Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I will begin on a positive note by thanking the Minister of State for accepting amendment No. 11. The very least we can do is review the operation of the three proposals in this section after a year and I welcome that. I also admire the Minister of State's mental dexterity in being able to argue that introducing a new high threshold will be welcomed by retailers. By that logic, if we raise the threshold to €500, they will be ecstatic because people would flock in to spend €501. The Minister of State missed his calling; he should obviously have been in public relations. I spent five years in the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform but this concept of double non-taxation the Minister of State has introduced today is certainly a new one. If the UK tax authorities were so decent as to subsidise Irish retailers, I would be delighted. If we get a VAT refund for sales in Ireland and the UK tax authorities outside the European Union decide to give a tax rebate there as well, would that not be a great thing? It would be a real boon to retailers and purchasers and would encourage people to spend in Ireland at the British taxpayer's expense. Why in God's name would the Minister of State regard that as a bad thing? I do not see any merit in that argument whatever.

The basic contention is very clear here and Deputies on the Opposition benches who have made this argument have been clear. If there is a real threat to revenue from UK nationals becoming third-country nationals and spending and getting VAT rebates for their purchases in Ireland, I do not see that there will be any great loss from that because they are spending money in Ireland. However, if the Minister of State thinks there will be a loss, let us see how that impacts. There is not going to be mass tourism in the next 12 months, as the Minister of State knows. It will be well into next year before we have mass vaccination and even after that, many people will be reluctant to travel. There will be no mass tourism in 2021 so the very businesses we are talking about here - craft and souvenir shops, knitwear shops and the small jewellery shops - will all be clinging on for survival in any event Why in God's name would we impose another burden on them now?

The Minister of State has taken the first step by indicating the Government will review all of this in 12 months. None of us is seeking to amend the third part of this, the high hurdles that have been put in for UK nationals. Very few people will jump those particular hurdles to get their money back if they have to pay up front, return to the UK, prove they have paid duties and taxes in the United Kingdom and then apply to Ireland for the rebate. How many people will do that? I do not think there will be any discernible impact on revenue from that so that is closing off the fear. However, the extra yard the Minister of State is insisting that we go now is to deal with people who are not affected by Brexit, good, bad or indifferent, namely, tourists from the United States, Canada, Australia, China, Japan or any other third country who now enjoy the possibility of getting excise returned on expenditure from a zero threshold. The Minister of State wants to raise that threshold to €75. That has nothing to do with Brexit. It will impact on retailers and we have been told as much. The independent economic evaluation the retailers have done shows that the Minister of State's proposed new threshold of €75 will impact on 50% of their sales. It is not too late. If the Minister of State cannot make a change now and if he needs to discuss it further with the Minister for Finance, Deputy Donohoe, will he give us an undertaking that he will consider the matter overnight? I understand we will deal with Report Stage tomorrow. Is that not correct? We could deal with that amendment overnight if the Minister of State cannot deal with it now. However, in a very comprehensive and elaborate Bill that has brought consensus, why would the Minister of State introduce a note of discord and cause the House to divide, which he will do if he does not go this last step?

See this speech in context