Finance (No. 2) Bill, 1947—Committee (Resumed) and Final Stages.

Question again proposed: "That Section 10 stand part of the Bill."

General Mulcahy

Section 10 deals with the increase in the tax on beer. According to the Budget statement, at the beginning of the year, the Minister for Finance expected to get from the tax on beer £4,819,000. That represented an increase of £1,800,000 over the amount of money obtained through the tax on beer before the war. The present proposal means that on the five months' consumption for this end of the annual period the Minister proposed to raise another £830,000. As has been stated by Deputy O'Higgins last night, and by other speakers when we were dealing with the tax on spirits yesterday evening, this is a tax that hits two classes of people particularly, including the ordinary workers, those people whom Deputy Corry yesterday thought were outside the spirit class and would be unaffected by a tax on spirits. It affects the consumer of beer and stout and the retailers of beer and stout. The position with regard to the country is, where the standard drink is stout, that the pint will now cost 1/1.

Deputy O'Higgins stated yesterday that a man will have to break into the second shilling if he is in the country and takes the standard drink of the country; in order to get one pint of stout he will have to break into the second shilling. The tax there is 6½d. The standard drink in Dublin is porter. You need not break into the second shilling to get a pint of porter. It costs 11d. and the tax is 5¾d.

The point has been made that in the working out of the new taxes a certain amount of discrimination exists between the beer consumer in the country and the beer consumer in Dublin, as the tax operates at the present time. The objection to raising the price of beer and stout has been put in a variety of ways. When the Government came into office they suggested that we should do with very little tea and we could substitute milk and light beer. It is providential for a lot of people that they did not change their taste in accordance with the desire as expressed by the Fianna Fáil Government at that time. If they had to take their beer in the morning and in the evening the cost of living would be raised very considerably.

The Government have indicated in various statements that tobacco was a thing that might be left out of the new cost-of-living figure. I do not know whether porter or stout will be left out of it, too. So far as the general run of workers is concerned, there is a substantial increase in their living costs when such a tax as this is put on a standard article of diet. So great has been the effect on consumption that I have had reports from various parts of the country and they show that there has been a fall of about 40 per cent.; various descriptions have been given of the trade in parts of the country which go to show that the imposition of this tax has been a great shock to consumers.

In 1944 the Minister for Finance, when making his Budget Statement, said that it was only then that the revenue from beer and spirits was recovering from the falling off in the consumption that had taken place when the increased taxation was imposed at the beginning of the war. He says in column 2128 of the report of the 3rd May, 1944:—

"The consumption of the former two items has shown rather marked expansion in the last 12 months, after some hesitancy in some earlier periods when the effect of the heavy increase in taxation was still being felt."

The position of wages generally hardly suggests at the present moment that, this year, or during the year in front of us, the consumption of beer, at any rate, is not going to suffer from the shock which it has just now got. I heard of one case in Cork of a licensed establishment which asked a Dublin establishment if they would take 30 barrels a month from them. Their consumption and sales had gone down so far that they asked a Dublin house to relieve them of the excess barrels to which they were committed. I understand that Guinness have declined to make any transfer of quotas of that kind.

The effect on the consumer is very great, but the effect on the retailers is very, very great too. The Minister indicated that as far as the tax was heavy on the consumer, he might escape it by reducing his consumption, and he is aware that the brewers are able to escape any losses or fall in profits by reducing the specific gravity of beer. The returns of the Revenue Commissioners show that between 1939 and 1946 the average specific gravity of beer has fallen by 13.2 per cent. I think that 1946 was the last figure quoted. I think that as a result of last year's harvest there has been a further reduction in the average specific gravity of beer. The brewers are able to shed their losses in that particular way but the losses which the retailers are likely to face as a result of the tax will be very considerable.

The Minister must be aware that the price paid for such licensed establishments, since the tax was announced, has fallen to a very considerable extent. There has been a substantial capital depreciation in the property held by the owners of licensed premises as a result of this tax.

The Revenue Commissioners invariably challenged the owner of a licensed premises when, in submitting his income-tax accounts, the gross profits were less that 33? per cent. The Revenue Commissioners expect that the average profits will be 33? per cent. This situation has been examined and it has been very clearly indicated from the audited figures that, with the additional tax now in force under Section 10, the gross profits of a licensed establishment are going to be substantially below that percentage.

I think it is generally held, if you take the case of an average licensed house in Dublin or in the country, that two-thirds of the sales are stout and beer. It has been figured out that for bottled Guinness the percentage of gross profit on the turnover pre-war was 42.64 per cent. After the imposition of the present tax, it is calculated that the post-emergency Budget percentage of gross profit on the turnover will only be 36.2. The gross profit on the turnover of draught double-X was pre-war 31.17 per cent. but the post-emergency Budget has reduced it to 23.6 per cent. The gross profit on the turnover in the sale of draught single-X has been reduced from 26.78 per cent. to 19.1 per cent.

The Minister has to take into consideration, as well as the burden placed on the consumers of beer and stout, that this emergency tax is hitting a certain class of establishment in the country that provides a very necessary service. There are something like 12,000 families dependent on the running of licensed establishments and this is hitting them in a very severe way. They are made to bear a substantial reduction in their trade on the one hand and a substantial payment of additional tax on the other.

These are two matters that he ought certainly to have taken into consideration and examined before the tax was put on. We have indicated that we consider these taxes an outrage on the people in the present circumstances. While that is the first case which has to be made in regard to the tax on beer, a very, very strong case can be made to the Minister to review the whole situation and remove the tax off beer if he can remove it off nothing else.

