Mark Wall (Labour) | Oireachtas source

I wish to speak to amendments Nos. 2 and 4. I welcome this debate and welcome the Minister of State to the House. I also welcome what seems to be total support in the House for doing something about this. It has to be done. As I said on Second Stage, the €75 threshold was an improvement on the €175 threshold initially proposed. Purchases within the €75 threshold amount to 50% of all purchases in respect of which the refund has been availed of to date. As other Senators have said, the purchases in question are not by any stretch of the imagination massive. The revenue is going to the many great craft shops selling Irish gifts and knitwear, as Senator Casey said. There is no doubt but that these purchases have kept all these shops open. In many cases the customers are tourists bringing home souvenirs.

We have proposed an amendment that seeks to reduce the threshold to €50, recognising what a number of Ministers have said in recent days about existing revenue, which seems to be the reason this was brought in in the first place. The hope seems to have been to decrease administration costs and time. Most importantly, this must have a financial impact on the business of those retailers that need it most. We also know from talking to those in the trade that a €50 threshold would bring Ireland into line with markets such as Greece, Germany and Holland, keeping us very competitive.

My party has been very supportive of all Brexit initiatives the Government has taken. We have not been divisive in any way. We are aware that a Bill such as this is needed to combat the undoubted impact Brexit will bring upon us in just a couple of weeks' time. However, this part of the Bill affects those American, Canadian and Japanese visitors, and the growing number of Chinese visitors, who we hope will be back on this island very shortly, when some sort of normality returns. This would lead one to question, as other Senators have done, why this forms part of the Brexit Bill in the first place. We should be trying to minimise any economic impact on those retailers that are struggling so much and that really should not be affected by the withdrawal of the UK from the EU.

As other Senators have said, this should be seen as an opportunity for the tourism trade and nothing else. We were informed by Ministers a number of days ago on Second Stage that the Government is giving a commitment to review this so-called tourist tax within the next 12 months. Our second amendment seeks that this form part of the final Bill, but we would have no problem agreeing with Senator Chambers and flip-flopping this. Something needs to be done. If this starts off at zero, we would totally support the Minister of State coming back to us today, after speaking to the Minister, and saying he will review this after 12 months or so. That goes without saying because of the problems the tourism sector faces. As my colleague, Deputy Howlin, said on Committee Stage of the Bill in the Dáil, others in the EU see this as an opportunity. These arrangements look to see how we might capture UK spend. Unfortunately, we seem to see this as a threat and an issue for those who need our help most at this time. I appreciate that the Government has given a commitment to review this in a year so we can determine what is needed. As I have said, I have no problem starting off at zero and then having that review after one year. I hope we can come to some sort of agreement on this, as has been said. It is great to see Government Senators also proposing change here.

I ask the Minister of State, as other Members of the House have done, to explain where the €75 came from in the first place. Why has Revenue settled and suddenly changed this from €175 to €75? What is the thinking behind this? Perhaps the Minister of State can come back to us on that. Given what I said earlier about moving the threshold to €50, I wish to put on the record that research I have seen and which has been mentioned by others in the House states that such a threshold would remove 40% of transactions but only 8% of sales, whereas the proposed €75 threshold would remove over 50% of transactions and 16% of sales. More worryingly, as has been mentioned, it could potentially impact 470 jobs in retail.

I wish to use this opportunity to refer to my county of Kildare and the wonderful attractions we have. The purpose of this amendment is to help those in my county and throughout the country. There are so many great retail outlets in County Kildare. Take, for example, one very close to me, Kildare Village, which brings annually to the county more than 4 million visitors and, most importantly, a growing international tourist trade. I have been informed that if we were to set the threshold at €75, as opposed to the €50 threshold we propose, we would see just over 10% of sales affected. This would drop to just 5% at the €50 threshold, showing the impact on one great tourist attraction in my county.

As far as those of us on this side of the House are concerned, and as other Senators have said, we need to see something happen here. We are talking about the most vulnerable in our society in recent years and keeping their shops open. They continue to do that in the face of the issues that have come up recently. I look forward to the rest of the debate. I am sure we will come back to this later today.

I will throw out one other statistic. Yesterday in the House we heard about the latest CSO statistics, which show youth unemployment at 47%. We are all aware that so many of our youth get their first jobs in the tourism trade. That is another worry for me and something I hope the Minister of State will take on board. I hope, as other Senators have said, he will come back to us later today.