When the debate was interrupted I was pointing out that Deputy Norton in the course of his speech declared that it was the intention of himself and his Party to support this amendment. He based his argument largely on the ground that the present price of beer or porter was excessive, and that consequently the working man was being deprived of something which was necessary for him. I did not hear the whole of Deputy Norton's speech, but I understand that in dealing with this matter he did not at all discuss the question as to where the responsibility for the charge which he considers excessive should be properly placed. I pointed out that if this amendment were accepted it would cost the Exchequer not less than £500,000, and I have given very solid and incontrovertible reasons to support that statement. I think Deputy Norton was aware of them, and that the consequences could not be argued by him or by any other Party in the House. It we forgo this £500,000 something else will have to be forgone also, unless we are prepared to increase taxation. I do not think there is any source from which at the present moment we could get £500,000 without imposing an undue hardship on one section or other of the community. Therefore, I suggest to members of the Labour Party who are going to vote for this amendment that they should have clearly in mind what alternative course they propose to pursue, if it were to be adopted by this House. In my view it would mean the defeat of the Government, and a defeat of the Government must inevitably mean curtailment in the social services. I do not think that the people who have sponsored this amendment would be prepared, if they were called upon to accept responsibility for carrying on the affairs of this country, to say that they were going to impose £500,000 in additional taxation.
Finance Bill, 1933—Committee. - Finance Bill, 1933—Committee Stage (Resumed).
It would not be necessary.
Yet a vote in support of this amendment must inevitably mean a vote to replace the Government by the Cumann na nGaedheal. The members of the Labour Party are quite prepared, as far as I can see, to take that risk, with this certainty staring them in the face that if this Government is displaced, and a Cumann na nGaedheal Government put in its place, Cumann na nGaedheal would refuse to increase taxation, in order to replace the £500,000 lost to the Exchequer by some other form of taxation. Consequently those who vote for this amendment must vote for it with this certainty, that if the Government were defeated on the issue and were replaced by some other section in this House, inevitable as a result of that replacement, there would be a curtailment in the expenditure on social services of that £500,000.
No, we would stop the economic war.
The Deputy might first of all stop talking. That is easier for him than stopping the economic war. If the economic war were stopped to-morrow there would not accrue to the Exchequer an additional £500,000. The Deputy knows that before this Government came into office and before the economic war started, the position of the Exchequer was such that additional taxation which would bring in a further £3,000,000 had to be imposed in order to enable the Budget to be balanced on the basis of the Exchequer Estimate.
This country was more than solvent before that.
It is not insolvent now.
The Government are making it so rapidly.
This amendment, which bears the Deputy's name, would render the Exchequer insolvent unless the Exchequer were prepared to retrench. The only source of retrenchment would be in the social services. Deputies on the opposite benches, and Deputies in the Labour Party opposed the "Cuts" Bill, which was to bring about temporary economies in the public services. Surely they cannot go back now and eat their words. I exclude from that possibly Deputy Morrissey. He has already succeeded in doing so on many previous occasions.
Not on so many occasions as the Minister.
The record of Deputy Rice in Irish politics is the same.
What does the Minister mean by that reference to my record?
The record of Deputy Rice or of Deputy Morrissey has nothing to say to this Bill.
Mr. Rice
I suggest that the Minister should not be allowed to make these remarks if we are not entitled to answer them.
I am going to answer them.
Mr. Rice
I am going to answer them. I kept the Fianna Fáil Party out of office for four and a half years by my vote, and I am proud of it.
I content myself by saying that Deputy Rice's record in Irish politics has been a somewhat rapid one.
Do not forget the Fermoy train. The Minister nearly got a commission.
Mr. Rice
The Minister nearly got to France. Either his courage failed or——
The Minister is entitled to make his speech.
Unless Deputies on the opposite benches are prepared to eat their words they could not possibly make good the loss to the Exchequer, except in one of three ways, to increase taxation or carry through the intensive "cuts" which we proposed to impose on public servants, or else by reducing the social services. There is no other way out of the dilemma for them, and there is no other way out of the dilemma for the Labour Party. That is the issue they have to face on the amendment. There is no use in Deputies getting up and saying that they do not mind about £500,000; that they leave that for the Minister for Finance to deal with. As I stated the Minister for Finance cannot produce £500,000 out of a hat. It has to come out of someone's pocket. That is the issue that has to be faced by every Deputy who votes for the amendment. Deputies sitting on the Labour Benches who propose to vote for this amendment should carefully consider their position, because they claim to have made their concern the position of the poor, the lowly and the oppressed. They are the Party that clamours for the provision of pensions for widows and orphans, for an increase in old age pensions, and for additional relief for the unemployed. They want some provision made for the maintenance of those who are out of work. How are we going to meet these things, and, at the same time, take £500,000 out of the Exchequer on a futile, silly, frivolous and inconsiderate motion like this?
