Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 26 Nov 1980

Vol. 95 No. 3

Irish Whiskey Bill, 1980: Second Stage.

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

This short Bill repeals the Irish Whiskey Act, 1950 and provides that spirits described as Irish whiskey or blended Irish whiskey must comply with certain technical requirements. It further provides that whiskey and blended whiskey produced either in the State or in Northern Ireland in accordance with these requirements shall be entitled to the descriptions "Irish whiskey" and "blended Irish whiskey". I am promoting this legislation for four main reasons as follows:

First, the Irish Whiskey Act, 1950 protected the name of Irish whiskey solely for the purposes of customs and excise. That Act ensured that only spirits conforming to the definitions of Irish whiskey and Irish pot still whiskey as laid down in the Act could be described as such in permits and certificates issued under the Spirits Act, 1880 accompanying the spirits in transit. However, the use of these permits and certificates by the Revenue Commissioners has been discontinued for several years. Accordingly, the purposes for which the 1950 Act was enacted no longer obtain.

Second, the definitions contained in the 1950 Act are now considered inadequate because they do not make any reference to:

(a) a distillation strength limit;

(b) the period of maturation;

(c) the necessity of having organoleptic — that is taste and smell — qualities associated with and derived from the raw materials.

Furthermore the term "Irish pot still whiskey" is no longer used in marketing whiskey and there is no definition of blended Irish whiskey.

The third reason relates to the fact that the only whiskey distillery operating in Northern Ireland is a subsidiary of our main distillery group, namely, Irish Distillers Limited. That subsidiary market their whiskey under the appellations "Irish whiskey" and "blended Irish whiskey" though their use of these appellations is not supported by legislation enacted by the Oireachtas or until a very recent enactment, by legislation enacted by the UK Government.

This point is of importance because of new regulations being proposed by the EEC to govern the movement of spirituous beverages with appellations of origin within the Community. Under these proposals whiskey produced in Northern Ireland would not be entitled to be described, as it has been for years, as Irish whiskey or blended Irish whiskey, unless the use of these appellations is based on the legislation of a member state or states.

The problem which the proposed EEC regulations would present was discussed between the British authorities and ourselves and it was considered that the problem could best be overcome by including in our legislation a provision to the effect that whiskey or blended whiskey produced in the South or in the North would be entitled to the appellations "Irish whiskey" or "blended Irish whiskey" and that similar legislative provision be made by the UK Government. The necessary legislation was recently enacted on the British side and our Bill now proposes to do likewise. The enactment of this reciprocal legislation is, I should point out, a concrete example of political and economic co-operation between ourselves and the UK in a matter which concerns the North of Ireland.

The fourth reason why I am anxious to revise our definition of whiskey is that the EEC Commission has had in mind for some time to define whiskey in an EEC context. The UK Government and ourselves feel that prior to the discussions at EEC level on such a definition the traditional manufacturers of whiskey in the Community, that is to say the Scottish and ourselves, whose production processes are broadly similar, should not only have as strong a definition as possible for whiskey but that both our definitions should be harmonised to the maximum possible extent. Though Scotch whisky is our main competitor in export markets, it is recognised on both sides that it would be to our mutual advantage to secure a Community definition that is acceptable to us. I should say that the harmonisation of definitions proposed will not mean that Scotch and Irish whiskies will be identical. The key essential well known features of whiskey production which are common both to ourselves and the Scottish are being set down but distillation techniques and the mixes of raw materials used are not being specified or harmonised. Accordingly, the traditional differences in regard to taste and flavour which have existed between Irish and Scotch whiskey should not be disturbed by this legislation.

The Bill which is now before the Seanad takes into account the four considerations which I have mentioned and thus the definition of Irish whiskey and blended Irish whiskey will now be aligned in general terms with the generic definition of whiskey as set out in schedule 7 to the UK Finance Act, 1969, as amended by clause 9 to the UK Finance Act (No. 2) 1980.

While I do not intend to go into the technical details of the Bill, which I am assured are in order and acceptable to the industry, I would like to draw the attention of Senators to a few points of special general significance.