Mr. Heskin

I would like to appeal to the Minister to remove this tax, if possible, particularly the tax on stout and beer. In my opinion—and it is the opinion which has been expressed generally—this imposition is a grave injustice on a particular type in the community who drinks beer, not as a luxury in many cases, but as part of his diet. He should take into consideration the ordinary worker employed in the docks, the factories, coal stores, flour mills and all such places. In my opinion, everybody admits that porter is a part of their diet and that it is essential that they must have it. After a day's work confined in such an atmosphere, there is no getting away from the fact that porter is very essential as a food and as a refresher for people so engaged. The Minister would be wise to remove that particular tax, because it is a grave injustice.

Take the ordinary countryman who is not in a position financially, when he is having a refresher, to purchase high-priced spirits. He will usually take a bottle of stout or a pint of porter and the imposition of this tax is a very serious thing for him. He should take into consideration also the ordinary proprietors of those houses who have to carry on their business in the normal way and pay wages as well as any individual engaged in other industries or walks of life. The ordinary public house owner in rural Ireland, and even in the city, depends to a great extent on the sale of stout and beer. In my opinion, the volume of stout and beer represents at least three-quarters of their total business. By imposing such a heavy tax at the present time, the Minister must realise that he will be responsible for denying those people their ordinary living and that he is taking from them three-quarters of their livelihood. By taking it away from them he is ruining them. The workers at present cannot afford to pay this increased tax on beer and there is a danger that, particularly in towns, this tax may ultimately cause unemployment, because, as I have pointed out, three-quarters of the business carried on in these premises is represented by the sale of stout and porter and a falling off in this branch of the business may ultimately lead to a certain amount of unemployment. I ask the Minister to remove this tax, if it is at all possible, because it definitely falls on the poorer sections, on the workers engaged in factories, foundries and at the docks. It is a great injustice to them and it should not be imposed, if it is at all possible to avoid imposing it.

Mr. Hughes

I want to join with the other Deputies in protesting against this imposition. In view of the concern expressed by this Government for the poor man and their statements all over the country that they were the poor man's Government, that the poor man was their first concern, this represents a rather big change of attitude. Deputy Corry is perfectly right when he says that this tax affects the poor man more than any other man, but evidently Deputy Corry is not very much concerned because he is not interested in the discussion to-day. It is true that, in a great many cases, this is a standard article of diet, an essential article of diet, so far as the worker performing heavy manual labour is concerned. It is an energy-giving food. A man who expends a lot of energy must take something to build up energy. Take the case of the docker in the City of Dublin who has to work very hard for a long number of hours. To maintain his energy and strength, he gets the opportunity of going more than once in the day to have a drink of beer or stout and a sandwich of bread and cheese. He relies on these to maintain and build up his energy and he cannot sustain his energy if he cannot afford to provide these for himself. The Government apparently have overlooked that completely.

There must be some incentive for the worker, for the producer, for the class of people upon whom the whole country depends for its existence and for whatever wealth we possess, to give of his best. If we want to expand production, if we want to implement the terms of the agreement to which we have just listened, it ought to be part of the plan that there will be an incentive for the worker to work. The very few luxuries which workers in this country have, the very few, the negligible opportunities they have to enjoy themselves, surely these considerations ought not to be overlooked in relation to this tax. This, as I say, is not a luxury but an essential energy-giving food, and the masses of the people, the industrial worker and the agricultural worker when he draws his small wages and goes into the town on Saturday night, are at least entitled to a couple of drinks after a week's hard work.

I do not know what the Minister was thinking of, in view of his experience as a farmer, when he decided to deny this so-called luxury—I do not think it should be called a luxury—to the worker and when he decided to deny the right of the worker to what the House should agree is essential for a continuation of his efforts and for stimulating him to further efforts. The tax yield is very high and it surely must have reached saturation point, and, in fact, if the Minister does not know it already, he will be compelled to realise that it has gone beyond saturation point. I am sure that a large number of the Deputies here have been informed by people in the trade that there is a sharp fall in consumption. There is quite a lot of grumbling and grousing about it and quite a lot of discontent. The Minister must agree that discontent will not make for greater production. Discontent exists, and that discontent and objection to this proposal was reflected in the results in the recent by-elections. It seems strange in all this matter that the big corporations, the big companies which produce beer and stout, can avoid any loss by reducing the specific gravity of their product, while the small man, the small retailer in the country and the retail trade generally, cannot avoid loss. It is inevitable that their incomes will be substantially reduced. If there is, as has been suggested, a 40 per cent. reduction in consumption, it is a very serious matter for a big number of people in the retail trade. If the consumer, and the consumer is the worker, has to do with less beer, the retailer must make up his mind that he will get a smaller income. That is the result of this imposition and the result of failure to examine into what exactly its effects would be. It is hardly necessary to stress that the figure the Minister mentions may not be accurate, in view of variations in specific gravity, but that is a technical detail I do not want to go into now.

I appeal to the Minister to reconsider this matter. He may suggest that this imposition can be met by a man taking four drinks where he formerly took five. That is a very simple solution from the Minister's point of view. The Minister and people with high incomes can enjoy luxuries without any difficulty, but it is scarcely fair for the man who has not to count the shillings and pence to give that sort of advice to the man with the small income. It is poor consolation for the man with an income which affords him a very narrow margin for consumption of this sort to be told by the Minister: "There is a way out for you. You can meet this higher taxation by reducing your consumption." This Government has established one record in 15 years, that its greatest capacity is to impose taxation. They are continuing that record. They have an unenviable record in that they have been increasing taxation over the whole of their 15 years and they do not appear to have any concern for the repercussions of that taxation or the section of the community upon whom it falls. As a matter of fact, all sections have been burdened. Their policy is: "Get the money anyway and squander it then."

General Mulcahy

We ought to have the Fianna Fáil Party present to discuss this grave imposition on the poor.

