Michael Lowry (Tipperary, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I can confirm that I am in my Dáil office. I welcome this meeting, which I believe was necessary. The presentations have been concise and precise. I am sure everybody is acting in good faith. The reason the meeting is necessary is that in recent weeks we have heard contradictory statements in the media and in the Dáil. Today's meeting is useful in that it clarifies some of the issues that have been raised. In a simplified way, Ministers, and everybody who is commenting on behalf of the Government and Government agencies, are saying that the transport providers, in particular the hauliers, are not educated in the new system and are not prepared for it and as a consequence they are making errors which are causing the delays. Revenue is taking every opportunity to tell everyone who cares to listen that Revenue is not the problem and it is blaming the industry. Today, we hear practical examples of what has happened. What surprises me is that neither the industry nor the authorities trialled the system before it was up and running. We must be conscious of the fact that people did stockpile. I see it in business every day. All the major groups have stockpiled. I would like Mr. Harrahill to address Mr. Drennan's statement that the stockpiling is coming to an end and therefore we will have far more transactions and activity. Mr. Drennan stated that once trade volumes are restored to normal levels the systems will collapse entirely. Does Mr. Harrahill agree with that? Is there any danger whatsoever of that actually happening?

I feel great sympathy for the hauliers. As everyone said, Brexit was on the way and we were warned about it, but it is surprising that given that we had five years to prepare, we are still not prepared. The IT issue needs to be resolved one way or another. The reason I have sympathy for hauliers is that the procedures are complicated, complex, cumbersome and time consuming. According to the hauliers, they are unacceptable as an overhead. Listening to everybody here today the only conclusion that I can come to is that it is a spaghetti junction of bureaucracy. It is mad to think that the UK system for clearance is simpler and easier than our system and that needs to be addressed.

Could we get a direct answer on the necessity for independent oversight and verification of the IT system? We are talking about moving from 2 million transactions to 20 million and the question arises as to whether the system is capable of carrying the additional load. Do we have the trained expertise in the public sector or in the private sector to handle the expected volume of transactions and activity? If trade slows down, it is lost and if we lose trade, the economy suffers.

It has been suggested to us as public representatives that after the events of 11 September 2001, the European Union introduced directives or legislation on a security declaration. The arrangement placed a requirement on third countries trading into the EU, meaning that the carrier was to bear responsibility regarding the proceedings. The carrier, in this instance, is an aircraft or a vessel. How did it arise that the ferries came to an arrangement with the Revenue Commissioners that effectively transferred the IT and administrative obligations to the hauliers and factories? It has been suggested that an agreement was reached to the satisfaction of the ferries and that it added a greater burden to the transporters, particularly the hauliers.