It is hard facts have to be faced in this matter, and the hard facts in the present situation are that owing to the calls that are justly on the Exchequer we cannot find £500,000 anywhere to replace this money. Therefore, whatever other justification there might be for accepting the amendment, that is one insuperable reason above all others, one indefensible reason for refusing the amendment, seeing that the money cannot be got in any other way. Within our limits we have done for the Irish brewers' industry more than was done in ten years previously. We were the first Government to make them any concession whatever. We granted a concession last year which, I believe, has enabled a considerable number of the smaller breweries to keep open during the past 12 months, breweries which were faced with extinction, but which thanks to the concessions which we gave, and thanks to the greater resources we provided, were enabled to carry on an advertising campaign, and to put many of their products on the map, and on the tables of the Irish people. You will find that a bigger advertising campaign was carried out by the small Irish brewers last year than the years preceding. It was carried out entirely out of the resources we left them, and the concessions provided in such a moderate way. These concessions, which in all the circumstances we were able to give them were not like the ill-conditioned concessions now asked for, which would bankrupt the Exchequer or impoverish the poor.
I want to make only a few remarks upon the amendment. I feel absolutely confident that if this reduction of 1d. per pint was made it would lead in no way to an increase in intemperance in any shape or form. If I thought it did, I would not be in favour of it at all. I find myself absolutely in accord with Deputy Norton upon this amendment. The labouring man would be only getting a very small concession if this amendment were accepted. The Minister for Finance contends that the amount of money involved cannot otherwise be found. I was very interested to note that Deputy Dillon would be entirely in favour of this amendment but that he could not see where the money could be found. If it can be shown where the money can be found, I presume he will vote for this amendment.
It seems to me obvious where it can be found, although I know the Minister for Finance will not agree, judging from a remark he made when the question of the economic war was introduced into the debate. To my mind, this economic war is simply a luxury tax for the Fianna Fáil Party. If the economic war was settled, as it could be settled, and as it could have been settled a year ago, we would not require bounties, and these bounties would pay for this tax five times over. Let the Party opposite cut away their politics and they could easily take the 1d. off the pint for the poor people. The Minister for Finance challenges us to say how that money could be found. I have told him a way it could be found and it is up to him to disprove that it cannot be found that way.
I was very glad to hear the Minister for Finance repudiating Deputy Corry. Deputy Corry this afternoon entertained the House for 15 or 20 minutes denouncing the breweries and the brewers. The Minister for Finance entertained us for the last few minutes of his speech telling us all the Fianna Fáil Government had done for the brewers. According to Deputy Corry, so far as this part of Irish industry is concerned, the Fianna Fáil Government has been concerned with——
Nobody minds him, according to you.
Nobody in the House.
Or outside the House.
People outside the House do not know Deputy Corry or Deputy Jordan or the Minister for Finance as we know them. If they did, the Fianna Fáil Government would not last 24 hours.
They know you too.
Exactly, and that is the reason they send me back here every time, notwithstanding the misrepresentations of the Fianna Fáil Party, and particularly of the Minister for Finance, who is a past master of it.
They sent Deputy Corry back to this House also.
We know how that happened. The people of West Cork took the advice of Deputy Kelly and they voted dead and alive for Deputy Corry. As a matter of fact, they went further and anticipated Deputy Kelly. They took his advice before he gave it, or, at least, before he gave it in public.
He got 11,000 votes.
We know the Minister for Finance well; he worked himself into hysterics. Fortunately for the Minister and the House and for Deputy Corry he is a teetotaler. I fear to think even of what would happen to the Government, the House and the country, if the Minister were to take a pint of stout. If in his sober senses he can so far lose himself as he does, where would he stop if he were like most working men and took a pint or two of Guinness. It might not be good for the Minister and it would not be good for the country if he did. The Minister in his usual style, when he has no case to make, fell back upon abuse. He talked about Deputy Morrissey's relation to Irish politics. The Minister would do well to talk less about that and nobody knows that better than some of his colleagues sitting upon his own benches. Let us hope we will hear no more about that kind of thing. Men standing here have as much Irish blood in their veins as men sitting on the other side of the House. There is no necessity for this at all. We are talking upon an amendment put forward from these benches and we are entitled, notwithstanding the fact that the Fianna Fáil Government are in power, to put forward our amendments and our views, up to the present anyway. The Minister in reply to Deputy Rice's speech introducing this amendment, said: "All I have got to say is that it would cost the State £500,000 if this amendment were carried," and then he sat down. That was his whole contribution—the State would lose £500,000. Would he tell us how much the State was losing for the last three, four or five years, long before he came into office? I am glad to see the Minister for Finance has got another Parliamentary Secretary in Deputy Jordan.
I was calling the Minister's attention to your remark that men sitting on these benches are standing.
I would ask the Deputy to deal with the amendment and avoid these personalities. I gave the Deputy an opportunity of replying to what the Minister said and I think he should now come to the amendment.
I think I am entitled to reply to any statement the Minister made on this amendment.
The Minister made several statements in reply to Deputy Morrissey, and I allowed Deputy Morrissey to reply to the Minister. But I cannot see what Deputy Jordan leaving his place and passing a note to the Minister for Finance has to do with the amendment before us.
I agree you are not possessed of second sight, neither am I, but I can put two and two together; and if Deputy Jordan leaves his seat and passes a note to the Minister for Finance and they exchange grins, I can draw the inference.
