Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 15 Mar 1950

Vol. 37 No. 11

Irish Whiskey Bill, 1950—Committee and Final Stages.

SECTION 1.

Captain Orpen

I move amendment No. 1:—

In paragraph (a), line 24, to delete "and" where it occurs secondly, and add "derived from cereals grown in the State; and".

Presumably, the main objective of this Bill is to define the name "Irish whiskey" for the export market. That is a very laudable and a very desirable object, but one wonders why the sole limitation in paragraph (a) should be the location of the distilling plant. That is one limitation—it has to be in the State. The second limitation is that the whiskey must be obtained by distillation from a mash of malt and cereals. The purpose of my amendment is quite clear. The processor, the distiller, may be interested in having the advantage of the name "Irish whiskey" associated with his plant in this country, but it seems to me, more especially nowadays when it is popular to say: "Buy Irish"—and I believe this is one of the weeks in which we say "Buy Irish"—that the phrase should apply equally to the manufacturer. I suggest that some amendment in this form should be incorporated to ensure that the cereals used will be Irish grown cereals.

If one looks back at recent history, one finds that, say, from 1928 until the disturbance caused by the war, considerable quantities of barley were imported into this country. I do not claim for a moment that this barley was all imported for distillers' use, but considerable quantities were imported, and even since the war, if my memory serves me correctly, some sort of malt came from Chile in large quantities in 1937. It seems to me desirable, when this country can produce the necessary cereals for making Irish whiskey, that there should be incorporated in the definition not only the location of the plant and the nature of the mash but also the provision that the cereals should come from this country. Would I be in order in taking my three amendments together or had I better deal separately with them?

The first two could be taken together.

Captain Orpen

My second amendment is:—

In paragraph (b), lines 28 and 29, to delete "such as are ordinarily".

It seeks to delete this curious phrase which seems to be put in mainly for the purpose of excluding types of cereals which do not grow in this country. Why should we not specify the ones that do grow in this country? My purpose is the same here—that Irish pot-still whiskey shall come from cereals grown in this country. A time might come when it would be inconvenient for the distiller to be limited in that way, but it is interesting to note that, going back again to the inter-war period, the barley acreage from the 1930's went down continuously until the commencement of the war, with one small increase about 1936. The barley acreage is to some extent in inverse ratio to the importation of barley by the brewers and distillers. Price, of course, was the whole difficulty.

I do not know whether it is germane to the discussion, but there was a time when it was claimed that it was not possible to brew a satisfactory clear beer unless you used Californian barley which had ripened in the sunshine of California. The interesting point is that the very moment Californian barely became more expensive than the home grown barely, the brewers were quite able to produce a clear beautiful beverage made from barley ripened by the sun in this country. I maintain that it is all a question of price, and, that being so and our prices at present being comparable with world prices, I see no objection— if there are objections, I should like to hear them from the Minister—to extending the definition so as to ask not only the consumer but the manufacturer to buy Irish.

I support Senator Orpen's amendment which asks that Irish whiskey should be produced from Irish cereals. Whether that point is bound up with other matters, I do not know, but it is very important, if we are producing Irish whiskey and selling it as Irish whiskey all over the world, that it should be Irish whiskey in every shape and form and should be produced from Irish grown cereals. Large quantities of barley are left each year on the hands of the farmers and if the distillers were thinking as they ought to be thinking, they would be producing their whiskey from Irish barley rather than from imported malt.

