Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 2 Apr 1952

Vol. 130 No. 8

Resolution No. 7—Excise. - Beer.

I move:—

(1) That in lieu of the duty of excise imposed by Section 10 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1947 (No. 33 of 1947), as amended by Section 7 of the Finance Act, 1948 (No. 12 of 1948), there shall be charged, levied and paid on all beer brewed within the State on or after the 3rd day of April, 1952, a duty of excise at the rate of £9 13s. for every 36 gallons of worts of a specific gravity of 1,055 degrees.

(2) That there shall be allowed and paid on exportation as merchandise or for use as ship's stores of beer on which it is shown, to the satisfaction of the Revenue Commissioners, that the duty of excise imposed by this Resolution has been paid, a drawback, calculated according to the original specific gravity of such beer, at the rate of £9 13s. 3d. for every 36 gallons of which the original specific gravity was 1,055 degrees.

(3) That in the case of beer of

which the specific gravity is different from the specific gravity mentioned in the relevant paragraph of this Resolution, the duty chargeable or the drawback payable (as the case may be) in pursuance of this Resolution shall be varied proportionately.

(4) It is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1927 (No. 7 of 1927).

Would the Minister say what he is doing to preserve the smaller breweries?

As I explained to-day, it is proposed to allow a rebate to all brewers, but with a view to benefiting the smaller brewers, of 30/- per barrel on the first 5,000 brewed—that is, an increase of 20/- from the existing rebate.

The Minister understands that he told us in his Budget speech that already two breweries have gone out of existence under present circumstances. Does he anticipate that under the increased taxes now to be imposed on beer a number of other small breweries will not go out of existence?

I have every reason to believe that with the increase in the rebate no breweries will go out of existence. We cannot claim all responsibility for what happened to small breweries since 1948.

I am not asking the Minister to accept any responsibility that is not his. I realise he has enough responsibility to carry on his shoulders. I am asking him how he proposes to bear the responsibility that he must now be assuming by putting an increased tax on beer when he knows that the circumstances under which breweries have been working are such that two breweries at least have been put out of existence—he claims as a result of taxation.

I know Deputy General Mulcahy does not want intentionally to misrepresent me. Let me make it quite clear that by increasing the rebate on the first 5,000 barrels brewed it is anticipated, and confidently hoped, that no small brewery will be adversely affected and unable to carry on. On the other hand, if I have to choose between sabotaging the soundness and credit-worthiness of the State by not making the Budget balance, then I should say that the greater good must prevail and, despite any sacrifices entailed. I shall have to impose this duty.

And the breweries can go.

Without asking the Minister to sacrifice himself in any way, I would ask him to arrange for a rebate of this duty in the case of beer used in county hospitals and public institutions. A great many old people in these institutions are supplied with a weekly pint of stout. In the case of hospitals, stout is provided for some patients. Would the Minister be prepared to grant a rebate in these cases? I do not think it should be very difficult because it would be confined to county homes and public institutions so that the rebate could easily be provided for. Would the Minister consider that concession? I do not believe it would unbalance the Budget.

I take grave exception to Financial Resolution No. 7 and I take this opporunity of protesting in the strongest possible language against any increase in the price of beer. I do this as one who never drinks beer and as one who has no intention of ever drinking beer. I do so as a strict teetotaller.

The only luxury that remains to the old age pensioner, to the agricultural labourer and the ordinary worker up and down the country is his pint of beer at the end of his day's work or at the end of the week. I can remember in 1947 when the Fianna Fáil Government imposed a tax on beer every worker protested in no uncertain way against that increase; his pint is practically the only pleasure left to the old age pensioner. It is the worker's only luxury. An attempt was made in 1947 to deprive these people of their pint of beer. A change of Government came and the inter-Party Government gave fresh hope to the aged and to the worker when they made the pint of beer available to them at a reasonable cost. The inter-Party Government gave the workers of Dublin a cheap pint to lubricate their throats so that they could shout "Up Dev." and put us out.

It has been truly said that it is difficult to cure an old dog of his trot. The Taoiseach believes that he is never wrong. The Taoiseach believes that everything he says is right: the whole world is wrong bar the Taoiseach and his Ministers. To-day he is justifying the fact that in 1947 he increased the price of the pint. To-day is his revenge on the inter-Party Government; he is putting back the 1947 increase. He is sticking out his tongue and saying: "Now, we will make you pay for it." That is what is happening to-day.

