The lame-duck nature of this Government became apparent during the week when John O'Donoghue established a commission for the licensed trade. Members of the body were directed by the Minister for Justice to make a final report in two years, which would put it well clear of a general election. In the meantime, the Government had no intention of confronting the powerful vintners' cartel.
The commission was a simple time-buying exercise. And it was fuelled by fear of what Jackie Healy-Rae and other Independent TDs might do in the Dail, underpinned by internal Fianna Fail concerns and the potential antagonism of the vintners. By creating an official talking shop, Mr O'Donoghue pushed the necessity for tough legislative decisions into the future and minimised the likelihood of a Dail revolt.
The tactic also smothered a landmark High Court judgment on taxis. If, as the High Court ruled, the Government had no right to regulate the number of taxi licences, then its regulation of pub licences could be equally unconstitutional.
Nelson put a telescope to his blind eye when he didn't want to recognise unpalatable developments. This week, Mr O'Donoghue reached for a commission.
The real loser in all of this is the consumer. Paying artificially high prices for drink in overcrowded and cheerless public houses is something citizens endured in the past in the belief that nothing could be done. But a succession of legal judgments and official reports have made it clear that political connivance actively supports powerful lobby groups and damages the welfare of citizens. A consumer backlash is just waiting to happen.
It would be wrong to suggest Mr O'Donoghue is breaking new ground with his behaviour. Ministers of different governments have found reasons for inaction for decades. Back in 1996, Nora Owen, the then Minister for Justice, established an all-party Dail committee to investigate the licensed trade and to make proposals for reform. Charlie Flanagan was in charge but, as a general election approached, the appetite of backbenchers for change waned and no report was produced.
When this Government came to power, however, Mr Flanagan was asked to go back and pick up the pieces. Finally, cautious all-party conclusions were reached in 1999. Even then, the report was a bit too radical for the Minister for Justice. He made a few positive licensing changes in this year's Intoxicating Liquor Act, extending drinking hours and announcing that a commission would give him advice on the really contentious matters.
In the process, he ignored a 1998 report from the Competition Authority urging that anyone who wished to open a pub should be allowed to do so, provided they fulfilled basic criteria and the premises complied with fire, safety, health and planning regulations.
The authority accused the Licensed Vintners Association and the Vintners Federation of Ireland of abusing their monopoly position and of engaging in "concerted price fixing".
A prosecution is now awaiting hearing before the High Court.
As the Minister responsible for competition, Mary Harney sat on her hands. The Tanaiste supported the principle of deregulating the licensed trade. But it was clear that John O'Donoghue and Fianna Fail were calling the shots in Cabinet. Last year, when inflation began to take off in this country, the Government suddenly woke up to the impact rising drink prices were having on the consumer price index. Bertie Ahern went so far as to warn against "profiteering" in the drinks trade and estimated their base line profits at 50 per cent.
Charlie McCreevy also talked tough as reports of mark-ups of 400 per cent on certain drinks circulated. But publican power carried the day. Although drink prices were 12 per cent higher in Dublin than in the rest of the State, the Government settled for a temporary price freeze. And even that was a botched job.
The contrast between the Government's appetite for deregulation in the public and private sectors is striking. A whole range of commercial semi-State companies are being prepared for sale and exposed to outside competition in the name of efficiency, cost effectiveness and the consumer. But private sector cartels are a different matter. The High Court judgment in the taxi case arose from Bobby Molloy's efforts to compensate existing licence holders for increased competition by giving them new licences.
A challenge by excluded hackney drivers caused the High Court to rule that: "a quantitative restriction not alone affects the rights of citizens to work in an industry for which they may be qualified but it also manifestly affects the right of the public to the services of taxis and, indeed, restricts the development of the taxi industry itself".
Alarm bells must have rung at the Department of Justice. Independently owned supermarkets were threatening to challenge the terms of the Intoxicating Liquor Act on much the same grounds in the Irish and European courts.
They wanted to sell alcohol without having to acquire a hugely expensive pub licence. So the Minister sought to head them off at the pass. As a special concession, he directed the new commission to examine the off-licence trade and ways of improving access to it in the interests of competition. An emergency report was to be prepared within three months. Everything else could wait for two years.
It might work. Mr O'Donoghue might be able to cram the competition genie back into the bottle for another few years. If he does, it will be at the expense of the consumer. But, when the choice is between Government meltdown - through the loss of support from Independent TDs in the Dail - and consumer rights, there is no contest. The private sector cartels control the high ground.
Dick Walsh is on leave