I protest. I simply called attention to the joke which was that men sitting on these benches were standing.
I accept that.
I am glad you have a sense of humour.
I want now to get back to the pint.
Which point? Is there froth on it?
The pint off which I tried to induce the Deputy to take a penny. I am afraid that even my efforts will not be sufficient to get Deputy Jordan to vote for a penny off the pint.
He is in the trade himself.
Sure he is and he will make a profit at any price.
Even with a penny off.
Right.
The Minister was very hard on the Labour Party, but only recently, of course.
Now the Deputy is weeping.
I leave the weeping to the Deputy. He is a very good hand at it, and as a matter of fact, if I wanted to hear a real mournful wail in this House, I should prefer to hear Deputy Tom Kelly to anybody else. He is very good at what they call keening in the West. The Deputy should be living in the West although he told us that all belonging to him had been in Dublin for the last hundred years. To get back to the amendment, the Minister has told us that it would cost £500,000. Would the Minister tell us if it is not a fact that the revenue has been losing more than £500,000 per year for the last three or four years without any reduction whatever and will the Minister tell the House on what his figures are based? The Minister said that, even allowing for a 10 per cent. increase in consumption, there would still be a loss of £500,000. I should like to hear from the Minister the reasons for that statement.
Then, of course, we had the old story, or, I should say, the new story, from the Minister: "You cannot have it both ways. You must either increase taxation or reduce social services; if you reduce taxation, you must reduce social services. If you reduce this, you must increase the taxes on the necessaries of life for the poor." I am surprised that Deputy Jordan and Deputy Corish and Deputy Goulding— I think those are the only Deputies on those benches that I can remember— would not throw their minds back three or four years. While listening to the Minister for Finance, I could have closed my eyes and imagined that it was another North of Ireland man was talking in the person of ex-Deputy Blythe. I could imagine, and I could read from the records, Deputy Blythe saying at that time: "If you increase social services, you must increase taxation" and, mind you, the people were very much better able to afford it then than now. Deputy MacEntee, as he then was, thundered forth from these benches: "Nonsense. Taxation can be reduced by at least £2,000,000." The Minister to-night tells us that it is utterly impossible to reduce taxation by even half a million pounds—one-quarter of the amount they promised —without increasing taxation on the poor or reducing social services. I can remember Deputy MacEntee, sitting, so far as I remember, in the bench now occupied by Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney, thundering forth as he thundered to-night, and being just as sincere then as he was to-night: "Nonsense. This country is overtaxed; this country is taxed to the last penny it can bear"—and that when the amount was £26,000,000. To-day, when we are asking for £31,000,000 from the taxpayers, the Minister tells us that the country cannot possibly find this £500,000, admitting, for the moment, that the Minister's figure is correct—which I doubt very much— without increasing taxation.
Does the Minister then admit that his statement and the statements of his Party a year and a half ago were absolutely untrue, that they were based purely on their imagination? Does the Minister admit that the statements made by every member of the Party from the President down that, having examined in detail the Estimates, they were satisfied that, without imposing any hardship, or reducing any social service, they could reduce taxation by £2,000,000—does he admit that that was merely a political catch-cry? Deputy Cleary told us this afternoon that we should not make political capital out of this. That came well from the other side. If there is any Party in this House, or in this country, that should be the last to talk about political capital or political catch-cries, it should be the present Government, and, in particular, and above all others, the present Minister for Finance. Whatever limit there may have been to the exaggeration of other members of the Party, even the exaggeration of Deputy Corry, it was outstripped by the present Minister for Finance when he was in opposition and, if I may say so, with all respect, there is very little improvement since the responsibility was thrust upon him, or since he took upon himself the responsibility of Minister for Finance.
I should like to know from the Minister whether he is satisfied that this industry can continue with the present taxation and I am hopeful that the Minister will be able to reply to that question, particularly when he has the assistance of the advice he has been getting during the course of my very short speech. It is a pity that that advice would not be given to the House; it is a great pity that it should be confined to the Minister. I am sure that we would all be very glad if the advice were broadcast. We should all learn very much from it. I hope, however, that it will have some effect on the Minister, and I can assure the Minister that the sympathy he gave to the deputation which waited upon him last year, in between two elections, will be judged by his attitude towards this amendment.
Supporting this amendment, or, to speak more correctly, these two amendments, because I understand that the amendments standing in the names of Deputy Vincent Rice, Deputy Morrissey, and Deputy Gearóid O'Sullivan are being taken in conjunction with mine, I want to say that my amendment differs in some slight regard from their amendment. I think that mine is somewhat more specific. It relates to beer of a specific gravity of 10.40, 10.41 and 10.42. Perhaps, that will require some little explanation. It is an endeavour to do something for some of the smaller breweries which had to close down as a result of over-taxation and which, incidentally, gave a lot of employment throughout the country—not the kind of employment that we see given during the last 12 months or so, in what are termed new industries and new factories, but employment which gives reasonably good wages and good conditions to the persons engaged in the brewing industry in this country. It is well known to many persons that beer of a specific gravity of 10.40 is the beer usually brewed in the smaller breweries in the country and that the beers of a higher specific gravity, that is, from 10.41 to 10.42, are brewed in the main breweries of the country, namely, Messrs. Murphy of Cork, Messrs. Beamish of Cork, and Messrs. Guinness of Dublin. If these amendments are passed they will have a double-barrelled effect. I am almost convinced it will lead to the reopening of some of our smaller breweries which had to close down as a result of over-taxation. I am not at all convinced that the reduction in taxation, which is sought under these amendments, will affect the revenue to the extent indicated by the Minister in his speech. Neither do I share his pessimism as regards the things he forecasted if the amendments should pass.
