In the Seanad on 27 October 2004, speaking on the 2nd report of the Task Force on Alcohol, I said:

I wholeheartedly endorse the recommendations of the task force and urge the Government to give priority to implementing them. However, I urge this without much hope it will actually happen. My pessimism springs from an examination of the recommendations contained in the task force’s first report of over two years ago. The Government increased alcohol prices but many of the other recommendations have still to be implemented. In particular, the three key recommendations in regard to road safety have been completely ignored.

They were to introduce random breath testing, to reduce the blood alcohol limit to the European norm and to reduce that limit to zero in the case of drivers with a provisional licence. That none of those recommendations have been implemented is a scandal. No doubt, we will hear again in this debate ministerial promises that random breath testing is on the way. My response is that I will believe it when I see it in action. It is almost three years since I devoted my Private Members’ time on 21 November 2001 to a motion calling on the Government to introduce random breath testing without further delay. I thought I received a positive response but, three years later, we are still in the realm of promises.

With regard to one of the task force’s recommendations, which concerns controlling the promotion of alcohol, the report rightly points out: “Alcohol advertising promotes and reinforces positive attitudes about drinking and portrays drinking as fun, glamorous and risk free." In Ireland, research showed that children were strongly attracted to alcohol advertising and that young people believed advertisements were targeted at their age group. The report also stated: “More recent research reports that alcohol sports sponsorship has an effect similar to alcohol advertising." According to the report, in 2002 no less than €43.2 million was spent in Ireland on alcohol advertising and God knows how much more on sponsorship.

I have a specific proposal in regard to spending on advertising and sponsorship. I suggest that the Government impose a 100% levy on all spending by alcohol producers on advertising and sponsorship, and that it ring-fences the yield from that levy for spending on advertising and educational initiatives that highlight the dangers of excessive drinking and the attractions of a lifestyle that avoids it.

We are engaged in a battle for the hearts and minds of the people in an effort to change what are now deeply ingrained patterns in how we live. How we change attitudes is in our own hands but it cannot all be done by law. We need a focused marketing campaign. I suggest this be undertaken with the money gained if we impose a 100% levy on the advertising of alcohol. We should then ring-fence that money and use it to promote the benefits of healthy, alcohol-free living. The least we can do in this battle is meet the promotional force of the alcohol producers on equal terms. Under my proposal, doing so would cost the State nothing whatsoever. Let us find a way to persuade the population of the benefits of being free of drink.

The report is quite right on the figures. We have the second highest consumption of alcohol in Europe, Luxembourg being the only country with a higher rate. However, an interesting statistic is that we have more teetotallers and Pioneers. Therefore, when we measure per head of population we are in second place, but, if we measure per amount of alcohol per drinker, we jump into first place with a far higher consumption rate than others. The average rate of consumption per person is approximately nine litres. However, if Pioneers and total abstainers, who represent a sizeable group in Ireland, are removed, the rate of consumption is much higher. The Pioneers among us will understand this.

A challenge faces us. While we should not assume all aspects of it will be dealt with by law, some issues can be dealt with by law. The report contains recommendations which can be acted upon, for example, in regard to random testing. We must also work to persuade the nation, particularly the young, of the disadvantages and dangers of using alcohol. My proposal is for a 100% levy on all alcohol advertising, with the funds raised being ring-fenced and invested in promoting the benefits of not using alcohol. This would produce a win-win situation. It would cost the State nothing. It would diminish the amount of money spent on advertising and promoting alcohol and would give us an equal amount of money, one for one, for those who are promoting a better lifestyle.