GRTU slams limit on alcohol sale from shops

The amended regulations “limiting” the sale of alcohol have received mixed reactions, with retailers strongly against them and the hotels and restaurants welcoming them.

Published on Tuesday, the legal notice, intended to curb drinking in the streets in zones of entertainment, stipulates that confectionaries and other retail shops cannot sell alcoholic beverages after 9 p.m. and significantly raises the penalties for infringement. Only clubs, wedding halls, bars and catering establishments can do so.

The Chamber For Small And Medium Enterprises – GRTU is calling on the government to withdraw the “ill-thought-out” Legal Notice – “an affront to the retailing community, based on no solid principle and unworkable”.

It said the whole approach of the government was wrong and it was creating an “unfair commercial disadvantage to one sector of retailers against another”.

On the other hand, the Malta Hotels and Restaurants Association has welcomed the revision of the Legal Notice, appealing to the authorities to enforce the law so every establishment operates within the confines of its licensing conditions.

Over the years, it has objected to the lack of enforcement of the regulations, which allowed a number of bottle shops to practically trade as bars, while the penalties were not a deterrent to anyone breaking the law.

However, according to the chamber, bars have been put at an advantage over confectionaries, confusing the situation where supermarkets, kiosks and other food and drink retailers are concerned.

“Retailers are licensed to sell throughout their opening hours and cannot be expected, after a certain time, to lock away a section of their establishment, or search bags to ensure consumers have not purchased what the law prohibits them from buying after a certain hour,” the chamber said.

Many supermarkets and other food retailers have been opening late, either in summer, or once a week, and the consumer, irrespective of the limitations, purchased without restriction. “Now they cannot be expected to refrain from doing what has become an acquired right,” the chamber said. The solution to the alcohol-sale abuse in Paceville should not have been prohibitionist, interfering with retailers’ licences and consumer choices, but should have entailed the surveillance of the areas where abuse was occurring, the chamber said.

The problem was of a social nature, not commercial, and retailers should not be made to suffer because the authorities were incapable of resolving it, it continued.

The Consumers’ Association also disagreed with the new regulations because they did not allow confectionaries to sell alcohol after 9 p.m., while other outlets could. Moreover, according to the Legal Notice, shops that traded under more than one licence would be restricted to choosing one, it pointed out.

The regulations were further reducing the competitiveness of confectionaries.

“If there is something wrong with selling alcohol after 9 p.m., it has to apply to everyone,” it said, adding that the Legal Notice was protecting one sector over another, which would reduce competition and could lead to the increase of prices.

In general, it was a step back from more competitive markets with the cheapest possible prices.

The association was, therefore, requesting an analysis by the Office of Competition of the effects the Legal Notice would have on the market.