Vintners Monopoly to be broken...finally

Zaph0d

sceptre wrote:

I'm not familiar with either case really at all (I assume the taxi licence case is Hempenstall v Minister for the Environment from about 1994 or 1995, no idea about the pub one, I didn't know there was one). If it is Hempenstall, that case was about the lifting of the restriction on the number of taxi licences under new regulations in 1992 which the plaintiffs objected to on the grounds that it affected the value of their property given that they already owned some. Two findings as there were two bases for the case: first that taxi licences are property rights with value (upheld, mostly because they are, on both counts), secondly that the lifting of the restrictions (and implicitly, the lowering of value of the pre-existing licences) constituted an unjust attack those rights (not upheld as the court held that the property rights inherent in the licences are creatures of legislation and what legislation giveth, legislation taketh away, though obviously that's not a direct quote, and basically, tough). I'm completely unaware of pub licences and how they're granted except for a little knowledge (very little) of the acts pertaining to clubs, which wouldn't be relevant here, so I've little idea of how they work but I'm unaware of any lifting of the number of licences that can be granted (someone please inform me if there has already been such a change) so if this is the current situation the two cases not only can be distinguished but must be distinguished. But as I say, I'm not familiar with the pub case or even that there was one and pretty much everything I know about the taxi case I've typed above.

Either way, not necessarily the same thing unless someone can show me (well not me, some judge somewhere) that they're the same thing. But I see where you're coming from. And it's still ridiculous that they can't sell beer or a nice glass of Talisker.

The parallel between the cases is simple: the state should not restrict licences to practise a business on a quota system as this is unfair to those who fall outside the quota. The case was a judicial review in October 2000. A decision was made that the state could not restrict business operating licences numerically as this:

manifestly affects the right of citizens to work in an industry for which they may be qualified and the rights of potential customers to avail of such potential services

The conclusion was

While the Minister was given express power to differentiate between taxi and hackney licence holder, Section 82 does not expressly or necessarily give power to restrict numbers.

Bobby Molloy used this judgement to say that he had no choice but to remove the restriction on the number of taxi licences issued. It should be clear to everyone that this judgement should rightfully extend to every industry where the state has created quasi-monopolies: radio and tv station licences, mobile phone network licences, pub licences etc etc.

Despite the ideal of justice for all, it costs about €1million to take a judicial review, so it is difficult to get rulings on each of these issues. I'd like the competition authority to spend some of their budget in this direction.

jank

The only good idea that Mcdowell ever had gets binned because of some whinny FF backbencher "publicans".

Thye only think of the small picture. There was huge public support for these cafe style bars. You should have heared him on the radio at 1 o clock. It was like he was still claiming a victory....

Its obvious now that this is a lame duck goverment and the PD's and FF can no longer do busines with each other. Id expect a snap election to be called for next summer.

Hopefully the electorate will give bertie and harney the boot and give the rainbow coalition a chance.
Strange that id be saying this but 6 months ago I would have put my house on FF/PD getting back in, with no problems.

Time for change id say and the sooner the better

The Corinthian

jank wrote:

The only good idea that Mcdowell ever had gets binned because of some whinny FF backbencher "publicans".

I suppose I’ll play Devil’s Advocate for a bit and suggest that they have a point. The recent smoking ban has hurt the pub industry. And the key word is recent - it would be unfair to any industry to get hit twice in such a short period.

Also people have do have to concede that with the smoking ban was vehemently opposed by the Vintner’s Association too, yet was still pushed through despite similar backbench grumblings.

So while I personally would have liked to see a liberalization of the licences, I would have to admit that given recent legislation it might not be the best time for it.

Thye only think of the small picture. There was huge public support for these cafe style bars.

Was there? Does a few twenty-year-olds on an Internet chat site now constitute huge?

You should have heared him on the radio at 1 o clock. It was like he was still claiming a victory....

Politician in Spin Shocker!!!

sceptre

magpie wrote:

What a load of sh1t

Clarify please. Specifically who or what for a start.


Zaph0d, thanks for that link. Not the case I was thinking of at all obviously. I'll see if I can get to reading it later.

jank

Was there? Does a few twenty-year-olds on an Internet chat site now constitute huge?

heard the figure of 87% on rte

mike65

So the vitners thought they'd won the day but SuperMac has had the last laugh, with deregulation the publicans are going to have more competition than ever.

Mike.

i71jskz5xu42pb

mike65 wrote:

So the vitners thought they'd won the day but SuperMac has had the last laugh

Ya lost me there. Are you suggesting that because of relaxed restaurant licensing that SuperMac will now be able to serve drink? Even if they wanted to I can't see SuperMacs getting a restaurant license with the restrictions on takeout and seating. There may be other premises that avail of this new license but I think the vintners won on this. Grrrrr.

SundayTimes wrote:

Under the deal, licencing laws for restaurants will be relaxed to allow all types of alcohol to be served during opening hours. At the moment, a large number are allowed to sell only wine, a restriction that has driven potential customers to pubs. Restaurant clients will not be allowed to drink while standing or to buy take outs.

Unrelated, I had Bertie on my doorstep during the week (I'm in Drumcondra) - that's the second time within the past couple of weeks he's been on the doorsteps. Can't help thinking he's sounding out the unwashed masses with an eye to the possibility that the PD's will be giving him the old "it's not you, it's me" pretty soon.

mike65

He He! "SuperMac" as in McDowell not cheap fast food.

Mike.

Peanut

This makes me want to puke -

http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/0613/alcohol.html
"Bertie Ahern said that in a democracy different viewpoints were considered before a decision was made and that is what had happened in this case."

Thanks for clarifying that Bertie, the fact that you seemed to need to remind us that we live in a democracy implies that your behaviour in this matter was anything but.

The Corinthian

jank wrote:

heard the figure of 87% on rte

Care to link to that figure?