Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)

I also welcome the Minister of State to the House and I compliment her on the initiatives she has taken on substance abuse in general. I wish her well.

I am grateful to Senator van Turnhout for the amendment, which has been accepted by the Government, because it is significant. I am also grateful to her for quoting many of the relevant statistics, which prevents me from having to repeat them. This happens all the time and the fact that they are on the record is more important than who puts them there. I presume most of the statistics come from Alcohol Action Ireland's pre-budget submission. This is the national charity for alcohol related issues. I am sure the Minister of State is familiar with the submission and that she will go into it in detail with her officials because it goes some way to signalling the direction in which the motion is attempting to go.

I was struck by one statistic in the context of the current price of alcohol. A woman can reach her low risk weekly drinking limit for only €6.30 while a man can reach his for less than €10, which is the equivalent of approximately one hour's work on the minimum wage. Previous speakers have referred to alcohol induced social crime. For example, 85% of Garda youth diversion projects put alcohol related crime first on the list of offences committed in their area and they state that affordability and accessibility are two of the key factors fuelling alcohol related youth crime.

I always will defer to Senator Crown on health related issues. I agree with him that if alcohol were discovered now, it would be banned. However, I could not help but reflect on the Volstead Act which attempted to ban alcohol in the US in 1919. Currently, the series, "Boardwalk Empire", is running on Sky Atlantic and it has a strong Irish dimension.

One might welcome that from a major television programme but then one realises it is just as much to do with alcohol, its abuse, the sale of illegal liquor and the consequences of the Volstead Act that brought in prohibition, which led to organised crime. In a perfect world it would be great to have and I support the reasoning behind Senator Crown's comment and the evidence he used to back it up, but we are faced with a situation where this country, more than perhaps any other European country with the possible exception of Britain, has a reputation for binge drinking. Unlike our European colleagues, we do not just drink, we drink until we are absolutely ossified. There is a culture that has grown up among younger people that it is not enough to go out and enjoy oneself and a have a few drinks, one must get absolutely out of it, which seems to be part of the rite of passage now. Sadly, in my own family, I have 18, 19 and 21 year old children and they are drinking. My wife is not into drink apart from the odd glass of wine and I never drank.

In the pre-budget submission, the World Health Organization quoted from a statement it made in 2009 that there is indisputable evidence that the price of alcohol matters. If the price of alcohol goes up, alcohol related harm goes down. The same applies to cigarette consumption. In Britain the Government promised prior to the election to tackle concerns about the rise of violence among drunk teenagers and while in opposition, the Conservative Party promised to call time on drinks that fuel anti-social behaviour. Sadly, the most recent initiative has not gone down well and the British Government seems to have taken its foot off the pedal. A number of spokesmen said the partial restrictions on low cost selling show the Government accepts cheap drink is the main driver of health damage and these restrictions will ease it in the right direction to make a practical difference. Don Shenker from the Alcohol Concern campaign said, however, that the measure would not go far in resolving binge drinking and that the Government must look again at a minimum price per unit of alcohol. That is the only evidence-based approach that will end cheap discounts once and for all. In that context, there is a revealing statistic from 2009 in Britain, and I assume the same is true here, that revealed the main supermarkets were selling beer cheaper than mineral water, at 5p per 100 ml, triggering claims that such rock bottom prices fuel binge drinking.

I agree with the sentiment on all sides that we must address the culture that exists. This is not simply about putting initiatives in place, it is about a culture and we must have an holistic approach. It is a slow burner, it will not happen overnight and I presume that is part of the Minister of State's mandate - to induce a change in that culture. In that context I compliment the Gaelic Athletic Association, which in recent weeks has initiated an alcohol and drug abuse programme and has appointed a national officer, Mr. Colin Regan, a former intercounty player from my county. He will work out of Croke Park but the organisation is also appointing similar officers at county board level throughout the country.

It is interesting that while the GAA has been criticised about Guinness sponsoring the national hurling championship, there is much more tolerance for Heineken supporting rugby competitions. The word is nearly embedded in our culture, with the Heineken Cup serving to associate the sport with drink. The advertising is highly creative but it feeds into a conditioning process that somehow associates playing rugby, playing a manly sport, and I use that term in a genderless context because women play rugby as well, with drinking Heineken.

I agree totally with an outright ban on advertising. I thought it was happening but it seems the drinks industry has managed somehow to secure a compromise and that such advertising will continue. I thought thresholds and restrictions would be put in place. I agree with Senator Crown that all alcohol advertising should all be banned, the price of alcohol should put up sky high and, on the basis of evidence, we might then make a start in tackling the abuse of this drug.