Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
THE GOVERNMENT HAS no plans to press ahead with the introduction of minimum pricing on alcohol, despite calls for it to be considered as a tool in the country’s “Covid battle plan”.
With ideas such as closing off licences earlier being floated by ministers to try to curb large house parties and social gatherings during Covid-19, the government still has no plans just yet to implement the measure which would specifically target the cheapest and strongest alcohol products.
A frequently-cited reason for not implementing this measure that was passed into law as part of the Public Health Alcohol Bill two years ago this month is that the government wanted to introduce the measure at the same time as Northern Ireland to avoid people travelling over the border to buy cheaper alcohol.
However, with the whole country under Level 3 restrictions, people are urged not to leave their counties. At the same time, the government has been putting the emphasis on adherence and enforcement with the public health measures.
On a number of occasions, there have been calls to curb alcohol sales after footage of large numbers socialising and drinking provoked an outcry.
The Irish Independent reported today that one minister suggested closing off licences earlier to try to clamp down on house parties. Minister of State Patrick O’Donovan also told RTÉ’s Today with Claire Byrne today the measure should be looked at as well as the volume of alcohol that can be purchased at any one time.
He said: “When you see slabs of cans being taken home you know that they are not being taken home for an after-dinner aperitif.”
Vintners have also called for restrictions on the sale of alcohol if clusters of Covid-19 are being traced back to house parties and gatherings.
However, TheJournal.ie understands that reduced hours for off-licences is not a runner at this time for government.
It’s believed that people wishing to buy alcohol would just shop earlier so the measure would have little effect.
One measure that was included in legislation with the aim of reducing harmful drinking in Ireland is minimum pricing. In the last few weeks, lobbyists and a government back bencher have criticised the failure to implement it so far.
Minimum pricing
Minimum unit pricing is a set cost below which alcohol can’t be sold. It is a section of the Public Health (Alcohol) Act 2018 that has not yet been commenced.
The Act states that the cheapest price for a gram of alcohol is 10 cent. A standard drink has 10 grams of alcohol in it, meaning the lowest price for one standard drink is now €1.
A standard drink is half a pint of beer/lager/stout, a small 100ml glass of wine or a pub measure of spirits.
This might sound cheap, but most drinks are marked up in price for retailers and pubs/clubs so it will mainly affect very cheap drinks with strong alcohol content.
Analysis from TheJournal.ie has shown that the cost of many major brands of beer wouldn’t be required to increase beyond their current level under minimum pricing.
In May, then-Minister for Health Simon Harris expressed a preference for waiting on Northern Ireland to introduce the measure simultaneously but added that he wasn’t willing to “wait forever” to implement this “important public health measure”.
Such reasoning is no longer valid, according to some.
In the Dáil last week, Fianna Fáil TD Éamon Ó Cuív said: “There is a saying in the Irish language that when the drink is in, the sense is out. We know the truth of that statement. There can be no doubt that cheap alcohol is having a damaging effect in our country.
The excuse given for not acting on this was that people would travel across the Border for cheaper drink. This might happen but it would not undermine the general effectiveness of the law. When Covid-19 is added to the mix, it becomes even more important for people to keep their wits about them. It is time that we commence this section, which was passed by the House. We should not put it on the never-never, but take action.
The measure has already been brought in by Scotland, and Ó Cuív said that it too shares a land border – in this case with England – which has had little effect on the measure.
Writing in TheJournal.ie late last month, Eunan McKinney from Alcohol Action Ireland said that reducing the supply of cheap alcohol should be part of the government’s “Covid battle plan”.
He said: “Alcohol and social distancing remain poor bedfellows. And while there has been some concern about so-called ‘wet pubs’ as centres of transmission, drinking parties in houses, particularly when that alcohol has been bought for ‘pocket-money’ prices, should be a real concern too.”
In Northern Ireland, health minister Robin Swann recently promises a public consultation on the matter, an indication that it will be some time before the measure is introduced there.
In response to Ó Cuív in the Dáil, junior health minister Frank Feighan said that the government made a commitment in 2013 for simultaneous introduction of minimum pricing with the North and this position was “reaffirmed in the programme for government”.
Feighan said: “If we proceed with the policy unilaterally, we risk undermining its effectiveness by continuing to provide consumers with the option to avoid minimum unit pricing by crossing the Border to access cheaper alcohol… and I very much look forward to implementing the policy when the conditions are in place for it to be effective.”
In a statement, a Department of Health spokeswoman said that the introduction of minimum pricing in the context of travel restrictions would not be in compliance with the objective of the Government decision which approved the measure.
“The effects of the introduction of minimum unit pricing of alcohol products in other jurisdictions are kept under consideration on an ongoing basis,” the spokeswoman added.
With reporting from Christina Finn
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
I unfortunately had to register the death of a family member recently. Got the paperwork from the hospital in January and wanted to get it sorted quickly but was told the next available appointment at the registry office was in March. Five days is great in theory but good luck getting that go happen in practice
@Laura Diver: I’m very sorry for your loss. I hope you won’t mind me asking a genuine question? Why did you have to do it in person? My mam passed away 18 months ago and we were allowed to email, was that just a covid thing I wonder? You’d think if it worked they would allow it to continue. My dad passed away more than 10 years ago and I can’t remember how we registered his, though I know we waited 6 months for his death certificate as it was a sudden death requiring post mortem. Again my condolences
Beggars belief. Currently getting through probate is a nightmare (minimum 16 weeks), even with a will made. Can’t believe the system is efficient enough to get through this in a month.
OK so I don’t give a damn about the flipping records and what statistics they want to record (unless my loved one did die from plague or the likes). Hounding the grieving like that is disgraceful.
@Helen Downey: absolutely agree
@Helen Downey: we were waiting 19 months to get rhe inquest for my brother.
@Helen Downey: some families might want it done as soon as possible for their own reasons, it’s not just about stats.
Three months may be longer than necessary in most instances, but the suggested timeline here is disgracefully short for a grieving family, 4-6 weeks would be far more reasonable and compassionate
@Jo H: Presumably dependants will need this proof to access pension and death grants and so on?
@Fiona Fitzgerald: Yes, financial institutions etc. won’t do anything until they are provided a copy, but not everyone needs or is able to consider starting to organise that stuff within 10 days so that might not be a driving factor for many. I know people who have acted on it that day after a funeral, others who take longer. It’s a very personal thing. There should of course be a deadline, I just think the one being proposed is too tight.
The problem is that they need to fix the system behind the scenes first rather than reducing the time for families to register as the first port of call. What is the point of reducing that if it then becomes impossible to do? I mean really.
And as for triggering other services – that would be great but lets face it, departments in this country don’t talk to each other. Or else they get a bit too ahead of themselves – my dad’s pension from the Dept. of Education was stopped on his date of death based solely off his death notice in the paper. Which didn’t contain enough information to really identify him down to an individual. Absolute madness.
have your say