I have decided not to provide for a generic definition of whiskey based on the criteria set out in the UK legislation because I am advised that such a definition might be regarded by the European Court of Justice as a measure having an effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction and thus contrary to Article 30 of the Treaty of Rome.

Although the Irish Whiskey Act, 1950 specifically defined Irish pot still whiskey, I have decided to omit reference to this product in the Irish Whiskey Bill, 1980, as the Irish distilling industry do not at present use this marketing term and do not envisage its use for marketing purposes in future. It is also relevant that the UK has not legislated for this type of product, and apparently does not intend to do so.

Section I(1) of the Bill provides that for the purposes of any statute or instrument made under statute, spirits described as Irish whiskey shall not be regarded as corresponding to that description unless those spirits comply with certain requirements. The objective of this provision is to ensure that Irish whiskey will have an identity, backed by legislation, on both the domestic and export markets for any purpose. Section 1(2) provides that the expression "blended Irish whiskey" shall mean a blend of a number of distillates, each of which separately is entitled to the description "Irish whiskey". The production of blended whiskies is a feature of modern distilleries; such whiskies are so called to distinguish them from straight whiskies, which are produced from one distillation process.

Section I(3) (a) of the Bill sets out the technical requirements which must be adhered to before a product is entitled to use the appellation "Irish whiskey" or "blended Irish whiskey". I wish to assure Senators that these criteria have been settled in agreement and following full consultation with the industry.

Section I(3)(b) provides that spirits must be matured in wooden casks for at least three years, either in the State or in Northern Ireland or partly in one and partly in the other, before they can be described as Irish whiskey or blended Irish whiskey. This maturation requirement accords with existing requirements under the Immature Spirits (Restriction) Act, 1969 which provides that whiskey produced in Ireland must be warehoused for at least three years before it can be delivered for home consumption.

Up to 1969, the minimum maturation period was five years but, in that year at the request of the Irish distilling industry, the minimum maturation period was reduced from five years to three years in order to facilitate exports. The request of the industry was a direct result of their recognition that public taste had switched to favour milder types of whiskey which did not require lengthy periods of maturation to maintain its quality.

The requirements about maturation are now being included in this Bill as it is considered for completeness sake that such requirements should form an integral part of the Irish whiskey legislation. The inclusion of the requirement about maturation in this Bill does not affect the Immature Spirits (Restriction) Act, 1969 administered by the Revenue Commissioners. The maturation provision in this Bill will operate completely independently of the Immature Spirits (Restriction) Act, 1969. It will, however, have the effect that spirits will not be entitled to the appellation "Irish whiskey" or "blended Irish Whiskey" until they have been matured for a period of at least three years whereas under the Irish Whiskey Act, 1950 spirits were entitled to the appellation "Irish whiskey" or "Irish pot still whiskey" as they came off the still.

The Irish whiskey distilling industry is one of the oldest and most valued industries in the country. It has a tradition stretching back over a thousand years but, in the past decade, it has been given new vitality by Irish Distillers, has grown in importance and has contributed increasingly to our economy and to our export trade. The Irish Distillers Group, which has grown from the merger in 1966 of John Jameson and Son, John Power and Sons and Cork Distillers Company now employing more than 1,000 people at their various locations including Midleton and Bushmills. The farming community, through the growing of barley for the production of whiskey, also derives substantial benefits from the industry.

The aim of the Irish Distillers Group is to make Irish whiskey a force in world markets and their performance in recent years is indicative of their determination. Between 1970 and 1979 whiskey exports increased by 420 per cent to more than one million cases and Irish whiskey is, in fact, now exported to more than 100 countries. In America, Irish Distillers' largest single export market, Irish whiskey continued during 1979 to maintain a faster rate of growth than the market as a whole. In the EEC, the group also increased their sales substantially during 1979.

As the industry considers that its product requires legislative protection so as to give it an identity on both the domestic and international markets, I commend to the House the proposals set out in the Bill.