The Minister has expressed grave fears that the Labour Party may vote for these amendments: that if they are passed they will have very serious results on the country, because we will then lose a Fianna Fáil Government, and all that it is supposed to connote in this country. I am not going to advert to the economic war although I could go on talking about it for half an hour. Sufficient has already been said on that aspect of the question. The Minister need have no fears that the Labour Party are going to put his Government out of office, because it is on the records of this House that the leader of the Labour Party himself stated, in reply to some interruption. that the Labour Party would support any Government but a Cumann na nGaedheal Government. That statement should allay any fears the Minister may have that his Government will be put out of office in order to allow of the advent of a Cumann na nGaedheal Party into power once more. The Minister, apparently, wants to conjure up grave fears in the Opposition by suggesting that if these amendments are passed the result will be that there must be certain economies in the public services. Now he appears to me to be taking up the attitude of a Minister who says "Hit me now with this public economy baby in my arms." In other words, he is trying to put the Opposition into the position that he can charge them with endeavouring to secure a lessening of the public services if they vote for these amendments. Now that kind of argument, like many of the arguments used by the Fianna Fáil Party, may be very useful at the cross-roads, but I suggest that it does not, and should not, cut ice in a deliberative assembly such as this is supposed to be.
It is a fact that from 1924 to 1932 there was a very substantial fall in the revenue from this commodity that we are discussing, something I understand in the neighbourhood of £1,000,000. I think it was the Minister himself who spoke about the changed habits of our people and pointed to the fact that less drink had been consumed during that period and that less drink was now being consumed. I would like, if time permitted, to go more closely and perhaps a little more deeply into that aspect of the question. For myself, I believe that it has not been for the good of the country or in the interests of public morality that this reduction should have taken place.
The Minister perhaps may not be aware of it, though most members of the House are, that a Commission of Inquiry was set up by this House not so long ago to make certain inquiries. It is quite an open secret that the inquiries made revealed a very undesirable state of affairs. That revelation was coincident with a drop in the amount of money paid for liquor of the kind that we are discussing now, a drop represented by something like £1,000,000. There might be some excuse for the present taxation on this commodity if we were living in a period of prosperity. But everybody knows that we are not. A Government in a neighbouring country, whose people to-day are suffering from very great industrial and economic depression, have had the courage to take some taxation off the barrel of beer.
Which they imposed in 1931.
At any rate they had the courage to take it off. The Minister, in my view, would be doing something that would be of very great benefit to the ordinary working class people of this country if he were to take a penny off the pint of stout or pint of porter. Now a pint of stout or a pint of porter may appear to some people a luxury, but the average docker, the average navvy, the average man who has to toil for long hours at hard manual labour, will tell you that while he cannot find any virtue in a bottle of lemonade, he finds it in a pint of stout or a pint of porter. I want to assure Deputies that I would not be a party to the doing of anything that would be likely to lead to an increase in intoxication or in drunkenness. But we all know that even if the price were reduced by 1d. per pint it would not lead to any increase in drunkenness. It would certainly lead to an increase in consumption, but not consumption to the extent that people would over-indulge and make beasts of themselves. I think the time for that has passed, and the Minister knows that as well as every other Deputy in the House. I feel that a very good case has been made for reducing the taxation on beer of the specific gravity mentioned in my amendment.
The Minister, on more than one occasion in this House, has asked to have pointed out to him an alternative source of revenue. I am one of those who are quite prepared for that kind of question. Apart from what has been said by other Deputies about putting a stop to the economic war, I think it is only right and proper for me to point out that there is an untapped source of revenue in this country with which I had intended to deal before the last Government went out of office. I had a motion on the Order Paper which, I think, would have resulted in a very useful discussion, but as there were more pressing matters to be discussed at the time I refrained from moving it. I intend introducing that motion at a later stage when I shall indicate to the Minister the methods by which I think he could get increased revenue. You have at the present moment in this country an unestimated number of persons who are deriving a very considerable source of income from ground rents.
Henry George.
Deputy Dillon says Henry George. He dealt with the taxation of land values, embracing agricultural areas as well as town areas. The motion I had on the Order Paper did not deal with that at all. I suggested that there was an unestimated number of persons, particularly in the large towns and cities of the Saorstát—the cities of Dublin and Cork and other cities, not to talk of the smaller towns—including many absentee landlords who are deriving a considerable revenue from ground rents. They not alone derive a considerable revenue from these ground rents but they are a permanent handicap on any kind of commercial enterprise in some of our cities and towns. I could mention them now, but I do not want to do so. To mention even the names of some of the towns would suggest who these owners are. I do not, at the moment know, because as I have said it is unestimated, the amount of revenue that would accrue to the State if ground values were taxed.
