Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

This appears to be a complete U-turn. We were led to believe for the past two years that a ban on sponsorship was going to happen and that it was going to be phased in. The Minister for Health, who should be standing up for public health, was in a very weak position because when he was Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, he railed within Cabinet against the idea of banning alcohol sponsorship. He was very much against the views of the then Minister of State, Deputy Róisín Shortall, who initially pioneered this legislation.

I put it to the Taoiseach that many measures on reducing alcohol consumption have been taken. One of the most effective measures has been random breath testing, which was brought in by the former Minister and Deputy, Noel Dempsey. This had a very significant impact, as it did in other countries, although he took a lot of criticism for it at the time.

The issue of sponsorship and the recipient bodies in sport, arts or culture was faced by Australia many years ago in the context of tobacco sponsorship. It was also faced by us. When I banned tobacco sponsorship in Ireland, the major sporting event was the snooker championship. The marketing and promotion unit of the Department of Health took over the sponsorship. We turned what was a negative in terms of public health into a positive. It may have seemed unlikely at the time, but the event was festooned with positive health messages and anti-tobacco messages for approximately three years. Australia did this much more comprehensively in the context of positive health and its promotion by turning around the tobacco sponsorship agenda and supplanting the money with money from the Australian exchequer.

The sense is that the industry got its way on this. Sponsorship has been controversial for quite some time. Within the GAA, we have had the Guinness sponsorship for quite a long time. Many young people, some of whom I know, were so absorbed by the quality of the sponsorship and all that went with it that they could draw Seán Óg Ó hAilpín with a hurley and a pint of Murphy's at the end of it. They would readily draw and depict Amstel sponsoring the European Champions League. It does have an impact. We have to face up to it.

In advertising, it is more complex. We have terrestrial television, Sky, multiple channels and so on. It is very difficult, therefore, to regulate that which is global. In terms of sponsorship, the situation is different. The idea of identifying how to bridge the gap has not been effectively explored. This goes down to the local festival. Many of our festivals are alcohol-soaked, whether we like it or not, because they depend on the sponsorship of an alcohol company to support them.

We did not have real debate on this in the House. The Government kept this very tight until it made the announcement that the Bill was in and the decision had been taken. We did not have a wider and more open debate on ensuring that cultural, artistic and sporting associations would not suffer, for instance, by a combination of other sponsors and some State support. Does the Taoiseach not agree that such an examination should take place on Committee Stage in this House? It could look at the issue in terms of the various groups and how we might best bridge that gap. We could have a proper assessment of how one would bridge that gap and how bridgeable the gap is. We have not had that debate or worked through those particular mechanics and implications of the Bill.

See this speech in context