Gerald Nash (Louth, Labour) | Oireachtas source

We have offered all evening to allow the Minister of State to engage with the Minister for Finance, Deputy Donohoe, and his officials to discuss Deputy Howlin's proposal, which is a reasonable one. The Minister of State has gone so far as to at least understand the concerns we have expressed on behalf of those who will be so adversely affected by this change he appears determined to introduce. Like Deputy Howlin, I am stunned by the Minister of State's logic and his particular understanding of consumer behaviour. Whenever our political careers end, hopefully not any time soon, we might consider going into business together because the Minister of State's understanding of consumer behaviour would lead to considerable profitability for any business he might get involved in.

I ask the Minister of State to examine our proposal again. He has gone this far and there has been a concession by the Department of Finance and the Revenue in understanding the logic of where we are coming from and the concerns of retailers by reducing the threshold from €175 to €75. We are nearly there and the Minister of State should consider this a little more.

As Deputy Howlin said, the third element of this provides for some onerous obligations on UK citizens who purchase goods here. They will go through an onerous process, including proving purchase, reclaiming VAT, and so on. As I said on Second Stage, from looking at the evidence provided to us by the retail sector and speaking to those who are directly involved, I believe the Minister of State's view of the potential impact on the UK and the potential for lost revenue is exaggerated. We are also not looking at the potential, if we leave things as they are, for increased activity, revenue generation and employment taxes. That is something we need to consider and there needs to be a trade-off in that regard.

I want to correct part of the contribution I made earlier. I reflected and there was reference to this issue in the tax strategy group papers. This leads me to be even more surprised than I was that no reference was made to this proposal in the budget speech of the Minister, Deputy Donohoe, in mid-October, no reference was made in the Finance Bill, and no reference was made in any engagement at the finance committee in recent weeks on Committee Stage of the Bill. That is surprising. This is no place to discuss this proposal, which will have a wide-ranging impact on our taxation system and the treatment of a retail sector in this country that has been disproportionately impacted.

We need to do everything we can to make sure these businesses can keep their doors open. They have been benefiting from the temporary wage subsidy scheme, the employment wage subsidy scheme and, in recent times, the Covid restrictions support scheme and other supports provided through our local enterprise office network. It would show a wilful disregard to them if we were now to turn around and place an additional burden on their shoulders. They are looking to 2021 with some hope that they can keep the door open, thanks to the supports provided by the Members of these Houses. They are looking at 2021 with a bit more optimism, as we hope we can have a vaccination programme that will keep people safe and get our economy back to some form of normality. They are now struggling for viability. They can be viable, and let us support them to profitability next year by parking this proposal in full. I implore the Minister of State to reflect on this again. Let us engage over the next short period with the Minister for Finance to reflect on the impact this will have on those who will be affected by it and do the right thing by them.

I acknowledge the efforts of the Minister of State to reach a form of consensus with Deputy Howlin and myself on a review. There would be no need for a review if we had the entire evidence base the Minister of State says is available to him, which guided this particular policy proposition in the first place. In the absence of all this, we simply cannot support the proposal he has made because of the damage we know it will do. Of course, a review would be useful and it is good policy practice but we do not want to see this occur in the first place. Our amendments are designed to protect the sector and those businesses, and ensure the more than 1,000 jobs that may go as a result of this intervention are protected and that those livelihoods are protected.

See this speech in context