It is no new thing to tax ground values. It has been done in some other countries. It has been done in some of the newer countries and in some of the old countries as well. It has been done in certain municipalities in England where they thought it wise and proper that these persons who were drawing good ground rents, unearned income as a matter of fact, handed down to them for generations as a matter of conquest, should contribute a certain amount to relieve the general load of taxation. I do not want to go too far back but we know that a good many people speculated in these things. Without rendering any service to the community, they are drawing out of the country something in the neighbourhood of a couple of millions. I do not know what the exact sum is. I put down a question some 12 months ago in order to elucidate the matter and the reply I got was that the Department of Finance had no information as to the amount. I understand they have made no attempt to get the information. I am not blaming the Department because possibly it is not one of their functions but I do know that some of the information, at any rate, is available through the clerks of the various borough councils and clerks of urban district councils. That is one source of revenue which, I suggest, the Minister might consider even though he might have to antagonise many vested interests. I suggest this Government have done things which are quite unconstitutional but in the suggestion I have made we are not asking them to do anything that is unconstitutional. In the City of Dublin alone you must have hundreds of thousands of pounds going out to all parts of Europe by way of ground rents. In my view and in the view of very many people who have given the subject any thought whatever, the money obtained from that source would, to a very large extent, make up not alone for what may be lost by way of land annuities but would certainly bring in revenue to the amount of more than the £500,000 that the Minister would lose if this tax were taken off beer.
I would say this last word to the Minister. The Minister cannot have that personal contact with the ordinary worker in towns and cities that many of us have. I am not saying at all that there are not numbers of working people teetotallers. That is their own business but the average worker takes his pint of stout and in present circumstances he cannot afford to take it on more than one or two evenings in the week. It is quite common knowledge that for the remainder of the week he is quite disgruntled and disaffected and no matter what Government is in power he uses very lurid and uncomplimentary language about that Government. The last Government suffered in that way. We were fortunate or unfortunate enough to have a teetotal Minister for Finance in that Government. On one occasion, I suggested that the then Minister would be all the better if he occasionally took a glass of Paddy Flaherty or a glass of John Jameson.
I have said that I would not by any act of mine do anything that would lead to inebriety or drunkenness or that would lead to the workingman spending more money on alcoholic liquor than he can afford. The reduction of that one penny, which would, I understand, enable the brewer to sell to the publican and the publican to sell over the counter a pint of stout for 6d. in one case and perhaps 7d. in the other, would have a very useful effect. It would even affect the Government of which the Minister is such a prominent member and affect it very favourably. I would suggest to the Minister that if he is not able to reduce the tax by the amount suggested he would indicate to the House what reduction he is prepared to give. Having heard the various speakers on the Opposition Benches he must be amenable to reason and have some regard for the unfortunate person who is not able to afford more than 6d. for a pint of stout.
The Minister for Finance in his speech thought fit to refer to my record in politics. I think that under the rules of the House I am entitled to reply. He referred no doubt to the fact that when I was first elected to this House I was elected to an Opposition Party. When a crisis arose here in which the existence of the Cumann na nGaedheal Government was challenged, I had to make up my mind as to how I should vote. He alluded to the fact that I voted in support of the Cumann na nGaedheal Government on that occasion. I did so for this reason, that 100 per cent. of the people who returned me to this House, were violently opposed to the possibility of a Fianna Fáil Government in this country and I took the view that if the motion were carried, the effective Party in the new Government would be the Fianna Fáil Party. That is what the Minister alluded to. I joined the Cumann na nGaedheal Party and I am proud of the fact that I am a member of it. On that subject, let me advert to the Minister's record. The Minister at one time was wrongly suspected of having taken part in the Rising of 1916.
That has nothing to do with the amendment under discussion. I allowed the Deputy to make certain references to political records, but I certainly shall not allow the Deputy to go into personal records. There is a very clear line of demarcation between political records and personal records.
Mr. Rice
With great respect, the Minister has referred to my record in politics.
He has referred to the Deputy's political record and I allowed the Deputy very wide latitude in replying to that, but I cannot allow any Deputy to refer to personal matters or personal records.
Mr. Rice
With great respect, I did not take any wide latitude in replying.
If the Deputy insists on challenging the rulings of the Chair, the Chair will take very definite action in regard to it.
Mr. Rice
I did not challenge the rulings of the Chair. I merely stated in the briefest possible words the answer I wish to give to the statements the Minister has made.
The Deputy will pass on to the amendment.
Mr. Rice
If I am not allowed to refer to the Minister's record as a Volunteer and the cowardly way——
The Deputy is drawing in what I have expressly prohibited. The Deputy will sit down and speak no more on the matter.
I listened with careful attention to the debate that has proceeded here this evening and it seemed to me that the only Deputy who made a constructive proposal was Deputy Anthony. He, at least, does not propose to strike £500,000 off the revenue for this financial year without making some concrete proposal as to some other source from which the money is to come.
A Deputy
So did Deputy O'Mahony.
