The matter raised by Deputy Davin and Deputy Murphy deserves a little more consideration than the Minister has given it. It is true that the small brewers have the concession to which the Minister has referred, but the situation now created gives rise to new circumstances. It is right, also, to remember that although it is natural to plead the case of the small man, Guinness' brewery — the biggest brewery in the world—is encountering great difficulties owing to circumstances over which we have no control. It is true that one of the best employers in this country is Guinness' Brewery. It is true that the men working there are as well treated as, or better treated than, industrial workers in Great Britain or any other part of the world. Guinness' Brewery have difficulties confronting them in the magnificent export trade which they built up for the benefit of this country as well as for their own benefit. Let nobody imagine that the taxation we are imposing here is not going to hurt them. It is. I am not at all sure that by putting on this taxation the Government is not crippling a great industry which is struggling with exceptional difficulties which we are not in a position to relieve. It seems a strange contribution on the part of the Government of our own country that when one of our greatest industries is so embarrassed by international affairs we should strike it another blow. The House ought to bear in mind that in enacting any legislation which affects the legitimate interests of a great industry of that kind we are hurting not only the industry but the country as a whole, as well as the men who are working in that industry, with their wives and families.
Now, I come to the case of the small brewery. It is true that the small breweries have a concession. It is true, as the Minister says, that the normal practice of the brewery is to pass on any additional tax but I think the Minister will agree with me that when that tax is passed on, together with all the other taxes in this Budget and the Budget introduced last April, the consumption of beer is bound to fall. Any of us with experience of industry and trade knows that, when one's overhead expenses have been reduced to a minimum, every drop in output makes the burden of overhead expenses more unbearable still. We all know that in the last few years these breweries were constrained to reduce their overhead expenses to the lowest possible penny. They cannot get them any lower and keep their doors open. If, as a result of taxation imposed here, the consumption of stout or beer is further reduced, it may mean that they will have to close their doors. For a great industry like Guinness', it may mean substantially reduced profits, even substantial financial losses, but, possibly, they could carry on, on accumulated reserves, through a period of emergency. But we are dealing with small industries whose reserves have been eaten up by past adversity and whose overhead costs have been brought down to the lowest possible point consistent with their keeping the door open. Reduce their output or the consumption of their product and you may close the door.
I am perfectly certain that the Minister for Finance had no more desire to close up these small men than I have, or than Deputy Murphy has. Would he not be well advised to invite these small brewers to come forward and put their case before him; and, if they can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Department of Finance—which is by no means a foolish body, and which is well accustomed to reviewing and checking figures lying before them—that, literally, a reduction in output will close the door, would he not then reconsider their position and say: "While we hope to relieve all brewers of this tax as soon as the emergency passes, even while it endures we will take steps to prevent any brewer being forced to close down and to disemploy the men who are working for him."
