Lisa Chambers (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

With respect, there is inflexibility being shown here that is not reasonable. Government Senators from all three parties have got on their feet to ask for this scheme to be reflected upon and changed. On the suggestion that the Government has listened because it has reduced the threshold from €175 to €75, I would respond that the threshold of €175 was just so unreasonable and out of touch that it had to be changed. Very reasonable suggestions have been made across the House to base the figure on evidence. We do not have evidence on the impact of the Brexit changes on the VAT rebate scheme. I suggested earlier that we simply press pause and wait for 12 months. We already have a commitment from the Government to review this issue in 12 months. In 12 months, we will actually have the evidence to support whatever threshold we need to introduce to protect the Exchequer, the revenue to the State, and ensure the scheme is operating as intended and is fit for purpose. We do not have the information and evidence now, however.

The Minister of State said it is not an exact science, but it can be more exact in 12 months because we will at least have some evidence and information to go on. I accept and agree to an extent with the Minister of State's point that the incentive is new for British tourists in that they will, for the first time, be able to avail of a tax rebate on purchases in excess of €75. That is positive but we could make it more positive, attractive and valuable by having a much lower threshold of a threshold of zero. The measure does not provide additional value to visitors from other third countries, such as Japan, China and the United States. It actually makes Ireland a more expensive and less attractive place to come to.

Other members and I have made a point on the timing of the new measure. The tourism sector has been absolutely floored. It is on its knees and trying to recover. As Senator Casey said, those in the sector have been availing of the tax rebate scheme for 35 years. They have come to rely on it. They have developed their marketing systems and pitch to international tourists based on a system that has been in place for a very long time. We are changing something that has been in place for 35 years on the basis of maybes, possibilities and what-ifs, not on the basis of evidence. This is not a sound basis for legislative change. Government Senators have made the very reasonable suggestion that we press pause. The review that has already been committed to by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Coveney, and others, which review we fully support and believe is reasonable, is to take place in 12 months. I see great merit in pausing the change and maintaining the status quo. We all understand in this House that, in 12 months, we may need to introduce a threshold because it might be in the interest of the country. We are fully open to having a debate and discussion on that based on the evidence, but let us have that discussion and debate in 12 months time. In the Dáil last week, many Government Deputies expressed the same view. Therefore, there is not unanimous support for the Government's proposal within the Government ranks. I ask that those in government, who are not in a silo on their own, listen to their colleagues in their own parties and take on board what they are saying to them. There is time to accept one of the four amendments being proposed. My preference would be to accept Senator Casey's amendment in that it would bring the threshold down to €1 and require the carrying out of a review in 12 months' time, with the full support of most, if not all, Senators. A threshold may need to be introduced at that point if the Government can present evidence to the House that it is necessary.

I ask that the Minister of State heed the call of the hospitality and tourism sector. My God, it has had an extremely difficult year. It is not out of the woods yet. Many of the businesses and traders will not reopen next year. There is a sticking plaster at the moment because many supports and significant payments have been made available by the Government to keep the show on the road for now, but when those payments eventually cease, which will have to happen at some point, some of the businesses will not survive. Some will not survive until this time next year. Therefore, let us not take away one of the few supports in place, a support that has been in place for a very long time. It is successful and working. We should allow Ireland to be an even more attractive place for British customers. If more of them want to travel to Ireland and spend money on Irish products, that is great. Let us welcome them with open arms.

My main argument is that we do not have the evidential basis for the proposed legislative change. We will have the information and evidence in 12 months. There is a commitment to a review. The Minister of State should accept one of the amendments and press pause because we are all asking for breathing space. We are not saying we will not introduce a threshold at some point down the line. There will be time to have the debate. Now is the wrong time to do what is being done. It is not appropriate to attach the measure to the Brexit omnibus Bill, time-sensitive legislation that we absolutely need. We need it passed in a number of weeks. We simply do not have the space or facts to pass the section under discussion, but we do support the Bill as a whole. I ask that the Minister of State make another telephone call to the Ministers on foot of the debate here and do his best to change the minds of the small number of Ministers supporting the measure, bearing in mind that the vast majority of members of the Government parties do not support it. They have made their views very clear on the floor of this House and in Dáil Éireann. The Government must be flexible and in a position to adapt and change based on the views expressed in this House. Otherwise, what is the point of having this debate? I will leave it at that but I might contribute again at a later point in the debate.