Mr. Gerard Moran:

I wish to assure the members of the committee that we focus on diesel laundering fraud because of the sheer quantum involved. When this issue emerged it took a short time for the scale of it to become apparent. We are not blind to the situation and have been very exercised about the problem. We have responded quickly to every complaint. We test and are continuing to test filling stations. We are examining the supply chain returns made by all of the filling stations and are working our way back through the supply chain. We are working intensively on the problem. We are not blind to the pain that has been inflicted on the public by petrol stretching. Obviously the individuals affected must pursue other remedies.

Insurance companies are paying out but compensation needs to become more widespread. Just like the Deputy, I am aware that some insurance companies are paying out for some claims.

The Deputy asked whether we need further legislation. As I pointed out, our overall strategy to deal with fuel fraud is to drive a much tighter and sounder supply chain. A key element, when we identify traders in the supply chain, is our ability to withdraw their licence if we cannot force them to become compliant. We have encountered some push-back on the matter but have pursued it very aggressively.

We have closed down a very large number of filling stations during the past several years. We have encountered some difficulty on that front in the past year and in the current Finance Bill, which I understand is before the Seanad, we are strengthening the legislative provisions in primary law that will clarify explicitly the grounds we may consider when examining an application for a licence or considering whether it is appropriate to revoke it.

The Deputy and the Chairman mentioned the issue of traceability and whether there is a difference in how we trace petrol and diesel through the supply chain. I apologise to the Chairman for not responding to that point earlier. As it creates a much greater risk and the issue in terms of diesel is of a completely different order, particularly the diversion of marked diesel into the raw diesel supply chain, we have much tighter reporting requirements in regard to those commodities in our monthly supply chain returns that traders make. For those commodities, they must return each single transaction when they make their monthly return. In regard to petrol, to date we have allowed traders to make an aggregate return where they produce the aggregate of their transactions with each trading partner during that month. That was driven by our perception of where the greater risk lay and where the risk was of a lower order. We are always conscious of the administrative burden we put on the trade when we introduce reporting requirements like this. However, in light of what has happened, we gave an undertaking during discussions on the Finance Bill that we will certainly review whether the differential we have at present is appropriate.

We need to bear in mind that we may not be looking at a petrol stretching problem here. We have not concluded that is the case. It may have been an accidental contamination at some point and that could be the problem but we will review it. We also need to review it because methanol will be introduced in the UK, including in Northern Ireland, at some stage from next year as a motor fuel and, therefore, there will be potentially greater availability potentially of methanol on the market on the island. In that context, we will review the differential. We will consult the industry on this and we will take a view on it. It is a question that has been raised and it is fair one. We will consider whether we need to have more detailed reporting for petrol in light of this and other risks that are emerging.