Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 1 Mar 1950

Vol. 37 No. 8

Irish Whiskey Bill, 1950—Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The purpose of this Bill is quite simple and clear. The method of arriving at the objective may seem a little bit roundabout. The distillers had represented for some years back that a definition of Irish whiskey is required in order to safeguard the name of Irish whiskey at home and abroad. Speaking in Dáil Éireann on the Financial Resolutions last year I indicated an intention to include a definition of Irish whiskey in the Finance Bill of 1949. It was, however, then pointed out to me that by including any such definition I might bring about a result that certainly was not intended, that I would find my Finance Bill of last year was not a Money Bill, and that the Seanad would have more power over it than they were entitled to. I decided then to segregate this morsel and to leave this in itself to the Seanad for whatever it liked to do on it.

The piece of legislation is contained in one clause. It says that, for the purpose of a particular section of Section 105 of the Spirits Act, 1880, two things are to happen: that spirits described as Irish whiskey are not to be deemed to correspond to that description unless they have been obtained by distillation in the State from a mash of malt and cereals; and that spirits described as Irish pot-still whiskey shall not be deemed to correspond to that description unless they have been obtained by distillation solely in pot-stills in the State from a mash of cereal grains such as are ordinarily grown in the State, etc. The effect of these two sub-sections is that if and when a permit or certificate having a description of spirits is sought, whatever may be the other requirements called for, these additional requirements are now imposed. No certificate or permit can contain a description of spirits described as Irish whiskey unless it is clear that they have gone through either of these two processes. The Spirits Act of 1880 has a subsection—(9)—of Section 105, as follows:—

"If any question arises as to the accuracy of the description of spirits in a permit or certificate, the proof that the spirits correspond to the description shall lie on the owner or claimant of the spirits, who shall prove the same by the oaths of two credible witnesses, being skilful and experienced persons competent to decide by examination thereof."

On that are imposed these extra requirements that spirits are not to be described as Irish whiskey unless they have been obtained by distillation in a particular way or, as Irish pot-still whiskey, unless they have been obtained by distillation in another way.

The permit or certificate that was given has nothing to do with export. Yet this description is required, according to the distillers, for the purpose of safeguarding Irish whiskey abroad. The way it will work is this: On the transfer of whiskey inside the State from, say, one bonded place to another, a permit or certificate may be looked for. Under the new conditions, that permit or certificate with the description of Irish whiskey will not be given unless it corresponds with what is in this new piece of legislation but, once the certificate is given hereafter, when that whiskey comes to be exported the people who get the whiskey on the export market will know that in its passage inside this country it has had to pass that test and that it has been so described and, therefore, that it has been obtained by distillation in either of these two ways.

Will that be borne out by the taste or some guarantee?

That is a technical matter that I would not like to be too accurate upon. We have been told by the whiskey distillers that this meets their requirements. They fortify us in their contention by pointing out that years ago the Scotch distillers wanted Scotch whiskey defined and got a provision in an English Act corresponding to this, the necessary changes having been made. We have consulted the Department of Industry and Commerce, who agree that this is all right and, finally, in the last resort, we did consult Ceimicí Teoranta, who agree that it will even pass their scrutiny.

Apparently, we have all the technical people on our side in this matter. I am not technical. I do not know. I put it forward on their advice.

One might sympathise with the Minister in bringing forward a Bill of this kind because some of us at least might feel that, in order to give a certificate of Irish whiskey to satisfy Senator Colgan, one would require a taste for it. There are one or two points that I would like to ask the Minister to clarify. Spirits described as Irish whiskey shall not be deemed to correspond to that description unless they have been obtained by distillation in the State from a mash of malt and cereals. Is there any qualification as to what the mash of malt and cereals is to be? We are all anxious, of course, that Irish whiskey, or any Irish product, particularly if it is to be sold abroad, should be the genuine article.

There is another point to which I should like to direct the Minister's attention. A system has grown up in this country of blending whiskies. Have the authorities power to control the blending of whiskey at the present time? I have been told that it is possible for blenders to purchase whiskey three years old and seven years old and to blend it and sell it as ten-year-old whiskey. When we are taking measures to safeguard the export market, we should also take measures to safeguard the home market.

