Proposed minimum alcohol pricing

rubadub

I know its an old thread, can't see a newer one.

nice_guy80 wrote: »

the people making the laws don't really think of the impact of these changes on ordinary citizens

it will affect the likes of the pensioners and low income earners more, who like and deserve their few drinks every week, than those people buying wine for the dinner table on a Saturday evening.

I think they know fine well the impact, but come up with their own figures, which I guess many people just believed. Here are some realistic figures -though in reality many people are drinking well over the "safe" limit so would be a lot more than this.

rubadub wrote: »

I saw some figures pulled out of the air, making out like the increase will be very little.

https://www.kildarestreet.com/sendebates/?id=2015-12-17a.93

Colm Burke (Fine Gael)

It has been alleged that the measures will cause difficulties for people on lower incomes. It is recommended that people should limit the number of units of alcohol they drink weekly to 17 for men and 11 for women. Minimum pricing would result in a weekly increase in costs for a person adhering to this recommendation of approximately 30 cent per week or €1.20 per month. These figures refer to people who are buying alcohol in off-licences.

http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/seanad2015121700002

Senator Jillian van Turnhout:

People who drink alcohol purchased in supermarkets and consume it within the safe limits will pay 30 cent a week more, which is €15.70 over a full year, with minimum unit pricing.

now for real figures.
https://www.aldi.ie/galahad-12---pack/p/062226006338400

That is aldis budget beer, 12 x 500ml x 4% for €8.79. This will increase to €18.94. So this is 18.94 units. The increase is €10.15, so 53.6cent per unit.

For a man the limit is 17 units per week (in 2012 it was 21). So the increase is €9.11 per week and €473.82 per year. Over 30 times more than the estimate ministers are quoting.

Of that extra money aldi get €385.22 the government get a mere €88.60 in tax.

hatrickpatrick

expectationlost wrote: »

media reporting this as if its going to happen, very strange

K-9 wrote: »

Indeed, title amended but we don't have to sell newspapers or attract listeners.

The Irish media still hasn't got used to the post-2016 paradigm of the government not being 100% guaranteed to win every Dail vote. What's interesting about it is that the lack of a majority hasn't just meant that the party whip is ineffective, it has also emboldened backbenchers to rebel against their own party. For instance, it was a group of FG senators, not opposition, who filibustered the bill in the Seanad due to concerns over the physical separation aspect of the bill - the minimum pricing aspect hasn't even come up for debate yet.

So yeah, I think that even legal obstacles aside, this bill has a looooong way to go.

hatrickpatrick

The bill has been delayed again, just by one week this time - was due to be reintroduced to the Seanad next week, has now been delayed until the week after:

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/new-law-will-see-christmas-guinness-ad-being-banned-36198650.html

So far all the fuss still seems to be around advertising and structural separation. Wonder if these delays signify any potential stumbling block for minimum pricing as well?

blanch152

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The bill has been delayed again, just by one week this time - was due to be reintroduced to the Seanad next week, has now been delayed until the week after:

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/new-law-will-see-christmas-guinness-ad-being-banned-36198650.html

So far all the fuss still seems to be around advertising and structural separation. Wonder if these delays signify any potential stumbling block for minimum pricing as well?

It is just another sign that this current Dail is unable to agree on anything other than the lowest common denominator. What a farce.

rubadub

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Wonder if these delays signify any potential stumbling block for minimum pricing as well?

People still seem to have no idea about the min pricing, I see it on comments online and spoke to people I know today. If people saw the real potential increase per year for "safe level drinkers" AND realised the bulk of the profit is going to the supermarkets then there would be a lot more opposition. I am very surprised the likes of people before profit are not highlighting this. Many people were taking to the streets about potential water charges which are a fraction of the yearly cost that this could be to them.

another link in the indo

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/remember-the-proposed-booze-curtains-smaller-shops-have-won-the-battle-against-them-36195365.html

Remember the proposed 'booze curtains'? Smaller shops have won the battle against them

Smaller shops have won their battle to get rid of the proposed 'booze curtain' which would have hidden alcohol from customers' view.
In a move that is set to incense public health campaigners, the shops will continue to be allowed to display alcohol - although it must be confined to around two shelves.
The climb-down is understood to be among a series of amendments in the controversial Public (Health) Alcohol Bill, the Irish Independent has learned.

