Senator MacKean's motion has been proposed and seconded. It has been already spoken to by several Senators. If any Senator wishes to speak on the resumed debate, now is his time.
MOTION BY SENATOR TOAL (RESUMED). - SENATOR MacKEAN'S MOTION ON TAXATION OF SPIRITS AND BEER (RESUMED).
CATHAOIRLEACH
I spoke before. Would I be in order in moving an amendment now?
CATHAOIRLEACH
What is it?
My amendment would be:—
To delete all after the word "to" in line 3, and to substitute therefor the words "a reduction of the importation of Scotch whiskey and the extinction of illicit distillation."
I second that.
Either from a commercial standpoint or from the point of view of the revenue of the Minister for Finance, I think there is no argument needed, and I think it would be very desirable that an expression of opinion should go from this Assembly as to the taxation of this article. As a source of revenue to the Minister it is rapidly drying up. There is no money coming to the Exchequer from it, while on the contrary it is one of the most prolific sources of employment in the country at the present time. In 1909, when the duty on whiskey was 11/- per gallon, the whole production of whiskey in Ireland was 4,000,000 gallons. In 1918, when the duty was raised to 30/- per gallon, it was down to two-and-a-half million gallons. In 1925, when the duty was 72/6 per gallon, it was down to one-and-a-half millions. For 1925-6 it is estimated at below a million gallons. Can the Minister for Finance give us any reason for retaining such a crushing impost upon Irish industries? The average man would come to the conclusion that it is the policy of the Executive Council to bring about a complete annihilation of this industry. Take the city of Dublin—in 1924 and 1925 two establishments carrying over a million pounds worth of capital were paying over £3,500 a week in wages. These two establishments are now closed down. There is not the sound of a hammer or any other work there. And if this crushing impost is maintained there is not the slightest hope or possibility of these two establishments ever again opening their doors. Take that heavy wage bill of an average of £3,500 a week, and remember that those men to-day are unemployed. These men and their families are not in a very hopeful or healthy condition. Moreover, that does not represent the true economic effect by any means. Because you have got to pay more than £1,500 a week in unemployment benefits through the medium of the dole. Adding these two together you will see that this is a loss of five thousand a week to the city of Dublin. Nothing more depressing than the position of the owners of these establishments could be pictured at the moment. If those two establishments close down they are carrying about a million pounds worth of capital. In the present condition of stagnation prevailing, and gauging the matter through the fluctuations on the Stock Exchange, the capital of these people has decreased by about 65 per cent. and there is not the slightest hope that these people will get a dividend of one shilling now or in the future. I think there should be some consideration for the proprietors and those whose capital is all going and whose families are practically reduced to starvation. I think the few facts I have stated and the few figures I have given speak for themselves.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Are you opposing the amendment of Senator Dowdall?
I am supporting Senator MacKean's motion.
CATHAOIRLEACH
You are opposing Senator Dowdall's amendment.
I support the motion for three reasons. First, it aims at providing an Irish industry and supplying us with good pot-still whiskey instead of inferior patent-still whiskey. Secondly, it will assist the farmers in getting a market for wheat, barley, oats and rye. The price will be better. The third and the most important reason is that there are several thousand people out of employment in those various distilleries. Employment at the present is bad in the country. It will also help to reduce taxation as it will decrease the amount of unemployment benefit.
When the sentiment of the House is so strongly in favour of those motions in their different forms one wonders what can be in the minds of the Government. You might understand that there was some strange puritanical strain coming across them late in life and that they wanted to abolish whiskey drinking, but then you are confronted by the fact that they are allowing diluted Scotch whiskey to come into the market, and so they are increasing the production and sale of that whiskey. The population of a little island in the Hebrides fell from 16,000 to 6,000 in the last twelve years. That island has five distilleries which pay the British revenue five millions a year.
The tax on whiskey was inherited, amongst many other taxes, from the British. When Lloyd George was floundering about looking for money he put 72/6 a gallon on whiskey. That was accepted by the Free State apparently without question, but not without regret by us that they did not dissipate their inheritance. It seems to me an apparently indefensible position to maintain this tax on whiskey unless they intend to abolish the industry in this country. It is a pity that it was not protected in the same way as the Minister for Agriculture is protecting eggs, which were lower a year or two ago than Chinese eggs and now are the most sought for on the market. Irish whiskey is failing because it is not protected. Dunville's bilge-water in Belfast destroyed the name of whiskey coming from Ireland. There is a lot of sentimental nonsense and pious platitudes talked about our desire for union with the North, and about our gratitude towards the North. We owe them nothing because we have given them an excuse to camouflage their trade rivalry with England under the pretence of loyalty. The North is England's second best customer. Patent-still whiskey destroyed the name of pot-still whiskey. There is not a single pot-still whiskey coming from Scotland; all of it is consumed by blenders and the whiskies that come in are only half as strong as they should be. In other words, we are paying full price for a half bottle of spirits. Our industries are crushed by taxes inherited from Britain. The only thing that makes me wonder is that the thing is so obvious, and unless you get one of those right-about-faces from the Government I cannot understand the position.
