Another way to get publicity, Dr Reilly?
WHEN it comes to James Reilly and his utterances, I have adopted a handy rule of thumb. If the good doctor says something will happen, then it is a pretty safe bet that, sooner or later, the exact opposite will transpire.
If you don’t believe me, look at the evidence. Practically everything he has ever told us about the health service eventually turned out to be completely wrong. That’s not to judge the man, though, nor to suggest that he’s either a fool or a liar. I’m just saying.
So while logic would suggest that Dr Reilly is correct to claim that a new package of anti-alcohol measures will result in huge savings for the health service, previous experience suggests otherwise. We’ll have to wait and see.
Of course, the minister has no option but to insist there will be huge savings because it’s the only way of justifying this nanny state interference into people’s drinking habits. Frankly, if the typical stressed housewife wants to hook herself up to an intravenous drip of chilled chardonnay as soon as the children are packed off to bed, then it’s nobody else’s business.
Likewise, if any tax-paying citizen chooses to spend his or her Saturdays sitting on a high stool from opening time until last orders, then good luck to them. Once they don’t intend on driving home or picking a fight with an innocent stranger, then it’s their time and money to do with as they please.
But let’s cut the minister a bit of slack on this occasion. We’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and work from the premise that the new range of measures championed by him and junior minister Alex White will indeed save a king’s ransom in health spending. From what we know so far, the initiatives are likely to include a ban on below-cost sales and new restrictions on the sort of retail outlets allowed sell drink.
But the most contentious aspect of the plan is the proposed ban on drinks companies from sponsoring sports events. Various reports over the weekend gave differing versions of what the exact state of play is in the Cabinet over the matter. We’re also reminded how Leo Varadkar suggested that the much-vaunted health savings could be used to make up the shortfall in funding that sporting organisations would suffer as a result of the move.
But that’s not going to happen, of course. According to the most authoritative-sounding account, the money will instead come from either central Exchequer funds or — far more likely, this — a new tax on drink or, as it has been dubbed, a ‘social responsibility levy’. Whichever it is, the bottom line is that it will be me and thee who end up paying for it.
It is quite outrageous that the public will once again have to cough up for what is essentially a vanity project. Make no mistake about it, the main objective of this entire exercise is to make Messrs Reilly and White look like decisive men of action.
COMING at a time when fears are being voiced about people drinking cheap booze to excess at home, it seems obvious that a further rise in pub prices would send them rushing in even greater numbers to the off-licence aisles of their nearest supermarket.
Nobody disputes that there is a national alcohol problem, but the extent of it is often greatly exaggerated. The latest World Health Organisation figures put us in 15th place in Europe, between Portugal and France, for per capita consumption of booze.
True, in common with our nearest neighbours, there is an issue with binge-drinking among teenagers. But the fact that our overall intake is falling while youth drinking has increased by 17 per cent in recent years in France, where alcohol-related sponsorship is already banned, speaks for itself.
Believe me, I’m no apologist for the drinks industry. Only a halfwit would think that the multinational brewers and distillers are trying to do anything other than flog their product. But that doesn’t change the simple fact that there is absolutely no conclusive evidence to link alcohol-sponsored sporting events with excessive or antisocial drinking. Nor does it take a rocket scientist to work out that the advertising is almost exclusively aimed at what used to be described as aspirational types in their 20s and 30s. These are invariably people with good jobs, disposable income and a fondness for giving it a bit of a lash every now and then.
Due to the fact that they are already social drinkers, the basic economics are that the alcohol producers want to persuade them to switch products.
It’s all about association. Presumably one of the world’s best-known lager brands got involved in rugby sponsor- ship because of the realisation that many young men have role models like Brian O’Driscoll.
If the authorities were really serious about addressing the alcohol issue then they would introduce a blanket ban on advertising and sponsorship. Back in the days when I used to go to the occasional outdoor pop festival, the hellish sights included youngsters routinely drinking themselves into a comatose state.
I have no reason to suspect that this has changed, but still, the ban won’t apply to events like that.
No, the overriding objective of this whole charade is to get the two ministers’ ugly mugs into the public eye under some kind of a positive guise. Meanwhile, you can rest assured that the money raised by this deeply unfair tax will go walkies somewhere along the line.
No matter what assurances are given about it being ‘ring-fenced’ for the purposes described, it will almost certainly end up being splurged elsewhere. Probably on some other meaningless vanity project, come to think of it.