggest multinational alcohol company operating in Ireland is spending millions encouraging us to drink at home.

As I leafed through the Sunday papers last weekend, I came across an article about Diageo's proposed acquisition of Bushmills for €300 million. It was stated that last year Diageo spent €300 million globally marketing Smirnoff and €200 million marketing Guinness. The Health Promotion Unit or community groups trying to do their best to counter this massive spend cannot do so without help and support from the Government. That support is sadly not there at present.

A robust action plan from the Government is not nanny state intervention; it is the Government standing up to powerful for-profit business for the sake of the health and welfare of the people.

So, what can be done? Lots. Firstly, Mr McDowell's Bill in its entirety needs to be scrutinised closely and amended accordingly.

At the same time, the Government needs to get serious about our alcohol problem. There are two reports from the strategic task force and a report from the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Health and Children that point the way forward. There is a set of evidence-based proposals that enjoys much more public support than the Government seems to think is there. An implementation structure is badly needed. If the events of the past week show anything, it is that we do not have joined-up Government thinking in tackling the problem.

Successive governments since 1991 have addressed the illicit drug issue, and while problems still exist, much has been done. This has been accomplished by State sector employees - gardaí, health and education staff among them - working with the community and voluntary sector in local drug task forces, mainly in the Dublin area. Ten regional drug task forces have been set up now and people are asking for alcohol to be included in their brief.

The reality is that alcohol, as it is consumed in Ireland in 2005, is a much bigger problem than illicit drugs. Alcohol, truly, is no ordinary commodity.

Dr Joe Barry is a former president of the Irish Medical Organisation. He is a senior lecturer in public health in Trinity College and was a member of the Strategic Task Force on Alcohol