The workers in my constituency—in Boora, in Tullamore, in Portlaoise and in Portarlington—must now realise that my two colleagues in that constituency, Deputy Maher and Deputy Boland, are now making them pay 3d. more for their pint. Every pint that is drunk in Laois-Offaly will in future cost 3d. more.

Every publican in Tullamore, Mountmellick, Portarlington, Edenderry and in the two village public-houses in Ballycumber will be able to charge 3d. more for every pint sold across the counter, thanks to the Taoiseach, thanks to the present Government, and thanks to the Fianna Fáil Deputies representing that constituency. Everyone, be he labourer, old age pensioner, farm worker, drainage worker or bog worker now will find when he goes to Boora or Clonsast that he will have to pay more for his pint. Has there not been enough harm and destruction, without depriving these men of the privilege of a cheap pint to quench their thirst? That is the most serious feature that I find in this Budget.

Again, in the constituency I represent there are quite a number of maltsters. The Minister for Finance is aware that one of the oldest industries in this country is the brewing industry. I say that the Minister to-night is sounding the last post for the brewing industry, one of the oldest industries in this country. I can prophesy unemployment in the brewing industry. I can see maltings such as we have in the midlands closing down. I can see other concerns connected with the brewing industry facing ruin and disaster.

That is what you hope for.

I am sorry to see it. I can also prophesy that within 12 months from now the weeds will reach from jamb to jamb of country public-houses, and in city public-houses the hinges of the doors will have to be oiled, as they will be so infrequently used. You will see barmen discharged to add to the list of 74,000 unemployed we already have. That is all due to the blunders made by the irresponsible, brainless men now in office. We shall have public-houses closing down completely, and this will have its effect in turn on the production of barley.

I protest in the strongest possible terms on behalf of the unfortunate beer drinker, the man who loves his pint, and whom Deputy Cowan now hopes to prevent drinking that pint. We now find that Deputy Cowan, Deputy Dr. Browne and Deputy Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll are the three main men— both main and mean—responsible for putting the 3d. on every pint consumed by these unfortunate men.

What about Deputy Cogan?

He is not worth mentioning. I want to say that as sure as we stand here there will be a day of reckoning.

The Deputy thinks that "standing" will be abolished.

Deputy Cowan, Deputy Dr. Browne and Deputy Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll are going to vote to put 3d. per pint on every pint consumed by drinkers in Dublin and, as a result of that, every barman in the city will be trembling in his shoes under the threat of dismissal from to-morrow night. We can see the threats that will hang over these barmen, and we can imagine the thirsty curse that will fall from the lips of the hard-working, sweating dock labourer on these three gentlemen. I say, and I hope it will go on the records of the House, that it is not the wish of the people that this 3d. should be added to the cost of the pint. It is the wish of three cranks who are opposed on personal grounds to the leaders of the Opposition. Because of this personal grudge, every worker in the Twenty-Six Counties must pay 3d. extra on his pint to satisfy the venom of Deputy Cowan, Deputy Dr. Browne and Deputy Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll. Little the Taoiseach cares about these three Deputies he has now stuck to his tail. He is using them, and he will drag them along to satisfy his own ends.

The Deputy must now discuss the Resolution.

I am coming to the Resolution. We now find that the Resolution will be supported by these three Deputies. Everyone knows that the Government, without these Deputies, is a minority Government, and that they have no right or title from the people to impose this or any other tax. I challenge the Minister for Finance to advise the Taoiseach to dissolve the Dáil and to ask the people are they or are they not satisfied with this tax. If the Minister for Finance or the Taoiseach are the champions of the voice of the people that they pretend to be, and if the Taoiseach wants to have a clean tail to his coat and to cut off the Cowans, the ffrench-O'Carrolls and the Brownes, he will have to impose this tax without the aid of such scruff hanging about him.

Is that in order?

Leave him alone. Nobody minds him.

A point of order has been raised.

Deputy Flanagan has referred to members of this House as scruff.

Scruff on the tail of the Taoiseach's coat.

Withdraw it, if you have any semblance of a man.

Deputy Flanagan will withdraw that remark.

Yes. I do not see salami being taxed.

Ask your leader about it.

That has nothing to do with the Resolution. The Deputy will deal with what is in the Resolution.