I understand that the object of this Bill is to provide a measure of protection for Irish distillers in practically the same way as protection was granted to the Scotch distillers some time ago and to enable them to compete and to have the benefit of the name as the Scotch distillers have in respect of their whiskey. I do not profess to know the technical side of it, but I am reliably informed that the Irish distillers are at present using Irish cereals, but it seems to me that if we are to make a condition in permanent legislation, in which this protection is given, depend entirely on a given circumstance, so that it will become invalid in a year in which there might be a shortage, it would be a mistake. The proper method of protecting Irish barley producers in relation to distillers is by means of a tariff or some other measure which may be decided on year by year. I think it would defeat the main object of this Bill if we were to endeavour to deal with a matter by permanent legislation which can only be dealt with according to the circumstances from year to year. There might be an occasion on which it would be found to be necessary to import barley to maintain an important industry. We have to remember that what is produced this year is not for sale this year, and that in distilling Irish whiskey we have to plan now for seven years ahead. That is a very important fact which should not be overlooked. I think it would be a mistake if, in granting this request, which has been accepted all round as reasonable in principle, that we were to provide something in it prescribing that before any imported barley could possibly be used there would have to be new legislation. I think that would be a great mistake.

On the last occasion I expressed a doubt whether it was advisable to use the term "Irish whiskey" in the broad manner in which it is implied in this sub-section. I wonder to what extent the Minister has made inquiries as to whether there was any substance in the doubt I expressed? I understand that in the manufacture of Scotch whisky the main ingredient is maize. I do not know whether that is true or not, but I am speaking of patent whiskey as distinct from pot still. If it is true that whiskey can be derived from maize, then I do not know if there is anything to prevent anybody from coming into the country and establishing a distillery for the production of whiskey from that source. If it could be described as Irish whiskey, should we go further, visualising the possibilities, and qualifying the term "Irish whiskey" by some further adjective?

What does the Senator mean? What adjective?

For instance, on the last occasion I used the word "rye" where rye was the main ingredient. I raised the question whether if maize were to be the main ingredient, we should not stipulate that the term should be used, as well as the word whiskey, to indicate its main ingredients so as to avoid confusion and to make it clear to the public what exactly they were getting. It is true that this must be largely a matter for the people in the trade and as I do not see any amendment from the Minister, I am wondering whether he would be able to indicate to us that the position is satisfactory as it is and how he arrived at that conclusion.

The fact of the matter is that manufacturing distillers here in the main make whiskey from cereals grown in the country. Now and again, say, where the fruit of the harvest is either lacking in quantity or quality, they do import, but very rarely, and if they do import, why tie them down here to a particular amount distilled in a particular year by the use of a special term? The matter, as Senator Douglas says, can be met in another way. There is no abuse practised by the distillers. They do in the main procure the home grown product and it ought to be left to such time as people find that the products of the harvest here are not being used. That is my answer to the amendments tabled by Senator Orpen. Senator Ó Buachalla has raised a different point from what he raised on the Second Reading. I understood his question to be whether there was whiskey sold as Irish whiskey which was not in accordance with the definition of Irish whiskey—the definition covering all Irish whiskey legitimately produced in this country. It may be that there are other spirits which are being foisted off on the public as Irish whiskey. That is not attended to in this measure. It would be a matter for the Food and Drugs Act where people could complain that they were not getting the article of the quality and description they require. It might also be an offence under the Merchandise Marks Act but before I could say, I would have to have particulars of what the practice is. The Senator further asked us whether there was any whiskey produced by mixing, say Scotch, with some Irish and calling it Irish whiskey. Again that is an offence under the Food and Drugs Act, and I think it could be caught here. I think it would require some sort of analysis but I do not know whether some analysis would reveal the matter. On the point raised now as to the use of maize, it is not likely that pot still whiskey will be produced from maize.

Not pot still whiskey, but just whiskey.

I will have to consider that.

May I help the Minister? I realise that I can make no claim to technical knowledge of this industry and I am not expecting that he will have any very great technical knowledge of it either. He may have but I am not assuming he has. In effect, what I am really asking is: can whiskey be produced from various ingredients?

If that is so, would it be advisable that we should indicate the source of any particular whiskey in this description? That is what I have in mind.

In order to label a thing as Irish patent whiskey, maize or rye or whatever it is? I have been advised that what we are doing in the Bill is what the distillers require and that they are perfectly satisfied with the situation as it is. Nor have I heard a complaint from any consumer that he did not know what he was drinking, even after the event.