Captain Orpen

I should like to ask the Minister, with reference to this short Bill, what is the real meaning in the definition of Irish pot-still whiskey where it says "distillation solely in pot-stills in the State from a mash of cereal grains such as are ordinarily grown in the State". It seems to me that in putting in that section there is, for some reason or other, an attempt to avoid saying what shall be put in or to define it specifically. What grains are ordinarily grown in this State? Can we claim that you might make a pot-still whiskey from corn? Can we say you can make it from rye? There is a small quantity of rye normally grown in this State. Of course, most Irish whiskey contains a small percentage of rye but it is not a rye whiskey. Would not it be safer and more advisable to state what is ordinarily grown in the State?

This seems to be a rather roundabout way. Reading between the lines, I conclude that it is to preclude a whiskey made from potatoes. It says "cereal grains" but the phrase "ordinarily grown in the State" seems to me rather vague and it certainly, in my opinion, might allow one to produce a rye whiskey.

In this we are amending an Act of 1880, that is, we are amending legislation passed 70 years ago and not passed by this Parliament. Is there anything in that Act of 1880 that imposed a penalty for a wrongful description, for a misdescription, for passing off something that is not Irish whiskey as Irish whiskey? If there is no penalty for wrongful description, the mere tightening up of a definition of what is Irish whiskey will be of little use. We cannot enforce it in America, where we are expecting to export whiskey. Is there any way in which we can insist that nothing will be described in America as Irish whiskey except something that complies with this Bill?

I know very little about whiskey. I only get it when I have pneumonia and that, fortunately, is seldom. We are defining Irish whiskey. We are defining it in order that we may issue a certificate. That does not prevent something that would not comply with this Bill being sold as Irish whiskey without being labelled as Irish whiskey, being substituted for Irish whiskey or just being sold as whiskey. In an American paper recently I saw an advertisement. "Irish Type Whiskey" advertised for sale and the word "type" was in very small type. If there is to be Irish whiskey which must comply with the definition I should like to ensure that anything which does not comply with that can be dealt with either here or in the export market. I suppose that we can rely on our representatives abroad, if anything is put on the market which does not comply, that it will be immediately announced and denounced.

I was only going to ask the Minister if there was any possibility that "poitín" whiskey would come within the definition in the Bill. It is a very ancient Irish industry, as Irish as the ceanabhán, so is there any possibility that it could be claimed for export purposes to comply with the provisions in the Bill?

Níl fúm cur síos ar scéal an uisce beatha ó thaobh na teicniciúlachta, ar phoitín, pot-still, patent nó rud ar bith eile, ach theastuigh uaim ceist nó dhó a chur ar an Aire mar gheall ar na sain-mhínithe atá anseo. Faoín gcéad sain-mhíniú an bhféadfaí uisce beatha déanta de sheagal a dhéanamh i nÉirinn agus a dhíol mar uisce beatha Éireannach? An bhféadfaí uisce beatha a dhéanamh ar an nós Albanach—is dóigh liom go dtugann daoine go coitianta "patent whiskey" air—agus a dhíol faoin téarma "uisce beatha Éireannach?" Mar adúirt an Seanadóir Ó Fearghail, an bhféadfaí poitín a dhéanamh agus a dhathú mar a dathuightear an t-uisce beatha eile agus a dhíol mar uisce beatha?

Nach uisce beatha é?

Seadh, is uisce beatha é cinnte, ach amháin nach ndéantar é faoi údarás. Sin é an difir mór. Ach dá bhfaigheadh daoine cead poitín a dhéanamh faoi údarás, an bhféadfaí é a dhíol mar uisce beatha Éireannach? Más féidir, ba cheart an Bille a leasú agus iallach a chur ar dhaoine tuairisc chruinn a thabhairt ar an uisce beatha; más seagal an príomh-ábhar as a ndéantar é ba cheart go dtiúrfaí "uisce beatha seagail Éireannach" air. Más "patent whiskey" é ba cheart go n-abrófaí "Irish patent whiskey."

