Pádraig Rice (Cork South-Central, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move: “That the Bill be now read a Second Time.”

I am delighted to bring this Bill to Second Stage. It is pretty straightforward legislation, which would amend the Public Health (Alcohol) Act to ensure that the restrictions on alcohol advertising were fully enforced to the letter and spirit of the law, as intended. Members will remember that, back in 2018, the Oireachtas passed the Public Health (Alcohol) Act. It was landmark legislation that began to change the relationship that we in this State had with alcohol, and started many conversations around how we regulated and interacted with alcohol. A key part of that legislation was a restriction on alcohol advertising. It was fairly straightforward. It placed restrictions on advertising of alcohol near schools, near parks, on public transport, at sports events, on television before 9 p.m. and in supermarkets. These were modest provisions to regulate advertising. Unfortunately, the alcohol industry and the alcohol companies found a loophole in the law, and they are exploiting it. Our Bill closes that loophole. What we are asking for is enforcement of the original 2018 Act as intended, which would put a restriction on alcohol advertising. At its core, this is about protecting children. The areas that were picked were areas where there were children - near schools, on the bus, in public transport, at the cinema or watching television before 9 p.m. The Act was designed to ensure that children are not exposed to alcohol advertising.

It is clear to the dogs in the street that the alcohol industry is exploiting the law and that there is a clear loophole in the law. The industry is using the same branding, design and colours, and it is almost identical to the advertising for full-strength products. Anybody can see that. I would ask anybody looking in to take a look at the Social Democrats’ Instagram. We have put forward a “spot the difference” test so that people can see how identical these ads are. There is no denying what the alcohol industry is doing here. It is circumventing the law.

Deputy Murnane O’Connor, as the responsible Minister of State, needs to take a stand. She needs to stand up to the industry in the interests of public health and, in particular, in the interests of the children of Ireland. I urge her to reflect on the position the Government has put out on this. The right thing to do is to stand up in the interests of public health. That is her job as the Minister of State with responsibility for public health: to defend public health and to ensure that the laws passed by this House are enforced. We cannot allow those with vested interests to trample over the law and exploit loopholes in it.

This is a modest measure that we are putting forward. It is deeply disappointing that we have heard in advance that the Government is going to oppose it. I ask the Minister of State to reflect on that before she makes her opening address.

The evidence is clear. We have seen an increase in youth drinking. The Healthy Ireland study shows a 12% increase in youth drinking since 2018. That should concern the Minister of State, as the person responsible for public health. It should concern the officials in the Department as well. We know that, according to Alcohol Action, 50,000 children take up drinking each year, and this is a known risk factor for alcohol dependency in later life. What we are trying to do here is protect children and adults in later life by ensuring that they are not exposed to a large amount of alcohol advertising.

We have a growing awareness and understanding of the impact that alcohol is having on our society and on people. We know there are 1,000 alcohol-related cancers each year. We know that four people die every day in Ireland from alcohol-related harm. It is costing the health service a huge amount of money; according to the Government's own estimates, it is costing the health service €1.5 billion. We talk here all the time about cost savings, efficiencies and doing things better. We can do that by reducing alcohol-related harm and the cost it is having on our health service, our society and individuals. There is not a family in the country that has not been impacted by alcohol. What we are doing is trying to protect children to ensure there is not a greater impact on them in later life.

It is as clear as day what the alcohol industry is doing. The evidence shows us exactly that. The 0.0% alcohol projects make up 1% of the total alcohol market, yet those in the industry are spending 25% of their outdoor alcohol budget on 0.0% products. Why is that? It is because they know this will sell more of the main alcohol product. They are pumping money into 0.0% alcohol advertising to circumvent the law, get around it and advertise in areas where there are children. They are openly saying this. It is not just me saying it. Heineken has said this. In a submission to win a marketing award, a Heineken marketer said that 0.0% product ads increase sales of the full-strength product. If the Minister of State does not believe me, she should listen to what Heineken is saying. It is telling her that this is what it is doing.

It is indisputable what the industry is at here. What is deeply frustrating is the two-faced nature of those in the alcohol industry on this. They will talk in private about the increase in sales, but in public, they will say it is about moderation. They also talk about this as a tool for growth, not moderation. We need to believe them when they say that. We need to look at the evidence and, for me, the evidence is crystal clear.

One of the key issues that we need to look at is the link between alcohol and sport. It came up during the debates back in 2018. On Second Stage in 2018, the then Minister for Health, now Tánaiste, Deputy Simon Harris, said:

Let us be honest. We all still remember sporting events by dint of the sport itself but we also recall the names of the companies that sponsored these events. Sponsorship has a powerful impact on people. This is all about normalising alcohol and healthy sports people in an arena. That is why the companies involved target sports and the big national sporting occasions we have in this country whereby they make the subtle link between physical prowess and alcohol. It is an approach that has to be challenged and addressed.

