Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I will begin by welcoming the Bill and thanking Deputies Breathnach, Lahart and Troy for bringing it before the House. We will not oppose the passage of the Bill to Committee Stage. There are flaws in it, which the Minister of State has identified. We hope to work constructively to improve it on Committee Stage. We will support it because in principle we believe that where somebody is knowingly purchasing illicit goods, it is wrong and there should be a sanction. However, I share some of the Minister of State's views that it may be difficult to implement. It is something that can perhaps be explored further on Committee Stage.

My understanding of the Bill is that if passed it would make it an offence to purchase illicit alcohol, illicit tobacco and illicit solid fuel as well as making it an offence to purchase such goods from an unregistered or unlicensed retailer. I question the ability of the Garda to implement such legislation but the theory is good. We can explore that further. It is proposed by the Bill that we provide for the imposition of a penalty in respect of such offences and provide for an on-the-spot fine in respect of such offences. It is a welcome proposal though it may have resource implications. We need to be conscious of the relationship between the on-the-spot fine and any potential court fine.

With regard to the provisions of the Bill, section 4 deals with illicit alcohol. Section 4(1) makes it an offence for a person to buy or attempt to buy alcohol in circumstances where he or she had known or should have known that taxes and excise duty had not been paid on that alcohol.

Section 5 deals with illicit tobacco. Section 5(1) makes it an offence for a person to buy or attempt to buy tobacco in circumstances where he or she had known or should have known that taxes and excise duties had not been paid.

Section 6 deals with illicit solid fuel. Section 6(1) makes it an offence for a person to buy or attempt to buy solid fuel in circumstances where he or she had known or should have known the relevant taxes had not been paid. Section 6(2) defines the term "relevant taxes and duties" which is used in section 6.

Section 8 deals with the purchase of alcohol, tobacco and solid fuel from an unregistered or unlicensed retailer. Section 8(1) makes it an offence for a person to buy an alcohol product from a person whose name is not included in the list of current valid liquor licences, which is maintained by the Revenue Commissioners.

Section 10 provides for immunity from suit of an authorised person for an act which is done in good faith.

Section 7 deals with the burden of proof in a prosecution. I have some reservations about it. In respect of a prosecution under sections 4, 5 and 6, it provides for the application of a rebuttable presumption to the effect that the required taxes and duties have not been paid. The onus will be on the suspected offender to demonstrate the relevant taxes and duties have been paid. This seems to an extent out of step with normal practice. I am also conscious of the potential interplay between section 7 and sections 4, 5 and 6. If it is the case that somebody can be prosecuted for purchasing illicit goods or being reckless to that effect but it has not been proven that excise and taxes have not been paid on it because the onus of proof is on the suspected offender, is it possible somebody could be convicted without it having been proven that there were no taxes on it?

It is a potential difficulty which needs to be addressed.

There is a provision for test purchasing but it is not immediately clear to me from reading the proposal whether this will be undertaken by the gardaí or members of the public employed by or on behalf of the gardaí. It is something of which we need to be cautious. Will the Fianna Fáil representatives elaborate on that in their closing remarks, as clarity is needed? Test purchasing is used quite regularly with alcohol through garda programmes to tackle underage drinking but it is not immediately clear to me that a garda programme is intended here, although if it is that is fair enough.

Tobacco is one of the most extensively smuggled substances in the world, with one in ten cigarettes sold in the EU coming from the illicit trade, which means that Governments are robbed of millions of euro in potential revenue and that tobacco contraband is a lucrative criminal business. The tobacco lobby is strong in the EU and the top companies spend millions every year on lobbying in Brussels. They employ lobbyists to engage with MEPs on issues they believe to be relevant to their business. The tobacco industry claims the problem with the illicit trade of tobacco is counterfeit cigarettes, but even its own data show that most of the illicit trade products are manufactured by the tobacco companies themselves. There is a need, therefore, for a separation of the problem and the solution. There should be no influence from the tobacco industry in putting in place an effective tracking and tracing system. Before the budget, fuel suppliers warned that the smuggling of coal would increase significantly if carbon taxes were applied. Coal is already brought into this jurisdiction from the North, often originating in Scotland. Some of this coal has a high sulphur content of up to 7% and would not be allowed to be sold here, according to the industry. The issue of the sale of illicit alcohol has a long history, probably dating far beyond partition, but it is still a significant issue which needs to be addressed.

We support the proposal for on-the-spot fines but the fines should be ring-fenced for the health system to deal with the fallout from smoking and drinking.

In general, there is merit to the proposal but some of the technicalities and details need to be ironed out on Committee Stage.

See this speech in context