Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 16 May 1973

Vol. 265 No. 9

Financial Resolutions, 1973-74. - Financial Resolution No. 3: Customs and Excise—Beer.

I move:

(1) That in this Resolution "the Act of 1971" means the Finance Act, 1971 (No. 23 of 1971).

(2) That in lieu of the duty of excise imposed by section 27 (1) of the Act of 1971, there shall be charged, levied and paid on all beer brewed within the State on or after the 17th day of May, 1973, a duty of excise at the rate of £31.913 for every 36 gallons of worts of a specific gravity of 1,055 degrees.

(3) That in lieu of the duty of customs imposed by section 27 (2) of the Act of 1971, there shall, as on and from the 17th day of May, 1973, be charged, levied and paid on all beer of any description imported into the State, a duty of customs at the rate of £31.913 for every 36 gallons of beer of which the worts were before fermentation of a specific gravity of 1,055 degrees.

(4) That there shall be allowed and paid on the exportation as merchandise or the shipment for use as stores of beer on which it is shown, to the satisfaction of the Revenue Commissioners, that the duty imposed by paragraph (2) or paragraph (3) of this Resolution has been paid, a drawback calculated according to the original specific gravity of the beer, at the rate of £31.926 on every 36 gallons of beer of which the original specific gravity was 1,055 degrees.

(5) That where, in the case of beer which is chargeable with the duty imposed by paragraph (2) or paragraph (3) of this Resolution or in the case of beer on which drawback under paragraph (4) of this Resolution is payable, the specific gravity of the beer is not 1,055 degrees, the duty or drawback shall be varied proportionately.

(6) That section 24 of the Finance Act, 1933 (No. 15 of 1933), shall not apply or have effect in relation to the duty of customs to which this Resolution refers.

(7) It is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1927 (No. 7 of 1927).

What is the estimated yield in this case for this year and for a full year?

It is included in the general figure of the increase in the budget statement. The effect of this increase is to increase the excise duty by the equivalent of .69p on the pint of average gravity. The revenue in the current year is estimated at approximately £3,200,000. There will be a reduction with effect from 1st September next to compensate the trade for the increase in the rate of VAT and the cutback will bring the yield to £2,400,000.

I should like to draw the attention of the House to a rather ironic situation that has arisen with regard to this resolution. I remember the present Minister for Local Government year after year, on occasion after occasion, demanding that we make some allowance in the income tax code for those people who had to incur expenses in travelling to work. He pressed this very strongly on me and on other Ministers. He had particularly in mind the case of tradesmen who had to use a car to go to work——

Is the Deputy speaking on Resolution No. 3 which relates to beer?

I am sorry. I will come back to it later.

As far as we are concerned an increase in tax on beer certainly could be tolerable and supported by us in certain circumstances. In regard to what is proposed here, it appears from what the Minister has said that, so far as the consumer is concerned, the increase will be 1p per pint. Portion of that increase will go to the brewers and the balance to the Revenue Commissioners. There is no mention of the publicans but I understand they are claiming an increase also. Therefore, it seems possible that, apart from this increase of 1p per pint, there will be a further increase arising out of the application of the publicans. We should bear this in mind when considering the effects of this resolution.

I said there were certain circumstances in which we could support an increase of this kind but those circumstances do not exist today. As I mentioned earlier, in this budget there is an enormous amount of what we consider unnecessary taxation——

The Deputy is aware the debate must be on a specific resolution.

I was about to say that, despite what the Minister said about the consumer recognising the reasons for this increase, I cannot see him saying: "I can be reasonably happy about paying another 1p on the pint because I know the extra revenue is going to help the owners of office blocks and business premisies to have their rates reduced." I do not think that they would be happy with that thought. Certainly I am not happy with it. As far as I am concerned, there is unnecessary taxation involved in this budget. The rates subsidy on office blocks and commercial properties are examples. The amounts involved are so substantial that clearly what we are being asked to do is to increase the price of the pint in order to subsidise the rates on office blocks and commercial properties. We are not prepared to support that kind of policy.

That is not true. I should like to make it quite clear that we are getting it back and that is the mistake that the Deputy has made. In this case the amount of the beer increase is only 0.69p. The present duty is 7.4p. The Deputy might be interested to know that the consumption of beer last year increased by 89,000 barrels. For this reason it is not an unreasonable demand. This is a relatively small increase when allowance is taken of the fact that the National Prices Commission has already considered this matter some time ago and that part of the increase is included in the recommendation they made.

