Mr. Niall Cody:

It is unlikely that goods of that type would be selected for physical examination, particularly if the destination was an approved operator. That is why we want to facilitate smaller entities in getting authorised status. If an entity has authorised status, the likelihood is that it is not going to be selected because it has an ongoing relationship with Revenue. If the Deputy was the exporter from Derry and I was the importer and we were authorised, we would have an ongoing relationship with Revenue in which we would carry out post-clearance checks and Revenue would be very unlikely to select those consignments for goods checking.

In terms of the 6% for document checking, as Ms Lynch has pointed out, the entry would be entered and then it would be selected for a document check. The importer would be required to provide the supporting documentation, the invoice, bill of lading, licence and so forth. One of the things we are really interested in exploring is how we can move documentation checking to a digital platform. Prior to 1992 when we dealt with cross-Border customs we had the Automated Entry Processing, AEP, system, which was an advanced electronic system. Now we routinely get records and invoices from businesses for VAT, audit and checking submitted online through our Revenue systems. What we are interested in doing now is exploring the idea that we could upload the documentation check.

In terms of the sophistication that we want to achieve, we want to remove the requirement for a business to divert. There are 13 main routes across the Border, as the Deputy knows better than I. Very soon after we began considering this issue nine months ago, we concluded that the diversion and impact of having to call to a designated Revenue customs post does not make sense and the volumes would not justify it. Therefore, alternative solutions are needed. The authorised economic operators that------