Lisa Chambers (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

For the purposes of context and for the information of Members, because I was Fianna Fáil's Brexit spokesperson when that Bill came through, we were in a different space at that time, which I am sure the Minister of State will remember. It was more of an emergency situation. The Bill was very much rushed through the Oireachtas on the last occasion but that was done because it was necessary to do so. The Minister of State has served to remind us of a poor decision we took in the last Oireachtas and one we should not seek to repeat.

Another thing that has changed dramatically is the environment in which we are operating and the space the tourism sector is in. That is the biggest change and that is the big picture. The Minister of State keeps referring to what he believes the debate is about. He has used the word "possibly" quite a lot and that is the problem. The absence of hard facts and evidence is an issue. This is not about €9, €18 or the reciprocal arrangements that we have or do not have with the United Kingdom. This is about the hospitality and tourism sector that is in a time of crisis and need. It wants to see both Houses of the Oireachtas supporting it. To that sector, this is another tax and another undermining of its ability to protect its industry and it is another undermining of its members' ability to earn a living. That is the bigger picture and that is what the debate is really about. It is about people and not money. It is not about the economy but about people's livelihoods and businesses.

The Minister of State has suggested that it will have little or no impact on a tourist's decision to come here. If that were the case, we probably would not have been operating the scheme for 35 years with such a success. It has an impact and it makes it a more attractive country to visit. From talking to American tourists, they are aware of the tax free shopping, they use it and they know the value of it. It does encourage extra spending and it does feed into a person's decision as to where they will travel if the perception is that it is a good value country to travel to.Whether the UK has reciprocated is beside the point. The focus is not on the tourists from the UK but on the tourists from other countries that have become accustomed to availing of this system and on the businesses that rely on it. Again, I am not suggesting we pause the measure. Senator Casey's amendment is wise but I suggest that we carry out the review in reverse, that is to say, to decide in 12 months on the basis of the evidence we will then have. The Minister of State has suggested the €1 threshold will have no impact but, in fact, it will because it will pretty much maintain the status quo. The fear is that we will suddenly have an influx of UK customers buying lots of things and seeking to claim the tax back. I do not believe there will be a significant volume of travel at all next year. The more tourists we can get in, the better.

Many Senators have brought forward reasonable suggestions but a wall seems to have been erected in this regard. There is no openness at all to flexibility and the Government refuses to be dynamic and to change its position. The suggestion that the Government is being generous is too generous an interpretation of the proposed policy.