Taobh amuigh dhe sin ba mhaíth liom go n-inseodh an tAire dúinn an bhfuil aon uisce beatha ar an margadh faoi láthair dhá dhíol mar uisce beatha Éireannach nach bhfuil do réir an sain-mhínithe i mír (a).

An dara ceist ba mhaith liom a chur ar an Aire; an eol dó go bhfuil aon deacracht ar an margadh taobh amuigh den tír do na déantóirí Éireannacha mar gheall ar thuairisc mhícheart a thabhairt ar uisce beatha? An bhfuil uisce beatha dhá dhéanamh i dtíortha eile agus dá mheascadh beagán le huisce beatha Éireannach agus dhá dhíol mar uisce beatha ó Éirinn? Má tá sé sin amhlaidh an eol dó aon slí nó seift a bhféadfaí teacht suas ar na daoine atá dhá dhéanamh agus an scéal a chur i gceart?

Is léir go bhfuil riachtanas leis an sain-mhíniú. Bhí an cheist ós ár gcómhair roimhe seo. Is cuimhin liom an iar-Aire Tionscail agus Tráchtála ag cur na ceiste ceanann céanna os ár gcomhair sa Teach seo agus dúirt sé go rabh gá le sain-mhíniú don uisce beatha Éireannach le fada, go raibh tábhacht leis ó thaobh na trádála, go mór mhór i dtíortha coigríocha.

Two points which are not too technical are puzzling me; why do the paragraphs differ so much? In paragraph (b) pot-still whiskey is described as being obtained by a distillation solely in pot still in the State from a mash of cereal grains such as are ordinarily grown in the State. That, I presume, is designed to exclude such other starchy sources as were referred to by Senator Orpen. Paragraph (a) is much shorter and I wonder does it give a loophole to a distiller who wishes to include some other source of sugar in the distillation. It would be necessary to say "obtained by distillation in the State exclusively from a mash of malt and cereals." The fact of having cereals knocks out other things although it does not prevent the use of cereals which are imported. Why is it omitted in the first section and made more explicit in the second? We should insert the word "exclusively" before "a mash of malt and cereals."

Senator Séamus O'Farrell raised the point of penalties. There are any number of penalties under the Act of 1880. It provides for a penalty of £500 where "any person sends out, delivers, removes or receives any spirits...differing in...denomination...or strength from that expressed in the permit." There is a penalty of £500 where "any person who, having obtained a permit does not send out the spirits...." There is £500 penalty for a person who "uses a permit for any purpose other than that of accompanying the removal and delivery of spirits therein described". In another section of the 1880 Act there are further penalties where "any rectifier, dealer or retailer sends out, delivers or receives any spirits accompanied by an inaccurate certificate". I thought for one moment that the Senator had as his real quarry the publican who sells across the counter something which is not of the nature described. That is not a matter for the 1880 Act but for the Food and Drugs Act.

Not the scrap iron Act?

No. It makes it an offence if a customer does not receive an article of the nature, quality or substance of the type requested by him. According to the Act of 1879 "in the case of a complaint regarding the quality of whiskey, a vendor shall be regarded as having met this obligation if it is established that the spirits sold were not of lesser strength than 25 degrees under proof." It would probably be very hard to get a prosecution brought under the Food and Drugs Act where the complaint was that a person had asked for Irish whiskey and had not got Irish whiskey.

I do not know whether some Senator raised a point regarding young whiskey being sent out of the country. There is a special Act, the Immature Spirits (Restriction) Act, 1947, which prescribes the age for home consumption, but no restriction exists as regards exports.

Regarding these two definitions, I answer questions put on them with a good deal of diffidence. If I take paragraph (b) of Section 1 as first proposed, it confines the matter in this way: whiskey may only be described as Irish pot-still whiskey if the spirits are obtained by distillation solely in potstills in the State, and if they are from a mash of cereal grains such as are ordinarily grown in the State. Those grains, as Senators know, are barley, wheat, rye and oats, and they are required to be fermented in a particular way. As far as the definition of Irish whiskey itself is concerned, it is simpler than the definition of Irish pot-still whiskey because it is not intended to be so restrictive. The main point in the first paragraph is that the spirits must be obtained by distillation in the State. So far as the cereals are concerned, they may be imported cereals. The phrase in section (b) is left out and the section is not restricted to spirits obtained from a mash of malt and cereals grown inside the State. I am advised that Irish whiskey could be a blend of Irish pot-still and Irish patent whiskey, but it could not be a blend of Irish pot-still and English or Scotch patent whiskey. The blend is permissible only under the description of Irish whiskey and whatever is blended must correspond to the definition in section (a) "distillation in the State".