If the Minister for Finance will go to the people on this Resolution alone, apart from any other resolution, I guarantee that he will come back with about 45 seats, because the people never wished at any time to be taxed in the manner in which they are in this disgraceful Budget by a minority Government. Bear in mind that this tax is being imposed on the people against the people's will by a minority. If the Fianna Fáil Party think for one moment that the people are behind them on this Budget, let them test it. Let them try it out and go to the country, and I guarantee that, in six weeks' time, there will be a different set of circumstances in this House. At no time would I support such a drastic and cruel Resolution as we have here, which deprives the ordinary citizen of his pint. May I say, finally, that you are imposing this cruel tax on the people against their wishes.

If the people had the opportunity or chance to-night they would let the Minister for Finance, the Taoiseach, Deputy Cowan, Deputy ffrench-O'Carroll and Deputy Noel Browne know where they stand: that they stand by the men, the Party and the Government which at least had the Christian decency and outlook to say "You can quench your thirst with a cheap pint." Fianna Fáil is anxious to deprive every worker in this country of that. For that reason I want to protest in the strongest possible terms against this action, which is entirely uncalled for.

I feel, listening to Deputy Flanagan, that Barnum was certainly right.

We have a Barnum in the House to-night speaking.

Here is a Deputy who comes into this House ostensibly wearing a particular badge which suggests in itself that it is a sin to drink alcohol.

Deputies

That is not true.

That is a matter which the Deputy should not refer to. A matter which is a Deputy's purely personal consideration should not be referred to.

On a point of order. Is that statement by the Deputy going to be expunged from the records of the House or is it going to be allowed to remain on them?

Let it remain.

That is not a point of order.

Arising out of the statement made by Deputy Cowan, which is very significant, I want to ask is it going to remain on the records of the House or is the Deputy going to be asked to withdraw it?

It is on the records of the House.

Deputy Cowan will withdraw the remark about the emblem worn by Deputy Flanagan.

Certainly.

Fair enough.

I say that, knowing Deputy Flanagan as I know him and seeing him as I see him, I think he has a great nerve to come into this House and make the type of speech he is after making. He talked about the unfortunate drinker of beer. I hope I can refer to the expression he used, "the unfortunate drinker of beer".

The old age pensioner.

That was the expression he used. But this unfortunate drinker of beer is, according to Deputy Flanagan, an extraordinary type of individual in the community. If every person acted as Deputy Flanagan acts, then there certainly would be no necessity for this tax. It would bring in no revenue to the Minister and, certainly, Deputy Flanagan, on this score, is going to contribute nothing to the revenue.

Not one penny and, after this day, I will never again smoke a cigarette.

We ought to have some sense of a decent approach to a problem such as this is.

The Deputy is a bad judge of decency.

What did Deputy Blowick say?

I did not interrupt.

I have a great number of helpers in this debate, but as far as this particular tax is concerned, the tax of 3d. on the pint, as Deputy Flanagan has referred to it, it is necessary. Why is it necessary? It is necessary so that people will be maintained here and so that the affairs of this State can be run. It is undoubtedly a sacrifice. It must be paid by people who do drink beer for the purpose of endeavouring to have the machinery of this State run.

Everybody knows there was a gap to be bridged by the Minister. It had to be bridged in some particular way. I know how it would be bridged if the present Minister for Finance was not bringing in this Budget to-day. I know, if the Budget was being brought in by Deputy McGilligan, how that gap would be bridged.

No, you do not know.

There is no trouble whatever about it. We have been in the unfortunate position over the last three years that we have been kept going on moneys that we borrowed from America.

That is not true.

It is certainly true.

It is not, and you know it.

Every halfpenny that prevented a tax such as this in the last three years was due to the fact that we got dollars from America——

You are the man who has been talking about honesty in argument.

——dollars which will have to be repaid in the future by this country.

You have gone completely over.

There would be no necessity for this tax, or for many other taxes, if we were prepared to do a very simple thing. We could get all the money we wanted to-morrow to balance this Budget from the United States of America, every penny we wanted, if we were prepared to sell the soul of this nation for it. As far as the people who drink pints or use petrol are concerned, they will be prepared to make that little sacrifice to save the soul of this country.

I understand that these Resolutions will have to be put before the House adjourns.

I understand that. I only intend to make these few observations. I would not have bothered making them at all were it not for the fact that I was referred to on many occasions during the tirade we had from the last speaker. That is my only reason for intervening in this debate at all.