I welcome the opportunity to address myself on behalf of my party to the Irish Whiskey Bill, 1980, and to assure the Minister that there was a consensus in favour of the introduction of the Bill. The Minister stated that the fact that Bushmills whiskey in Northern Ireland is also involved is a concrete example of a measure of co-operation —he might have more aptly chosen the words "spirited example of co-operation"—in relation to the whiskey industry.

This is basically a simple Bill which relates to compliance with technical requirements, a large part of which has to do with the fact that the Irish Distillers Group now own Bushmills Distillery in Northern Ireland. It is tremendous to see this co-operation in so far as Irish whiskey is concerned, whether it is north of the Border or south of the Border. Bushmills is the oldest whiskey distillery in the world.

I note from the Minister's speech that he has decided not to follow the United Kingdom legislation. The view was taken that to conform with EEC legislation a member state or member states should introduce legislation. Because of the anomaly of Bushmills belonging to Irish Distillers, apparently discussions took place between the Irish and British Governments and as a result it was decided that legislation would need to be introduced in both Parliaments to regularise the position. The Minister states that he has decided not to provide for a generic definition of whiskey based on the criteria set out in the UK legislation because, and I quote, "I am advised that such a definition might be regarded by the European Court of Justice as a measure having an effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction and thus contrary to Article 30 of the Treaty of Rome". I should like the Minister to clarify this point. The Minister, in his wisdom may have decided that this generic definition is not necessary. I am wondering why there is a difference of approach in the UK and this country and whether the fact that the Minister has not introduced this generic definition might in some way have an effect particularly on Bushmills' whiskey, because it is manufactured north of the Border.

I agree completely with the regularisation and the need to defend the good name Irish whiskey has in this country and on the world markets. I remember a sad experience in an Irish hotel within the last six months with some visitors from another country when the question of Gaelic coffee arose. The Gaelic coffee was apparently based on Scotch whiskey. When we called the waitress aside to seek an explanation we were told that in the view of that hotel Gaelic coffee was coffee based on Scotch whiskey and Irish coffee was apparently coffee made with the Irish version. Simple matters like this are important. It is important to regularise the issue.

I am glad to note that there is a slight change in the speech the Minister made in this House from the speech made in the Dáil by Deputy Gallagher. In the Dáil the statement was made by the Minister that the sales of Irish whiskey had risen from £18.8 million in 1970 to £82.3 million in 1979. My understanding of the position is that sales of Irish whiskey did not rise from £18.8 million in 1970 to £82.3 million in 1979, but rather the overall sales position of the Irish Distillers rose from £18.8 million to £82.3 million. These also concerned the sales of vodka, gin and other products of that company. This dramatic sales increase of Irish whiskey was not, in fact, as dramatic as that suggested. It does not take away from the very significant performance of Irish Distillers in recent years and the welcome change outside this country where Irish whiskey has been getting a significantly greater prominence than it had been doing prior to that.

Though we agree in general terms with the Bill, we have put down a single amendment to the Bill which relates to section (1) (3) (b) on the question of the maturing of Irish whiskey.

We have not been given an amendment.

This amendment was introduced within the last ten minutes. It is a very simple matter which relates to the question of maturity. I understand the Irish Licensed Vintners Association have reservations——

Amendments are not circulated until the Second Stage has been concluded.

I merely want to give you notice of the fact that an amendment is being put down. The amendment relates to the question of the maturity of whiskey. I understand that there is a substantial viewpoint within the Irish licensed trade that Irish whiskey of three year old vintage should not be put on the Irish market. A different attitude would be adopted in so far as the export market is concerned. I will not dwell on this point because my colleague, Senator Howard, who apart from his membership of this House is also involved in the licensed trade and is a representative nationally of the Irish licensed trade, will develop on this point with much more profound knowledge than I have of this particular matter.

I do not want to say any more except to reflect on an anomaly through the lack of legislation in another area of the Irish spirits industry. Christmas is coming, and at this time traditionally, and no doubt this year as in other years, there will be a substantial amount of a certain spirit on the Irish market which is not covered by any legislation and which indeed is repugnant to legislation. I am referring to the poteen industry. I should like to suggest to the Minister that poteen has been very much a part of the Irish tradition, and there is good poteen and bad poteen. It seems to me to be a matter to which Government might give thought with a view to regularisation. By regularisation I mean the introduction of legislation which would standardise this commodity, which is part of our history. We might arrange a method of production with a lesser alcoholic content which would be acceptable and which might rationalise this entire issue, which is in the myths and legends of this country.

