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.
Immature Spirits (Restriction) Bill, 1947—Second and Subsequent Stages.
There are a few points on this Bill in reference to which I should like to have some information. I am not an authority on the subject and, therefore, I shall concern myself with only two or three points. In the first place, the Bill provides for the re-enactment of the 1915 Act. I cannot see the purpose of that provision in the Title, inasmuch as the Schedule provides for the repeal of the whole of the 1915 Act. It seems to me most ambiguous to commence your Title by saying that the Act has for its purpose the re-enactment of a statute which was passed by the British Parliament in 1915 and then, in the Schedule, to proceed to repeal the whole of that Act. I do not suppose it makes much difference. To me, it does not seem obvious that there is a difference but I cannot understand the procedure followed unless there is, in fact, some difference. I should like if the Minister would clear up that point and tell us why he describes this as an Act to re-enact something else which is being totally repealed.
I looked at the 1915 Act and I find that Section 3 provides that, where any existing contracts were interfered with by that Act at the time of its enactment, the contractor was, to the extent of such interference, to be relieved therefrom. It would be interesting to learn why no similar provision is made in this Bill to relieve the party to a contract from any obligations imposed by the contract which are interfered with by the enactment of this Bill. I do not know whether or not such contracts can legally exist at the moment but it was contemplated that such contracts could have existed in 1915 when the first of these measures became law. Provision was, accordingly, made to ensure that there would be no interference with such contracts. I am anxious to learn why a similar provision is not included in this Bill.
The third point with which I am concerned arises on the definition section. We carried on for many years with the statute made in 1915, as amended in 1926. Neither of those statutes contains a definition section in the sense of Section 1 of this Bill, which defines foreign spirits, Irish spirits and spirits. These expressions are not defined in the Act of 1915, which is being reenacted, with temporary modifications, in this Bill. It may be that the Revenue Commissioners have some reason for inserting these definitions but, if the House is asked to agree to the enactment of this Bill, it should be told the reason for the insertion of these definitions and what their significance will be in the application of this Act to the warehousing of spirits, as distinct from the law as it stands. These are the only points in which I am interested at the moment. I do not want to elaborate them and I put them in the form of questions to the Minister so that he may clarify them.
I am not aware that there is any particular reason behind this little Bill. So far as the trade in the country is concerned, there is no necessity for it. It is a very bad principle to commence by lowering the standard of quality of spirits sold here. By bringing out spirits at an immature stage, the standard of quality is lowered. There is no necessity for this step, as rum is extremely plentiful all over the country and there is very little demand for it. It bears about the same relation to whiskey as coffee did to tea when tea was very scarce and coffee was very plentiful. It was almost an insult to offer coffee to anybody at that time and it is almost an insult to offer rum to a person now. I made it my business to visit a number of persons in the trade. In case the Minister should be under a misconception, I hasten to add that my visit had no other purpose than to elicit information regarding this Bill. The general idea is that there is plenty of rum in every retail shop. Why the Bill is introduced, I do not know. There may be some reason for it which is not visible to the naked eye. There is no necessity to lower the standard of rum by taking it out at an immature age. I think that the Minister should, at least, reserve to himself the right to refuse to allow it out unless a case is made and it is proven that there is necessity for such removal. Rum should be allowed to mature for five years unless it is proven to the Minister's satisfaction that there is a real necessity for its release.
It was at the request of the trade association that this Bill was introduced and for no other reason. They say, and the stock position proves, that while there is a fair amount of three-year-old rum in stock and to be purchased in the country, the same amount of five-year-old rum is not available. That aspect of the Bill is temporary and I do not think that it will do any particular harm to sell rum for a couple of years, while it is scarce, at three years' maturity. At least, that was what I was informed. Now, in regard to Senator Duffy's points I want to say that this is a consolidation Act. Many members of the Dáil and Seanad have, for years, been urging Ministers to consolidate. I agreed with the suggestion that we should consolidate the small bit of law that relates to immature spirits but when doing so I did not undertake to study all the past Acts of Parliament that were to be consolidated and I have not the slightest intention of doing so. I am responsible to the Seanad for what is proposed in this Bill. What it does is, first of all, to define what are foreign spirits and what are Irish spirits, and what are warehoused spirits, and it then goes on to restrict delivery for the purposes of human consumption of immature spirits. That will be the whole law relating to immature spirits in the future. Whatever was in the 1915 Act that is not in this particular Bill will no longer be the law.
