Introduction of alcohol warning labels pushed back due to cost fears
While the Department of Health had been sticking to the deadline, senior ministers began to express concern about the labels last April in the context of the trade tensions with the US.
Alcohol labelling was cited as a significant barrier to American exports in a report published earlier this year by the Office of the United States Trade Representative. The drinks industry exports €450m of product each year, and the US is a major market, particularly for whiskey.
Currently, 90pc of distilling in Ireland has been halted, following the imposition of a 10pc tariff on whiskey imports into the US.
Finance Minister Paschal Donohoe was the first to signal there might be a delay, saying the labels would have to be looked at again in the context of tariffs.
Tánaiste Simon Harris then said the timeline for introduction was 'under consideration', while Enterprise Minister Peter Burke said the requirement was being examined as the Government considered how to protect the competitiveness of Irish businesses.
Last month, as revealed by the Irish Independent, Mr Burke formally asked Health Minister Jennifer Carroll MacNeill to consider pausing the introduction of warning labels.
Our domestic production sector is going through a period of very significant disruption
In a letter to his cabinet colleague, Mr Burke expressed concern that the labels would mean increased costs for Irish producers and importers, and potentially add to the price payable by consumers.
'At the same time, our domestic production sector is going through a period of very significant disruption to supply chains and access to markets,' the minister also told the Dáil.
Agriculture Minister Martin Heydon also formally requested a delay, citing concerns about jobs and investment.
ADVERTISEMENT
Mr Harris said that he believed the labels needed to be delayed, but still expected them to be brought in during this Government's term.
The plan to postpone the requirement has now been indicated in a letter sent to members of the Government's trade forum by the Tánaiste.
Pushing the deadline back to 2029 would still, in theory, keep the change within the lifetime of this Government. Having taken office in January 2025, it has a natural lifespan of five years.
The drinks industry has been lobbying against the labels, with Ibec among those calling for a postponement on the basis that it would increase prices by up to 30pc.
Alcohol Action Ireland has criticised the planned delay, saying that given the costs of alcohol-related harms, the Government should stand by law that was passed with cross-party support in 2018.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
20 minutes ago
- Irish Times
National Development Plan shows the Government is about to bet big on capital expenditure
Unveiling a plan to spend more than €100 billion on infrastructure and capital projects by 2030 , and another €175 billion in the five years after that, the Coalition is betting heavily that it can achieve a step-change in addressing the infrastructure deficit that has developed in recent years. If that deficit is the biggest problem facing the State – and the Coalition say constantly this is so – then the Government is planning to solve the problem by throwing a ton of money at it. Tuesday's announcement adds more than €30 billion to previous plans, promising a surge of investment, especially in the areas of water, energy infrastructure and housing. A further €175 billion is due to be spent by 2035, though much of that will fall to the next government to make those final decisions. [ National Development Plan: €275bn to be spent over next 10 years, with housing receiving biggest boost Opens in new window ] Spending money – or promising to spend it – is in itself no guarantee of success. Past performance is evidence enough of that. READ MORE As Tánaiste Simon Harris acknowledged, the real test will be the Government's capacity to deliver the projects within something like the timescale envisaged. 'Our watchword,' said Harris, 'must be delivery … We have to say to [Government] agencies, 'get on with it'.' But experience suggests this is easier said than done. However, the ability to ensure that Government and its agencies deliver those projects expeditiously now becomes a critical issue for this Coalition. It has mortgaged its future on transforming the State's infrastructure, especially housing. But those housing units are visible and countable: if the Government fails to deliver 50-60,000 a year, there will be nowhere to hide. Do Sinn Féin need to change tack after slump in the polls? Listen | 38:36 In private, Taoiseach Micheál Martin has reportedly expressed impatience with the system's failure to move more quickly in response to decisions of its elected leaders. But there is nobody in Irish politics with deeper or broader experience of the system than Martin. Success or failure of the Government – and perhaps his legacy as Taoiseach – depends on his ability to get the machine to produce results. It is a formidable task. It is complicated by factors outside the Government's control. Chief among them is the uncertain international environment. The European Union and United States stand on the brink of a trade war that has potentially serious consequences for our economy and those corporation tax revenues which will bankroll much of the planned building spree. Launching their summer economic statement, barely an hour after the National Development Plan announcement, Minister for Finance Paschal Donohoe and Minister for Public Expenditure Jack Chambers admitted that their budget plans would have to be rewritten if US president Donald Trump's 30 per cent tariffs – or anything like that – take effect. The two men promised a budget package of €9.4 billion in October – a number that means sharp reductions to the recent growth in current spending budgets (but growth all the same). But then they immediately said that number may change if the conditions change. Here's the budget, they said – for now, anyway. This is the world we live in. Martin, Harris, Donohoe and Chambers were united and unambiguous on one thing: if budgets come under pressure, they will trim current spending growth to safeguard capital budgets. The principle is a laudable one: taking short-term pain for long-term gain. But what if that short-term pain comes in the shape of severely constrained spending on welfare, pensions, public services and increased taxes? In recent budgets, the Government was able to cut taxes, increase spending, save money and still run surpluses. That happy era is coming to an end. Tougher choices will soon be unavoidable. With them comes tougher politics.
