The late unlamented Dr Gobbels once remarked that if you say something often enough people will begin to believe it. So it is with deregulation of the licensed trade.
For some years we have been hearing from the Competition Authority that deregulating pubs, especially Dublin pubs, would lead to lower prices, better service and wider consumer choice. John Fingleton's recent article (`Licensing laws fail to boost efficiency or curb drinking'; Irish Times, March 9th) is the latest contribution to the debate. Unfortunately, all he does is make a generalised hypothesis unsupported by research.
He argues that there are too few pubs in Dublin. With approximately 720 outlets, the number of pubs in the capital is much in line with the population of other retail sectors.
Granted there are some under-pubbed areas in the outer suburbs. This is not because of the licensing laws, but because urban planning ensured newer suburbs contained fewer retail outlets of all types than existed in longer-established areas.
Other reasons are shortages of suitable sites, strong resident opposition to pub developments and lack of incentive to invest in more socially deprived areas. In such circumstances, deregulation would have little or no impact.
Dr Fingleton claims the licensing system has destroyed many traditional pubs in Dublin. If by traditional pubs he means Victorian or Edwardian pubs, then he is wrong.
The demise of the traditional pub began in the late 1930s with the arrival of the lounge bar concept and reached its apogee in the late 1960s long before the present generation of publicans took over. Compulsory purchase orders for slum-clearance or road-widening were another factor.
He goes on to make the usual claim of high drink prices in Dublin. There is no guarantee that an increase in the number of pubs would lead to lower drink prices. Drink prices in Cork, Limerick and Galway are much the same as in Dublin, although those cities have considerably more pubs per 1,000 population.
Greater volume keeps Dublin prices down in spite of much higher labour costs, rents, rates and other overheads. A pub on every corner would increase prices rather than lower them.
Dublin drink prices are much lower than in other European capitals. Of seven capitals recently surveyed, Dublin draught prices were lowest notwithstanding our considerably higher alcohol tax levels. The writer goes on to make the extraordinary claim that it is unprofitable to waste a full licence by selling alcohol in small quantities or combining it with food, sport or cultural activities.
One wonders where Dr Fingle ton has been all these years! The Dublin licensed trade holds a major share f the capital's restaurant business, with an estimated food turnover of £115 million last year.
Many pubs are now cafe bars offering a wide range of meals all day from soup and sandwiches up to five-course dinners. In recent years not a small proportion have seen their food sales outstrip alcohol.
As for the absence of sport or cultural activities, Dublin pubs offer an astonishing range of choice, especially in music. The pub has adapted well to changing consumer demands, hence its popularity with locals and tourists alike.
So much for lack of innovation.
Dr Fingleton's claim that large pubs make for greater alcohol-abuse problems is unsupported by research. Observation will show that such units are designed in manageable sections.
The pub is the most controlled drinking environment. This control is an imperative given the severe penalties for serving underage persons including temporary closure, substantial fines and ultimate loss of licence introduced under last year's Intoxicating Liquor Act. No less a body than the World Health Organisation has concluded that proliferation of drink outlets can lead to alcohol abuse problems.
There is no observable public demand for deregulation. Indeed, surveys have shown public opinion to take the opposite view. A number of factors seem to be driving the issue forward.
Huge political and media hype follows an increase in the price of drink. When prices rose in January, the Minister, Tom Kitt, indignantly slated publicans for "blatant greed" and claimed prices rose by up to 30p a pint. A Licensed Vintners' Association survey of 247 pubs showed the actual average rise to be a little more than 6p or 2.7 per cent.
Over the past year rises in the cost of heating oil, car insurance, rents, cigarettes, haircuts and many other commodities have far exceeded rises in drinks prices but have gone unremarked.
Taxis are another element. Public outcry at poor service forced the issue. Leaving aside the fact that alcohol is a mood-changing drug, the capacity of the Dublin pub trade to serve the public is far superior to that of the taxi industry. All available research indicates the public acknowledges this.
Perhaps the real reason is deregulation for its own sake irrespective of economic or social consequences.
Not all regulation is contrary to consumer interests. The Intoxicating Liquor Act 2000, which provides for new licences to be issued where there is an inadequacy proven to the satisfaction of the courts, should be left in place for some years so that its effects can be monitored before other legislative changes are contemplated.
Frank Fell is chief executive of the Licensed Vintners' Association and a member of the Commission on Liquor Licensing