Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. It is a pity it is being held on a Friday when there are not so many Members present. This debate should take centre stage. During the joint committee's hearings and the preparation of the report, the dreadful problems Irish society faces as a result of the misuse of alcohol were spelled out in very stark terms.

Without alcohol at the centre of Irish life, we would have fewer premature deaths, road fatalities, injuries and cases of vandalism, assault, rape, domestic violence, child abuse and suicide. The number of babies born with a dependence on alcohol would fall and we would have a reduced incidence of cancer, lower rates of absenteeism, higher productivity, better health outcomes and lower expenditure commitments. If these are not strong arguments for taking serious action on our unhealthy relationship with alcohol, I do not know what arguments one could make for doing so. I regret, therefore, that the committee's response was not more adequate.

Public representatives regularly see at first hand the awful consequences of the misuse of alcohol in the lives of people we represent. We all know how vital it is that we respond to the challenges presented by alcohol misuse with an appropriate, credible and holistic strategy. Alcohol permeates so many aspects of Irish life that there is no silver bullet response. What is required is a comprehensive strategy that addresses all aspects of our unhealthy relationship with alcohol. We cannot afford to delay further in responding to this national issue.

As the joint committee was aware from its work on road safety and the significant success of the road safety strategy, no strategy can be successful unless it tackles every aspect of the problem and ensures every Department and sector plays its part. In terms of a strategy on alcohol, this includes measures on pricing, licensing, enforcement, availability, etc., as well as action to deal with the promotion of alcohol. This is where the issue of sports sponsorship enters the equation.

The promotion of alcohol takes many forms, but sports sponsorship is a significant component of it. While representatives of the three main participation sports in Ireland were reluctant to divulge to the joint committee all information on how much they received in sponsorship from the alcohol industry, the testimony of witnesses indicated that these sports gained between €10 million and €20 million in funding each year from this source. The dependence on alcohol sponsorship is heavier in the case of soccer and rugby, especially the latter, than it is for the GAA where alcohol funding is relatively minor and, thankfully, declining. As the drinks industry representative admitted to the committee, such sponsorship is not done for philanthropic reasons. The alcohol industry clearly stands to make a substantial commercial gain if it is willing to spend such large amounts on the promotion of its products.

Three key issues arise from the joint committee's proceedings, none of which was adequately addressed in its final report. The first question to be asked is whether there is evidence that sports sponsorship by the alcohol industry contributes to a harmful relationship with alcohol. On the issue of evidence, the committee heard that there was substantial evidence linking the promotion of alcohol with harmful outcomes from alcohol. In addition to the evidence heard by the committee, there are many Irish sources of research that provide very strong evidence in this regard. If Members have any doubt that this is the case, I encourage them to listen to a 15 minute lecture presented by DIT lecturer Pat Kenny on the evidence that links alcohol promotion and sports sponsorship with harmful drinking. I also invite them to examine a study carried out by Mr. Peter Anderson et al, which makes a highly persuasive case.

Curbing the promotion of alcohol is supported by, among others, the Chief Medical Officer, the Royal College of Physicians of Ireland, the British Medical Association and the World Health Organization. I am not sure if the joint committee examined undeniable evidence contained in an analysis conducted by Professor Gerard Hastings of the sponsorship of sports and music events by the alcohol industry in the United Kingdom. Internal industry documentation was sourced as part of an investigation into the conduct of the UK alcohol industry by the House of Commons Health Select Committee. The Chairman of the Joint Committee on Health and Children, Deputy Jerry Buttimer, was in the Chamber earlier. I ask him to carry out a similar investigation and examine the stark evidence that has become available on this issue. Even without local evidence, the committee will find that the evidence presented to the House of Commons committee makes an undeniable case for taking action. The work done by the UK committee entitled, "They'll drink bucket loads of the stuff", is available on the Internet. I ask those who have not read the report to do so.

The House of Commons committee's analysis highlighted a very deliberate use of sports and music sponsorship to recruit young drinkers, particularly young male drinkers. Internal documents from Carling concluded that the point of the company's sponsorship was to "[b]uild the image of the brand and recruit young male drinkers". The document pointed to the attractiveness of being able to "piggy back" on the heroes of young people and made the following conclusion: "They [young men] think about 4 things, we brew 1 and sponsor 2 of them". Having read this evidence, it is impossible to conclude anything other than that the promotion of alcohol, including sports sponsorship, leads to earlier initiation of drinking, higher levels of consumption and greater health risks than would be the case without such promotion.

The second vital question the joint committee failed to address was the extent to which a sponsorship ban should be applied, if one were to be phased in. It has never been suggested sponsorship of clubs by local pubs would be ruled out. The issue concerns big name sponsorship of major events and national organisations.

The third question the joint committee failed to answer was what steps could be taken to offset the reduction in funding to sport as a result of the phasing out of sponsorship. I regret that the committee did not make a serious attempt to address this question. I also regret that some of the big names in sport, for example, Tom McGurk, Dr. Mick Loftus and Colm O'Rourke, were not invited before the committee. These are individuals who love their respective sports but are very conscious of the problems associated with alcohol sponsorship.

Concern was rightly expressed at the joint committee about the need to support and sustain sport, given its important contribution to our identity, health and communities. While I welcome the committee's attempt to explore ways in which lost funding could be replaced, much more could have been done. It is important to properly quantify how much funding could be lost because conflicting estimates of the amount involved were given to the committee. One estimate indicated that sport could suffer a loss of between €35 million and €40 million if alcohol sponsorship were banned. However, the vast bulk of this funding would be replaced and the true figure would be probably closer to €5 million. There are also proposals on the table for plugging the hole left by this loss in income. One of the many recommendations made by the steering group on substance misuse was on the introduction of a social responsibility levy. Such a levy would go a long way towards making up the shortfall. What is the status of this proposal? I have not seen any reference to it in the Government's recent announcement of its plans in this area. I hope it has not slipped off the table.

The introduction of minimum pricing and a ban on below cost selling would offer further potential to raise additional funding for sport. Under the current system, large supermarket retailers which sell alcohol at below cost may claim a refund of VAT from the Revenue Commissioners. This means that the State is subsidising low cost selling of alcohol. Industry sources estimate that ending this arrangement for claiming VAT refunds could save the State as much as €20 million per annum. This sum would go a long way in supporting sport and would more than compensate for any loss arising from a ban on alcohol sponsorship.

See this speech in context