I think Deputy O'Mahony made a perfectly futile suggestion. Deputy Anthony produced, in an emasculated form, a first cousin to the theories of Henry George. I do not think it expedient to go into a protracted discussion on the merits of that proposal now, but I at least pay him the tribute that his contribution to the debate was constructive. I listened with care to Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney and Deputy Morrissey. Their only argument was to set their judgement on the matter against that of the Revenue Commissioners. They say that the fall in revenue would not be as great as the Minister anticipates. I am going to assume that the Minister is well advised in this matter, and that even making allowance for the estimated £60,000 increase, due to increased consumption, I foresee that there still would be a deficit of £500,000 in revenue. I regard it as utterly irresponsible to advocate voting for something that you know is impossible. Not a single Deputy on those benches has made a really intelligent suggestion as to how this deficit is to be made up. Deputy Morrissey spoke at considerable length. I have not seen Deputy Cosgrave come into his place here to-day.
Deputy Cosgrave was here.
I am not suggesting that Deputy Cosgrave is not in the building. I know he is. I am not going to cast any reflection on Deputy Cosgrave. What I wish to say is that if Deputy Cosgrave were in his place he could make the most convincing argument by stating that if he were sitting on the opposite benches he would take £1 a barrel off stout. That is talking business. We know that ex-Deputy Blythe, when he was Minister for Finance, held that from the revenue point of view this proposal was impracticable. If it was impracticable when ex-Deputy Blythe was Minister for Finance, is it not ten times more impracticable now, with the present position of the revenue? Of course Deputy Cosgrave would not give any such undertaking. He is a responsible man and he could not get up here and say: "If I again take responsibility for Government I shall take £1 a barrel off stout." It is all very well to say that we want such and such a thing done and that it is for the Minister for Finance to discover how it is to be financed. I want to reduce income tax to 3/6 and I want to reduce the qualifying age for old age pensions to 65. Other Deputies want other concessions, but is it not hypocrisy to get up and start shouting about pensions at 65——
We did not shout. Look at the other side.
I am seeking to convert you. Would it not be hypocrisy to get up and advocate those things——
We have enough to answer for without having to answer for the sins of other people.
Is there not some analogy between advocating these things and suggesting that the Minister should take £1 per barrel off stout?
There is no analogy.
I am glad to observe the strict enforcement of the rule of this House that gross personal reflections will not be allowed. I should like to advert to something that Deputy Rice said this evening. Deputy Rice said that it was manifest to him that it was the intention of the Centre Party to vote and speak in such a way that one section would derive gratification from reading their speeches and that another section would extract gratification from their votes. Did Deputy Rice when he said that mean that we were deliberately betraying our convictions? If he believed that, he is a greater fool than he looks. If he did not believe it but said it all the same, it is just a cheap slander. There is nothing easier than to pelt your political opponents with mud. We believe that Deputy Rice speaks and votes according to his conviction. We do not hesitate to criticise that conviction. We say it is an imprudent conviction and a foolish conviction. Deputy Rice, however, chooses to take another line. So far as he and we are concerned, I suggest to him that it would be to his advantage and to ours if that line of attack were abandoned, because it is calculated to beget memories and criticisms that will do no credit to the proceedings of this House.
Mr. Rice
I am glad you are not using any swear words in this speech.
Out of deference to the Chair, I propose to forgo reference to certain incidents which the Deputy—
Mr. Rice
Do not use language you should not use.
It would be better if the Deputy would stop interrupting and speak after me if he wishes to reply.
Mr. Rice
There is nothing worth replying to.
The Deputy has been forced to sit down once for disorderly conduct. The next stage may be somewhat graver. I desire to reiterate the view of our Party on this amendment. If this proposal were financially possible, we believe that it would have much to commend it to the Government, but we do not believe that it would be a responsible or a sensible procedure to advocate remission of taxation, resulting in a deficit of £500,000 to the revenue, unless we were prepared to make, and to stand for, a suggestion for the recoupment of that revenue from some other source.
Deputy Dillon, having said some distinctly unkind things about the mentality of the proposer and seconder of this amendment, proceeded to object very vigorously because something of a similar nature had been said about himself. Having pointed out that little inconsistency, I pass away from Deputy Dillon's speech in toto. I rise to deal with two matters and two matters only. The first is, perhaps, not a very important matter. It was raised by Deputy Cleary and it has been often referred to in this House —that is, “what did Cumann na nGaedheal do when they were in office?” That is one of the cheapest and most unconvincing of arguments. It is what the logicians call the tu quoque and it is generally looked upon as a thing that cannot carry the matter in dispute any further. Though that be so, I always like to hear it coming from the Fianna Fáil Benches, because when Fianna Fáil Deputies ask why Cumann na nGaedheal did not do it, it is an admission that Fianna Fáil cannot improve upon anything that Cumann na nGaedheal did. Though that is a truism that is perfectly obvious, it is very gratifying and pleasing to hear speeches from Deputy Cleary and others in which they inquire: “If Cumann na nGaedheal did not do it, why on earth should we do it?” Even the tu quoque does not apply here because, if you take the position when this matter was considered by a Cumann na nGaedheal Minister for Finance, you will find that it was entirely different from the position that exists at present. Had the Minister for Finance then come along with a proposal that the tax on beer should be increased by £1 per barrel, it would be analogous to the present position. It would have some relation to the purchasing power of the community. At that time the country was properly governed and the purchasing power of the community was good.
