Alex White (Dublin South, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I listened carefully to all of the contributions made by Deputies here this afternoon. It has been a good debate, Friday or otherwise. There have been some excellent contributions and insights from all sides of the House and I recognise that.

I thank Deputy O'Mahony for being the initiator of this debate, and thank his committee. That has been extremely helpful. I thank the members of that committee, those who have responded here today, my predecessor, Deputy Shortall, for her remarks and for her support, and everybody who has contributed to this debate. Everybody has had something important to say of substance from whichever side of the discussion on sponsorship he or she comes, and everybody is on the same side in respect of the need to address the matter in a way that has an impact on the manifest problem of alcohol misuse in society. We have talked about it so long that the time has long come for us to address it in a way that is likely to have some effect. It has been an important and interesting discussion and I thank everybody for their contribution.

Of course, the issue of sports sponsorship was the principle one that was addressed in the report of the committee. For that reason, we have been concentrating on that this afternoon. Most have acknowledged that whereas it is important, and I regard it as extremely important, it is one element of a package of measures that is required. The word "holistic" was the one that was used by Deputy Buttimer and picked up by others. It is undeniable that it is a necessary and an indispensable element of any package of measures that is likely to have any positive effect.

There has been much discussion. In fact, I thought there would be more disagreement on the issue of evidence than there has been. A number of Deputies raised the issue of where is the evidence. It seems almost that, as the months or even the years progress, people are becoming more persuaded of the fact that there is evidence. If Members wish, I can distribute 17 different studies, that I collated for the purpose of the discussion in recent months in Government, in respect of the impact of sports sponsorship.

The longer the discussion goes on, the more people accept that although this evidence is there, the character of the evidence is a little different from the kind of evidence that one would reasonably look for in other areas of public policy, say, in scientific areas such as we were discussing earlier on fluoridation, because one cannot demonstrate a direct cause and effect. Deputy Eoghan Murphy made an excellent contribution, but I must take issue with the suggestion that in order to defend that the phasing out of sports sponsorship would be effective, one would have to accept that the fact the Heineken logo was printed on a beer mat would prompt somebody to purchase and drink a pint of Heineken. Nobody is saying that. I certainly would not accuse Deputy Eoghan Murphy of trivialising an issue - far from it. His contributions here are always insightful.

Nobody is suggesting for one minute that there is a direct cause-and-effect link between seeing a logo in a sports stadium or on a beer mat and immediate consumption of alcohol. It is vastly more sophisticated than that in terms of what is at play. Deputy Shortall went through much of the material that is available to us to demonstrate the level of sophistication in integrated marketing strategies and the kind of impact they have. We have to be prepared to examine the subtleties of these issues, particularly in the area of sponsorship, if we are to do justice to this debate. I referred earlier to the effectiveness of marketing strategies in sustaining market share and recruiting new markets among younger cohorts. Integrated marketing strategies are a highly developed business tactic deployed by alcohol companies to maintain and increase product sales, especially among younger people. Arguably, they are replacing traditional forms of advertising. One can see a move away from the traditional above-the-line advertising, with which we are all familiar, and towards sponsorship. People sometimes regard sponsorship simply as a benign wish to be associated with a particular product for some unspecified reason, but it is in fact a vastly more effective form of advertising than the traditional forms.

We need to take action on all fronts, including the vexed issue of sports sponsorship by alcohol companies. We have moved on from the question of whether the evidence supports our concerns to a debate on how to find replacement funding. That demonstrates real progress in this debate, because instead of arguing whether it is a good idea we are now discussing how, in practical terms, we will address the funding gaps that will undoubtedly emerge in the event of a ban or prohibition. That is a good thing to be debating. The committee has outlined legitimate concerns and I welcome the context in which these concerns have been addressed. This is one of the reasons the process to which the Government has agreed will be valuable. It will address not only the evidence for and the value of phasing out sports sponsorship, particularly with regard to its impact on young people, but also the legitimate concerns of sporting bodies regarding a rapid move towards banning sports sponsorship.

In regard to Deputy Shortall's points on replacement sources of income, the Government decided to establish this working group in order to assess the value, evidence, feasibility and implications, including public health consequences for children and young people, of regulating sponsorship of major sporting events by alcohol companies. It will also consider the financial implications and alternative sources of funding for sporting organisations to replace potential lost revenue from any such regulation. This will include a careful analysis of the alternative sources of funding, including the prospect of a social responsibility levy.

Deputy Ellis raised the issue of co-operation with Northern Ireland. That is one element of what we are doing, particularly in regard to minimum unit pricing. We have a land border and we have to move in tandem with our colleagues in the North. We are interested in working closely with them on a suite of measures in this area. A study that we commissioned with Northern Ireland is well under way and its final outcome will be ready for us in April 2014 to allow us to discuss not only the principle of minimum unit pricing but also the level at which it should be set. In respect of minimum unit pricing, it has been agreed that the Ministers for Finance and Health will explore how any financial benefits in the form of additional profits accruing to retailers of alcohol can flow back to the Exchequer.

The social responsibility levy approach is likely to be considered in the contexts of minimum unit pricing and the phasing out of sports sponsorship. I have argued that we should take that course, but this is a process of persuasion, not least within the Government. There is no reason to deny that differing views exist in the Government, because Ministers are required to have regard to different imperatives, among which is the protection of funding for sport. I have discussed this issue on many occasions with the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, who agrees with the thrust of my policy proposals but would not be doing his job if he did not express concerns about them. I am heartened by the support I have seen in today's debate.

See this speech in context