The Tánaiste, when he was Minister for Health, said: “It is a nefarious form of advertising that companies would target sporting events primarily for that purpose.” Deputy Simon Harris, in this House in 2018, called it “nefarious” that these companies would do that, yet we still have it. Every time we turn on a match, we have the Heineken Cup or the Guinness Six Nations. All of the big alcohol brands are linking it to sport, and they continue to do it.

The Tánaiste also said that the industry had lobbied and hoped to stall and delay projects. That is what it has done. We have to put a stop to it. In the interests of this institution, of democracy and of the rule of law, we need to enforce the laws that are passed. I have read back through the record and I know what the intention of the law was. The intention was to break that link, but it has not been done. The Department has utterly failed to stand up to vested interests and people who put profit before public health. The Minister of State needs to take a stand within the Department and call that out.

The alcohol industry should not have a seat at the table. The industry has lobbied time and again and has succeeded. We were meant to have health warnings on products by now but that has been delayed until 2028 because of lobbying by vested interests that want to make money. This is having an impact on public health. Yesterday, I was debating this on radio with the president of the Vintners' Federation of Ireland, VFI, and the former president of same association who happens to be a Fine Gael TD, so even within government we have people lobbying on this, people with vested interests who are out to make money. That needs to be called out.

I am deeply disappointed by the statement from the Government on this earlier in the week. Frankly, it is disingenuous and misleading and the officials need to reflect on that. We were told that the Government was going to oppose this legislation because of the definition that was given for low-alcohol products, set at 0.5%, but that is the definition within the Government's own Finance Act 2003. We took that from there. The Government cannot use that as an excuse to defeat our legislation when that is its own definition. If the Government thinks we should go further now and set it at 1.5%, we can amend the legislation on Committee Stage. That is why we have a ten-step legislative process in this House. That is why we have Committee and Report Stages in here and why a Bill can go to the Seanad and be amended. The Minister of State at the Department of Health, Deputy Butler, was here a couple of weeks ago telling us about how she accepted hundreds of amendments to the Mental Health Bill. If that is the case for Government Bills, why not take one or two amendments for an Opposition Bill? Why is there one rule for Government Bills and a different one for Opposition Bills? Why set the bar so high for an Opposition Bill that one cannot even put a jot out of place but when it comes to a Government Bill, we can accept hundreds of amendments? Bills can be amended to be something completely different by the time they get to the end of the process. It is hypocrisy, two-faced and unacceptable. The Government needs to stop doing it and be real with the people and honest about the process. I was on radio yesterday debating this with a backbencher who said that the reason the Government was going to oppose the Bill was because it wanted the level set at 1.2% instead of 0.5%. Honestly, it is laughable.

The other excuse given to us related to research. I agree that the more research we have, the better but we already have a stack of international evidence and I can quote some of it, if it is helpful. In 2026, a research paper was published in the International Journal of Drug Policy, entitled: "'I just saw the alcohol brand, I never really thought of the zeros': young people's views of NoLo and alibi alcohol sponsorship". Children as young as 14 were able to identify Guinness as the sponsor of the Six Nations rugby tournament, noting that Guinness was highly visible during matches and that they had seen advertising around the stadium and at matches. One child simply said, "I just saw the alcohol brand, I never really thought of the zeros". This is evidence was published in the International Journal of Drug Policybut the Government thinks we need more. In 2025, an Australian study on alcohol advertising in disguise showed that the exposure of teenagers to zero-alcohol products had a similar effect as exposure to alcohol products. That study concluded that regulatory approaches that sought to limit adolescents' exposure to alcohol should also extend to zero-alcohol products. This is the international evidence that the Government is looking for. It is published in study after study. A 2019 study from Asia on brand advertising and brand sharing of alcoholic and non-alcoholic products found that brand sharing increased brand familiarity and affected brand recognition and awareness. This research also revealed that young people who saw the logo of companies that sold both alcoholic and zero-alcoholic beverages were found to associate the logo primarily with the alcoholic version of the product, indicating that zero-alcohol beverages are working as advertising vehicles for the parent companies. This research concluded that early exposure to alcohol brands increased brand familiarity, which is one of the factors that affects drinking attitudes and purchasing intentions of young people. Another study from Stanford on zero-alcohol products and the guise of responsibility revealed a stark divergence between how zero-alcohol products were described publicly and privately by the industry. In public, the industry talks about it as a tool of moderation but in private it talks about it as a tool to drive market growth and increase main sales. There is a stack of international evidence.