This particular increase is one which not so long ago we would have had a great song and dance about. Surely it should have been possible to have avoided increasing the price of the pint, seeing that increases are to be levied on tobacco and cigarettes. Later we will be dealing with spirits and with a very savage increase, to say the least of it. Of this increase of 1p in the price of the pint, 0.27p will go to the brewers; but from where will come the further amount that will be required by the trade and those who dispense the beer and collect the taxes to enable the Exchequer to benefit? Will we have an addition on to this penny and will we during this year, with hopes of a revival in our tourist industry, find ourselves, because of this resolution, hitting at that fundamental part of the tourist industry?

The sale of beer and tobacco to our tourists is an important part of the benefits from which we derive some of the lifeblood of our economy. If our tourist industry is as important as it is made out to be it is surprising that these Financial Resolutions contain the very elements that make for adverse effects on that hoped-for revival of the tourist industry. I disagree with this increase because the pint at its present level is dear enough for the general run of the workers who are the main consumers of beer. I disagree with it also because of the adverse effect it will have on the attraction, enjoyment and entertainment tourists to this country have had. We were hoping to bring them here in greater numbers this year but by this increase we shall not give them the traditional Irish welcome. We are asking them in and at the same time we are about to nail them as soon as they arrive by charging them more for those things which they might wish to and which I know they enjoy.

I should like some information on what becomes of the trade who handle the beer and collect these taxes. Where do they come in and will there be a further increase as a result of a just claim being further enhanced by this increased imposition?

The second paragraph, on page 9, states

for every gallon on liqueurs, cordials, mixtures and other preparations bottled.

I should like to know which are the other preparations. The mention of the word "cordials" suggests that soft drinks are being taxed.

Financial Resolution No. 3 deals with beer only.

(Dublin Central): Would the Taoiseach indicate how much of the .27p. will accrue to the breweries in one year?

Customs and Excise will get .69p and VAT on this is 0.04p.

(Dublin Central): I should like to know what will be the total amount that will accrue to the breweries in one year.

I have not that figure.

In the budget statement the Minister for Finance, and the Taoiseach in his statement, referred to the impact of VAT on this increase. The Taoiseach said the price would be reduced by the equivalent amount of VAT when it comes into force in its increased form in September next. I take it that this does not mean a reduction in the price of the pint but rather in an allowance to the brewers.

The present penny is made up of 0.69p, which will be taken by the Revenue for Customs and Excise. VAT on the increase will amount to 0.04p and the brewers' margin will be .27p.

How will this be effective? Will it be restored to the brewers or will there be a reduction in the price of the pint?

The State will get the same amount.

(Dublin Central): Surely it is possible to give the total amount that will go to the breweries.

I have not the figure. It is an estimate.

Arising from what the Minister for Finance said today, it appears to me that the National Prices Commission, on the one hand, have considered an application from the brewers for an increase and have made a recommendation, which the Minister has accepted, that an addition of the equivalent of 0.27p per pint should be payable to them. In my capacity as Minister for Industry and Commerce I came under a lot of pressure from the licensed vintners in relation to an increased margin for them. I did take quite a considerable amount of abuse in my dealings. To my knowledge the application from the licensed trade was still with the National Prices Commission at a recent date. Are we to take it from the statement made by the Minister for Finance today that, on the one hand, the National Prices Commission have sanctioned something which the Minister for Industry and Commerce has already approved, this increase of 0.27p per pint to the brewers but, at the same time, has again turned down the application for increased margins or a change in the margin by the licensed trade? There is no doubt, as I see it, in relation to the increase which is now being built into the price of beer, that the straightforward increase of 1p on the pint will mean that there will be a very solid and heavy demand from the trade for an increase of 1p on the bottle. They will hardly be satisfied with a corresponding ½p for the half pint, loose or bottled. I am wondering if, in the Minister's statement today, there is an inferred statement from the Minister for Industry and Commerce that he has refused to sanction an increase to the licensed trade?

No. What the Minister said was:

The brewers have lodged a case for a price rise which has been considered by the National Prices Commission and an increase of 0.27p per pint has been adjudged to be reasonable by the commission. This finding has been approved by the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

But the licensed trade have had an application in for a considerable time.

The Deputy did not deal with it during his time.

I dealt with it on two occasions.

The Deputy did not deal with the one he is talking about. We are only two months here.

I am asking the Taoiseach.