Notice taken that 20 Deputies were not present. House counted and 20 Deputies being present,

Mr. Bennett

It is said that constant dropping wears away a stone. Perhaps the repetition of the arguments against this iniquitous imposition will, eventually, have some effect on the Minister and the Party behind him. Perhaps it will result in the abolition of the tax. I feel it incumbent on me to make the last effort it is possible for me to make on behalf of those I represent to have this damnable imposition removed. Much has been said during the debate against this tax and much more could, I daresay, he said. If I reiterate some of the things I have already said, Deputies on these benches, at least, will excuse me. Everybody who has spoken has referred —even Deputies on the Government Benches have done so—to stout as the poor man's drink. I do not think that any Deputy referred to stout, as partaken of by the ordinary labourer in city or country, as a luxury. Everybody who has spoken in the debate has referred to stout in very definite terms as a necessity for the worker. I asked the Minister on two occasions to point out where we were to draw the line between a luxury and a necessity in discussing this tax. The Minister has not answered that question. The only excuse he has offered is that anybody who does not want to pay the tax need not drink stout. This tax is also an imposition on traders in the city and country. Many of the 12,000 or 13,000 traders of this class are struggling to exist in the country towns. They are trying to make an honest living and some of us know that the living they get is not a very good one. This tax affects their capital investment also. They cannot get out of the business. As I understand, the capital value of licensed premises has, in the past fortnight, fallen 25 per cent. I do not think that that statement can be repudiated. This is an unjust imposition on decent traders—an imposition that has not been placed on any similar group of traders. However, it is mainly on behalf of the poorer people who cannot speak for themselves and who rely on their Deputies to speak for them that I wish to offer a few observations.

I repeat that stout is a necessity for the dock worker or any workers similarly engaged—those, for instance, who have to unload dusty commodities such as coal and grain. Even medical authorities admit that a bottle of stout is a necessity for such workers. It is also a necessity for agricultural workers who are sometimes engaged in very arduous work. On occasion, owing to climatic and other reasons, they have to help their employers by working long hours. That occurs, for instance, when hay is being saved in a period of bad weather. These men will work their hardest to save the hay on such occasions and it has been the practice in my county to give the men a bottle of stout at such times. I have always done it and my neighbours have always done it. When there is a likelihood of rain, these men put two days' work into one. Every Deputy on the Fianna Fáil Benches who has any experience of agricultural work knows that I am telling the truth when I say that. The employers of these men realise that they put two days' work into one and, since they are away from their homes, without food, and may be engaged on an outside farm when they would ordinarily be at home partaking of their supper, they are served with bread, butter or cheese and stout by the farmers. Is it likely that the farmers will be able to continue that practice? Will they be able to pay the 1/1 for stout so as to treat their labourers as they have been accustomed to treat them in the hay-saving season or while engaged at other harvest work? Everybody knows that they will not. Perhaps Deputy Walsh will be able to do it. I do not know whether or not Deputy Walsh has been undertaking in Mayo to give his men a pint of stout, or whether he is engaged in the trade.

Captain Giles

Poteen.

Mr. Bennett

My neighbours and I have been accustomed to treat our men in the decent way I have described and we hope to be able to continue to do so. There is also the effect on the labourer. Apart from the generosity of the farmer, the labourer, having engaged in heavy work, often stopped at the public house to have a pint of stout. If two men met together in the evening, they had two pints of stout. It was one of the little amenities they could indulge in. That will be no longer possible. As Deputy Mulcahy and other Deputies have pointed out, a man has to break a second 1/- to buy a pint, and when he breaks 1/- the rest disappears very quickly. He will have to break into the third 1/- to get a second pint. When this tax is in operation there will not be many repetitions of "the same again".

It has also been the practice of persons, when they were off duty and having some little relaxation, having travelled outside the three-mile limit, to walk into a public house for a bottle of stout. That applied to the ordinary labourer. It will be rendered almost impossible by this tax. Yesterday a Deputy on the opposite benches described the present life of the agricultural labourer and conditions in the country as being almost a paradise. He said that we were very free from the cares and troubles and temptations that exist in the city, that we live a sheltered life. I am not quoting his exact words but merely giving the theme of his discourse on the glories of rural life. I would suggest, Sir, that the country is not at all the paradise that was described yesterday by Deputy Allen. With all these increased costs it will be impossible for an agricultural labourer to provide himself with some of the necessaries that he and his family were able to have in the past. This will drive a further wedge between worker and employer. In the country there has been intercourse between employer and worker. Often I have gone to an outside farm and worked all day at the harvest or the hay, perhaps four or five miles from my home, with my three or four workers, and we stopped at the first public house we met and they had their three or four pints of stout and I had my lemonade, because I do not drink. It was a decent custom. It was a small treat for those men after their day's work. It harmed nobody as long as I or the other farmers could afford the expense, but it was something that brought the agricultural employer and his worker together, one of the things, that, perhaps, kept the number of people that are engaged on the land on the land. It is suggested that we ought to attract others to come back to live in the country. Will we attract them if we do away with all the things that used to contribute to a pleasurable existence in an ordinarily dull life, for it is a dull life in the country?

One does not regard drink now as one would have regarded it 25 or 30 years ago when, perhaps, drunkenness was more common than it is to-day. One sees very little drunkenness. I see none of it. I do not think I have seen a drunken man in the country for weeks before this Budget was introduced. When we speak like this, perhaps we will be attacked by temperance reformers as being in favour of the drinker. I do not think there will be anything in such an accusation. There is no such thing as drunkenness in the country or, if there is any drunkenness in the country, it is in a different class of people, some of the people that we are importing to this country, some of the people who are taking the place of decent people who had to leave the country. If there is any extravagant drinking it is in these people and it is not on a bottle of stout that they are getting drunk. Amongst the ordinary worker and the ordinary farmer there is no drunkenness. For ten to 15 years back, as far as I know, any stout that the farmer or labourer has taken has been more in the way of a necessary stimulant and sometimes, as has been suggested here, as a necessary adjunct to his mid-day meal, consisting of, say, a bottle of stout and a chunk of bread and cheese or butter.

This Budget removes one of the few luxuries of the ordinary worker. It is an imposition on the smallest traders in the country. It will make it almost impossible for them to earn their living.