To save your face.

There is no question, as far as I am concerned, but that I am defending every tax that is in this Budget. I am not afraid or ashamed to do it because I think it is necessary that we should make this sacrifice.

The Deputy is not afraid to do it; he is afraid not to do it.

Deputy Morrissey knows very well that, when a decision had to be taken here less than 12 months ago which meant the defeat of the Administration that I was then supporting, I found no difficulty in taking that decision.

And we know the reason.

Let us keep to Resolution No. 7 and not what happened 12 months ago.

I just want to make that perfectly clear to the Deputies who are interrupting that, as far as I am concerned, I am standing over this particular tax and every other tax in this Budget because I think it is necessary in the interests of the country that that should be done.

You do not want an election.(Interruptions.)

I must say I had difficulty in hearing what Deputy MacBride said.

Deputy Cowan on the Resolution.

That is what I am going to say on the Resolution, that this tax is a necessary tax, it is a sacrifice which has to be made by the people who drink beer.

Will you tell them that in North-east Dublin?

Of course I will tell them.

I challenge you to do it.

Deputy Flanagan made his speech, and he ought to let Deputy Cowan do the same.

I am asked will I make that speech in my constituency. Of course I will. I am making it to my constituents now. I make a present of every word of the speech to Deputy Belton, Deputy Flanagan and anybody else.

You are making it now, so that you will not have to make it outside.

Deputy Cowan is entitled to make his speech without interruption.

If the Taoiseach, in the national interest, thinks it is necessary to have an election in the near future, a lot of the people talking about elections——

The Deputy should deal with the Resolution.

——will be very disagreeably shocked by that decision and I will not be one of them.(Interruption.)

He has been put up to waste time.

The Deputy should not suggest that anybody has been put up. I would not have got up to speak were it not for the tirade in regard to myself which I heard.

If the Deputy does not come to the Resolution I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.

As far as this tax is concerned, I consider it a necessary tax in the interests of the nation. As I say, I am defending the tax in this House and I will defend it anywhere else that any Deputy may challenge me to defend it.

The Deputy said that before.

I did say that before. That is what must be said with regard to this Resolution. That is what I am being challenged to say by Deputies.

Repetition is not allowed.

Deputy Cowan accused certain people in this House earlier of play-acting. We had at least three appearances on that particular stage from Deputy Cowan to-night. The Deputy said that if the present Minister for Finance was not on the Front Bench and Deputy McGilligan was in his place he knows how this would be financed. He said that the country had been run for the previous three years on American dollars. That statement is untrue and Deputy Cowan knows it is untrue.

Deputy Morrissey knows that that expression cannot be allowed. If a Deputy knows that a statement is untrue, that makes his statement a lie. That expression cannot be allowed.

I am prepared to follow your line of charity and assume that the Deputy did not know that he was speaking an untruth.

Is the Deputy withdrawing his remark?

I am. Deputy Cowan is prepared to defend this 3d. on the pint. He was quick to denounce it four years ago and voted against it, and got elected to this House again as a result. No Deputy, whether inside or outside the House, denounced Fianna Fáil so violently and so effectively, if I may say so, as Deputy Cowan did.

The Deputy should remember his own twirling political past.(Interruption.)

I should like to remind Deputies that a division cannot take place after 10.30. The Resolutions have to go through before 10.30. Some arrangement ought to be made.

I have no intention of preventing the Minister from getting the Resolutions through. Therefore, if there is nobody else to follow, I am prepared to sit down and let the Resolutions go through.

Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 73; Níl, 64.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Allen, Denis.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Blaney, Neil T.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Boland, Patrick.
  • Brady, Philip A.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Breathnach, Cormac.
  • Breen, Dan.
  • Brennan, Joseph.
  • Brennan, Thomas.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Browne, Noel C.
  • Buckley, Seán.
  • Burke, Patrick.
  • Butler, Bernard.
  • Carter, Frank.
  • Childers, Erskine.
  • Cogan, Patrick.
  • Colley, Harry.
  • Collins, James J.
  • Corry, Martin J.
  • Cowan, Peadar.
  • Crowley, Honor Mary.
  • Crowley, Tadhg.
  • Cunningham, Liam.
  • Davern, Michael J.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • de Valera, Eamon.
  • de Valera, Vivion.
  • Duignan, Peadar.
  • Fahy, Frank.
  • Fanning, John.
  • ffrench-O'Carroll, Michael.
  • Flanagan, Seán.
  • Flynn, John.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Gallagher, Colm.
  • Gilbride, Eugene.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hillery, Patrick J.
  • Hilliard, Michael.
  • Humphreys, Francis.
  • Kennedy, Michael J.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Lemass, Seán.
  • Little, Patrick J.
  • Lynch, Jack (Cork Borough).
  • McCann, John.
  • MacCarthy, Seán.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • McGrath, Patrick.
  • Maguire, Patrick J.
  • Maher, Peadar.
  • Moran, Michael.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • Ormonde, John.
  • O'Sullivan, Ted.
  • Rice, Bridget M.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Mary B.
  • Sheldon, William A. W.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Walsh, Laurence J.
  • Walsh, Thomas.