When this was before the Seanad, I said that I would like to send a copy of the debate to some representative distillers. I sent it to the director of one firm, who telephoned me and also wrote that he had consulted at least one other leading firm. They were definitely of the opinion that, while they appreciated the report being sent to them, it was better to leave the definition as it is.

I appreciate that it is the proper thing to have consultations with the parties mainly concerned. The Minister says the whiskey makers are quite satisfied with this, but on occasions we may have to go further than the parties directly concerned. This matter affects trade and commerce and is one on which the Department of Industry and Commerce may have something to say.

We consulted them.

If they are quite satisfied, that meets the case.

Captain Orpen

Seeing that the amount of barley taken by the distillers on the average amounts to only one-twentieth of the total output of the country, the likelihood of a shortage as envisaged by Senator Douglas will not arise and unless the quality can be proved unsatisfactory the distillers will continue their practice of taking malting barley from our growers. They have taken it in the past, on the whole, but one can envisage a time when some other country may have good barley cheap and we may have a return to dumping of Californian barley and the same claims made that it is better for this purpose. We should protect the distiller and the good name of Irish whiskey, but we should also protect, as far as we can, the growers of barley and the maltsters. The purpose of my amendment was to see if it was not possible to make Irish whiskey really Irish instead of merely something that was manufactured in Ireland. If I could get an assurance from the Minister, I feel that the growers of malting barley would be very much relieved.

I think it is preferable to have the name of Irish whiskey maintained, no matter where the barley is grown.

I support the amendment. When we are putting an Irish product on the market, it should be Irish through and through, particularly such an important item as Irish whiskey.

How many tariffed articles are there in which there is a demand that the raw materials come from Ireland?

That is where the raw material is not available in Ireland.

There are plenty where it is.

This is an industry where the raw material is produced from the soil here. When we export Irish whiskey, our kith and kin in America or elsewhere take it that they are purchasing whiskey made in Ireland from Irish cereals. The Minister has informed us that the distillers are quite satisfied. If he accepts that principle, all we have heard in recent years, about Irish industry building up to a standard, goes by the board and the only standard we must build up to is what the manufacturers themselves decide. That is what the Minister puts before us to-night in his argument that the distillers are quite satisfied with this Bill. Naturally they are.

As Senator Orpen has pointed out, by the loophole left in this Bill, they will be in a position, should the occasion arise, to beat down the Irish barley growers to a price. They can do that by buying imported barley, perhaps at a reduced price, and in that way sacrifice the Irish barley growers to their own advantage.

The Minister's other excuse is that we may hit on a bad year, when it may not be possible to get a sufficient quantity of Irish barley or cereals that may be required. Surely the Minister can take the Bill back from this House and on the Report Stage he can put into it a small section whereby he may take to himself the power to make regulations providing for such an eventuality as a bad year, or a bad harvest in cereal crops. It is no excuse to put forward the two points that he has for refusing to accept this amendment— that the distillers are satisfied and that we may hit on a bad year.

Does the Senator say those are my arguments? The argument I have always used is that they consistently use Irish barley and if they have any other scheme in mind we can defeat it by a different method.

By a different method?

By control. That is not the Senator's argument. It is that the whiskey distillers may use foreign barley. They do not, but they could. If they did, they could be stopped otherwise. This is not a protection measure. They do not want this amendment. They have a great industry for many years, a first-class industry, carrying on to the benefit of the community. Why should we interfere with them? There is no abuse at the moment and nothing to complain of.

If the Minister is satisfied that the manufacturers are always prepared and anxious to use Irish cereals, what difficulty is there in incorporating Senator Orpen's amendment in the Bill, to make assurance doubly sure and to satisfy not alone the distillers themselves but those who might like to keep the distilleries there?

Have there been any representations from these people that their stuff is not being used?

I have not heard of any.

You have.

I have not heard it then.

It has happened on more than one occasion.

