Dr. Sheila Gilheany:

I am glad we have the lobbying register. That is something but it is minimal given what is actually needed. It is quite easy to hide behind it because one can say a meeting was reported, but that may be all. Sometimes, the minutes do not really cover what is required. People may meet under one hat or for one issue and are able to raise another at the meeting, or they may bring more people to the meeting than will be reported in the lobbying register. This actually involves other industries. The first point is that the lobbying register should be much more expensive than it is.

Also, there is probably a need for laws on advisers and politicians going to work for industry. There needs to be a much longer cooling-off period. To me, it is unacceptable that an adviser to a Minister can walk straight into an industry that benefits directly from that Minister's actions. Therefore, there is a considerable need to curtail this activity or, at the very least, observe it and understand it much better.

Let me give the Deputy an example. In the past year, the lobbying returns concerning the Sale of Alcohol Bill show there were eight meetings at senior level between industry representatives and either the Minister for Justice or senior officials. There was only one meeting with a public health advocate, namely, us. I am referring only to meetings at a very senior level and I am not counting all the meetings that would have taken place at principal officer level, for example. At many times, the latter meetings are the most effective because the principal officers are the ones really working on the policies. The scale of the lobbying gives an indication of the power imbalance.

I can understand how a Minister and top officials are comforted when they hear all the time the message that things will be grand and that sales will be good for employment and excellent for the economy. While I understand they will not want to hear the voice of doom and gloom from Alcohol Action Ireland, the State will ultimately end up picking up the bill for not legislating or regulating properly in this area.

We know the solutions that work. One of the most frustrating things about this is that we can point to multiple countries that have implemented good policies in this area, resulting in much better health outcomes. Norwegians drink 37% less per capitathan people in Ireland. They are drinking at a level that would apply if we were all drinking according to the HSE's low-risk drinking guidelines. Norwegians are not inherently different from us. They do not have massively different genes. What is different is that they have a complete ban on alcohol advertising, high rates of tax on alcohol products and limits relating to availability.

It is not prohibition. It is just putting a bit of restriction on what is there and it works.