The main purpose of this Bill is to make provision during a period of three years for the clearance of additional quantities of rum for home consumption by reducing the maturity age of spirits of this description from five years to three years. At the same time the opportunity is being availed of to consolidate the existing enactments dealing with the delivery of immature spirits, viz., the Immature Spirits (Restriction) Acts, 1915 and 1926, under which home-made spirits or foreign spirits (including rum, but excluding geneva and liqueurs) are ineligible for delivery for normal home consumption unless they are at least five years old. A clause dealing with definitions is also included. A large proportion of supplies from abroad, which are being imported in increasing quantities, consists of rum over three years but under five years old, and thus under the existing law not eligible for home consumption. Before the decision to introduce this Bill was taken, the main distilling interests in this country were consulted and they intimated their agreement with the proposed reduction of the maturity age in respect of rum, provided the concession was limited to a period of three years.
Supplementary Estimate. - Immature Spirits (Restriction) Bill, 1947—Second Stage.
Will home produced spirits have to mature for five years?
Yes.
I should like to ask the Minister what are the countries from which these spirits are being imported, and what types of moneys are being expended on them. Are we spending in hard currency countries or soft currency countries to purchase these spirits? Has the Minister considered, in view of the desirability of husbanding as far as possible the amount of moneys we are spending in hard currency countries, whether there is any need for importing these spirits?
Practically all this rum comes from Jamaica which is a sterling country. We consulted the distillers here and they said they had no objection to this proposal provided it was limited to three years. In addition, we are consolidating all the other Acts dealing with immature spirits.
This is consolidating the law. I should like to know from the Minister whether this period of five years covers gin imported to this country?
No, only rum.
If not, why not? So far as I know, some stuff is being imported into this country that is rank spirit, newly-distilled spirit, and spirit which, in my opinion, is unfit for human consumption. I think this Bill should not be allowed to pass through the House without some steps being taken to remedy that situation. I do not see why Irish distillers should have to submit to the restrictions to keep their products five years in bond while any foreigner can bring stuff into the country that has been only freshly produced and is not fit for human consumption. I do not know much about publichouses; I know something and I hear more. I understand that gin and lime is a very fashionable drink with young girls and women. It would be highly disastrous if we were to amend the law in any way whereby these immature spirits would be allowed to be imported to be consumed by our young people. We should take whatever steps are necessary to protect them from themselves, particularly when we are protecting them against the consumption of immature spirits produced in our own country. Why is gin excepted?
Gin was never restricted as to age, I am informed. Gin is made from rectified spirits and its quality depends on the process or the care which the manufacture takes at the time he is carrying out that process. It will not improve with age as whiskey does. Rum and certain other alcoholic beverages do. Gin is being made in this country and has been made here for several years. There was never any prohibition against the sale of gin immediately after manufacture, because it does not improve with age, unlike other alcoholic beverages.
So far as I am concerned, it is a question of protecting the public, particularly young people, and, more particularly, young women. The Minister although living in the clouds, probably knows about two things: the importation of this material and the importation of brandies from countries from which brandy was not imported prior to the war. It is known, of course, that, while France was occupied, the main supply of brandy came from a source where, hitherto, brandy was not made, or at least where brandy of high repute was not made. That was all consumed in this country. I do not say that it was wise or that it should have been permitted, but it was consumed here, and I suggest that the Minister should between now and the Committee Stage —there is no immediate hurry about the Bill—consult the Revenue Commissioners and some people in the trade who are in a position to give him advice.
I am told that this is vile material and totally unfit for human consumption. As a matter of fact during the recent severe weather, when I went into a publichouse with two friends, I was induced to take some of this stuff. It was vile, utterly unfit for human consumption, and I could get no farther than putting it to my lips. The very smell was sufficient to deter a person from drinking it. Surely it is not right that young women going into publichouses should have this stuff dished up to them, not knowing what it is and unable to distinguish it from the beverage they should get. We know that the gin which came into the country before the war came mainly from Holland. It was made from good materials, it was of high quality, and the public were amply protected. I do not know where this material comes from. I do not know what country it comes from. The Minister says it is rectified, but that is no answer because it is possible to run off poteen to-day, and, when it has cooled, to rerun it—a process known amongst poteen-makers as "singling"—and sell it to-morrow. Surely the Minister does not suggest that that is protecting the public? I suggest that steps should be taken to prohibit the sale of this stuff under the name of gin, until such time as it has been matured over a period in order to make it fit for human consumption.
This is not a prohibition measure and I do not know how we are to protect Deputy McMenamin against bad brandy. Brandy must be five years old before being sold and there is nothing in the Bill which takes from the number of years it must be in bond, that is, five years. Gin can be sold the day it is made—that is that law —and there is nothing in the Bill to alter the law in that regard. We are proposing to reduce the number of years for which rum must be kept in bond from five to three, because there is a very big shortage of rum. The only rum available at the moment is rum which is under five years old. A good deal of rum between three and five years old can be got, and it is proposed, with the concurrence of the distilling interests and at the request of the people in the business, to provide those who want rum with rum between three and five years old, if not older.
I am not complaining about that at all.
The other matters the Deputy complains about are not dealt with and do not come under this Bill. Gin does not come under it and we do not propose to do anything about brandy. If the Deputy wants to prohibit the sale of brandy, or if he wants some other test applied—if he wants us to make him the official tester of brandy—it is a matter for another Bill. It could not be done under this.