I would like to hear of the occasions. The Senator is not very sure of his ground, I think, on this.

I would not be able to give day and date but I know it has happened in the past years.

Captain Orpen

1931.

How far back is the Senator going—to 1922?

Captain Orpen

I only went to 1928 and 1931.

From 1928 to date, there is one year mentioned.

Is not that sufficient?

It seems to me that the proposal in the amendment is to allow the barley in but to say that it will not be Irish whiskey when that barley is used. In my opinion, the proper way is to deal with the definition of Irish whiskey on its merits and to stop the barley coming in if there is a danger. The Minister and I do not believe that there is a danger but, if a danger arises, the proper way is to deal with it under an Act which will enable the Minister by a stroke of the pen to stop importation. To do it by saying that it may come in and will be sold but cannot come under this definition seems to me an absurd way of dealing with it.

When I first read Senator Orpen's amendment I was inclined to agree with it because I thought that we should encourage as far as possible the protection of Irish farmers. Since I heard Senator Douglas's speech, I am inclined to the view that it would be a serious thing to interfere with the industry to the extent that we would tie things up so that, in a bad year, when barley could not be harvested, the manufacture of whiskey could not continue or take its normal course. As has been pointed out by Senator Douglas, whiskey manufactured to-day cannot be used tomorrow. Some people have tried it and found their mistake. Whiskey must be allowed to mature over a long period. We should be very slow to interfere with the existing industry. We should be very careful not to take any steps which would restrict in any way the manufacture of whiskey as at present carried out. On the contrary, we should do whatever lies in our power to encourage the further development of Irish whiskey and the further export of Irish whiskey. I think it was Senator Hawkins who said that the people of Irish descent in America would like to feel, when they are drinking Irish whiskey, that it is the produce of Irish soil. That is so to a very great extent. I believe that Irish distillers are inclined to use Irish barley in so far as it is possible rather than to import barley.

My education in the whiskey business cost me a considerable amount of money. The Minister's lack of knowledge of the whiskey business amazes me though he was paid for learning something about the whiskey business. I am surprised he does not know more about it. In connection with the question as to whether it should be labelled pot still or not, I believe that provision should be made in a Bill of this kind to take the necessary precautions in regard to the development of the patent whiskey industry in this country. The Minister and some Senators will remember that during the discussion on the Locke distillery before the Tribunal the question was discussed as to what the intention of the potential purchasers of that distillery was. It transpired that they had an idea at that time to use portion of the product of the distillery for the manufacture of what is called patent whiskey and that patent whiskey can be produced more quickly and can be put on sale more rapidly than pot-still whiskey. If that could be done, our distillers should be encouraged to produce patent whiskey, provided it is good whiskey and provided that it can be matured to the satisfaction of experts—and surely we have plenty of experts, even in the Seanad, on whiskey. In that way we could increase sales.

I have been in a few countries. Anyone who has travelled in America and various parts of the Continent will agree with me that it is amazing how difficult it is to get Irish whiskey. I do not understand the reason for that. In practically any country one will find Scotch whiskey and, in some countries one will find Canadian rye whiskey and American rye whiskey. If we developed the rye whiskey business here, we could give considerable encouragement to farmers in the poorer districts to produce a crop which it would pay them to grow. I say that from the point of view of encouraging people in the poorer districts to grow a cash crop.

I do not know whether or not we should encourage the use of maize for the production of whiskey. I believe that whiskey can be produced from practically anything. We should leave nothing undone to ensure that anything in the nature of home-made whiskey—poteen—is not exported or that a mixture of that stuff is not exported under the label of Irish whiskey. If that is exported, our chances of building up an export trade in Irish whiskey would be ruined overnight.