The legislation, which is to return to the Seanad next week after being on hold for a year, has been subjected to intense lobbying by the drinks industry, retailers and pressure from backbenchers.

They demanded changes to the planned alcohol restrictions in smaller shops, which they claimed were financially onerous and impractical. It led to the Bill being withdrawn from the Seanad last year and going back to the drawing board in a bid to placate its opponents.

Meanwhile, the Government is under pressure to impose excise duty on alcohol in Tuesday's Budget after failing to introduce any levy in 2016 or 2017.

elperello

"People still seem to have no idea about the min pricing, I see it on comments online and spoke to people I know today. If people saw the real potential increase per year for "safe level drinkers" AND realised the bulk of the profit is going to the supermarkets then there would be a lot more opposition. I am very surprised the likes of people before profit are not highlighting this. Many people were taking to the streets about potential water charges which are a fraction of the yearly cost that this could be to them."

Agreed there.
If this comes in there will be push back but it will be too late.
It will wipe out the 5e increase in the pension for even a modest drinker.

Fr Tod Umptious

elperello wrote: »

"People still seem to have no idea about the min pricing, I see it on comments online and spoke to people I know today. If people saw the real potential increase per year for "safe level drinkers" AND realised the bulk of the profit is going to the supermarkets then there would be a lot more opposition. I am very surprised the likes of people before profit are not highlighting this. Many people were taking to the streets about potential water charges which are a fraction of the yearly cost that this could be to them."

Agreed there.
If this comes in there will be push back but it will be too late.
It will wipe out the 5e increase in the pension for even a modest drinker.

Sorry but no one is going to put minimum pricing of alcohol and water charges anywhere remotely near the same ball park.

elperello

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Sorry but no one is going to put minimum pricing of alcohol and water charges anywhere remotely near the same ball park.

Correct.
There will be nobody marching on the streets to prevent a rise in drink prices.
However there will be lot of disgruntled drinkers/voters.

Capt'n Midnight

The big issue here is that this won't raise a single extra cent for healthcare.

The govt need to state clearly that ALL of the extra price excluding VAT will be pocketed by the retailer and distributor.

You might argue that VAT will be higher, so the Govt makes more money but I'd argue that people buying cheap drink aren't exactly awash with cash and so would probably reduce spending elsewhere, hopefully in not going to the pub rather than cutting back on healthy food.


In the case of the supermarkets with own brands like ALDI, LIDL, Tesco they won't have to share with a distributor as they buy abroad and/or have lots of buying power.

McMurphy

Lanzarote last week.




Tesco in Dublin this week.



Remind me how drink is far too cheap in this country again Leo.

Capt'n Midnight

Rick Shaw wrote: »

Lanzarote last week.
...
Tesco in Dublin this week.
...
Remind me how drink is far too cheap in this country again Leo.

70CL at 44% is 0.308 litres* alcohol so excise is €13.11
In Spain it's about 1/4 of that so only half the price difference can be explained by excise duty.

*€42.57 per litre of alcohol in the spirits


Or how about a graphic
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/money-saving-tips/11573695/Where-in-the-world-can-you-pay-the-least-tax-on-alcohol.html

Note how the UK have more excise on a pint than we do, but still have much cheaper pints ? Also UK supermarkets have a history of BOGOF offers.

I would not like an increase in excise duty, but if it went to healthcare I'd have no problem with it, because fair is fair. Even if it went to central funding it wouldn't be so bad.


But to have the increase transferred from the pockets of the people buying the cheapest brands, to the coffers of the supermarkets, some of whom like Tesco already impose a "Paddy" surcharge compared to UK prices, and the multinational distributors ?

That's just corporate welfare.

Hotblack Desiato

Price of Jameson in Lanzarote is one-third of here. It's simply idiotic to claim that there is any such thing as "cheap alcohol" in Ireland.