I am entirely in favour of this Bill, but I should like to ask the Minister a question concerning the form which the legislation has been given. It seems to postulate that a product has already been manufactured and put on the market which is described as Irish whiskey, and then goes on to say that it should not be regarded as Irish whiskey unless it complies with certain specified requirements. What I should like to ask is why there is not an attempt to prevent products being put on the market which are wrongly described as Irish whiskey and what sanction there would be if somebody who had already done that persisted in doing it notwithstanding the proposed provisions of this Bill?

As somebody involved and interested in the licensed trade I do not wish to let the opportunity pass without making a few comments on the Bill before us. The comments I have to make are being put forward in a constructive and objective manner. Having said that, I want to add that I do not believe and I do not accept that the Bill now before us will contribute in any way to advancing or improving the quality, the distinctiveness and the character of Irish whiskey as traditionally we have known it. Indeed, the reverse is true and I believe that time will prove that point to be correct.

I accept the need for legislation at this time on three separate points. I accept first of all that there is a need to set technical regulations and to define in law Irish whiskey and blended Irish whiskey. Second, I accept that it is right that we should anticipate likely EEC decisions in regard to defining whiskey in Community terms and to govern the movement of whiskey within the Community and that we should prepare our ground in anticipation for that situation developing. I want to say also that I share with the Minister and Senator Staunton the sentiment that it is a nice thing that we can say that the product that will emerge from the Bushmills' distillery in the northern part of this island will henceforth be described as Irish whiskey.

On these three points I accept the necessity for legislation but I believe that this Bill goes much further. The fact that it appears to enjoy the support and agreement of the distilling industry in this country does not reassure me of its value. Indeed, it raises a question mark in my mind. As I say, the Bill goes far beyond what in my opinion is required in relation to defining Irish whiskey and blended Irish whiskey, and to prepare our ground for likely decisions within the European Community, but it provides, and this is where I take issue with the Minister on it, for a situation, a set of circumstances and a set of definitions the end result of which will be that Irish whiskey will be virtually indistinguishable from Scotch whisky.

I believe that this Bill was conceived in haste, created by the anxiety of what may happen in relation to EEC directives. I believe an attempt was made to go for shelter in relation to EEC developments under the umbrella of United Kingdom legislation in relation to Scotch whisky. I believe, as I have always believed, that Irish whiskey as a product is unique, that it has a quality of its own and that it had the capacity, and still has, to stand on its own in relation to the developments some people are worrying about. We and the United Kingdom authorities could initiate a joint approach in relation to negotiations and discussions within the EEC with regard to the defining of whiskey and its movement within the Community. I do not accept that to resist successively what might be anticipated as inevitable decisions in the EEC it was necessary for us to follow line for line the legislation of the United Kingdom Parliament in relation to Scotch whisky. If we continue to follow that legislation line for line we will finish up with a product that can be distinguished from Scotch whisky only by the label on the bottle.

I want to turn to what I regard as another unnecessary step being taken by this Bill. It will enable Irish Distillers to put whiskey on the market after a three-year maturing period as against a minimum period of five years at present. How can the case be advanced that this is necessary and that it will be to the advantage of the product? I have read carefully the discussion that took place in the other House during the passing of this Bill there. This point was raised, and I gave particular attention to the Minister's reply, but he did not attempt to deal adequately with the risks inherent in this situation.

I suggest, from the knowledge that is available to me, that there can be two reasons why it was necessary to follow line for line, first of all, the United Kingdom legislation in regard to the defining of Scotch whisky. First, a decision has been made, perhaps by the industry or by somebody else, that we should harmonise totally with Scotch. If that is the opinion that is widely held it is one that I do not share. The other reason that would suggest itself is that by reducing the period of maturing of the product from five years to three years the distilling industry will save substantially. Indeed, some people might go so far as to say that it could amount to a financial windfall, because a product that now would have to remain for a further two years in the maturing process can be lifted out and the distillers will have available this two-year volume to go on the market. I may be wrong but I am raising the point to give the Minister an opportunity to show whether I am or not.