I do not yield to anybody in my ignorance of whiskey. Unlike Senator Quirke, my education about whiskey never cost me anything. I never got any education about it. I would like to express my agreement with Senator Quirke in so far as he was talking about this particular amendment. I think he went into a wider topic at the end. What we are discussing here is a very old-established business. People have been in the business for centuries in some cases. They are people who have maintained, we are told by experts, a very high standard and, who, presumably, know their own business and who have no tariff, subsidy or assistance of any kind from the State. It is reasonable enough, when the State is subsidising or assisting in any way a particular industry that it should make conditions. That is not the case in this Bill. The State is giving no tariff, subsidy or assistance of any kind.

It is taxing them very heavily.

Whiskey is merely used by the State as a source of considerable tax and, when these people know their own business, we as a House of Parliament should be very loth to interfere with their business. They want this definition for their own trade purposes, which brings us in revenue in this country and, if they could capture the export trade such as Senator Quirke has spoken about and which I heard a good deal about last October in Canada and New York, it would bring us in dollars. They know their own business. We should let them alone. That is my impression and, most emphatically, we should not pass this particular amendment which, as Senator Douglas has indicated, does not mean assistance to the farmers but does mean that if foreign cereals are used the product will not be called Irish whiskey. The Minister has suggested, quite properly, that plenty of power exists, if we desire to use it at a particular moment, to prevent the importation of foreign barley. That is quite a different matter altogether. We are dealing with people who know their own business; they are highly successful in it and are not asking anything from the State. I think we should accept their views that this is the definition they want and not endeavour by this sort of amendment to tie them up to do something that is their normal practice already. It is dangerous to make enactments about people's private business. We may be trying to do good but it is not a good thing to do in this case or in any case if we can avoid it.

Although I was reared in a public-house I do not know an awful lot about whiskey but I could not support the amendment as it is worded because Senator Orpen uses the words "barley grown in the State". Ireland extends further than the State and if we used those words we would exclude what is proverbially very good whiskey, Coleraine whiskey from the Minister's own native town and the capital of my native county. That could not be regarded as Irish whiskey and Bushmills whiskey could not be regarded as Irish whiskey. I think we should remember in all our legislation that Irish soil covers the whole of Ireland.

I had no intention of intervening in this debate until I heard Senator Hayes saying very emphatically that the distillers were asking nothing from the State and that they have no protection or anything like that. As a matter of fact, the distillers are getting a very valuable concession from the State, a name which has the imprimatur of both Houses of the Oireachtas. Therefore, I think the members of this and the other House are quite entitled to express disagreement, if they feel like it, with the definition given by the distillers. Even granting that they may know their own business or that they have carried on a very successful business, in some cases for well over 100 years, the fact is that this Bill will give to them the right to use that name by law. Even the word “whiskey” is spelt differently from Scotch whisky and we are giving them the word “whiskey”. Everybody, therefore, is entitled to express his view as to whether he agrees or disagrees with this definition.

My first inclination, like that of Senator Quirke, was to support Senator Orpen's amendment, because primarily Irish whiskey is whiskey distilled in the main from barley grown in this country. I know that a certain small amount of rye and other cereals is used in this distillation, but in the main it is barley grown in this country. One thing which I do not think was adverted to is the possibility of the whiskey distillers in making their agreements with the barley growers being able to say: "If you do not agree to this price for malting barley, we will import barley" and there is nothing in this Bill to prevent that.

Before the Bill was introduced they could do that.

This Bill alters the position.

It does not. It is adding a new condition.

You may be adding a new condition, but you are giving the cachet“Irish whiskey” to certain products.

The cachet is there already.

Not by law.

It is, but we are adding a new condition. Does the Senator believe that you cannot get the name "Irish Whiskey" applied to a brew at present?

There are certain conditions.

Does the Senator know what they are? They are set out in the 1880 Act and there is nothing about where the stuff is grown.

The main purpose of this is to describe certain distillations as Irish whiskey.

It is not so. It is to add a new condition to conditions already existing before it qualifies for the description.