We know what other countries are doing in this area, including Norway and France. Norway has banned brand sharing. Advertising that associates zero-alcohol products with their full-strength brands have been banned, which is similar to what we are looking for here. Non-alcoholic beverages must use completely distinctive branding to avoid any association with the parent alcoholic brand. Why can we not do what they have done in Norway? It is a simple solution. Zero-alcohol products use different branding so that there is not that association. It is very straightforward. We could pass our Bill and the companies could rebrand their products and not have that direct link between the two.

In 1991, France became one of the first countries to tackle alcohol advertising. The French public health code defines alcohol-free beverages as those that contain no more than 1.2% alcohol, technically allowing advertising of alcohol-free alternatives. In 2020, however, a court in France found that advertising zero-alcohol products with the same branding as the full-strength product was illegal because it constituted indirect advertising of the full-strength alcoholic version, which was prohibited in law. That is why when one watches the games in France, they are called the H Cup but in Ireland they are called the Heineken Cup. They have tackled this issue in other countries but the Government here has its head in the sand and will not even enforce its own law that it passed in 2018.

We would not give children a zero-alcohol beer, so why would we allow it to be advertised to them? It is as simple as that. If we can collectively say we are not giving zero-alcohol beers to children, then we should also collectively agree that they should not be seeing ad after ad for them. Any child who goes to the Aviva stadium with a parent at the weekend will be bombarded with advertisements for alcohol. They will see it on the centre pitch and on the sidelines. They will face ad after ad. When they go to the supermarket, where alcohol is meant to be separated, they will see the zero-alcohol ads outside the separation point, next to the meat counter aisle. They will be bombarded with ads. As I was walking around today, I was counting the ads. I saw alcohol ad after alcohol ad. This morning on my way into the Oireachtas, I saw a 0.0 ad for Heineken at a bus stop in Harold's Cross right beside a school. Is that acceptable? Will the Minister of State allow it or will she stand up to the industry like we on this side of the House would? These are vested interests and they are trampling all over public health measures in the pursuit of profit. Is it too much to ask of the alcohol industry to abide by the law?

Finally, I want to thank the members of Alcohol Action who have joined us today and who have been working extensively on this issue and have worked with me on this legislation. I also want to say a big thanks to Jake Ryan in my office for his work on this. I really hope the Government will change its approach from the one expressed earlier in the week.

Jennifer Murnane O'Connor (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to acknowledge that the Deputy, in bringing this Bill before the House today, is motivated by public health concerns and reducing the impact of alcohol harms on our society. The Government shares that motivation. However, the Government is opposing this Private Members' Bill, which seeks to amend our Public Health (Alcohol) Act, because there is not enough evidence at this time to determine the impact of low- and no-alcohol products and their promotion through advertising. It is also being opposed on the grounds that the way the Bill has been drafted could lead to unintended consequences that may not be in the best interests of public health.

I will now outline the objectives of our Public Health (Alcohol) Act. It aims to: reduce alcohol consumption to 9.1 litres of pure alcohol per person per annum; delay the initiation of alcohol consumption by children and young people; reduce the harms caused by the misuse of alcohol; and regulate the supply and price of alcohol in order to minimise alcohol-related harm. These aims were developed because we recognise the harms to health that alcohol causes, as well as the significant costs to the public purse. Adults should be able to make informed choices about their drinking. Our children and young people must be protected, as they are particularly vulnerable to the harmful effects of alcohol. Since the enactment of our Public Health (Alcohol) Act 2018, the trends in alcohol consumption show that we are having success with these aims. Alcohol consumption in Ireland in 2025 was an estimated 9.24 litres per capita. This reduced from 10.8 litres in 2019, which is significant and part of a larger decline in recent years. That said, we cannot be complacent because we have not yet reached the goal of the Public Health (Alcohol) Act, which is to reduce consumption to 9.1 litres per person, based on the OECD average.

We must also note that the Healthy Ireland Survey 2025 found that 29% of adults did not consume any alcohol in the previous 12 months. This means that our per capitaestimate is likely to be underestimating the actual amount consumed by the 71% of the population that do drink alcohol. The 2025 Healthy Ireland survey also found that 26% of the population binge drink and 36% of our population drink alcohol at a harmful level. Harmful drinking rates are decreasing but remain high and are a concern.

When it comes to our children, our 2024 European School Survey Project on Alcohol and Other Drugs found positive trends compared to their previous 2019 survey. According to the 2024 survey, 66% of 15- and 16-year-olds surveyed had consumed alcohol in their lifetime, which was a decrease from 73%. The numbers reported as having ever been drunk and those reporting consuming alcohol in the last 30 days had also reduced. Although these are positive trends, we must continue to work to decrease these numbers and the risks to our young people.