Níl

  • Beirne, John.
  • Belton, John.
  • Blowick, Joseph.
  • Browne, Patrick.
  • Byrne, Alfred.
  • Cafferky, Dominick.
  • Cawley, Patrick.
  • Coburn, James.
  • Collins, Seán.
  • Corish, Brendan.
  • Cosgrave, Liam.
  • Costello, Declan.
  • Costello, John A.
  • Crotty, Patrick J.
  • Crowe, Patrick.
  • Davin, William.
  • Desmond, Daniel.
  • Dillon, James M.
  • Dockrell, Henry P.
  • Dockrell, Maurice E.
  • Donnellan, Michael.
  • Doyle, Peadar S.
  • Dunne, Seán.
  • Esmonde, Anthony C.
  • Everett, James.
  • Fagan, Charles.
  • Finan, John.
  • Flanagan, Oliver J.
  • Giles, Patrick.
  • Hession, James M.
  • Hickey, James.
  • Hughes, Joseph.
  • Keyes, Michael.
  • Kyne, Thomas A.
  • Larkin, James.
  • Leary, Johnny.
  • Lehane, Patrick D.
  • Lynch, John (North Kerry)
  • McAuliffe, Patrick.
  • MacBride, Seán.
  • MacEoin, Seán.
  • McGilligan, Patrick.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • Mannion, John.
  • Morrissey, Daniel.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Murphy, Michael P.
  • Murphy, William.
  • Norton, William.
  • O'Donnell, Patrick.
  • O'Gorman, Patrick J.
  • O'Hara, Thomas.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas F. (Jun.).
  • O'Reilly, Patrick.
  • O'Sullivan, Denis.
  • Palmer, Patrick W.
  • Reidy, James.
  • Reynolds, Mary.
  • Roddy, Joseph.
  • Rogers, Patrick J.
  • Rooney, Eamon.
  • Spring, Dan.
  • Sweetman, Gerard.
  • Tully, John.
Tellers: —Tá: Deputies Ó Briain and Killilea; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Mac Fheórais.
Resolution declared carried.

There is a difficulty with reference to the other Resolutions. We do not want to be put into the position of not allowing the Government to finish the Resolutions to-night. The Minister can take it that we are going to vote against Resolution No. 8. Then Resolution No. 9, as far as I can see, contains a proposal that would make us vote against it on a division. Is it correct that, under paragraph 2 of that Resolution, shops which have supplies of tobacco and cigarettes at present will have to pay duty on these? If the Minister could explain to us.

Only manufacturers.

"Or that at that time held as retail stock in premises used for selling tobacco by retail."

It is not intended that way. That is mainly an exception applying to stocks held by a licensed manufacturer in his capacity as a retailer of tobacco. There is also exemption for a manufacturer who might hold tobacco other than his own in his capacity as wholesaler or retailer.

It does not allow the Revenue Commissioners to go down to every tobacconist shop?

It does not.

Is it possible to put Resolutions Nos. 8 and 9 together, so that one division would suffice. We wish to register our protest against these two Resolutions.

We will have to put them separately.

I submit that if we take a division now on Resolution No. 8, it will not be possible to take a division on Resolution No. 9 to-night.

Could we suspend Standing Orders?

I understood there was agreement that we would get all Resolutions to-night. How can we, if there is a challenge on a division?

Put the remaining motions first and take No. 8 last.

My difficulty is that you can have Resolution No. 10 but not Resolutions Nos. 8 and 9 without a division.

Obviously, this is a plan.

Suspend Standing Orders.

The time is running out. I will have to put the Resolutions.

Barr
Roinn