As I have already indicated, we do not intend to vote against this taxation measure because we do not see an increase in the price of spirits as having the same implications for employees, in particular, as an increase in the price of beer. There is no doubt, as has already been pointed out, that beer generally is very much the drink of the ordinary working man and occupies quite an important part in his standard and style of living.
Even in my most crusading days in the Department of Health, I always acknowledged the fact that, for people who are engaged in arduous manual labour, in particular, a pint of stout in the middle of the day, or at the end of the day, was something to which they were entitled. Beer or stout, taken in moderation, could not be regarded as in anyway detrimental. Of course, like all other alcoholic beverages, if it is abused it certainly has its effects.
We resisted the further imposition, at this period of the year, on the pint of beer. That was a legitimate attitude for us to adopt. Whatever about increasing the tax on the pint of stout and beer at normal budget time in order to finance the normal budgetary requirements and provide resources for social welfare increases, it is a totally different matter to come along at this stage of the year and increase the tax on beer and stout generally. The two cannot be looked on in the same light and that is why we oppose the addition at this time of year, halfway through the budget year, on beer and stout.
We do not feel the need to resist this increase in taxation on spirits in the same way. We would certainly prefer if it did not have to happen. Our general approach to this budget is that these increases do not have to happen. This is very much a political exercise which we are going through here. After all the preaching of gloom and doom and all the drama and the state of the nation broadcast and around the clock Cabinet sessions, what the Government are engaged on here to day is, from the point of Government finances, a minimal exercise. It is of very great significance, of course, from the point of view of the housewife and others who are going to have to pay increased charges in prices, but from the point of view of budgetary finances and the Exchequer as a whole, what we are doing here today is really only tinkering with what was supposed to be a major financial crisis.
That is our general approach to this exercise here today in Dáil Éireann. If the Government feel that spirits at this stage can take a further increase in taxation, we are not prepared to go strongly against it, although we feel it could and might well be avoided. Even though, the-oretically, spirits are the drink of the better off classes — therefore an increase in the price of spirits does not have the same social implications — nevertheless an increase in any of these products in which some people find relaxation should be avoided if possible. As I said, we do not intend to oppose this increase.
I want to draw the attention of the House to a great exercise in hypocrisy which is being indulged in by members of the Fine Gael Party in particular. When we, in the course of our normal annual budgetary exercise, found it necessary to increase the price of spirits in the January budget, we were met with a tirade of abuse and attacks from the then opposition, Fine Gael front bench. In particular I remember Deputy Fitzpatrick (Cavan-Monaghan) being quite vociferous on this matter. First, he gave a lecture on the fact that Irish people did not abuse drink and that, therefore, it was wrong to increase the price of drink. It was in response to that statement that I made the speech which Deputy B. Desmond quoted from. At that time I was almost exclusively talking about spirits. That is why I can claim that our attitude on this occasion is a logical one. At that time the Fine Gael speakers in particular were totally opposed to an increase in the tax on spirits. They said it would have disastrous effects on Irish Distillers and on the important industry in Midleton. Generally speaking, they were most trenchant in their criticism of that tax increase being imposed.
I want the Taoiseach to tell us, as the principal spokesman of the Fine Gael Party, what has happened in the meantime. How has the situation changed? That party are now coming here, not at the crucial time of the year when the annual budget is being proposed but at this half-way stage, putting forward this proposal for an increase in the tax on spirits. Has the danger to the Irish distilling trade and the Midleton Distillery disappeared? Has the situation in regard to the spirits industry improved so dramatically in the meantime that there is no fear for the industry or for employment in that industry in putting on this tax now? These are questions we on this side of the House are entitled to ask.
Admittedly we increased the price of spirits in the January budget. We felt we were reasonably safe in doing so. We had done careful calculations and got estimates from experts and felt that as part of the annual budgetary exercise it was legitimate to increase the tax on spirits at that time. This is a different exercise. This is an additional imposition. This is a second increase during a 12-month period.
There is a very onerous responsibility on the Fine Gael Party in particular to explain how their opposition to this imposition last January can have faded away and what change has come about in the situation. Why can they now put on this additional taxation increase without any ill-effects? These are some questions for which we would like to have an explanation, but bearing in mind that, taking a consistent attitude, we do not intend to vote against this proposal.