Research studies also show consistently that exposure to alcohol advertising is associated with an increased likelihood that children will start to drink or will drink greater quantities if they already do. This is why the Public Health (Alcohol) Act contains measures designed to reduce this effect. Advertisements for alcohol products are banned in certain places, including in local authority parks and playgrounds, on our buses and trains, and in or near schools and crèches. Advertisements for alcohol are also banned in a venue while a sports event is taking place and at events aimed particularly at children. Children’s clothing that is branded with an alcohol product, or which promotes alcohol consumption, cannot be manufactured for sale, sold, or imported for sale in the State. A broadcast watershed for alcohol advertising was also introduced so they are not allowed on television between the hours of 3 a.m to 9 p.m. Similarly, on radio they are banned between 3 p.m. and the following 10 a.m. on weekdays. These timings were agreed in conjunction with the Department, and with the then Broadcasting Authority of Ireland, and they aim to capture the times when children watch television and listen to radio. The Act also provides for the separation and reduced visibility of alcohol products and advertising in shops.

Section 13 of the Act has not yet been commenced. It provides that advertising for alcohol products must include three health warnings informing the public of the risks associated with alcohol, along with details of the alcohol public health website established by the HSE. I am taking this debate under the Minister, Deputy Carroll MacNeill's brief, and I am working with the Minister under health and well-being. Under section 13 of the Act the Minister for Health can make regulations prescribing the form of the warnings and the duration of the warnings in a broadcast advertisement. Those regulations are currently being developed. Section 18 of the Act provides for restrictions on alcohol advertising in publications. This section cannot be commenced until section 13 comes into operation. This section will restrict the advertising space permitted for advertising alcohol products in a publication and ban advertisements in publications aimed particularly at children.

This comprehensive range of measures was developed on the basis of the evidence of health harms from alcohol and on the basis of evidence that these measures would be effective in reducing that harm. This evidence was important and necessary to ensure that the Bill, and regulations under it, successfully exited the EU assessment process that applies to this law. The Bill before us today would amend the definition of advertising in the Public Health (Alcohol) Act to include advertisements for what it calls "alcohol-free" and "low-alcohol" products. This section also introduces a definition of these products, which includes that they have an alcohol by volume strength of 0.5% or lower.

The Government is opposing this Bill on a number of grounds. The first and most important is that the evidence is insufficient to determine the public health benefits or harms of advertisements for zero-alcohol and low-alcohol products. The Public Health (Alcohol) Act 2018 was introduced to reduce the health harms caused by the consumption of alcohol in Ireland. The settled scientific consensus is that alcohol consumption causes harms, including cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and seven types of cancer, and that alcohol advertising serves to increase consumption and therefore harm. Zero-alcohol products do not have the health risks associated with alcohol products, and low-alcohol products have lower risk relative to standard alcohol products. If there is a widespread substitution of zero-alcohol or low-alcohol products for alcohol products this will be of benefit at a population health level and will reduce harm. The advertising of these products in promoting their consumption potentially supports or increases this potential benefit. However, the single risk in relation to the promotion of zero-alcohol or low-alcohol products is that this promotion may also serve to indirectly promote alcohol products. To facilitate evidence-based decision-making on the relative benefits and harms of no-alcohol and low-alcohol products and on their promotion, the Minister for Health, Deputy Carroll MacNeill, has requested reviews of the evidence on two aspects of zero-alcohol products. This is to be carried out by a team in the University of Galway. The reviews will look at the marketing and branding exposure for zero-alcohol-labelled products in Ireland, and a rapid scoping review of advertising presence, regulatory context, and consumer perception. They will also look at the health effects of zero-alcohol-labelled beverage consumption with a rapid umbrella review of review-level evidence. These reviews will be completed in quarter 3 of this year. It is important. I do understand the Deputy's concern. This is why it is important that we get these. The reports will identify the available evidence in Ireland on zero-alcohol products. Once these reviews are completed, the Minister will then consider whether additional evidence is needed, for example, evidence from other jurisdictions and evidence in relation to low-alcohol products. The purpose will be to determine the next best steps, based on evidence, in relation to these products and their promotion from a public health point of view.

In addition, this Bill raises other concerns. As I previously mentioned, section 13 of the Public Health (Alcohol) Act, which is not yet commenced, requires that advertisements for alcohol products must contain health warnings. Under this Private Members' Bill, advertisements for zero-alcohol products, which have none of the health risks associated with alcohol, would be required to have such health warnings. This could potentially mislead consumers about the risks of zero-alcohol products, as well as introduce the possibility of a legal challenge to section 13 on the grounds that advertisements for products with zero-alcohol content are required to carry such warnings.

