Pub issue shows Micheál & Co are mere followers rather than the leaders we need
AFEW months ago, German Chancellor Angela Merkel commented to her EU colleagues that it was much easier to close down a country than to reopen it after a lockdown. That was her experience as Germany became the first country in Europe to ease their lockdown restrictions after the first wave of Covid-19.
She couldn’t have said a truer word, if the current Government’s experience here is anything to go by! This week, it had to endure a torrid time, explaining the rationale behind the most recent regulations dealing with the ‘substantial meal’ requirement for the consumption of drink in gastro pubs and similar premises.
Try as their spokespersons might, they struggled to properly explain why it was deemed necessary to require these establishments to hold on to receipts for 28 days after a meal was purchased.
A lot of their problems were self inflicted, mainly due to their own poor communication of the details involved.
The fact that the representative groups of restaurants and pubs were out immediately crying foul, added to the confusion in the public’s minds.
But, because the Government didn’t prepare the ground properly by explaining the rules to the relevant groups beforehand, this added greatly to the cacophony it had to endure.
Cries of ‘bureaucracy gone mad’ and such like from some of the vintners representatives tended to overstate the factual situation. Leading members of the Opposition were even more strident in their criticism.
Evidence
‘Bonkers’ was an overused description by some of them. Indeed, it wasn’t just the opposition. Some members of FF, particularly Éamon Ó Cuív and Marc MacSharry, were extremely critical in their comments.
The Government’s insistence that gastro pubs keep records for 28 days was clearly designed to catch the rogue pubs who were flouting the rules, much to the detriment of the majority of the rest of the pub industry who were complying with the rules. How does anyone expect gardaí to bring prosecutions if they can’t produce evidence that a breach of the regulations has taken place?
There has been much anecdotal evidence that, right across the country, a minority of pubs are primarily serving drinks, with food added, as an afterthought.
Indeed, I’ve heard of pubs offering two free pints, together with a dish of curry, or a pizza, but leaving it totally up to the punter to decide whether they eat the meal or not.
On a strict reading of the regulations, the opponents of the regulations may have had a point. The Government says it will, on the 14th of this month. publish a grand plan, making the disputed regulations obsolete. If this happens, then, it might be that the regulations, over which there has been much heated debate, will actually never be enforced by gardaí, or scrutinised in the courts.
As a solicitor working in the Louth State solicitor’s office, in the late 70s/early 80s, a lot of my time was spent in court trying to get a determination as to what constituted a ‘substantial meal’ for the purpose of a special exemption, allowing late night drinking. We were fighting over whether something like, say, two sausages and chips would qualify as a substantial meal. At the time, bar and nightclub owners went to great lengths, and expense, to get around those regulations.
Subsequent legislation defined a ‘substantial meal’ as a meal worth €9.
But, nowadays, this definition is way out of date. If the disputed regulations are to remain in place for a longer time than anticipated, I can foresee similar legal gymnastics in our courts surrounding them.
Hopefully, we don’t have to go back to that!
It was only on Friday last that senior members of the Government found their voices.
Minister for Health Stephen Donnelly went into great detail on Friday lunchtime radio to such an extent that most reasonable listeners would realise that some of the opponents were making a mountain out of a molehill in the way in which they criticised the regulations. It’s a pity Donnelly & Co didn’t come out earlier, as well as ensuring that all of the representatives groups were fully briefed, before the announcement of the new regulations was made.
Taoiseach Micheál Martin also took to the airwaves, later on Friday, with authority, but, again, in my opinion, he could have been out much earlier explaining what was involved. Governments are always on the back foot if they are ‘behind’ an issue.
Inability
The Government has struggled from the start of the debate on this issue. Its leading members don’t seem to have learned from a number of previous issues which went awry for them. They need to be out front and centre when they make major announcements explaining the finer details so that there is little doubt in the minds of the general public.
On this issue, by their lack of alacrity, they allowed some to over-egg what was involved, which in turn had the talk shows on our airwaves full of vitriol against the Government.
As was said, it was always going to be very difficult to reopen the country. But that job was made even more difficult by its own inability to get out ahead of the agenda.
If the Government hopes to survive over the next few months, it needs to lead the debate, rather than follow it from behind.
Recently, in another context, Tánaiste Leo Varadkar said that ‘if this Government continues to do business like this, it won’t be doing business together for too long’.
This sentiment could equally apply to the most recent ‘pub receipts’ debacle.