Irish Times
20 minutes ago
- Irish Times
National Development Plan to help Ireland meet climate goals, says Taoiseach
While many countries are pushing in the opposite direction, the State sees the climate crisis as a 'priority', said Taoiseach Micheál Martin at the launch of the revised National Development Plan (NDP) on Tuesday. The NDP is designed to safeguard the State's future and 'meet our climate goals', he said, as he defended spending on new roads. While much of the €275 billion in capital investment up to 2035 addresses infrastructure deficits and housing shortfalls, including capacity to deliver water and electricity connections, much spending is geared towards the scale-up of renewable energy, ensuring more robust grids and resilience from the effects of the climate crisis. The Government has identified the need to provide support for development of 'low-carbon transport projects', such as MetroLink , before 2030. READ MORE The NDP says the Government has decided, given its 'unique scale', to fund the Metrolink out of the Infrastructure, Climate and Nature Fund (ICNF), whose purpose is to finance investment associated with delivering on the Republic's climate and nature goals. This funding approach will 'allow the ambitious pipeline of other public transport projects', it adds. This will allow for scale-up of low-carbon transport, but also key road developments separately under the Department of Transport. The NDP, in effect, confirms the previous government's commitment to 2:1 funding in favour of public transport and active travel over roads no longer applies. The ICNF will allocate €2 billion to MetroLink. The fund is projected to grow to €14 billion overall up to 2030. Mr Martin defended spending on new roads and suggested they could be climate-friendly, as evidenced by improvements in air quality in Macroom, Co Cork, after the town was bypassed. A total of €3.5 billion is earmarked for spending by ESB Networks and EirGrid over the 2026-2030 period. 'This equity will enable both companies to increase capital investment to expand electricity transmission and distribution network infrastructure,' says the NDP. Minister for Energy Darragh O'Brien said this 'transformative investment will strengthen Ireland's energy security, support economic growth and accelerate our transition to renewable energy'. The Taoiseach said funding for MetroLink, the Greater Dublin Drainage Project (a new regional wastewater treatment facility at Clonshaugh), and a project supplying water to Dublin and parts of the east coast from the river Shannon are 'baked in', though not costed in the document. The Shannon project is to address shortages and supply vulnerabilities in the Greater Dublin Area, which are likely to become more acute with climate change and population growth. Separate to €2 billion for Uisce Éireann to provide water infrastructure for 300,000 new homes, €2.5 billion is allocated for 'key large-scale water infrastructure projects to build essential capacity for growth and increase the resilience and sustainability of water supply'. Coinciding with a new infrastructure division in the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, the NDP confirms projects proposed for funding, on top of economic appraisal, will have to assess impact on greenhouse gas emissions and evaluate likely 'climate-related outcomes'.