Some mention has been made elsewhere of preserving the special secrets of the Irish distilling industry—it has not been said here today, but I know it has been said elsewhere. As far as I am concerned, once we harmonise totally with the Scottish product, we will have few if any secrets left. We may have one, and I will come to it later. Once our whiskey is permitted to be extracted and put on the market after the three-year period, I fear that that will become the accepted pattern and that the day of the five-year blend, the seven-year blend or the ten-year-old will fast disappear. Three years, of course, is the absolute minimum period in which the product, if it is to be described as whiskey, can be put on the market, because as I understand it the distilling process needs that three-year period for the different components to mix and blend successfully. What actually happened afterwards was that the product was allowed to mature so that it would acquire this taste that has been described as mellow and acquire its colouring from the mahogany and oaken casks in which it was kept.

I am informed that once you draw off the product at three years and then compare it with the whiskey that comes off at five or seven years, it is deficient in two vital aspects, first, its colouring and, second, its taste. It is a raw product that has not acquired the colour traditionally identified with Irish whiskey. For that reason one has to provide an additive to produce the colouring and to give it the element of sweetness.

If one is in the field of additives, one has taken a substantial step from the traditional blend of Irish whiskey and one is moving into the field of the semi-artificial product. I do not know what the additives will be, but I wonder is this the only remaining secret we are being asked to preserve. Until now we had a product on the market that was uniquely Irish, perhaps as unique as the shamrock. But we are now moving to a situation where we are going to lose that distinctive character, taste and quality. We are moving to a product that will be indistinguishable from Scotch whisky. We have export sales amounting to many millions, a market that has been growing at a remarkable rate. Therefore, we have a responsibility to preserve this unique product, but I believe we are going in the opposite direction with some of the provisions in this Bill.

To summarise, I want to address four queries to the Minister. Is the likely EEC decision to define whiskey in an EEC context so serious that our definition of whiskey must be totally similar to that of the United Kingdom? Will the Minister accept that in this Bill, which is harmonising our definition and our standards totally with the Scottish method of production, we are losing the distinction, character and quality of Irish whiskey? If we are not, why not? Will he accept that the standard and quality of the traditional Irish product will not be the same if he permits what I would describe as a semimature product to be sold after three years, a product which will require additives to make it marketable? Will he tell the House what precise agreements or safeguards were advanced by the Irish distilling industry to persuade him or his Department that it was to the benefit of the Irish product that the maturing period should be reduced from five to three years?

I support this Bill. There is a market for Irish whiskey. The more we can standardise Irish whiskey the better from the point of view for its promotion. I am glad we now have it clear that Bushmills is an Irish whiskey. I have some questions to ask the Minister on matters about which I am not quite clear. One is that it has always been a popular belief that at times Irish whiskey has been exported to Scotland, blended with Scotch whisky and has ended on the market as a Scotch whisky blend. Does the British legislation now prevent that happening? It has always been a popular belief that when distillers are blending whiskey they will average the ages of the whiskey and come to an average age on that blend. For example, if you add 50 per cent of four-year old to 50 per cent of ten-year old, it could be advertised as a seven-year old blend. Can that be done? Could a foreign country, say America, manufacture whiskey and market it as Irish whiskey? Is there anything to prevent that? To illustrate the point, for instance, in this country we can manufacture Danish pastry and advertise it as Danish pastry. It is not made in Denmark, it is made in Ireland, but it has always been known as the type of pastry which is made in Denmark. That still happens. As we all know, one of the most important whiskeys in Ireland is "Paddy". It has always been spelt "whisky". Will "Paddy" now have to change that spelling to come under this Bill?