There was nothing in the 1915 Act that is not in this Bill.
This is the Parliamentary draftsman's attempt at consolidating the whole law, and as Minister for Finance I am satisfied that there is sufficient law relating to immature spirits in this Bill. I think there will have to be some procedure other than having a Minister swotting up the whole of the law to be consolidated when the laws in general are being consolidated. I do not know whether the Taoiseach discussed this here with the Seanad. I think he did. Proposals for procedure in relation to consolidating the law will, at any rate, be put before the Dáil and Seanad if they have not already been consulted about it. This particular Bill consolidates what we want. I think it is a straightforward business.
When is it proposed to take the Committee Stage?
Mr. Hawkins
Now.
I object to the Committee Stage being taken now. I asked three questions and I got an answer to none of them. I asked the Minister why the Bill proposed to re-enact a statute which was to be repealed by the Act itself? He tells me it is a consolidating Bill but there is nothing to be consolidated. There are two short Acts, one a short Act of the British Parliament of 1915 and the other a short Act of the Oireachtas of 1926. I asked the simple question, why the Bill proposed to re-enact something which is being repealed and I got no answer. I also asked a question regarding the safeguarding of contracts. I do not know if there are any contracts. I may be told there are none and I am quite satisfied if there are none. But I do know that in previous legislation provisions were inserted to safeguard existing contracts. This is omitted from this Bill and I want to know why. I have not been answered. I also referred to definitions. I want to know why these definitions are inserted in this Bill when they were not inserted in the previous legislation. Until these questions are answered I cannot agree to the next stage being taken.
Senator Duffy must not have been listening to the Minister when he made his statement. The Minister explained that this Bill was introduced for the purpose of allowing rum to be let out which has not been more than three years in a warehouse.
What are we on now?
The Minister explained that they were taking advantage of the fact to make this a consolidating Bill. I do not know what Senator Duffy's point is. Because we are re-enacting something in the previous Bill he objects to it.
I merely asked a question.
I think the Minister has answered the questions very fully.
Is there any urgency in this matter?
Only that it is not worth talking about. I am busy and I do not want to be trooping back up here for the next two or three weeks, if it can be helped. I am not interfering with the law of contract. There is nothing in this Bill about contracts.
Will the Minister look at the safeguard in the 1915 Act? There is nothing about it in this Bill.
I am not repealing anything in relation to the law of contract. When we make the law it will be as inserted in this Bill.
I am aware of that.
If the Senator is aware of that I think he is unfair, certainly it is the wrong procedure. Senator Duffy is one of the men who are always talking about consolidation. If he wants consolidation, I think, at least, he should apply his mind to this statement: this is going to be the law in regard to immature spirits and there is nothing in it about the law of contract. There were certain things in the 1915 Act that were temporary and do not run on over into this Bill. The definitions that are here are those of the Parliamentary draftsman. I am not the Parliamentary draftsman and I do not know why the Senator refers to this Bill as re-enacting some other Act. All the Acts in relation to immature spirits are being put out of effect and when a lawyer wants to know the law in the future he can see that he has no business going back on those other Acts of Parliament, that they were wiped out and that the whole law in relation to immature spirits is here and that whatever was contained in the 1915 Act or the 1926 Act is now null and void. I think that is a reasonable explanation.
I do not know why the Minister should get into bad temper about Senator Duffy's questions.
I have not.
The Minister answered at least two of Senator Duffy's questions in his last statement. It is not my business to explain Acts of Parliament, but I do object to the notion that Ministers and members of the Oireachtas must accept a Parliamentary draftsman's idea. We cannot take him on faith and, indeed, I have heard the Minister in rather faithless mood on Parliamentary draftsmen on occasions. It is wrong for the Minister to state that this is the Parliamentary draftsman's definition and that we must accept it.
That was a very preliminary statement of mine to the explanation which I gave here.
If he was not giving you what you wanted you would send it back to him very quickly, I hope.
Is it agreed that we should take the Committee Stage to-day?
I will give Senator Duffy some information myself, on the Committee Stage, if he agrees.
Very well, on those conditions.
Agreed: That the Committee Stage be taken now.