Consumption has been falling for years anyway.

Make no mistake, this is all about making money for publicans by reducing the price advantage of drinking at home.

VinLieger

So is this sham of a bill actually going to get voted on?

listermint

VinLieger wrote: »

So is this sham of a bill actually going to get voted on?

Well if people did what i did and emailed all of their local TDs and voiced their concern with facts, that would put this on TDs radar. Otherwise these guys dont care. They tend to live in an echo chamber of noise and only sit up when voters contact them with legitimate concerns.

One of the TDs i contacted was silenced by the fact that this was in a 2011 manifesto of FG in relation to assisting vintners and didnt have origins in health at all.

VinLieger

listermint wrote: »

Well if people did what i did and emailed all of their local TDs and voiced their concern with facts, that would put this on TDs radar. Otherwise these guys dont care. They tend to live in an echo chamber of noise and only sit up when voters contact them with legitimate concerns.

One of the TDs i contacted was silenced by the fact that this was in a 2011 manifesto of FG in relation to assisting vintners and didnt have origins in health at all.

I emailed all of mine not one of them replied

elperello

Politically the big problem for those of us who have seen through this proposal is that FG FF SF and LAB all support the bill.
They will all give their TD's and Senators their instructions and it will be game over.

The only voice I have heard against is Senator Sean Barrett who as an economists could see that MUP is a gift to the drinks trade.

listermint

elperello wrote: »

Politically the big problem for those of us who have seen through this proposal is that FG FF SF and LAB all support the bill.
They will all give their TD's and Senators their instructions and it will be game over.

The only voice I have heard against is Senator Sean Barrett who as an economists could see that MUP is a gift to the drinks trade.

I firmly believe it is because none of them understand it, and or are bothered to understand it.

Its like amateur Manna from heaven. Oh look health, ooo look doesnt cost us a penny in tax money lets do it. Forget about the detail.


Idiots.

Geuze

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

7

Note how the UK have more excise on a pint than we do, but still have much cheaper pints ? Also UK supermarkets have a history of BOGOF offers.

I have repeatedly made this point.

Higher prices in RoI are not just due to taxes.

Excise is higher in the UK, yet retail prices are lower.

Guinness 440ml is easily got for 1.00 GBP in NI, or approx 1.20.

elperello

I heard Roisin Shortall on the radio earlier bemoaning the fact that the budget didn't give more to the ordinary worker.
As the political architect of MUP she set in train the process that will result in the ordinary workers pocket being plundered to increase the profits of the drinks trade.
Social Democrats join the dots please.

VinLieger

The legislation is being reintroduced to the seanad after Halloween, bye bye affordable alcohol

elperello

Yes the pro bill fundamentalists are ramping up the pressure ready for the big push.
It seems like a runaway train at the moment.

VinLieger

elperello wrote: »

Yes the pro bill fundamentalists are ramping up the pressure ready for the big push.
It seems like a runaway train at the moment.

They are all circle jerking about the "publics health" so hard they refuse to even consider how there's no evidence it will do anything in that regard, its all about alcohol = bad therefore bill = good

rubadub

VinLieger wrote: »

They are all circle jerking about the "publics health"

More like "publicans wealth"

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/alcohol-bill-to-be-reintroduced-after-halloween-break-1.3269103

Bill’s provisions
The Bill would end below-cost selling through minimum unit pricing; place restrictions on alcohol advertising and sponsorship; provide for strict labelling on alcohol bottles and cans, and lead to the separation of alcohol products in retail outlets.

The bill does not have anything in it to stop below cost selling. I read an interesting article about how it could increase below cost selling, so supermarkets could claim VAT back, further reducing tax revenue.

elperello

Lobbyist Prof. Murray complaining about lobbyists.

Frank is salivating at the thought of his future gig on the international medical conference circuit - "MUP in Ireland - how I saved the Paddies from themselves."

Surprised at the IT making such a pigs ear of the Bill's detail.