No matter what the Minister says, the fact is that Irish whiskey is a legal definition and if it is sold in America it will be known as a certain thing. Irish whiskey has been built up because it is entirely different from Scotch whiskey. There is absent from it the peaty taste which a lot of whiskey drinkers think a very great asset. It would be very wrong for us to sell on the export market an ersatz Scotch whiskey. We will stand on the merits of the whiskey which has been distilled here for over a century. It is for the House to give opinions as to how that can be maintained. I am not prepared to accept as 100 per cent. accurate representations made by the parties who are principally concerned and because the Oireachtas is giving the cachet, the name Irish whiskey, to something, I think we are quite entitled, despite what Senator Hayes has said, to express our views on that matter.

May I say that I did not ever say that the Senator was not entitled to express his views? I expressed my own view, for example, and I listened to other people expressing their view with the greatest possible calm. I recognise that everybody has the right to express his view, but I have also the right to say that we ought not to accept certain views. It is not a question of right but a question of expendiency. I am not an authority on whiskey, but I take it that we are passing legislation for public reasons, affixing this label and giving certain powers for public reasons, for the public good and not for the good of the distillers. We have the right to put in conditions; we have all kinds of rights, but it would be inadvisable for us to exercise all of them and I remain, Sir, unrepentantly of the opinion which I had before.

I have in the past accused Senator Hayes of numerous things and I am delighted when I hear anybody accusing him of anything provided the person can stand over his accusation, and I am very sorry to say that I cannot support Senator Hearne, although we have the right to express our views in this House on this or anything else. I will now proceed to criticise Senator Hayes. I was surprised that Senators Hayes, Ó Buachalla and Goulding did not suggest that we might be able to do something in connection with the export of whiskey to further the cause of the Irish language. I am quite serious about that. Anybody who knows anything about the whiskey business knows that when Irish whiskey goes abroad people get the bottle but do not see one word of Irish. One distillery in all Ireland puts a couple of Irish words on their bottle, and that is Locke's distillery at Kilbeggan. Other distilleries should follow their example and it would do good for the Irish language.

I should like to add my voice to the chorus of teetotallers who said that Irish whiskey was good enough to leave alone. We should leave it alone and I disagree with the speakers who said that we are conferring something new on the distillers. We are not conferring anything on the distillers. The reputation of Irish whiskey is there already. We are doing nothing by this amendment to raise the status of Irish whiskey or to give it a higher status in this country or outside it. What I object to in this amendment is, first of all, that it is an attempt to extend protection to barley for the benefit of the farmers under the guise that we are doing something to improve Irish whiskey. It is merely an attempt to guarantee protection to the farmers for their barley. It is brought in under a Whiskey Bill, and it has no connection with whiskey. There never was a suggestion that our whiskey was not up to standard and was not made from Irish barley, and there is no reason in the future to fear that it will not continue to be made from barley.

An amendment of this sort may give the impression that anything at all may go into the whiskey if the watchdogs of the Seanad were not present to watch the dumping of the material into the vats and stills. My great objection to all these things is that we are getting more and more into the idea of a police State. We are putting people to watch people all the day. The distilleries for hundreds of years have produced Irish whiskey, which anybody in Ireland who drinks, will drink, and which anybody abroad will be glad to get. It has never had a bad word said about it, and it may be suggested now that the rubbish of the pigs' feeding stuff may be turned into whiskey if the Seanad does not stop it. We, apparently, want more regulations so that more officials may be sent into every distillery to sit over the grain, to see when it goes into the vats, as well as when it comes out. I think when we have honest men engaged in industry that we ought to leave them alone and allow them to conduct their industry as they have done in the past.

That is the type of speech that brings this House into disrepute. No one who has spoken in my presence here has made any suggestion that hog wash was going into the making of whiskey.

On a point of explanation, I did not accuse any particular Senator of making it. Senator Hearne's nerves are on edge to-day. He is rather sensitive. I do not know why or what would be the cause of it. I say that this suggestion that we must watch everything going into the vat implies, that if we do not watch, anything may go into it. I did not say that the Senator or anybody else said that.