At present the finances of the country have been so incompetently handled that they have got into an extraordinary state of muddle and I am not surprised that they have got into that state of muddle. One had only to listen to-night to the Minister for Finance dealing with figures to understand completely why the Minister has succeeded in so entirely mismanaging the finances of the country as he has done. And then it is because of the Minister's guess only, because of his mere statement, that it would mean a loss of £500,000 to the revenue that Deputy Dillon is convinced. Deputy Dillon is convinced by that mere statement. I have already ventured to condemn the Deputy for that to-night. Again the Deputy refuses to let his mind work and refuses to examine the arguments of the Minister for Finance. I am greatly amused to see the pedestal upon which Deputy Dillon has placed the Minister for Finance and to see how the Deputy bows down before him.
Let us take the arguments of the Minister for Finance. To begin with, he takes last year's consumption as his basis and it is from last year's consumption that he bases his entire argument. It is based on that and on nothing else. But what really has last year's consumption of beer and spirits to do with the yield of revenue this year? What we have to consider is what is going to be the consumption of beer during the financial year and how the consumption of beer in the coming financial year is going to be affected by the tax on beer; and whether if that tax is kept on at 8d. there will be a revenue which will exceed by £500,000 the revenue that would be derived from having the tax, say, at 7d. You may make a case from five years ago but it can be only a guess. A guess, based upon last year's figures, must of necessity be a very inaccurate guess because a guess based on last year's figures is only based on the financial condition of the country when the country was far better off than it is this year.
I venture to say that if there is a fall in the revenue yield that fall will be nothing like £500,000—it will be nothing like half of it—if this amendment is accepted. There has been a steady drop during the other years. If you consider the general condition of the country now, and if you consider that the entire farming class are short of ready money you may not be altogether wrong if you estimate at three-fourths the drop in consumption during this coming year. It is upon your estimate of what the drop this year will be that you can base your estimate as to what the real loss to the revenue will be in the coming year. That is a matter on which I think every Deputy in the House who knows the conditions of the country is just as well able to form an opinion as even the Revenue Commissioners themselves —assuming that that very fallacious argument came from the Revenue Commissioners. That is an assumption of Deputy Dillon's, an assumption with which I do not agree. The Revenue Commissioners are prone to deal with figures, but dealing entirely with figures they cannot be expected to deal with a financial cataclysm like the one which is coming upon the country at the present moment.
I would like to say just a few words on this amendment and to reply to the Minister for Finance as regards his challenge to the Opposition. He challenged the Opposition to say what means they would adopt to find this half million pounds which will be lost to the Revenue if the amendment were passed. I must say that is a legitimate question for the Minister for Finance to put to the Opposition. It is one, I think, that should be answered as far as it is possible to answer it. I think, personally, I am in a position to answer the Minister's question. I always held the opinion that the Government's policy was all wrong as far as the provision of employment for the people of this country was concerned. Not only did I express that opinion in this House against the Government's policy but I also expressed it on the occasion of the last General Election. It was an unpopular view to unfold but yet time has, I think, proved to a great many people in this country, as it will undoubtedly prove to the Minister, that the more he expends on social services and the more he endeavours by taxation or otherwise to cure unemployment, the more unemployment he will create.
Take the Minister's own words— where is the money to come from for the provision of work for those who are at the moment unemployed and where is the money to come from for carrying on social services? I ask the Minister a pertinent question by way of reply and it is: where does he get the money for the carrying on of the social services at present? Is it not from industry? Is not the brewing industry one of the chief sources of revenue by which the Minister is able to finance schemes of social service? Is it not the chief source of revenue for the provision of grants for the unemployed? According to the circular issued by the members of the Licensed Grocers' and Vintners' Association, even in the year 1932, which is the last year for which the figures are available, the revenue derived by way of Excise duties on spirits and beer is well over £5,000,000. That is a very large sum as far as the National Revenue is concerned. I find that the reduction in revenue derived from spirits between 1924 and 1932 is somewhere in the region of well over £1,000,000. The reduction as far as beer is concerned is still more remarkable. It is £2,878,805. If this reduction in revenue continues at the same rate as it has, according to these figures from 1924 to 1932, is it not commonsense to expect that in a few years more there will be absolutely no revenue from the duties on spirits and beer?
As I stated when this amendment was first introduced, it is a bad policy to kill old industries. The Minister should consider that this is an industry that has given very much employment in the past and employment, too, of a very remunerative nature. The people engaged in that industry, the people who have carried on the industry in fair winds and foul winds in the past 15 or 20 years deserve consideration and recognition. At least they deserve the same consideration and recognition as the Minister is giving to those people who at the moment are setting up factories behind tariff walls. That is good policy to a certain extent. But I ask the Minister does he consider it fair to safeguard industries by the imposition of a 40 or 50 per cent. tariff while leaving other industries that have stood the test of time to go into decay? That is the position with regard to the beer and whiskey industry at the present time. As has been already stated, there is not a Deputy in this House who is supporting the amendment who is desirous that the consumption of drink shall increase.