Mr.Micro

VinLieger wrote: »

They are all circle jerking about the "publics health" so hard they refuse to even consider how there's no evidence it will do anything in that regard, its all about alcohol = bad therefore bill = good

What a laugh. Heroin, cocaine etc are bad for people as well, gambling and the like. Yet all proliferate here, the first two being illegal makes no difference. Hiking the price of alcohol is just to help the trade, nothing else. I hope it backfires on the idiots and even the moderate drinkers source it elsewhere. A ridiculously expensive country. Big prices and poor quality.

Shelflife

The Irish Times for some reason are full square behind this bill, no attempt at equal coverage and very loose with the facts.

as pointed out above this bill will not stop below cost selling and as alcohol is already separated in shops it will not result in this either.

You would expect the "paper of record" to at least attempt to get the facts correct.

Mr.Micro

Shelflife wrote: »

The Irish Times for some reason are full square behind this bill, no attempt at equal coverage and very loose with the facts.

as pointed out above this bill will not stop below cost selling and as alcohol is already separated in shops it will not result in this either.

You would expect the "paper of record" to at least attempt to get the facts correct.

Does it even get readers anymore. Any gimmic to try to get attention. Pro the bill is probably one of them.

McMurphy

It looks like this bill, which has more to do with getting patrons back into VFI pubs, than anything to do with health will be put on hold now indefinitely.

Simon Harris has indicated that he doesn't want to introduce a bill that would see people flock to the north for alcohol, so wants to delay any such introduction until a time that the price fixing in the north and south is harmonised.

The DUP and SF aren't looking likely to agree on anything soon, to see a return to government, so good luck with that.

Meanwhile, the FG TD in my area has on his Facebook page a reminder that his clinic's are taking place as always in five different locations.

3 of the 5 are in pubs.

2 of those pubs are his.

elperello

Maybe we could delay it until 2022.
Just imagine after 100 years the country finally united!

hatrickpatrick

Crucial difference here: they're not delaying the actual bill, from what I can see. They're going to try to pass the bill but with a provision which gives the minister the power to say when the relevant section comes into place. So in other words, the public health (alcohol) act will be on the statute books if it passes, but it's various sections won't come into effect until various future dates. My understanding is that they want minimum pricing not to have a date specified in the act, but "come into operation when the minister of the day makes an order to that effect".

listermint

Ah great, on the Whim of the individual. Just like all good dictatorships.


Wonder why this little gem didnt go through the Citizens assembly ...........

flutered

Rick Shaw wrote: »

Lanzarote last week.




Tesco in Dublin this week.



Remind me how drink is far too cheap in this country again Leo.

this entirley justifies my post of yesterday

Mr.Micro

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Crucial difference here: they're not delaying the actual bill, from what I can see. They're going to try to pass the bill but with a provision which gives the minister the power to say when the relevant section comes into place. So in other words, the public health (alcohol) act will be on the statute books if it passes, but it's various sections won't come into effect until various future dates. My understanding is that they want minimum pricing not to have a date specified in the act, but "come into operation when the minister of the day makes an order to that effect".

Hedge their bets. The Government does not want to lose out on the huge current revenue from overpriced alcohol by putting extra cost on it, and perhaps driving people to source it in NI. Total hypocrisy.

hatrickpatrick

I asked this in another thread a few days ago, but does anyone know how our legislative process works in relation to bills bouncing back and forth between houses - in other words, let's suppose the Seanad passes the bill in full with amendments. Since it was initiated in the Seanad, it then has to go through the entire five stage process again in the Dail. What I'm wondering is, if the Dail makes major amendments, then the bill has to go back into the Seanad for re-consideration - but at what stage does this happen? For example, is the committee stage completely finished now in the Seanad, or could there be a subsequent "new" committee stage if the bill comes back from the Dail with major changes having been made?

FreudianSlippers

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I asked this in another thread a few days ago, but does anyone know how our legislative process works in relation to bills bouncing back and forth between houses - in other words, let's suppose the Seanad passes the bill in full with amendments. Since it was initiated in the Seanad, it then has to go through the entire five stage process again in the Dail. What I'm wondering is, if the Dail makes major amendments, then the bill has to go back into the Seanad for re-consideration - but at what stage does this happen? For example, is the committee stage completely finished now in the Seanad, or could there be a subsequent "new" committee stage if the bill comes back from the Dail with major changes having been made?