It will prevent some of them disposing of their little trades because the effect of this tax will be to reduce the capital value of all such premises. I can only hope that constant agitation in this House and in the country against the tax, on every available opportunity —and there will be many opportunities of decrying this tax—will eventually compel the Minister for Finance and the Government on second thoughts to abandon it, if they cannot be persuaded to do so now.

Mr. Bourke

I realise that the Minister for Finance must collect taxes but I consider that the tax on the pint of stout, the working man's drink, should be withdrawn, if at all possible, and some other tax substituted. In many cases the working man's dinner consists of a pint and a piece of bread. The licensed traders have suffered very severely since this tax was imposed and continue to suffer. Many of their employees will be dismissed. If the Minister could substitute some other tax, it would be a great help to the licensed trade and a relief to the working man.

Mr. Anthony

So much has been said on this aspect of the Finance Bill that one cannot help repetition in this debate. To-day we listened to a most interesting statement from the Taoiseach. One note sounded through his statement and through his summary of the position. One thing emerged from that, namely, more production and still more production. In the last sentence of the paragraph relating to raw materials, the statement says:—

"The possibility of making available other supplies to enable our productive capacity to be fully utilised is to be examined in detail."

We see right there the advocacy of more production. That production bears a relation to the matter under discussion this afternoon and that is the reason why I invoke the aid of the Taoiseach, in this statement which he makes here, in order to induce the Minister in some measure to carry into operation the views expressed by various Deputies on the Opposition side and by some members of his own Party.

I cannot understand the mentality of a Deputy who strongly advocates a certain thing here, believing he is urged by his convictions, and who then goes into the Division Lobby and votes against it. As one who was kicked out of a Party because I voted according to my conscience—for that matter, they saw the error of their ways later—I would rather be kicked out of 55 Parties than outrage my conscience. I bring the Taoiseach's statement into this for a very logical reason. I believe many of the Fianna Fail Deputies are quite remote from what is occurring in the rural areas, as many of them are too urban minded and very few are rural minded. They have a number of farmers who live in rural areas, but they are as much detached from the ordinary man in the rural as many of the more urbanised people are in the city, when they come to form any real opinion on the lives and habits of those who live in the rural areas. Everybody conversant with the rural area will agree with me that, on a Sunday afternoon, after Divine Service in the Church, if there is a hurling match or a football match under the auspices of the Gaelic Athletic Association, as is mostly the case in the Twenty-Six Counties in rural areas, the village "pub" is the usual place of call. I have often been in the village "pub" and hope to be again. That is part and parcel of those people's lives.

I want to relate the question of more production to the physical capacity of the people to produce more. If we ask the agricultural labourer, our main producer but the worst paid worker in the community, to produce more, he will very soon tell us that he has to pay 1/3 for a pint of stout on a Sunday. The agricultural labourer, especially the man with a wife and children, cannot afford to have a drink every evening. It is only on a Sunday afternoon that he can afford a pint of stout, after a long, hard week's work, perhaps in rain and frequently in very tempestuous weather, more often than not scantily clad. I recollect very well a very severe season a couple of years ago, before boots became plentiful and relatively cheap, many a time a poor fellow had to work in conditions under which you would not ask a coolie to work. He did not become a revolutionary nor was he attracted to any of the subversive movements in our country to-day. The agricultural labourer and the industrial worker are the potential enemy of all law and order. I do not say this with the intention of provoking the Minister or causing any mild sensation, but knowing what I do about the reactions of these people to an impost of this character, I know that they do not care what Government is in power, they will be against that Government.

I can be answered by the Minister telling me that the Government knows it is doing something which may be unattractive but doing a very plucky thing in attacking one of the weakest members of the community. The acid test I would like to see applied to all the protestations we have here is that Deputies should be afforded an opportunity to vote for or against this measure. We are told we are very remote from anything like dictatorship or totalitarianism, but it appears to me to be the acme of totalitarianism when we see men compelled to troop into the lobbies time after time after making verbal protestations and public criticism and vote for what they have criticised. I do not like to see decent men jockeyed into a position of that kind and sent like sheep through the Division Lobbies.

Not alone is the labourer to be pinched under this, but he has also to pay a higher cost for everything he consumes than his brother has to pay in the northern part of the country. I bring that in because the Minister himself last week gave a list of figures to show that the prices of the essentials of life are higher here. I want to relate this to the cost of living of the rural worker and the city industrial worker.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are in Committee and confined to this section.

General Mulcahy

One cannot avoid touching on the background.

Mr. Anthony

I am bowing to the Leas-Cheann Comhairle's ruling. The Minister gave figures to show that the cost of living all round, even if some commodities are scarce, is greater here than it is up north, which is our own country, and added to that we are going to put an extra 3d. on the poor man's beer. There are other people who are relatively poorer. We hear a lot about the labourer and the man who is in a seasonal occupation, but there is also the white-collared fraternity to be considered. They find it very difficult to live—relatively as difficult as some of the underpaid rural workers, though it is not quite so bad. The man with £8 or £10 a week—which sounds very high to some people—and who is living in a city and wants to bring up his family as he was brought up himself, in some kind of frugal comfort and decency, has to pay high school fees and so on and he is not too wealthy on account of the impositions made by this Government. Now another imposition is added. I would like to join with the other Deputies in the appeal which they have made to the Minister, but I feel that it is hopeless and useless to do so because the Party machine will be put at work, the trumpet will blow and there will be a vote of two to one against. However, I feel that there is a fairly healthy atmosphere in relation to this matter. I would ask the Minister if he could see his way to remove at least a portion of the tax and give ear to what has been said by the Opposition, not because they wish to oppose but because they feel that they are only voicing the feelings and sentiments of those who elected them here on this particular matter.

