Gerald Nash (Louth, Labour) | Oireachtas source

Brexit is nothing short of a tragedy and most of all it is a tragedy for the British people. Those who were conned into voting to take back control will, as a direct result of Brexit, see their Government take control all right - control of a faltering economy, a poorer, less diverse society and a deeply uncertain future. Far from delivering on the promise of a Britain more respected and more influential in the world, the conduct of the Brexit project to date has, in fact, sullied Britain’s reputation and the status of a country whose future was at the heart of a reformed, social, Europe. I say this as a friend of Britain and who always strives and seeks to better understand the complexities of our long relationship. We all need critical friends, however.

Make no mistake, the mirage of taking back control was all about the unrealisable fantasies of a cosseted elite in Britain, well versed in manipulating citizens and using them, ultimately, for their own ends and profits. If all of this collapses around them, they will still be rich. Their kids will still get a privileged education and the best start and progress in life. They will all be okay but the same cannot be said for working people, SME owners, people whose jobs are at risk of disappearing and business owners whose markets may diminish before their very eyes. We all hope for a strong future relationship and that that relationship will be agreed over the next short period of time and underpinned by the rule of international law. I take this opportunity to wish our Ministers and our skilled officials well as we enter what we might term the endgame.

I am very proud to represent the people of County Louth and east County Meath, a Border constituency. The risks for our country and our economy generally are very obvious but they are particularly acute in the Border region. An entire way of life is under threat, not merely our economic future. As has been mentioned time and again today, our EU colleagues fundamentally get this. They have been as good as their word. At every turn in these in this tortuous saga they not only stood with us but stood up for us. They backed us on the backstop. They, like President-elect Biden, still back the Good Friday Agreement and all it promises. They have backed peace and prosperity in Ireland. We all want to see the EU and UK trade as simply and productively as possible while maintaining the integrity of the Single Market and its rules. I recall accompanying the then German Federal Minister of Justice and Consumer Protection, my social democratic colleague, Ms Katarina Barley, MEP, on a visit to the Border area of north County Louth in early February of last year. We stood on top of a well-known place, Flagstaff in County Down. To the east I showed her where the IRA ambushed and killed 18 British soldiers near Warrenpoint. That site could become a very real symbol of reconciliation and positive economic development if we build the long-awaited Narrow Water bridge. I showed her where the countless watchtowers and checkpoints had pockmarked the landscape in north County Louth, south County Armagh and south County Down until relatively recently. She wondered how a place so staggeringly and stunningly beautiful could have witnessed so much sectarian violence and misery over decades.

The future relationship needs to be viewed not just through the prism of our economic interests but must also be grounded in mutual respect, the promotion and maintenance of respect, mutual trust and good relationships, east-west and North-South. We should never lose sight of this. Of course, the closeness of the relationship between Ireland and Britain was given practical form in the common travel area arrangements which predate our common membership of the EU. Many of the mutual agreements and arrangements we have taken for granted over the decades have had to be codified and captured in primary laws. It is welcome to see arrangements applying to healthcare, third level education support, social welfare, employment permits, employment rights and other important matters provided for in this Bill and in previous legislation brought to this House over the past two to three years.

Ultimately, the provisions of this Bill seek to minimise disruption and mitigate the anticipated worst impacts of a potential no-trade deal Brexit to business and the economy. On this point I turn for a moment to a particular provision in the Bill. There are enormous very legitimate concerns in the tourism-retail sector, if I can use that term, about the potential impact on that sector of a measure contained in section 64.

My colleague, Deputy Howlin, articulated this very point in his contribution. He is not, as the Minister well knows from his experience, a Member who is prone to engage in fits of hyperbole. He was very clear on his concerns and the concerns of many who operate in this sector, in terms of the potential impact of section 64.

The non-grocery element of the retail trade, as the Minister knows, has been absolutely hammered since the onset of the pandemic. There has been a concentration of job losses in this economic sector, which is heavily concentrated in rural parts of our country and in our smaller towns. The Government has, of course, provided unprecedented cash supports to keep businesses afloat and to keep people in work and connected to businesses, when closure seemed the only alternative for many of these particular businesses. This makes the frankly reckless measure provided for in section 64 all the more inexplicable, given the vast range of supports provided to businesses over the last period of time. The proposed amendments to the successful retail export scheme could not have been devised more unwisely or at a worse time. In order to give our retail sector every chance we need to maintain every weapon in our armoury and now is no time to turn the gun on it.

One element of this proposal involves increasing the value of qualifying goods under the scheme to €175 in order for a third country resident to be eligible to enjoy the benefits of the retail export scheme. The Minister may be aware that robust research undertaken for the sector suggests that 80% of tourist transactions are below this figure. Extraordinarily, this change, if approved by the Houses over the next couple of weeks, will see this minimum spend for tax-free shopping rocket to what we are told is the highest level in the EU. I understand France plans to drop its minimum spend for non-EU tourists from January 2021 in what is a very competitive environment. In order to give this exceptionally distressed sector some chance of trading its way out of the current quagmire when, we hope, we can get back to some semblance of normality, I urge the Government to drop this ill-conceived and poorly timed proposition.

To a point I understand the logic behind the proposal and the overall intention of section 64. I know from a reply to a parliamentary question I received last week from the Minister, Deputy Donohoe, that his view is that the volume of passenger traffic from the UK could mean a substantial increase in the volume of refund applications and that the current iteration of the retail export scheme could be open to abuse. Frankly, I do not share these concerns. They are overstated. They may be over-egged. Fáilte Ireland data show that shopping comprises just 11% of total expenditure when UK visitors take a trip here. I am not certain the displacement of consumer goods and potential massive VAT revenue loss arguments are ones of which we should be all that wary.

The Minister also advises in his reply to me that this move and the other associated measure, which is that UK visitors would be required to go through a different process from others in terms of proof of importation and payment of duty, are precautionary in nature. If the Minister is determined to introduce the latter measure, as contained in section 64, I implore the Government at least to review its efficacy after six months of operation of this particular provision and engage with the House and the sector affected to establish whether the measure is indeed required to meet the Government's stated objectives. In the Minister's contribution at the outset of the debate, he remarked he is prepared to engage with Opposition Members to look pragmatically at some sensible amendments that may be made to the legislation we are discussing here today. Certainly this is a conversation Deputy Howlin and I are prepared to have with him and his officials and, potentially, officials of the Department of Finance to address this particular concern, which I believe has a great degree of validity.

See this speech in context