I am very disturbed by this Bill. I would like to endorse what Senator Howard said in his very well considered, researched and persuasive speech. It was a bad day for Ireland when a ten-year-old whiskey was reduced to five; it will be an even worse day when it goes from five years to three years. I cannot see the logic in this Bill. It is at odds with any logic I have ever been taught.

The Minister said that the request from the industry was a direct result of the recognition that public taste had switched to favour milder types of whiskey which did not require lengthy periods of maturation to maintain quality. What kind of nonsense is that? How does whiskey become milder by its period of maturation becoming shorter? The rawest and roughest kinds of whiskey are the youngest, the mildest, the most bland, benign and civilised are the oldest. I cannot understand who wrote that "The request of the industry was a direct result of the recognition that public taste had switched to favour milder types of whiskey which did not require lengthy periods of maturation to maintain its quality".

It must have been written by a teetoteller.

It is nonsense. It is dreadful if that type of prose is brought into the House and palmed off as commonsense. I am very glad I heard Senator Howard's speech. The Minister's speech is the most extraordinary piece of nonsense I have ever seen. He said:

The aim of the Irish Distillers Group is to make Irish whiskey a force in world markets and its performance in recent years is indicative of its determination. Between 1970 and 1979 whiskey exports increased by 420 per cent to over one million cases and Irish whiskey is, in fact, now exported to 100 countries. In America, Irish Distillers' largest single export market, Irish whiskey continued during 1979 to maintain a faster rate of growth than the market as a whole. In the EEC, the group also increased their sales substantially during 1979.

The logic of that is to change the formula and equate it with Scotch. In other words, we have had a terrific success rate in the last few years: we are outstripping Scotch and other forms of whisky on the world market and that kind of success has to be followed through with logical action. Let us change the formula and equate ourselves with Scotch——

That is not in the Bill.

I am quoting from the Minister's speech.

I will explain later.

I would like to have it explained because I think this is awful. To say you are going to make whisky milder by letting it out two years earlier is nonsense. If we have a record of increasing success, in other words if we are outstripping our rivals because of the excellence of Irish whiskey, the logical thing is to intensify the things in Irish whiskey that distinguish it from other whiskies so that we continue to outstrip our rivals. This Bill suggests that you cancel the things that make Irish whiskey unique and successful, you bring it into line with the other whiskies we are outstripping, and then you say you do this in the interests of increasing the excellence of Irish whiskey. I do not like to be too facetious but I think Irish whiskey is unquestionably a better whiskey than Scotch. I say this as a man who has actually applied himself to hours of self-sacrifice and research to the whole subject.

After sober consideration.

Yes. This Bill is a monstrous imposition and I must support Senator Howard. I think there should be a division on this Bill.

I must confess I am not qualified to speak on this subject. I agree with Senator Howard. The main purpose of this Bill is to conform with EEC regulations and we all know that the main purpose of EEC regulations is to bring about the greatest possible measure of harmonisation. I will not go into that, but if we are seeking harmonisation, do we see uniformity in the spelling of the word "whiskey" itself? Do the member countries of the EEC introduce legislation about not only Irish whiskey but Spanish onions, Brussels sprouts, Irish stew, Danish pastry? Are we reduced to that kind of legislation? Principally, do we do anything to harmonise the price of Irish whiskey in EEC countries? I am told that the most extravagant prices are charged for Irish whiskey in most EEC countries. While this might place great credit on the quality of Irish whiskey, it does not do a great deal for its sales. The Minister should tell us to what extent he really intends to go in respect of harmonisation.

I wish to thank the speakers who contributed. Let me say that their fears may be unfounded. They seemed to draw a parallel between Irish whiskey and Scotch whisky. They are two very distinctive whiskies.

They will not be after this.

The Senator is being very selective. If he reads my brief he will see that it says:

Though Scotch whisky is our main competitor in export markets, it is recognised on both sides that it would be to our mutual advantage to secure a Community definition that is acceptable to us. I should say that the harmonisation of definitions proposed will not mean that Scotch and Irish whiskies will be identical. The key essential, well known features of whisky production which are common both to ourselves and the Scottish are being set down but distillation techniques and the mixes of raw materials used are not being specified or harmonised.