Mr. MacBride

It would appear to me that there are two reasons which make this particular tax completely unjustifiable. In the first instance, the tax is introduced for the purpose nominally of reducing the cost of living. I think it will be admitted by anybody familiar with conditions in the country that stout or porter is a necessity for a number of persons engaged in hard manual work: that it forms part of their diet and can be classified as a practical necessity. If it is, then the only effect that the tax can have is to further increase the cost of living for those in respect of whom it is a necessity.

The second reason which, I think, makes this tax completely unjustifiable is one to which I referred previously. I thought it was an admitted principle of taxation that taxes should always be imposed, in the first instance, upon that section of the community best able to bear them. Porter, as far as I know conditions in the country, is consumed practically entirely by the low-income groups in the community. If I am right in my premise that porter is consumed by the low-income groups in the community, then this tax on porter is being imposed upon that section of the community least able to bear taxation.

On the Second Stage of the Bill I made certain suggestions as to other sources of revenue, and the Minister for Finance asked for suggestions as to how they could be operated. I suggested that taxation might have been put upon the tourist traffic. The Minister for Finance pointed out certain difficulties, and asked for suggestions as to how such a tax could be operated. I suggest three alternative methods to operate such a tax. Firstly, the tax could be imposed upon articles purchased by tourists here and taken away by them. In other words, when their luggage is being examined on their departure from the country, it would be a simple matter to levy a duty upon any articles purchased by them in the country. Secondly, a landing tax could be imposed upon tourists. I do not know whether it is in operation at present, but a landing tax used to be imposed in many continental countries.

France had a landing tax and so had Belgium, so far as I remember, and I think Switzerland has a tax on the entry of tourists. It need not be a big tax. Thirdly, a tax could be levied by means of stamp duty on the bills of all non-residents and non-citizens who stay as tourists in hotels. Such a tax is also imposed in a number of continental countries. These are three alternative methods whereby revenue could be raised from people who could well afford to pay the tax because tourists who come here from England— and I am not saying anything derogatory of them—are all people who are well able to pay a tax, people who would willingly pay a tax in order to be able to come here at the present time and escape from the restrictions imposed in England. They are usually the wealthier classes of the community in England who come here.

There is another method of raising revenue to which I referred yesterday, and that is a tax on the race-horse industry generally. I am not a racegoer myself, but I have frequently passed by the Curragh and other racecourses on days on which race-meetings were being held. I have seen there vast numbers of luxurious motor cars occupied by opulent-looking gentlemen who, I think, could well afford to pay a tax for their enjoyment at race-meetings.

Mr. Cosgrave

The more one examines this Budget, the more one is prompted to ask what did the Government intend to do? It is contended on behalf of the Government that the Budget was designed to subsidise, and thereby reduce, the cost of certain essential commodities. It is true that there has been a small reduction in the case of certain essential commodities. The most important item in the cost of living that has been reduced by this Budget is the price of bread—the 4-lb loaf—by 1½d. The price of tea has been reduced from 4/10 per lb. to 2/8, and the price of sugar from 6d. to 4d. per lb. In order to effect these reductions by means of subsidies, it has been necessary to raise an additional sum of over £5,000,000. Anybody would welcome a serious and real attempt to reduce the cost of living, but even since these proposals were introduced there has been a further upward trend. Supplies, in the case of two of these essential commodities which have been subsidised, are seriously curtailed, while the whole three of them are rationed. Bread is rationed, tea is rationed and sugar is rationed. It is a fact that in order effectively to operate subsidies the goods subsidised must be rationed. When one considers the low ration of tea and the comparatively small place that tea has in the family budget—the fact that while it is a widely used beverage it occupies a place in no way comparable to the place which bread occupies or, for that matter, to the place which meat should occupy—and when one considers the price and the quantity of sugar used in any household one is more and more driven to the conclusion that whatever this Budget set out to do it is a poor attempt at reducing the cost of living and that the added burdens on the community far outweigh any alleged benefits which the people in general are entitled to expect and which they should expect. It has even been stated by some Deputies during the course of this debate that there are alternative methods of taxation, that we could, by imposing other taxes, raise the same money. I would like to put it to the House that what we want here is not more or alternative methods of taxation but less taxation. What we want is not more taxation but less taxation. If the Book of Estimates is examined it will be seen that it is not a pruning knife that should be used but a slash hook to reduce the overall cost of administration and government in this country.

Quite recently, in the Central Bank Report, it was stated that one of the high contributing factors to the present cost of living and to the present inflationary situation is the high rate of Government and local expenditure —it is referred to as "National and Local Expenditure". The report went on to say that unless there was a drastic reduction in national and local expenditure there could be no diminution of the inflationary effects at present operating. This Budget is regarded as an attempt to reduce the cost of certain essentials, but if it is such an attempt I say that it is the weakest attempt possible. If one considers the reduction of 1½d. in the price of a 4-lb. loaf, the reduction from 4/10 per lb. to 2/8 per lb. in the price of tea and the reduction from 6d. per lb. to 4d. per lb. in the cost of sugar, which reductions are regarded as an improvement in the expenditure of the family budget on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the increase of 3d. a pint on beer and stout, the increase in the price of tobacco, the increase in the price of spirits, and the increase in stamp duty—to take the larger items in the added taxation group—and weighs one group against the other, I believe there is hardly a single household in this country, on the middle, lower or very low scale in the community, which would not say they were better off before the introduction of this Supplementary Budget. Ultimately its effect will be to reduce still further the standards of living of the people.