In your example the Seanad introduces the Bill I think; so if the Bill goes to the Dáil and amendments are made there (keeping in mind they can't be that major given they're confined to the pre-agreed heads of the bill) then the Bill is considered to have been initiated by the Dáil and it goes back to the Seanad in whole to report stage.

However, if it is the other way around, then the Bill comes back to committee stage at the Dáil.

hatrickpatrick

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

In your example the Seanad introduces the Bill I think; so if the Bill goes to the Dáil and amendments are made there (keeping in mind they can't be that major given they're confined to the pre-agreed heads of the bill) then the Bill is considered to have been initiated by the Dáil and it goes back to the Seanad in whole to report stage.

However, if it is the other way around, then the Bill comes back to committee stage at the Dáil.

So no possibility of a further committee stage in the Seanad then? I was hoping they'd get another chance to filibuster seeing as that turned out to be so successful last time, and for whatever reason the whip doesn't seem to be as effective in the Seanad as in the Dail

hatrickpatrick

This is back before the Seanad tomorrow for the reporting and final stages, according to the Oireachtas schedule. Can anyone go into detail about what the reporting stage entails? Clearly from that wording they're expecting to complete the Bill's passage through the Seanad tomorrow, is this likely to be the case - can filibustering and amendment proposing still happen during this stage of the process?

On a side note, it really is amazing how little information there is out there about the details of how the various stages of legislation work. There are plenty of lists of stages and diagrams, but I haven't been able to find any properly in depth discussion of what happens at each specific stage and each stage's potential consequences for a bill's continued passage.

EDIT: Oireachtas.ie has this to say:

The outcome of Committee Stage (3rd Stage) is reported back to the House for consideration.
Amendments may be made but scope for amendments is limited to matters arising out of
Committee Stage (3rd Stage).

Not particularly clear, but it very much reads as if the time for the Seanad to be able to delay or kill this legislation has passed and that its passing the final stage tomorrow is extremely likely

Have to hope there's more hold-up in the Dail but the whip seems to be far stronger there, how this pertains to filibustering I'm not entirely sure. One of very few rare examples of the Seanad having more potential impact on the legislative process than the Dail?

Shelflife

It will be passed today in the Seanad. The only none of contention was the structural seperation section and that has been sorted to everyone’s satisfaction.

hatrickpatrick

It has passed the Seanad but with a beautiful loophole still in place, in the form of loyalty card points, cashback offers and so on. An amendment to ban these was not passed on the grounds that the minister of the day will have the discretion to do so on a case by case basis, so we'll have to rely on the retailers lobby to ensure that this is never actually implemented. Fundamentally though it means that this bill is nowhere near as strong as they would have liked it to be.

rubadub

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It has passed the Seanad but with a beautiful loophole still in place

I had been calling things in the law loopholes too, but a loophole is usually an oversight that they forgot to put into the law. In this case it is clearly in the law that you can have "combination deals". The smaller offies will suffer hugely due to this. A small offie could offer "combination/meal deals" but will have not nearly as much stock to offer than supermarkets do so will not be attractive at all.

listermint

Small section of lobbyists win again, great little country to do back street business in

hatrickpatrick

rubadub wrote: »

I had been calling things in the law loopholes too, but a loophole is usually an oversight that they forgot to put into the law. In this case it is clearly in the law that you can have "combination deals". The smaller offies will suffer hugely due to this. A small offie could offer "combination/meal deals" but will have not nearly as much stock to offer than supermarkets do so will not be attractive at all.

It's more than that though - from my reading of the amendment, it also means that offering cashback or accepting vouchers as part of the cash price will still be allowed, so therefore an off license can either (a) say "get €10 back when you spend €20 on cans" or say "€38 per slab, but if you have loyalty card points worth €10, that counts as part of the €38 so you only owe us €28 and we'll give you back more loyalty points."

Unless I'm totally misreading the bill, that will still be allowed, so these are fantastic loopholes which essentially undermine the MUP.