That is what really matters. It is they, after all, who produce the end product. Are different techniques and mixes not trade secrets?

No, they are not.

They are. My speech continued:

Accordingly the traditional differences in regard to taste and flavour which have existed between Irish and Scotch whiskey should not be disturbed by this legislation.

What about the key matter of three years as distinct from five? That is crucial.

If the Senator gives me a moment, I will find my note on this question.

The Minister did not realise the passions this subject would arouse.

In Lloyd George's budget of April 1915 it was felt that the sale of alcohol should be discouraged as this was having a bad effect on munition workers. In addition to doubling the duty on spirits, he pressed for a proposal in favour of compulsorily maturing spirits in bond before release for sale. The Mature Spirits (Restriction) Act, 1915 was then passed. Whiskey had to be stored in casks in bond for at least three years. That was in 1915 and I think our grandfathers were better drinkers than we are.

In the Act, the period was reduced to two years for the first year of operation. Imported spirits were subjected to the same restrictions. The Mature Spirits Act, 1969 reduced the maturation period to three years at the request of the distillers. That change in attitude in the 1969 Act on behalf of the Irish distillers was a direct result of their recognition that the public taste had switched to favour milder types of whiskey which did not require lengthy periods of maturation to maintain this quality. From the way Senators are speaking one would think that today is the first time it had ever been suggested that the period should be reduced——

It was a bad day when it did come in——

I would not think so. This Bill is saying that the whiskey must be in the wood for three years. Is that not correct? That does not mean it cannot be in the wood for 15 years, ten years, or eight years; it must be at least three years. Senator Howard will agree that there are whiskies guaranteed 15 years. Is that right?

I believe the industry will avail of this opportunity to take it out at three years and add sweetners and colouring to it. They will be moving away from the genuine colour.

No. They do not have to do that because this legislation is not changing that, one way or another. This legislation is to legalise what has been happening all along.

Does it not bring it down from five to three?

If Senators read the Bill there is no mention of reducing the time from five to three years. The EEC regulations had a lot to do——

Up to 1969 it was five years——

We will have to let the Minister continue without interruption.

We disagree slightly with the British legislation because we were afraid their legislation was contravening the Treaty of Rome. The UK definition could produce difficulties. It lays down a distillation strength and the EEC definition does not. That means different people in the business can manufacture whiskey at different strengths. The British legislation lays down the strength and you must confine yourself to that when you are processing. Thus, the EEC legislation does not really define the strength. I must say this in plain layman's language. That is what we are trying to comply with here.

There are many more questions about this. Like the Senators, I would be greatly worried if we lost our identity as a people who manufacture and export Irish whiskey, or if we damaged the good name of Irish whiskey. Senator Whitaker was worrying about somebody who brought another whiskey on the market which purported to be Irish whiskey. He asked what would happen there. The Irish Consumers Act 1978, covers all those matters.

As recently as 15 March 1977 the question of setting up a poteen industry in Ireland was raised in the Dáil. The Minister for Finance in reply to a parliamentary question said it was open to any person to set up a distillery to make spirits of any kind if he complied with the ordinary requirements of the laws relating to the production and marketing of spirits, in particular the excise laws administered by the Revenue Commissioners. He went on to say that a drink called poteen was available on the home market—this is a brand name used by Hibernian Distillation Blenders Limited, Cork, to describe a blend of spirits produced by them. The company do not distil spirits but purchase them from other concerns for blending. Somebody raised the question about the quantity of exports.

I merely pointed that there was a mistake in the Minister's speech in the Dáil.

I was going to refer to that. There was a mistake made and we regret that very much.

Does this Bill give this House or the producers any power to prevent the sale of spirits in other countries under a similar title?

As the Bill says, whiskey has to be made in Ireland, either North or South, to get the definition of Irish Whiskey.

Have we any power to prevent or interfere with the sale of whiskey sold under that title in other countries?

Yes, we have recourse to the way it is manufactured.

Question put and agreed to.
Committe Stage ordered for Wednesday, 3 December 1980.
Barr
Roinn