Finally, the Bill as drafted targets products with 0.5% alcohol by volume content or lower only. The definitions of various alcohol products in the Public Health (Alcohol) Act are based on those in the 2003 Finance Act. Under that law, some alcohol products are defined at a different level of alcohol by volume. In that context, it may be that the restriction in the Bill to 0.5% may exclude some products. For these reasons, this Bill is being opposed but I acknowledge the Deputy’s concerns and look forward to the outcomes of the reviews. We are waiting on these and the Minister has requested the reviews. We are looking into it and I assure the Deputy that I will go back to the Minister with his concerns about the issues raised here today. I thank Deputy Rice for bringing the Bill to the House.

Paul Donnelly (Dublin West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill. It is our understanding of the Bill proposed by Deputy Rice that the intention is to restrict the advertising of low-alcohol and zero-alcohol products where the effect of such advertisements, regardless of intent, is to also promote alcohol drinks. The Bill seeks to do that by amending the definition of advertising to include low-alcohol and zero-alcohol drinks and by creating a distinct provision for trade descriptions, trademarks, emblems, logos and marketing images, which are associated with alcohol products. It will, essentially, force zero-alcohol and low-alcohol product branding to be distinct from the alcohol branding in a more comprehensive way than the current tacking of "0.0" onto existing alcohol branding.

The promotion and advertising of alcoholic beverages has been significantly curtailed since the commencement of the relevant provisions of the Public Health (Alcohol) Act 2018. Alcohol advertising and promotion is strictly limited, with an evening and late-night ban on TV advertising, a ban on advertising on public transport, near schools, childcare facilities, playgrounds and sports venues, or any event or place meant primarily for children. Alcohol advertising in shops is strictly limited to the part of the shop designated for alcohol products, and cannot be placed or seen from other parts of the shop.

Those restrictions do not apply to zero-alcohol products and would not apply to zero-alcohol products under this proposed new definition for advertising if they have satisfactory and distinct branding, logos, emblems and marketing imagery. As we see it, the intention is not to ban the advertising of low- and zero-alcohol products or to treat them the exact same as alcohol products, but to prevent the indirect advertising of alcohol products by raising the bar for zero-alcohol advertising that currently exists. Sadly, we have seen cynical and dishonest abuse of the existing laws by some of the worst aspects of the industry. We are all familiar with one particular brand that uses 0.0 labelling to sponsor a prominent sporting event, despite not actually producing or selling such a product. There are also genuine concerns of inappropriate advertising of 0.0 products in places where alcohol branding should not be present because the current threshold is too low.

The growth in zero-alcohol product consumption is welcome. Market trends indicate rapidly growing demand but the market share of zero-alcohol products is still much lower than in other EU states. As somebody who primarily drinks 0.0 Guinness, I can attest that in pretty much every bar you go into now, you can get zero-alcohol products on tap, which is a huge plus for those of us who do not want to drink alcohol but do want to drink a beer, Guinness, stout or whatever it may be. It is very important that is happening because there are huge health benefits to that product.

We need to be sure that public policy encourages the growth in zero-alcohol sales at the expense of alcoholic drinks, and that there are no unintended consequences for the growth of the zero-alcohol market share in any change made to the advertising laws. At the same time, the law clearly needs to be updated to ensure limits on alcohol advertising are not being cynically undermined by bad faith actors. For those reasons, we could not support a total ban on zero-alcohol advertising, but we are willing to work with the practical proposal in this Bill to further separate alcohol and zero-alcohol marketing, imagery and branding to ensure it is fit for purpose and achieves the outcome we all want.

Jen Cummins (Dublin South Central, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank my colleague, Deputy Rice, for bringing forward this legislation. The angle the Government has taken in opposing this legislation is that there is a lack of evidence that 0.0 beer has any health implications. This is a misunderstanding of why advertising 0.0 beer is not appropriate near schools, crèches and in sporting facilities. It is the same as when it was banned for full alcohol or whatever the levels of alcohol were.

The difficulty for me, as someone who has worked with children and young people for close to 30 years, is we are trying to discourage young people from drinking beer and taking substances that harm their brain development. We do not want them drinking alcohol, for the reason that the brain is not fully formed. In fact, some people would say it is not fully formed until they are about 25, so even drinking at 18 has detrimental effects on brain development and other parts of the body. Of course, as we all know as adults in this building and everywhere else in this country, alcohol also makes you do mad things, if you drink to excess.

We know the harmful effects of alcohol on everybody and young people do too. As someone who has worked with young people for a very long time, I do not want to see any alcohol advertised to them, especially when they are in sporting facilities or outside a school, as Deputy Rice said. That is why those bans are in place. Even if it says 0.0 beside it, young people see through that; they know exactly what is going on. I have been told by many young people, "Sure I can drink a 0.0 beer. There is no alcohol in it. What is the big deal?" Years ago, we used to talk about gateway drugs. This is a gateway - this is saying 0.0 is fine, so you can drink it. We need to have a debate here because what we are doing is showing young people they can drink 0.0 because it is fine, but we do not want them drinking beer at all. How do we know they are not drinking 0.0 one minute and then drinking the full thing the next minute? At what age do we say that is too young? Is it at ten that they can drink 0.0 beer? Would you give your six-year-old a 0.0 beer?

