Pearse Doherty (Donegal South West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I have a question about section 48 which we have disposed of. I refer to the possible monthly deferment of the payment by Revenue. What is the rationale? Tax will be delayed for a year, not lost, but the measure will affect the deficit or budget figures.

I ask about the robustness of the legislation to ensure that the type of activity such as diesel laundering is dealt with and clamped down on as much as possible. I listened to officials from Revenue. I reiterate that Revenue is one of the institutions of State, if it can be described as such, which has been unscathed by the financial crisis in that people have a great respect for Revenue even though some of them might end up on the wrong side of it. It is a very efficient organisation which has done a good job. I hope the incoming chairperson is as efficient as the outgoing chairperson. Is the legislation sufficiently robust to deal with this issue? Revenue officials spoke on the radio about the recent discovery in south Monaghan. It appeared from what was said - this is subject to a court case - that the discovery seemed to have been made by chance, that a lorry was spotted parked where it should not have been and a surveillance operation was mounted. The operation, which had been running for more than a year, has been stopped and put out of business, and that is welcome.

I refer to recent information about another case in Monaghan which has collapsed. I can speak freely about the case now. A €4 million fuel laundering plant was detected by Revenue in 2001 but the warrant issued was for fuel smuggling rather than fuel laundering. Therefore, the two charges against the individuals were dropped. They would have had an opportunity to defend themselves in court but the case collapsed as a result of the issuing of the wrong warrants. Is the legislation sufficiently robust to ensure that similar cases are not dropped for such reasons in order that at least they would make it to a court hearing? This is a matter of concern. I do not know who is to blame for the fact that the warrant was issued incorrectly. It is not just an issue for Revenue as it has happened in other cases over the years.

I was somewhat surprised that in the same radio interview it was suggested that criminal gangs have in their possession and actually own 150 outlets for laundered diesel in the State. I could be wrong because it could be that number in the island as a whole. These outlets are fronts. I note that one of the amendments states that an operation must be working for profit and therefore is not a front for these activities. If these are fronts to distribute washed diesel, how soon after the enacting of this legislation would the 150 operations be taken out of circulation? Revenue has a list of suspected outlets but it does not seem to have the powers or the intelligence information to close them down. From talking to individuals I am now very careful about where I stop for fuel. Many smaller fuel operators are completely legitimate and people may be avoiding going to them and filling up in Topaz or Applegreen instead. There is a suspicion and a fear among customers. Can the Minister offer any reassurance that these illegal petrol outlets will be closed in a timely manner?