The Deputy is trying to have it both ways.

It is becoming very easy to rag the Minister for Local Government.

Is it the position that the licensed trade had their application in before the brewers but the brewers' one has been dealt with first?

I have no information here on the application by the licensed trade.

We are to assume, therefore——

The Prices Commission have not reported on it yet.

When they do, there will be a further increase on top of this 1p.

We will have to consider that. Consumption went up by 87,000 standard barrels.

Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 64; Níl, 61.

  • Barry, Peter.
  • Barry, Richard.
  • Begley, Michael.
  • Belton, Luke.
  • Belton, Paddy.
  • Bermingham, Joseph.
  • Burke, Dick.
  • Burke, Joan T.
  • Burke, Liam.
  • Byrne, Hugh.
  • Clinton, Mark A.
  • Cluskey, Frank.
  • Coogan, Fintan.
  • Cooney, Patrick M.
  • Corish, Brendan.
  • Cosgrave, Liam.
  • Costello, Declan.
  • Coughlan, Stephen.
  • Creed, Donal.
  • Crotty, Kieran.
  • Cruise-O'Brien, Conor.
  • Desmond, Barry.
  • Desmond, Eileen.
  • Dockrell, Maurice.
  • Donegan, Patrick S.
  • Donnellan, John.
  • Dunne, Thomas.
  • Enright, Thomas.
  • Esmonde, John G.
  • Finn, Martin.
  • FitzGerald, Garret.
  • Fitzpatrick Tom (Cavan).
  • Flanagan, Oliver J.
  • Gilhawley, Eugene.
  • Griffin, Brendan.
  • Harte, Patrick D.
  • Hegarty, Patrick.
  • Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
  • Jones, Denis F.
  • Kavanagh, Liam.
  • Keating, Justin.
  • Kelly, John.
  • Kenny, Henry.
  • Kyne, Thomas A.
  • L'Estrange, Gerald.
  • McDonald, Charles B.
  • McMohan, Larry.
  • Malone, Patrick.
  • Murphy, Michael P.
  • O'Brien, Fergus.
  • O'Connell, John.
  • O'Donnell, Tom.
  • O'Leary, Michael.
  • O'Sullivan, John L.
  • Pattison, Seamus.
  • Reynolds, Patrick J.
  • Ryan, John J.
  • Spring, Dan.
  • Staunton, Myles.
  • Taylor, Frank.
  • Thornley, David.
  • Timmins, Godfrey.
  • Tully, James.
  • White, James.

Níl

  • Ahern, Liam.
  • Allen, Lorcan.
  • Andrews, David.
  • Barrett, Sylvester.
  • Blaney, Neil T.
  • Brady, Philip A.
  • Brennan, Joseph.
  • Carter, Frank.
  • Colley, George.
  • Connolly, Gerard.
  • Crinion, Brendan.
  • Cronin, Jerry.
  • Crowley, Flor.
  • Cunningham, Liam.
  • Daly, Brendan.
  • de Valera, Vivion.
  • Dowling, Joe.
  • Fahey, Jackie.
  • Farrell, Joseph.
  • Fitzgerald, Gene.
  • Fitzpatrick, Tom.(Dublin Central).
  • French, Seán.
  • Gallagher, Denis.
  • Geoghegan, John.
  • Gibbons, Hugh.
  • Gibbons, James.
  • Gogan, Richard P.
  • Haughey, Charles.
  • Healy, Augustine A.
  • Herbert, Michael.
  • Kenneally, William.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Briscoe, Ben.
  • Browne, Seán.
  • Brugha, Ruairí.
  • Burke, Raphael P.
  • Callanan, John.
  • Calleary, Seán.
  • Kitt, Michael F.
  • Lalor, Patrick J.
  • Lemass, Noel T.
  • Loughnane, William.
  • Lynch, Celia.
  • Lynch, Jack.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • MacSharry, Ray.
  • Meaney, Tom.
  • Molloy, Robert.
  • Moore, Seán.
  • Murphy, Ciarán.
  • Nolan, Thomas.
  • Noonan, Michael.
  • O'Connor, Timothy.
  • O'Kennedy, Michael.
  • O'Malley, Desmond.
  • Power, Patrick.
  • Timmons, Eugene.
  • Tunney, Jim.
  • Walsh, Seán.
  • Wilson, John P.
  • Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Kelly and B. Desmond; Níl, Deputies Andrews and Browne.
Question declared carried.
Top
Share