The conversation here has slid a little. The reason we should not be advertising 0.0 is not because it is zero alcohol and it does not have the effects full alcohol has, it is because young people see it and go, "Sure I can have one of them. Can I have one?" For parents, it is a difficulty. I know people my age with children where this is a difficulty. You are at social events and your child wants to drink a 0.0 beer. It is about looking at that part of it and not sliding around the other part saying, "Well, there is no evidence to say there are health implications with 0.0 beer."

I am little disappointed in the Government for taking that angle. Often when we come here to talk about health things, and it seems to always be on a Thursday, whether it is vapes or alcohol or whatever, there is massive lobbying going on about this. It is unacceptable. We should look at our conscience. This is also an ethical issue. Is it right to advertise beer, whether it is 0.0 or not? I agree with Deputy Rice that if you look at the adverts that are put up on our social media today, you would not know the difference. You would want to be looking very clearly because it is very smart marketing. That is what we are looking to address here. It is about not being outsmarted by that marketing for 0.0 because it is obviously not about that; it is about the full alcohol.

I commend Deputy Rice and his team on their work on this. I would like Government to reflect on what we have had to say here. I am not sure how that goes with removing amendments, but perhaps that might be something that would be considered.

Ruairí Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I also thank Deputy Rice for bringing this forward. It is an opportunity to deal with the issue of advertising.

Over the years, if we go back long enough, within my lifetime, I can remember sports events being sponsored by alcohol, cigarettes and many things which have now become very much unacceptable. In Ireland, we have the particular issue of starting from a point where we have a very bad relationship with alcohol. We know the impact it has on families and individuals. We all talk now of the issues we have with cocaine but, unfortunately, we already had the foundations laid over a long period with the very bad relationship we have with alcohol.

Like Deputy Donnelly, I would like to see a scenario where we ensure we do not have bad faith actors who will advertise 0.0 from a point of view of ensuring they can up their sales of alcoholic drinks. It is making sure we have an absolute delineation of 0.0 offerings versus alcoholic offerings. I have seen a considerable amount of people drink 0.0. If we were all to state things clearly, there is an acceptance that frequently the reason 0.0 was created was so companies could get around advertising legislation. There is an absolute need for us to have whatever protections necessary in making sure it is very obvious that what is being advertised is something very different with the 0.0 offering.

I have a considerable number of friends, like Deputy Donnelly who spoke about this, who like the idea of being able to drink a 0.0 product. They do not have to go through the conversation I sometimes have of "Are you not having a drink?" or "Why are you not having a drink?" and then you go through this long piece. That is useful but, as I said, as regards the delineation, it has to be absolutely clearly stated. We have seen instances where companies have sponsored events and got around the advertising limits on alcohol by advertising a 0.0 offering that they did not even make. That is just absolutely wrong and absolutely ridiculous, and we need to make sure we have the facility to absolutely hammer them in those cases.

There is a need for a wider conversation about alcohol. From time to time, I think an awful lot of people get worried about the impact drugs have - whether we are talking about benzos, tablets of all forms, cocaine, crack cocaine or heroin - and the detrimental impact they have on whole communities. In most cases, when we talk about polydrug users, the big issue can be that one of those drugs is alcohol. We need to make sure we have the full wherewithal, as regards those who are young and impressionable and open to what is some of the best advertising money can buy, to ensure that there are limits and that it is absolutely clear when something is advertised that it is non-alcoholic. Then we have to have an ever greater level of protections in relation to advertising that would be open to younger minds. We have all seen the ads. Generally, it will be very healthy-looking people, in some cases very famous people, having a great time, but we all know what the idea is.

We would like to work alongside Deputy Rice on putting together legislation that can actually have an impact, and that is from a point of view that we do not allow these companies to curtail the existing laws on the advertising of alcohol. Then, as I said, we have to have a wider conversation about actually tackling the endemic levels of alcoholism and the misuse and abuse of alcohol. Many of us in younger years and at different times probably did abuse alcohol. On some level it can almost be, "Ah, sure, he is only young", or "It is only this, that and the other". There is an element of forgiveness sometimes, a forgiveness that does not exist when we see somebody abusing drugs. I agree with Deputy Cummins when she speaks about the fact that in an awful lot of cases, the gateway drug for many is alcohol. We know the damage it does. We need to work on legislation that we can get across the line such that we make sure that we have a delineation and that those who see this advertising can notice the difference and the acceptance that we have a huge issue with alcohol. Not only do I have worries about the national drugs strategy and where it is going and the fact that we have seen a hollowing out of the community element of that, but we also need to see a fully fledged strategy on dealing with alcohol.