Hundreds of times my efforts at statesmanship were foiled by my being told that I was anticipated by a year or two. When I had a brilliant notion and brought it before the Government's notice, I was told they had thought of it at least two years ago. The thing is obvious unless we are on a crusade to dry up, not our own country, because the amount of whiskey consumed in Ireland would not keep the distilleries going, but the world. It seems that we are ignorant of the fact that the thirst of the world is a fixed thing and is simply like an appetite. It may sway from place to place, but it does not alter. Certainly the Free State is crushing its own industry with a sort of hari-kari of 72/6 in the gallon. That will not make the remainder of humanity dry. The dreadful result of trying to make people dry in America can be seen. It is eating into their countenances and certainly their style. For those reasons, because barley is more native to Ireland than beet and because whiskey can keep a great deal of people in employment at a fine weekly wage and does not require bolstering up, the thing is so obvious that I should like to know who is mad, the Government or ourselves?
I should like to say a few words on behalf of the Government. They do not deserve the strictures passed upon them by any of the previous speakers, particularly Senator Fanning, who seems to think they are out to abolish the liquor traffic. I think the most eloquent testimony they can give to refute that was that in the recent County Dublin election they selected a publican. Not only that, they put on his platform and made speak on his behalf the head of the temperance party in Ireland, the Minister for Justice. I do not think they could give a more touching exhibition of their desire to help that traffic than their action in that case. They selected a strong candidate and, as a result, he gave a good run for his money to the Labour candidate. In view of that, I do not think it can be laid at their door that they have any desire to hamper that industry. Senator Gogarty must make up his mind that they are not as hostile as he thinks. If the general election were here to-morrow you would find the great proportion of the Government candidates to be candidates interested in the liquor trade.
Senator Fitzgerald has given details of the duty charged on spirits. I would like to compare the duty charged pre-war and at present on beer. The duty on beer in November, 1914, was 7/9 per standard barrel. In that month it was increased to 23/- per standard barrel. In April, 1916, the duty was increased from 23/- to 24/-; on April 23rd, 1918, it was increased from 24/- to 50/-; on April 1st, 1919, the duty was again raised to 70/-; on April 20th, 1920, the duty was raised to 100/- per standard barrel. Is there any sense or reason in keeping on a duty like that now? Three years ago the British Chancellor of the Exchequer saw his way to reduce the tax by £1 4s. per standard barrel. The duty on beer in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is now £1 4s. a barrel less than it is in the Free State. Is there any justification for keeping on what I consider to be the present monstrous tax of 100/- per barrel on beer? I was speaking to a director of a brewery in Dublin recently and he told me that if the duty was not reduced very considerably in the coming Budget his firm would have to close down. He also told me that that would mean the dismissal of 300 hands. These 300 men might be turned out on the streets of Dublin to join the present army of unemployed. They would not get employment in any of the other breweries as their services would not be required. I am glad to say that we have one great brewery in Dublin that employs a very large number of men and pays good wages, but it could not employ the men thrown out of work. If the Government does not see its way to reduce the duty considerably, on both beer and spirits, it will crush out a number of distilleries and breweries in the Free State.
As to the question of barley, the crop last year, owing to the fine weather that prevailed, was the best that the farmers had for many years. The people thought they would get a good price for their barley but in some places they only got 15/- and in other places 17/6 a barrel. Two of the distilleries did not distil any last year. There was no sale for a good deal of the barley beyond what was sold as seed. The by-products of brewing, the grains, were very largely availed of for the feeding of cattle. Grains went all over Ireland formerly. It was customary to see from 50 to 100 cars waiting outside the breweries to take the grains away. There is not one-tenth of the brewing and distilling in Ireland now that there was ten years ago.
CATHAOIRLEACH
I will put the amendment now.
Does that mean that the motion about the extinction of the Irish distilleries is to be swept aside for the amendment?
CATHAOIRLEACH
The amendment speaks for itself. It is in order, but anyone who objects can vote against it.
I think it is against the sense of the Seanad to put an amendment which none of us have seen.
CATHAOIRLEACH
The time to make the objection was when the Senator asked permission to move the amendment.
The Seanad was not asked.
CATHAOIRLEACH
The Seanad could not be asked until there was an objection.
We could not hear the amendment until permission was given to move it.
CATHAOIRLEACH
On the contrary, I asked what the amendment was, and the Senator read it out. As there was no objection I told him he could move it.
We can have the other motion afterwards?
CATHAOIRLEACH
Of course.
A show of hands was taken, the Seanad being equally divided.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Having regard to the fact that the passing of the resolution in the original form can have no possible effect on the coming Budget, I will give my vote in favour of the amendment.
Amendment declared carried.
Division.
CATHAOIRLEACH
The Senator is late. You were entitled to call for a division, but you are late now.
The count is wrong.
CATHAOIRLEACH
You are also too late for that.
Motion, as amended, declared carried.
The Seanad adjourned at 5.35 until Tuesday, March 30th.