asked the Minister for Finance the nett financial loss to the Exchequer if the tax on the pint of beer or stout was abated by 0.03p on the retail price.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Liquor Tax.
16.
It is estimated that the net cost to the Exchequer resulting from a reduction of 3p a pint in the total tax content of a pint of beer would approach £15 million annually.
Could the Minister tell me if the figure he has given is based on consumption prior to or at the time of the budget, or on consumption in or around this time?
It is taken as the estimated loss of revenue if a reduction in the tax content were reflected at this time.
The Minister has not answered the most relevant matter raised by Deputy Murphy, that is, on what basis were the calculations and estimate made on which he now tells us there would be a £15 million loss if there were a 3p reduction in the price of a pint?
The most up-to-date figures available to the Revenue.
Since the up-to-date figures would not have been available to the Revenue Commissioners when the budget was being put together, what would be the impact now of reducing by 3p, 4p or 5p the price of a pint? Would it have the effect of restoring the drop in sales of approximately 40 per cent? Was that 40 per cent drop envisaged by the Minister and the Revenue Commissioners at the time of the budget?
There is no evidence that there has been a 40 per cent drop in consumption of beer as a result of any tax increases.
(Interruptions.)
The Minister must be out of his mind if he thinks that. People are being laid off all over the country, bottlers, wholesalers and so on. The Minister should ask these people.
Perhaps those who put on increases in the price of beer, which is of no public benefit, might want to consider whether they should reduce——
(Interruptions.)
Order. There is a measure before the House on which Deputies can elaborate their viewpoints.
How can one elaborate on something for a Minister for Finance who does not even know there has been a drop in beer consumption around the country?
Had the Deputy been here this morning he would have learned the details. Any tax increases that have been imposed in the budget will all be returned to the public. Other increases which have been imposed since the budget may have gone to Deputy Blaney's friends——
(Interruptions.)
Interruptions must cease.
Nobody is being codded by this. The Minister should cop himself on——
Please, Deputy Blaney.
Whatever the reason for the drop in consumption it is notable that the Minister did not contest the fact that there was a drop in consumption. Am I right in assuming that the figure of £15 million the Minister gave was calculated on the reduced consumption now existing? Did the calculation take into account the likely increase in consumption in the event of a drop in price of 3p per pint?
In all estimations made by the Revenue Commissioners full account is taken of buoyancy in demand or restriction in demand consequent on changes in tax rates.
Could I ask the Minister one simple question: will he take 3p off the pint?
Had the Deputy been here this morning when I spoke on the Finance Bill he would have heard what was the Government's position.