I commend Deputy Rice on bringing this forward. Hopefully, as I said, we can work alongside him on getting a Bill that will be able to deal with some of the issues in relation to other products and the misadvertising we have seen.

Niamh Smyth (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank colleagues for their contributions. I am responding on behalf of the Minister for Health. I welcome the Deputies' intention with this Bill and thank those who have contributed to the debate this afternoon. What has been said here makes a lot of sense; however, the Government is opposing the Bill. This is primarily on the grounds that there is insufficient evidence at this time to determine the health impacts of low- and no-alcohol products and their promotion through advertising. Our Public Health (Alcohol) Act is recognised across the world as groundbreaking and progressive. It was painstakingly built on public health evidence on the harms of alcohol and the best interventions to reduce those harms. Consumption levels among our adults and children are decreasing; however, we continue to work to reduce those levels. The remaining measures in the Act will come into operation, and those measures already in operation are being evaluated to determine their effectiveness in reducing alcohol consumption and harm. The potential harms and benefits of the advertising of zero-alcohol and low-alcohol products remain unclear. The Minister for Health has taken steps to find the evidence in order to decide on the next steps. She has asked for initial reviews of the evidence on the marketing and branding and on the health effects in relation to zero-alcohol products. These initial reviews will be completed by quarter 3 of this year. When we have those reviews, we will know what more needs to be done and will be able to make evidence-based decisions on this important public health issue.

The Government intends to wait for the evidence, and for that reason the Bill is being opposed.

Pádraig Rice (Cork South-Central, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Cummins in her speech said she was disappointed; I am frankly furious. No disrespect to the Minister of State with responsibility for AI, but we have a senior Minister and three junior Ministers in the Department of Health and not one of them could stay for the debate. It shows the lack of interest the Government has in this issue. It shows a complete disrespect for the House and for the issues before us that not a single Minister in the Department of Health could stay here for what has been a debate of about an hour. They could not show that respect for the House. Not one Minister from the Department of Health could stay for a Bill on public health. The Government does not care about public health, and if anyone was in any doubt about that, tonight's evidence stands before us in that the Minister did not even stay to listen to the debate. I am furious. It is unacceptable and it is not good enough.

I honestly think we need to have real engagement on the issues. Frankly, it often feels in this House that you are shouting into a void. There was no engagement with the opening remarks we made about the evidence we set out or our argument because there was a different Minister here. The Government has just completely ignored what the Social Democrats put forward in our opening address and did not engage in any debate or any discussion. It is deeply frustrating. I say this as a new Member of the House: we need to run this Parliament better. It is not good enough. It is doing a disservice to the citizens of this State, to the people who elect us, that that is the quality of the debate we have in the House. It is utterly unacceptable, and I expect to engage with the Minister for Health and the junior Ministers on it. I ask the Minister of State, Deputy Smyth, to pass that message back to the Minister for Health.

I am also furious because the Minister of State's party leader, Micheál Martin, my constituency colleague, time and again in this House stands up here and tells us the Social Democrats have no ideas, no solutions, no policies. Then we push forward constructive Bills seeking to address what are real public health issues and the Government dismisses them out of hand for no solid reason at all. It is infuriating, frustrating and deeply disappointing. Is it any wonder there are so many people in this country who have no faith in Irish politics? There are so many citizens who disengage from the democratic process when that is the quality of the debate and the engagement in this House. When the Opposition comes in with solid proposals, backed up by evidence, supported by external groups, there is no engagement, the proposal is dismissed out of hand, "The Government is opposing this".

There is no talk of maybe taking it to Committee Stage or taking amendments. If the Government wants to make improvements, I am absolutely open to working with the Government, making amendments and making changes. As I said at the start, there is a reason we have a ten-step legislative process. We have Committee Stage, Report Stage and Final Stage, a Bill goes to the Seanad and it can be amended and improved there. If the Government wants to make changes, if it wants to increase the level to 1.5% instead of 0.5%, if it wants to make those small textual changes to the Bill, we have a process for it. We need to be honest with the people of Ireland about this because, as I said at the start, every single Government Bill gets amended. Some of them get amended into completely different Bills altogether. The Minister for Health tells us all the time how she took 600 amendments to the Mental Health Bill, but for an Opposition Bill we cannot take even one, and that is so frustrating.

