John Crown (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome my friends and colleagues from my old medical school and congratulate my former classmate, Professor Murray, on the appropriate public stance he has taken on this critically important health issue. Most of us make our own deals with the devil when it comes to alcohol. People who understand what alcohol is all about have made decisions about certain compromises they make in return for the non-medical effects of alcohol. A reality we must all face, however, is that if everybody in the country stopped drinking - if, by some miracle, the good Lord appeared in the sky tomorrow and made us all turn away from alcohol - a number of things would inevitably happen. Liver failure would become far less common. While it would not disappear, its incidence would be much reduced. There would be a decrease in liver, pancreas, oesophagus, tongue, throat, breast and colorectal cancers. Pancreatitis would become an uncommon disease, and rates of heart disease would go down. There would be a major decrease in violence, including domestic violence, rape and other sexual offences. Teen pregnancy rates would dramatically decrease. There would be a decrease in spending on health matters and a reduction in the burden on hospital emergency departments. I am not sure whether we would still have the appalling situation I saw in St. Vincent's Hospital this morning where one of my colleagues was standing over a trolley trying to get to one of our patients who was waiting to be seen in the emergency department. Certainly, however, there would be far fewer people presenting at emergency units and hospital waiting lists would be shorter, including waiting lists for elective surgery. There would be more time available for families to spend together and improved family finances.

I understand Deputy Ó Caoláin's sensitivity on this issue but I am speaking not as a social commentator or as somebody who will be running in an election again but as somebody who wishes to speak the truth, as I see it. It is a fact that the burden of three of the greatest scourges in our society, namely, alcohol, tobacco and obesity, are disproportionately borne by poorer people. The reasons for this are complex but these are facts that cannot be avoided. If we can prove that increasing the price of alcohol will decrease its consumption, then we can be confident that doing so will bring disproportionate benefits to the people who can least afford the scourge of alcohol in terms both of their personal health and their personal finances. Moreover, it will have a net major positive effect for society as a whole.

In going forward with policy, we must bear in mind that as a community of legislators, physicians, health administrators and health advocates, we can have only one goal when it comes to alcohol and that is to decrease its consumption greatly in society. It is interesting to note that at a time when we had a national reputation for being drunks, we actually had a relatively modest alcohol intake by international league table standards. This intake level increased enormously through the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, however, and on through the time of our economic boom. While Deputy Ó Caoláin's point about changing social mores may be a factor, there is also the sad reality that when we got a few bob, we spent it on booze. That is what happened. How many of us, back in the 1970s or 1980s, heard somebody who had a minor windfall at bingo or by way of a bonus at work measuring their good fortune on the basis that a pound meant an extra eight pints that night? That was the type of calculus people tended to use. The truth is that we had the potential for an unhealthy relationship with alcohol in the past but it only reached full fruition when we got money. Professor Murray will correct me if I am wrong but my understanding is that since the contraction in the economy, there has been a decline in the use of alcohol. Although it remains at a level far in excess of what it was prior to the catastrophic rise in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, it is now somewhat lower than it was at the absolute peak.

Our job, as I said, is to seek to decrease alcohol consumption. The industry, on the other hand, has another job, which is to increase alcohol consumption.

All the manufacturers want to do is sell more alcohol. I am not moralising about it; it is a statement of fact. If they come to us and say they want to be our partners in some attempt to decrease alcohol consumption or ensure alcohol is consumed more responsibly, they are lying. I am sorry for the unparliamentary word, but that is the reality. The only thing they want to do is sell more alcohol and, therefore, we need to understand that they are not our partners, our colleagues or our collaborators in this undertaking. Many of us, myself included, may have tremendous social friendships with people who make their living in that way. I do not want to moralise about them, but when it comes to business, as Don Corleone would say, they are enemies. They are not on our side. They are our opponents and we should not in any sense invite them into the embrace of public policy formation.

Practically, I would share my professional colleagues' disappointment that there is not an immediate blanket ban on alcohol sponsorship of sporting events. I think it is not only desirable but also feasible, and we can work our way around it. It is critically important that we understand all the reasons why all of us should have only one goal when it comes to alcohol policy, and in our own personal lives, which is to decrease alcohol consumption.