P J Sheehan (Cork South West, Fine Gael)

I thank Deputy Stanton for allowing me time to say a few words on this very interesting proposed legislation. I dislike the move to annihilate the small shopkeepers and put them out of business by imposing an additional burden on already overburdened businessmen and women.

The Minister is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut in this case by imposing section 7 of this Intoxicating Liquor Bill 2008. The section is a technical proposal which gives jurisdiction for granting the certificate for a wine retailer's off-licence to the District Court and provides for the giving of advanced notice of applications for such licences.

The Government alcohol advisory group established by the former Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform in January 2008 must be scraping the bottom of the barrel to find measures to combat shortcomings in the licensed trade. Why was there no debate in this House on its proposals before bringing this Bill to the House?

The group compared the corner shop operator with the giant multinational supermarkets and garages which have the privilege of having a spirit and beer retailer's off-licence, and which can buy in bulk. The convenience or corner shop can only purchase a couple of dozen bottles of red and white wine under an existing wine licence. Why impose extra expense on an unfortunate shopkeeper in making him or her apply to the District Court for a certificate, and then to the Revenue Commissioners for a wine licence? The shopkeeper must then compete with the giant superstores, which can offer up to 50% off the price of such bottles of wine or offer two bottles of wine for the price of one.

If that was not bad enough, the Minister is again using a sledgehammer to drive the last nail into the coffin of the corner shop in the very next section. Section 8 provides for the structural separation of alcohol products from other products in premises engaged in mixed trading, such as convenience stores, small supermarkets and petrol stations. Alcohol is to be displayed and sold in separate areas of the premises, in which access is controlled. In a fair-sized shop that cannot expand any further, there would be no room to put alcohol behind the counter. There may only be a few feet for a checkout desk, so how can the Minister be so cruel as to impose that section? The Minister should allow sanity to prevail and exempt convenience stores and shops under a certain square footage from section 8.

Taxpayers' money is being used as propaganda. For years the Government has spent public moneys trying to curtail the consumption of alcohol and tobacco. The money has been wasted and has not led to a reduction of one iota in the consumption of alcohol and tobacco. The most recent survey has shown an increase in tobacco consumption. Such advertising is propaganda, as it has allowed the Government to remove resistance to even more restrictive legislation on every occasion it wants. What would the Supreme Court rule if a case similar to the McKenna case was put before it? In the McKenna judgment the Supreme Court restricted the Government from using public money to advocate its own case in referendums?

The present advertisement from one State agency states a person can never drink and drive. I know of no law allowing for a zero level of alcohol. Is this not another example of propaganda softening up public opinion before lowering the limit from 80 mg/100ml to 50 mg/100ml?

Before he facilitates the passage of this legislation, I ask the Minister, in his wisdom, not to impose sections 7 and 8 which use a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

See this speech in context