I ask the Government to take a different approach. In the interests of democracy, of the citizens and of how we run this Republic, we need to do better. We need to actively engage in policy debates and discussions. We need to engage with the issues and for that to happen, a responsible Minister needs to stay in the House and listen to the contributions from Members. Members have prepared contributions, done research and worked on these issues for months and the Minister of State responsible walks out after making her contribution. She does not engage with the issues I raised or respond to any of the points put forward by the Social Democrats. Is that the quality we have from this Government? Is that what we are to expect from this Government? I expect more from Ministers and the Government and I want that message to go back tonight.

We heard from the Minister of State, Deputy Murnane O'Connor, that we have got no evidence. I cited the international evidence in my opening address. I cited evidence from theInternational Journal of Drug Policy and the evidence published by Stanford University. I cited the Australian study and the Asian study. There is a stack of international evidence. There is research published by Alcohol Action Ireland which has a long reference list, with reports from the World Health Organization and universities around the world on this issue. This argument that there is not enough evidence is disingenuous. It is unacceptable and not good enough that the quality of decision-making by Cabinet is to say we do not have enough evidence.

I do not believe the Government really believes we do not have enough evidence, but if it does and it wants to get HIQA to look at this, all well and good. It would take a couple of months. The Government should put forward a timed amendment, as it does all the time, to say we will return to the issue in 12 months' time. If it is a question of evidence, why not introduce a timed amendment and have this debate in 12 months when the Government has the evidence from HIQA? It is not doing that. It is opposing the Bill for no good reason. It should have the honesty and decency to say that to the Irish people. There is not one good reason for the Government to oppose the Bill, other than the fact that it has been captured by the lobbyists and vested interests of the alcohol industry, who sit on the benches opposite as well. I debated with some of them on the radio yesterday - publicans and heads of the vintners' association inside and outside government who want to make money from selling alcohol. That is why they are opposing these public health alcohol Bills. The Government should have the honesty to say to people, "Actually, no, we're on the side of the alcohol industry, the lobbyists and those who want to make profit, not public health."

These are modest measures. All I am asking is that the Government enforce the 2018 Act in full, as passed by this House. If we cannot even enforce the legislation we pass, we have a rule-of-law issue. We have a significant issue if this democracy, Parliament and Government cannot enforce its own legislation because of big business and the lobbyists and vested interests who want to make money. The Minister of State, Deputy Smyth, needs to stand up to them. She needs to take her job seriously as a Minister in the Irish Government and stand up to the vested interests and say that in this democracy, in this country, the Government puts public health first and does not care if the alcohol industry loses some money, that it is going to protect the children of Ireland by not exposing them to alcohol ads on their way to school, on the bus, in the playground, in the supermarket and on television before 9 p.m., and that it is going to enforce the law as passed.

For anybody who sees those ads for Heineken 0.0, it is almost identical to the main product. Heineken has admitted this. It said when it applied for an award that it used the 0.0 ads as a way to increase sales of its main product. The industry admits this, so why can the Government not admit it? Everybody knows these are alcohol ads in a very cheap disguise. On television, sometimes viewers cannot even see the 0.0 when it is on the field of play. I do not think a 12-, 13- or 14-year-old who goes to a match in the Aviva should be bombarded with alcohol advertising. There is enough pressure on our young people without us forcing stacks of advertising on them. We know the earlier people start to drink, the more impact it has on them in later life. It is a risk factor for dependency in later life. Despite what the Minister of State, Deputy Murnane O'Connor, said, there is an issue with youth drinking, which has increased. A Healthy Ireland study showed a 12% increase in youth drinking since 2018. That should concern the Minister of State, Deputy Smyth. We know from the Irish drug and alcohol survey that 37% of 15- to 24-year-olds had an alcohol use disorder. That should be a public health concern.

The officials in the Department of Health have let the Minister down. The speeches tonight should be reviewed. The debate we have had this evening is deeply disappointing. I ask the Minister of State and her colleagues to reflect on it. I ask her to bring that message back. Let us have honest, reasonable debates in this House. Let us engage in the issues. Let us try to work together in the interests of the people who elect us to improve public health and health outcomes. Is that too much to ask, instead of coming in here and opposing Bills for nonsensical reasons? They are a smokescreen.

Health warnings were the other excuse given. It is in the power of the Minister for Health to issue those regulations. She can draft them in any way she wants. If she wants to exclude 0.0 products, she can do that. That is her power as a Minister and I ask her to use it and draft those regulations in a way she sees fit. If the Minister of State wants her amendment, we can do it on Committee Stage. If she wants to wait for evidence, we can take a timed amendment. I am willing to compromise on that. In relation to health warnings, they should be done by regulation, as the Act set out. It was meant to be done by now but will not be done for another two years. I have doubts the Government will ever do it because it is captured by the vested interests of the alcohol industry and is not standing up for the interests of the young people of Ireland. It is deeply disappointing.

Jen Cummins (Dublin South Central, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The division is postponed until the next weekly division time.