I have on many occasions given expression to the point of view that when a motion or Bill comes before this House every Senator has a duty to perform. He or she has the duty of giving expression to their views and if they feel very strongly on these views to try to get their colleagues to support them in giving full effect to whatever point of view they hold. Those of us who have spoken in connection with this Bill have not done so because we hold anything against the distillers. I know, just as well as any other Senator, the long tradition behind the manufacture of Irish whiskey but at the same time we are not so foolish as not to admit that there has been bad Irish whiskey just as there has been bad Scotch whiskey or any other whiskey.

The Minister in reply to Senator Hearne stated that everything he suggested was already there; that this Bill offered nothing as far as the distillers were concerned; that it did not give anything they had not got. One is forced to ask what really is the purpose of the Bill. Surely it does something. What was the necessity for its being introduced? I should like the Minister to explain one point. There is provision made here for a definition of Irish patent whiskey. I would like to know is there such a whiskey being manufactured here at the moment, or is it proposed that in the near future a whiskey of that nature will be manufactured, and that this Bill is making provision for the manufacture of such a whiskey.

There is no definition of patent whiskey in this Bill.

I thought you said there was.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Is the amendment being pressed?

Captain Orpen

With the permission of the House I desire to withdraw both amendments.

Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.

Captain Orpen

I move amendment No. 3:—

To add after paragraph (b) a new paragraph (c) as follows:—

Where the mash referred to in paragraph (a) and paragraph (b) of this section consists of more than 20 per cent. rye the spirit obtained by distillation shall be described as Irish rye whiskey and Irish pot still whiskey, respectively.

The amendment is itself explanatory.

May I ask the Senator, does he mean in the amendment that these should be described as Irish rye whiskey and Irish pot-still rye whiskey?

Captain Orpen

Yes.

The amendment is not in that form.

Captain Orpen

Ordinary Irish whiskey contains, the bulk of it, barley, and usually in or about 10 per cent. oats and 1 per cent. rye. That is the normal mash, I am given to understand. Whiskeys, such as Canadian rye whiskey, contain well over 20 per cent rye, and, as I understand it, the first paragraph of the Bill was obviously to exclude a corn whiskey or a whiskey made from any other starches than are derived from cereals. In other words, you are not going to make potato whiskey. This amendment of mine is merely to prevent the making of a rye whiskey, but if anybody thinks it is desirable that it should be designated as such, so that there would be no question of a new rye whiskey coming in to interfere with the well-known ones which are ordinarily made from a very small percentage of rye, in the neighbourhood of 1 per cent., well and good.

I understand now, that the Senator's amendment is, that if there is a percentage of rye of more than 20 per cent. that this word "rye" must appear in the name. It also introduces the principle that this description containing the word "rye" must be applied to whiskeys that come from brews that have, say, 21 per cent. There is no compulsion on any manufacturer at the moment to use any of these terms. In fact, a term used quite a lot is "plain home-made spirits". With regard to the suggestion that we might have rye whiskey made here, I think it would be time enough to talk about that when it happens. There is sometimes a small percentage of rye used, I understand, 2 or 2½ per cent., but nothing more than that.

I am told that the question of price would prevent the use of rye on any large scale, so I would ask the Senator to leave it over until it arises. With regard to the suggestion that any whiskey containing over 20 per cent. of rye should be labelled "rye whiskey" I think that would mean that we would have to have negotiations with other countries, because, under the United States Alcohol Administration, rye whiskey is defined as "whiskey obtained from a mash of not less than 51½ per cent. rye," and if we were to put out whiskey here with the description of rye whiskey, the Americans certainly would not accept it, and as most of the export we are looking for is to America, it would introduce an unnecessary complication. The provision is unnecessary from the point of view of the whiskey we are producing here. When we get to the production of spirits from rye, it will be time enough to come along with this amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 1 and 2 and Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Agreed to take the remaining stages to-day.
Bill received for final consideration and passed.
Top
Share