Irish Examiner
33 minutes ago
- Irish Examiner
‘No justification' for special advocates for families in Omagh closed hearings
There is 'no justification' for special advocates for survivors and bereaved families in closed hearings during the Omagh Bombing Inquiry, it has been contended. It is expected that some hearings during the inquiry, which is probing whether the 1998 dissident republican atrocity could have been prevented, will be closed due to sensitive evidence and national security. Twenty nine people, including a woman pregnant with twins, were killed when the Real IRA exploded a car bomb in the Co Tyrone town. The aftermath of the Omagh bomb in 1998. (PA Archive) Inquiry chairman Lord Turnbull heard arguments over the last two days around applications from some of the family groups for special advocates. They said their interests should be represented in closed hearings, and raised a risk of damage to confidence in the inquiry if they are not. However a lawyer for the Government said no statutory public inquiry has had special advocates to date, and there was no justification to have them in this case. Katherine Grange KC also contended no provision was made for such appointments in the 2005 Inquiries Act, and cautioned around avoiding unnecessary costs. She described the Saville Inquiry into the Bloody Sunday atrocity, which lasted for 12 years and cost £195 million, as the background of that Act. 'The language of the statutory scheme, the purpose and the context of the legislation and Parliament's intention, as demonstrated in subsequent legislations all strongly suggest that no such power exists (to appoint a special advocate),' she said. 'Alternatively, we submit that even if such a power existed, it would not be necessary or appropriate for the chair to make any such appointment in this inquiry. 'No inquiry has taken that step to date, even inquiries with a very substantial closed national security element to them, and there is no justification from departing from that approach.' The hearing room at the Silverbirch Hotel in Omagh (PA) She added: 'Words that come to mind in the last two days are, it's about reassurance, confidence, robustness. 'One can understand, on a human level, why those points are being made but ultimately, you have to have faith in your own appointment, your independence and the skill of your counsel to your inquiry.' Earlier, Hugh Southey KC, representing a group of survivors and bereaved families, said the state parties would be felt to have an advantage. 'Everybody thinks that the inquiry is capable of doing a good job. Everybody thinks the counsel to the inquiry are experienced in this field. Everybody thinks they're very well qualified. Everybody thinks they're very diligent, but we need the second tier of representation,' he added. 'Everyone recognises that large key parts of this process are likely to be closed …. it's frustrating for the individuals, because they want to know the truth. They want to know that whatever findings may be made are reliable. 'If they have someone who they have confidence in, who is present, who is, effectively, saying there is no problem here, that adds to confidence in the process, particularly in circumstances where, as I say, the state parties are present, the state parties will have that advantage.' Alan Kane KC, representing another group of survivors and bereaved families, said they would like their own special advocate for closed hearings. 'Their wish would be to see all the relevant evidence after 26 years, however if there must be closed material, then we say that it should, where possible, be kept to a minimum, and if judgments are to be made then close calls must fall on the side of disclosure rather than being hidden from our families' view,' he said. 'They view a special advocate not as some special bonus or as a challenge to the inquiry legal team but as something that should be granted as they see it, as an additional assistance to them in shining light on any material which is withheld as closed by the state authorities. 'They have that legitimate interest we say, and that certainly is a matter of not only public confidence but in particular the confidence of the families.' Fintan McAleer, who represents another group of survivors and bereaved families, said they endorsed the submissions made so far. Lord Turnbull asked Mr McAleer about a point made in written submissions that the 'deep mistrust and suspicion of the state that exists in this country will never be fully allayed unless it's confirmed that every single document and piece of information is placed into the open'. Mr McAleer responded saying they respect the powers and the processes of the inquiry, but they wanted to reflect the effect of scepticism based on experience. 'The series of revelations over the years since the bomb have served to undermine their trust in the state,' he added. 'We're simply trying to convey the aspiration of the core participants we represent is that this inquiry should be in public in everything that it does, we accept there is a limitation on that, and that paragraph is an attempt to address that.' Meanwhile, Michael Mansfield KC, who represents the family of the late campaigner Laurence Rush – whose wife Elizabeth was killed in the bomb, said they are not asking for a special advocate to be appointed for them. They voiced concern about the possibility of delay to proceedings. Ian Skelt KC, acting for former chief constable Ronnie Flanagan, said his client is 'entirely sympathetic' to the requests of the families and acknowledges why they seek the appointment of special advocates. He said Mr Flanagan does not seek a special advocate for himself, but acknowledged that having been chief constable at the time of the bombing, he had the authority at that time to view much of the closed material. However, Mr Skelt said if Mr Flanagan is excluded from the closed processes, he 'may have to ask for some person to represent his interest in closed process beyond the assistance that would be given by the inquiry legal team'. At the conclusion of the hearings around special advocates on Tuesday afternoon, Lord Turnbull said the issue raised is 'both important and interesting'. 'It's necessary that I take care to reflect on all of those submissions, and I will produce a written decision in due course,' he said.