What about rye whiskey? It could be produced here also.

If the spirit could be produced from rye whiskey by distillation in the State it could pass as Irish pot-still whiskey.

But if the grains are grown outside the State, could it be sold as Irish?

Yes, if it is distilled in the State.

Would it not be a better phrase to have it described as Irish rye whiskey?

Is rye whiskey a mash of malt and cereals?

I am afraid I do not know what the Senator's brew is.

There are whiskeys on the market some of which are described as Scotch and others described as rye, as there is a well-known Canadian rye whiskey. I do not know, I am not an expert—but under the section as I see it, it will be possible to bring in rye here and make it to the formula of Canadian rye whiskey and sell it as Irish whiskey. I was wondering if it could not have a better description, but I suppose if the distillers are satisfied with it, it is good enough, although it seems to me that it would be very much better if we faced the issue and described it as Irish rye whiskey, just as if whiskey is made after the Scottish formula, we would describe it as Scotch whiskey; or if it is patent whiskey, we would describe it as Irish patent whiskey and leave it at that. It seems to me to be unsatisfactory that any whiskey may be described as Irish whiskey.

These are all technical matters, which I am not prepared to go into at the moment. What we have put in the Bill suits the distillers. It was at their request this measure was brought in. They made the request many years ago, and I agreed that I would bring in a section in the Finance Bill corresponding to the views put before me. If there are other points, we can easily leave it over and have them looked into. There is no doubt that what Senator Hawkins spoke of can happen. The Scotch type may be made here and made from imported grains, but being made here of the patent type it will then properly pass under the description of Irish whiskey. The distillers are content with that.

I think it could have serious consequences.

I should like to put a question. When I referred to the blending of whiskey I referred to it as blending for home consumption, and I would like to have an assurance from the Minister that the suggestion I put forward was not possible—that is, that he can blend a three-year-old whiskey with a seven-year-old whiskey and sell it as ten-year-old whiskey. I would like to be safeguarded against that.

I hope the Minister will adopt the suggestion that he should not force this too quickly. I have been assured by a responsible distiller that this Bill is what they believe they want. It does not always follow that what they think is a good draft is a good draft, and I would like to show them a report of this debate.

I would like to have it read by some members of the trade so that they can study the points that have been made here. It is only a matter of a couple of weeks. If this measure were adjourned for a fortnight, we would have the report ready and I personally would like to show it to some members of the trade to see if there is anything in it from their point of view. I am impressed by the suggestion that the word "exclusively" be put in it, but I do not know enough about it myself.

There is no objection whatever to holding it over and if the Seanad desire it, I would not dare to make any objection. The position is that we have consulted the distillers. As the Senator has said, they may have a different view when they see what has been said here. As to the point raised by Senator Hawkins regarding three-year-old whiskey, I do not know where a publican could get three-year-old whiskey, and if the Senator knows one or more, I would be glad if he would let me know who they are. If they have three-year-old whiskey they are committing an offence. A person may export three-year-old whiskey, but if he is using it here, he ought to be advertised immediately.

Seeing that the Minister assures us that it is not possible to get three-year-old whiskey, is it not possible to get five-year-old or seven-year-old whiskey blended with another seven-year-old whiskey and sell it as 15 or 20- year-old whiskey?

What do the tasters say?

I asked the Minister while I was speaking whether there is any whiskey on the market at the moment not coming within the definitions under (a) or (b)? Is there a problem already there for the distillers?

I am afraid my attention was distracted when that question was put.

The question was whether there is on the market a whiskey which does not correspond with the definitions in the Bill.

But is called Irish whiskey?

I do not know of any. At all events, the request was made by the distillers that we should give them a description of Irish whiskey, when it was exported. That was their main difficulty.

Question put and agreed to.
Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 15th March.
Top
Share