Gerald Nash (Louth, Labour) | Oireachtas source

My colleague, Deputies Howlin and Naughten, articulated the case against the Government's proposition extremely well. I support the objective. Deputy Howlin and I spoke at length in our Second Stage contributions about the impact of this particular proposition from the Government, the changes that are planned in the treatment of UK citizens and the intention to increase the threshold. We also discussed the impact it will have on a very important subset of the retail sector that has been crucified as a result of the pandemic and the public health initiatives needed to address all of the associated problems.

It is ironic that the State has spent countless billions of euro supporting a sector that is on its knees as a result of Covid-19 and help it through this unprecedented and difficult time to allow their doors to be kept open but is now, in effect, turning the gun on that sector after all of the efforts made to ensure that sub-sector of retail could remain viable until such time as the threat of the pandemic recedes and it can return to profitability. If we proceed with the Government's proposition, this will have a catastrophic effect on the sector identified by Deputy Howlin.

Those who sell souvenirs and small companies, which are often family run and, in some cases, passed on from one generation to the next, will be no more. That is the truth. I find it curious in the extreme that an attempt has been made to essentially amend our finance or tax legislation in the context of a Brexit Bill. It seems to me that this is some kind of pet project for an official in the Department of Finance or Revenue who has decided that this represents an opportunity to shoehorn in this particular initiative without any real due diligence, as we have identified and referred to, no pre-legislative scrutiny and no impact assessment worth the name. That is a significant injustice to the retailers who will be negatively impacted by this proposition.

I read the tax strategy group papers presented before our consideration of the budget very diligently and could not identify any initiative from Revenue or anybody else that proposed to make the kinds of changes proposed in this Bill, such as increasing the threshold to qualify for the retail export scheme from €0 to €175, as was indicated in the initial Bill when published. The figure in the Minister's amendment is now €75. This is not the place or time to introduce measures like this when the sector is on its knees and needs our support.

It is reckless, ill-conceived and very poorly timed, and no objective basis has been presented for it. Most of us in the House, I hope, believe in evidence-based policymaking. It is difficult to make the case to support a proposition such as this from the Government without any evidence. The evidence from those on ground, however, suggests this will have an extraordinarily negative impact on their businesses and employment levels in the sector, and on sustaining those businesses that are on their knees.

There is an acknowledgement by the Government that the original proposition was, to put it charitably, imperfect, and a concession of sorts was made in seeking to reduce the €175 refund threshold to €75, but that misunderstands the issue and the concerns of the sector. Splitting the difference will not make any difference. It is an entirely pointless, tokenistic concession to give the pretence that there is some movement in the direction of what the sector requires. I ask the Government, in the spirit of the consensus that Deputy Howlin mentioned and the general unanimity we have had in the House in our national approach to the existential challenge of Brexit, to dispose with its proposition, to accept the amendment tabled by Deputy Howlin and others, including me, and to reflect again on the proposal for the treatment of UK citizens in the application of this section. That can be dealt with.

As I said in my Second Stage contribution, if the Government is determined to make such a provision, let us keep it under review and closely examine the impact of the second part of the proposition. I hope we all believe in the notion of evidence-based policymaking. This is poor policy, shoehorned into an inappropriate Bill in a badly timed and ill-conceived way, and I appeal to the Government to drop it and to accept the amendment.

See this speech in context