I cannot understand why a tax has been put on beer. It has been stated over and over again, and I think it still stands without any attempt at refutation, that the large majority of the workers in this country, particularly those engaged in either agricultural or hard manual labour, do not regard drink in the same light as other sections of the community regard, say, spirits or amusement of any kind. In the case of beer and stout it depends to a large extent on the individual and the type of worker as to what degree they may be regarded as part of his normal daily requirements and not as a luxury. It was the commonly accepted method many years ago in this city for dockers to be paid in the pubs. It is to the eternal credit of the late James Larkin that he broke that system. It had many evil results but while it had many evil results it was not altogether accidental that that method was adopted. Men employed on hard manual labour do require some replenishment of their strength. Men who expend energy to the extent to which dockers expend energy require some replenishment and some sustenance. Experience has shown that one of the most satisfactory methods of doing so, and one which up to the present was comparatively cheap, was beer and stout. Now that is being put out of the reach of many dockers and many manual workers. It is significant that, as far as one can gather, there has been a drop, in the City of Dublin, of 20 per cent. in the business of public houses since the imposition of this additional tax. Some people may welcome that state of affairs; possibly in certain areas there might be something in favour of a drop in spirit consumption. When one considers that the vast majority of the people in the City of Dublin who drink are workers who not merely regard the drink as a meal or as what goes with a meal but who are entitled to some little enjoyment at the end of a day or a week, one is driven to the conclusion that the drop in consumption of 20 per cent is exceedingly high. The drop in the country is even greater. Possibly, in Dublin, it would be greater than 20 per cent only that there is a large floating population. In many rural areas and in some of the small towns there is not the same floating population and the drop there, as far as my information goes, is as much as 40 per cent since this fresh tax was imposed. I cannot, having examined this carefully come to any conclusion as to why the Government introduced these proposals. Lately one hears a lot about austerity, and the term is becoming very common with Ministers. It is true that the British Government have, over a period, now adopted what has been known as an "austerity campaign". The greatest exponent of that policy is Sir Stafford Cripps. The members of this Government, or some of them, have recently been in England negotiating with the British Government. It appears to me that, whatever else they admitted the British Government did, it infected them with the virus of austerity because, since they came Lack one Minister after another has talked about nothing but austerity, about the tough times ahead and the hard future facing us. A few months ago we were told that the hard future might last for four years. Now, the period has been cut down to six or nine months. I do not know whether the austerity bug is one which can easily infect Ministers generally. Certainly this austere Budget will have a bad and depressing effect on production and on the general well-being of the community here. It is the first sign of a political foolishness on the part of the Government. It is economically unsound. The Government have always been characterised for their lack of soundness from an economic point of view but the virtue of a purely political folly is a new one for them. I only hope that it will spread. It is quite obvious that we cannot do much in this Parliament to alter the proposed new taxes but I hope that between now and early in the New Year I shall be able not merely to convince the people in the country but to convince the Government itself that this Budget is unsound from any point of view, whether one looks at it from the point of view of the household in general or the position the average worker occupies in the community and the effect this will have upon his general standard of living.

Mr. Cogan

We have travelled a long way since the Taoiseach in his first wild enthusiasm for self-sufficiency asserted that the people of this country should go without tea and should adapt themselves to light beer. At that time it looked as if "Here's to the good old beer" was going to become the National Anthem of the country. Now, a new policy is being introduced. Tea is to be subsidised and beer is to be taxed out of existence. The Minister has been given a lot of advice from all sides of this House urging him to drop this unjust tax. He has heard some softly-worded and mild appeals even from his own Party, but I know by the tilt of his chin that he has no intention of listening to these appeals. He is comforting himself, no doubt, with the thought that in the future he will be looked upon as a great apostle of temperance. He has visions of marble statues of himself, wearing a long white robe, the demon of drink under his feet and a bright halo two or three inches above his head. I want to disabuse the Minister's mind of any fantastic ideas he may have in regard to himself as the pseudo-apostle of temperance. This tax may reduce the amount of drink consumed, but it will do nothing for the cause of temperance. This tax will not curb the appetite of the habitual drinker. That man will continue to drink because he has lost all sense of proportion and all sense of the value of money. The effect of this tax will be to drive the moderate drinker out of the public house. It will drive out of the public house the ordinary manual worker who takes a bottle of stout to enable him to carry on with his work. It will drive out of the public house the ordinary, decent people who drop into a bar for a chat with a friend and have one or two drinks in the course of that conversation. It will not convert-as the Minister pretends to hope it will-the confirmed drunkard. We all agree that excessive drinking is an evil. We have no illusions in regard to that. But it is not an evil that can be corrected by State action.

Attempts were made in the United States of America to make the people of that country temperate by a rigid prohibition on drinking. We know how ignominiously that attempt failed. We know it led to crime and chaos. This tax will not make the people who drink to excess in this country total abstainers. It will inflict a grievous hardship on the moderate drinkers who keep their drinking strictly under control. It has been said that drinking in itself is an evil. That may appeal to some; but we all know that anything taken to excess is an evil. If people have gone to their graves because of drinking to excess, perhaps an equal number have gone to their graves through eating to excess. Any pleasure or relaxation taken in moderation is both good and desirable.

I once heard a social reformer say that the one good thing about the public houses was that they kept the young people out of the cinema. He meant that they created a certain amount of variety. The young people who go to the cinema night after night are indulging in that amusement to excess. It is not good for them. The same is true of those people who visit the public house day after day and night after night to drink to excess. But there can be moderation in everything. This Budget does not make for moderation. I am one of those people who believe that young people should avoid drink and should be encouraged to avoid drink. We cannot compel them to walk the straight and narrow path in order to achieve complete temperance. The influence of religion, the provision of alternative forms of recreation, useful hobbies and good homes will tend to curb excessive drinking. Prohibitions, excessive taxation and other penalties of that kind serve no useful purpose whatsoever.