I am in thorough agreement with Deputy Anthony when he states that the workingman, if he wants a pint of stout, is entitled to have it at a price that he can afford to pay, and the price at the moment is prohibitive. Even if there were a decrease that decrease could be diffused all over the two or three million inhabitants of this State without any fear that the Irish people would become addicted to the vice of intemperance. As far as my knowledge and experience go, the people will preserve their dignity. I would like to see a similar state of affairs obtaining here to that which obtains in certain Scandinavian countries where a person can get a drink in any house, not necessarily a licensed house. I think the people can be trusted, even with a reduction in the price of beer and stout, not to become necessarily addicted to the vice of intemperance. I do hold, however, that it is no argument to ask where is the money to be found and to place the onus on the Opposition to find that money. I am prepared—but this is not the proper occasion for it—to argue this whole question with regard to the relation of the Government with the provision of employment for the people. I do say that motions were proposed in this House by the Government Party, when they were in Opposition, which meant the saving or spending of sums much larger than the sum proposed to be effected by this amendment. For instance, there was a motion introduced some few years back in regard to derating, another with regard to the annuities and the question of rates during the continuation of the economic war, which, if passed, would necessarily mean a very large reduction in the revenue. This is a question of saving a great industry which, as I have said, means a revenue of anything from £5,000,000 to £6,000,000 which is in danger of being lost altogether if the present high taxation continues for a period of years equal to that from 1924 to 1932. Assuming that the decrease continues at the same extent for a corresponding number of years in the future, it will mean that the Minister then in power, whoever he may be, will have absolutely no revenue from this once great industry.
I should like to say a few words on this amendment before it is put to the House. I have never believed in prohibition as a cure for drunkenness, and neither do I believe in extravagant taxation, which practically amounts to prohibition, as an aid to temperance. I had some experience years ago in a country where there was limited prohibition, where there was optional prohibition in some districts as against others, and it was notorious that in the districts where there was prohibition there was much more drunkenness than in the free or open districts. As one who does not imbibe stout, I think I can say I have no personal interest in it. I have no relatives engaged in the trade. It is to the workers mainly that the question of beer, porter and stout applies—at least in the various cities. In the large cities where there are ports, there are men in certain classes of work to whom a drink of stout or some similar drink is practically a necessity. I am referring to dockers and men engaged in similar work on ships which, as Deputies know, is very difficult work, and in which the men engaged are constantly swallowing huge quantities of filthy dust, and it is practically a necessity for these men to get their pint. They do not indulge to excess and are not likely, even if the reduction in price were much lower than is proposed in this amendment, to indulge to excess; but a penny in the pint means much to these men and to their families. As I say, a pint of stout a day is a necessity to such men and a reduction of a penny in the weekly aggregate would mean a good deal to these men and their families. There are other classes of workers also to whom this equally applies.
As to the great brewing industry itself, the Minister himself knows that it is an industry of which we are all proud and, if we could help the industry, well and good. I am not interested primarily in the very great firm in this country with its world-wide reputation. I think it is pretty well able to take care of itself and I do not anticipate any great danger there; but I am interested in the workers, and I am as much interested in temperance as any Deputy in this House. I do not believe that any reduction in the price of stout, such as this amendment proposes to bring about, will have any effect whatsoever on the temperance cause. It will not add to the amount people drink or, even if it did add a pint of stout to the quantity some labourers drink, it will not mean that there is any danger of them graduating into drunkards. Penal measures of any kind never made any man sober. I think it was Deputy Morrissey who referred to the fact that if a man is a drunkard and wants drink, and drink can be got, he will get it. That is my own experience also. I have seen men who had not a "bob" in their pockets who would have their glass by some hook or crook. Prohibition or heavy taxation is no aid whatever. The drunkard will find his drink and it is for the honest workingman of this State we are appealing in this measure. I see no harm in such a man having his pint of stout or glass of beer and if it can be made a little cheaper for the working man, all the better. That is the reason I am supporting this amendment.
Tá
- Anthony, Richard.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Burke, James Michael.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Coburn, James.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Daly, Patrick.
- Davin, William.
- Desmond, William.
- Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
- Dolan, James Nicholas.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Keating, John.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Lynch, Finian.
- McDonogh, Martin.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Minch, Sydney B.
- Morrisroe, James.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Nally, Martin.
- Norton, William.
- O'Connor, Batt.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, The.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Pattison, James P.
- Reidy, James.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Roddy, Martin.
Níl
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Brian.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Browne, William Frazer.
- Cleary, Mícheál.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Timothy.
- Daly, Denis.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Dillon, James M.
- Doherty, Hugh.
- Dowdall, Thomas P.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Geoghegan, James.
- Goulding, John.
- Hales, Thomas.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Keely, Séamus P.
- Kehoe, Patrick.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Kent, William Rice.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Kissane, Eamonn.
- Little, Patrick John.
- MacDermot, Frank.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Maguire, Conor Alexander.
- Moane, Edward.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
- O'Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Kelly, Seán Thomas.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Pearse, Margaret Mary.
- Rice, Edward.
- Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Victory, James.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C. (Dr.)