In my opinion the man of 40, 50 or 60 years does require a little liquid stimulant to keep his arteries flexible. We should not be asked to inflict a grave injustice on so many of our people in order that the Minister may be able to pose as the great apostle of temperance. He is nothing of the kind. He has never shown himself to be very temperate in his approach to our problems here or in the discussions that have taken place in this House. This tax may be designed to bring in more money. If that is so then I am afraid the Minister is going to be disappointed. Whether it brings in more money or not, it is undesirable. I am not one of those who suggest alternative means of taxation. When Deputy MacBride is longer in this House he will realise the unwisdom of putting new ideas into the Minister's head in regard to taxation. The Minister has taxed almost everything within reach. He is collecting £66,000,000 from the people and that is quite sufficient to get on with. At present we have the largest army of civil servants this country ever has had and, at the same time, the smallest population. If Mr. Winston Churchill was a member of this House, he would probably exclaim: "Never in the history of this country did so many people collect so much money from so few".

Mr. Donnellan

I was delighted to hear Deputy Bourke of the Fianna Fail Party speaking in this House and also to read the statement of Deputy McCarthy at a recent meeting of the Cork County Council. It shows that Fianna Fail back benchers realise what this tax means. Deputy McCarthy, presumably, stays out of this House because he does not want to be forced to vote against his conscience on this occasion as he admitted he was compelled to do on another occasion. That should be a warning to the Minister and the Government Party that there is something seriously wrong. The Minister should also realise that mud slinging or the kind of work he carried on with here last Friday will not help him in any way.

Deputy MacBride stated to-night that taxes are generally imposed on the section of the people that can best afford to pay them. That is a general principle. I do not stand for these increased taxes, because I believe they can be avoided. Undoubtedly, this tax on beer will affect those who can least afford to pay it. It is a tax on a necessity of life and a tax which will be a hindrance to agricultural production. As I pointed out before, it will tend to decrease production, because it will fall on the agricultural worker and the workers in the grain stores who require a bottle of stout or a pint of porter. It is a tax on the farmer and on his worker and probably on his sons which they cannot afford to pay. I agree with Deputy Anthony that these people are really nothing better than coolies in this country.

Of course the Minister could get the money that is required in different ways. Not so long ago he came into this House and proposed to increase the salaries of people with £4,000 a year. Surely he must have realised then that this Budget was coming on and that this money was required. Therefore he should have hoarded the money instead of putting this tax on the pint of porter or the bottle of stout. In order to rush that proposal through he regimented his followers on the back benches, as he will do to-day, except those who do not come along to vote against their conscience, and Deputy Bourke who said that the Minister should withdraw this tax. There is no hope of the amount of money budgeted for being collected. Does the Minister realise that some licensed premises throughout rural Ireland have been actually closed up? Does he realise that stout is being thrown out in backyards as it has deteriorated because it is not being bought? If he made inquiries from Messrs. Guinness he would find that that is a fact, because the majority of people who drink stout are the workers on the roads, the workers on the bogs, the workers in the fields and the workers in the grain stores, and they no longer can afford to buy it. The result is that there is no hope of getting this money because consumption will go down. I am not referring to the man who gets drunk, but to the man who requires his pint of stout once or twice a week or once a day, as the case may be.

Without doubt this is a penal tax. Any Government with the slightest pretence of representing the people or that knew anything about the people would not consider imposing such a tax. If the Minister went through rural Ireland and met some of the people there, not alone those who depend on stout as a necessity of life, but the publicans who contribute largely to the taxes, he would find out what is thought about this tax. He heard it to-day from Deputy Bourke, whom I heard speaking for the first time in this House during the five years I have been here. He spoke on this occasion because he feels that the people he represents require him to do so. He feels that the Party to which he belongs will force him into the Division Lobby against his conscience and against the wishes of the people whom he represents to vote for a penal tax such as this. The game has been carried on for a long time by the Fianna Fail Party, but to-day the people are realising what it means. Members of the Fianna Fail Party have admitted it and the people will soon tell the Fianna Fail Party where they get off.

Gearóid Mac Pharthaláin

Bíonn dhá innseacht ar gach scéal agus tá dhá thaobh ar scéal na cánach ar an leanndubh chomh maith le taobh amháin. Ní mór le lucht an óil ná le lucht caite tobac do bhean tighe an laghdú ar chostas na riachtanas dá clainn. Ní mór le aon Teachta di ach oiread leo é. A mhalairt ar fad; ach níos' spáin aon Teachta don Aire aon bhealach leis an airgead a fháil, ach bealach fánach nach dtiubradh isteach an caogú cuid den mhéid atá ag teastáil. Tóg, mar shompla, muirín seiscar nó mórsheisear. Dúirt siopadóirí liom ó tugadh an cháinfhaisnéis seo isteach go bhfuil punt sa tseachtain sabháilte aca da bharr. Nach maith an bhuntáiste é sin ach níl aon chaint air sa Teach seo nuair nach bhfuil aon vótanna ag na páistí. Da mbeadh vótaíocht muiríne ann agus vótanna ag tuismitheórí do réir umhir a gcúram ní bheadh am oiread tromaíochta ar an gcáin seo is tá, mar bheadh comthromú vótaíochta ag an líontí ar thaobh na cánach a d'fhágfadh lucht a cáinte in aimhreas faoi cé'n taobh aca ba treise. Nach ionmholta an chuspóir é an costas maireachtála a laghdú do na boicht agus nach beag an íobairt í an cháin seo le hais a bhfuil le fulaint i dtíortha nach bhfuil leath a ndóthain beorach ná beatha iontu.

Mr. O'Leary

I want to put a few points to the Minister on behalf of workers and trade unionists who are affected by this tax. I find that a good deal of unemployment is likely to result from this Budget, particularly in small breweries in country towns. Since the price of beer went up to 1/- per pint, bottles of beer have been left on the shelves of local shopkeepers. Conditions in country towns are not similar to those obtaining in the City of Dublin. It may well be that there is excessive drinking in the city, particularly in the lounge bars, even amongst ladies, and I agree that a stop should be put to that. Take, on the other hand, bottling stores in country towns. Always after the summer, there is a falling off in the demand for the output of these stores and a certain number of employees are laid off until the rise of the year again. Many shopkeepers and distributors in country areas have no other business except the sale of drink. Now that the price of stout has been increased to 8½d. per half pint, or per bottle, a man who usually took two of these drinks at a time has to pay 1/5, if he is to satisfy his thirst, and that expenditure is altogether too much for the working man, especially in rural Ireland where his weekly wage is only 50/-. The fall in consumption as a result will have a very serious effect in the employment of boys in bottling stores all over the country. We know that Guinness's brewery is one of the greatest industries in the country and that it provides for its employees conditions of employment which cannot be obtained in any other industry. Their exports may be sufficient to enable them to maintain their present staffs, but the small breweries in country towns which have been struggling for years are very badly hit by this latest tax. There is one in my own town which sent beer to Dublin recently during the scarcity of Guinness's stout. Its trade has been affected already and there is no longer a demand for the beer in Dublin. Beer is essentially a summer drink. In fact, in country places, beer is the principal drink, and I fear that the consumption will be very greatly affected by this additional tax.

It was said some time ago that the consumption of drink was excessive in this country. That was possibly true when we had thousands of visitors from England and Northern Ireland coming to Bray and other seaside resorts where they spent plenty of money but so far as natives of the Twenty-Six Counties are concerned, for many years past they had not so much money to expend on drink. I worked for 25 years in flour mills and I say that it was the odd bottle of stout which I took, when I felt the need for it, that kept me in a healthy condition in that industry. Quite a number of workers died in the industry during these 25 years from diseases directly connected with their work. I say that if a man takes a few bottles of stout during the week, they are good for him and keep him fit.

We admit that money must be got somewhere to meet the expenditure on food subsidies and other services, but, as Deputy MacBride advocated, this money could be found in other ways than by taxing the poor man's bottle of stout. Certain sections of our people who should have been taxed were allowed to go scot free under this Budget. Dance halls, for instance, might have been taxed. I do not see why the admission tax on these places should ever have been lifted. Since the tax was abolished, the prices of admission to dances throughout the country have been increased from 5/- to 7/6 and in some places to 10/-. People frequented these places even when the tax was in operation and I think it was a mistake to remit that tax. Similarly, I think that games, even big G.A.A. matches, could bear a tax. We see attendances up to 75,000 at all-Ireland finals and semi-finals and I think no one would object if he had to pay a few pence extra going into Croke Park twice or three times a year.

The man in the country is very badly hit by these taxes, particularly the agricultural labourer who has only 50/- a week. Even a labourer in my own town gets only £3 5s. Od. a week. What has he to spend out of that? The majority are paying 7/6 and 8/- a week to the urban council for houses.

The working man's purchasing power has gone. There is no reason why a bottle of stout should cost so much. The bottle must be stamped "half-pint" and the man in the country has to pay 8½d. for it to-day. A couple of men in a country district may desire to go into a public house on a Saturday night, the only night they have off after a hard week. Let them be either industrial or agricultural workers, not one of them has much money to spend. If one of these men has 5/- he is lucky. I never had pounds to throw around on drink when I was working and had to keep a family. I was lucky if I had 5/-. To-day in rural Ireland not many men can afford 5/- because the cost of living is too high.

I cannot understand why the Minister selected drink. It was a most unpopular move for the Government because it affects thousands of people who are fond of a pint. Many barmen will be unemployed. Some are already unemployed because there is scarcely anyone going into the shops. I was around my own town last Saturday night and I saw what the conditions were like. Previous to this tax I often saw from ten to 20 persons in a shop, but since the tax was imposed you would not see more than five persons. The working man simply cannot afford it. He cannot go into a public house with a number of others because he would find it difficult to stand a round for three or four. He slips off on his own, gets one bottle of stout and goes home.

On the other hand, we can see well-off people drinking in luxury, drinking champagne and whiskey. I would have no objection to the tax going on them. We read in the daily Press of big functions where there are bottles of champagne and whiskey—even in front of Ministers, and that was not later than yesterday. You cannot stop that type of drinking because the money is there for it. But we should draw the line. We are not all rolling in riches. A man in the country with a family of five or six finds it very difficult to live on 50/- a week.

I think the Minister should withdraw this tax. He should do so in order to save the local breweries, breweries such as Lett's of Enniscorthy and Cairnes'. They are bound to be affected because beer is not consumed to the same extent as Guinness and whiskey in the cities and towns. Take an ordinary public house at a crossroads. There are not 50 people within a radius of three or four miles. How will that man pay his rates, taxes and licence? He will not be able to make it and we will put him out of business. If you put one man out of business you affect a whole lot of others.

At the moment, barley is scarce and the maltsters are just hanging on. They were about to close down in our district last week, but a vessel came in from the far side with barley and that enabled them to remain open. There is scarcely any barley for malting purposes. The position was bad enough up to now, but this tax cripples them altogether. The publicans in my town say: "For God's sake, what is the Minister thinking of? Is he anxious to put us out of business?"

The Minister should put this tax on horse racing or some of the other things I have mentioned. Put it on the people with the money—they will not mind. Take the people with motor cars, the luxury liners of the roads. They will not go off the roads after January; they are well able to keep going. Put a tax on the tourists. You are building hotels for them. Let them pay for the luxury hotels.

There are very few cases in the courts these days for drunkennessscarcely one man out of 20 is brought in on that charge now. When I first came to this city I was shocked to see what was happening. There was a lot of drinking in lounge bars. The owners of these places are making them as glamorous as possible, offering every attraction to ladies and gentlemen. The Minister can get his money out of the lounge bars instead of from the struggling publicans in the country.

This tax will affect workers in different industries; it will affect bottle makers and the men in the breweries. The Minister should endeavour to get the money in some other way, prefer-ably off the people best able to bear a tax. Otherwise he will only kill important industries.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Thursday, 13 Nov 1947

Finance (No. 2) Bill, 1947—Committee (Resumed) and Final Stages.

Mr. Corish

A Deputy

Tá

Níl

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 13 Nov 1947