Skip to main content
Normal View

Joint Committee on Business, Enterprise and Innovation debate -
Tuesday, 17 Oct 2017

Cost of Doing Business in Ireland: Discussion

I remind members, visitors and those in the Public Gallery to ensure their mobile phones are switched off or in flight mode for the duration of this meeting, please, as they interfere with the broadcasting equipment, even when on silent mode. Before we commence, in accordance with procedure, I am required to read the following. By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to this committee. If they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence in relation to a particular matter and they continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. Witnesses are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I welcome today Mr. Fergal O'Brien and Mr. Gerard Brady from IBEC, Ms Linda Barry from the Small Firms Association, Mr. Paul Kelly from Food and Drink Industry Ireland, and Mr. Tom Burke from Retail Ireland. I thank all the witnesses very much for giving up their time to come here today to discuss the cost of doing business. I remind our guests that the presentations should be no longer than five minutes. Members have received their submissions and presentations. I ask Mr. Fergal O'Brien to make a presentation to the committee.

Mr. Fergal O'Brien

Many thanks to the Chairman, and to members of the committee for the invitation. I will make some opening remarks and then I will ask my colleague, Mr. Kelly, to add some remarks from the point of view of the food and drink industry as well.

From an IBEC perspective, our 7,500 members very much welcome the fact that the committee is looking at this issue, the cost of doing business at the moment. It is particularly relevant for our members in the context of the challenges we now face from Brexit. We must be more vigilant than ever in terms of the competitiveness risks to the economy. In my opening remarks, I would like to focus on a small number of issues. The first of these is an administrative issue concerning how we manage, co-ordinate and ultimately implement policy responses around cost competitiveness challenges. Subsequently, I would like to address what we would see as the six most significant challenges concerning the cost of doing business that Irish business currently faces.

On the implementation issue, we would all agree that there is very significant diagnosis and analysis of the cost challenges facing the Irish economy and the cost of doing business in Ireland.

Where we fall down, however, is around the policy response and the implementation of policy measures in respect of those challenges. IBEC very much feels that responsibility for cost competitiveness issues is currently dispersed across multiple Departments and local government bodies. This has led to a lack of policy coherence and significant inaction. We would recommend, therefore, that the Department of Business, Enterprise and Innovation now commence an action plan to address cost competitiveness issues, particularly in the face of Brexit. This should include regular analysis of cost competitiveness issues, assignment of clear policy responsibility and monitoring of implementation on a quarterly basis. We note that the Action Plan for Jobs operated by this Department has been one of the most significant policy successes of recent times, and we think there is a great opportunity to replicate that structure and process around the competitiveness challenge that the economy and business face.

Briefly addressing what we would see as the economy's most significant challenges associated with the cost of doing business, first I will comment on labour costs. Right now in Ireland, overall inflation remains very low. There are, of course, some specific issues that are impacting on the cost of living, such as rents in urban areas, child care and insurance as it affects consumers, and all of these issues put upward pressure on wages. Again, we would urge that very targeted policy responses are delivered to address those issues pertaining to the cost of doing business. If we can support and control the cost of living from a consumer perspective, that will have significant competitiveness benefits in terms of the cost of doing business and wage pressures within the economy. We also would argue that Government must ensure that it does not add to the cost of doing business through labour costs, either through taxes or excessive increases in regulated wages, especially in the national minimum wage.

Local government costs are very significant costs for Irish business. Our members have reported to us that commercial rates now have a significant impact on business conditions and cost competitiveness. Business will contribute just short of €1.5 billion this year, over one third of the total local government budget. Business is now a much more significant contributor to the cost of running local government than it was prior to the crisis. We would argue that reform of the local rates system is urgently needed to ensure greater consistency, to align costs with usage and to ensure that infrastructure is made more cost-effective.

In relation to regulatory costs, we note that poorly designed policy legislation and regulation add significantly to the cost of doing business and are very real obstacles to growth and job creation in the economy. This is particularly true for the small and medium-sized enterprise sector, where the cost of regulation is fixed. Irish companies now spend 6% of their turnover and almost one third of their time meeting their compliance obligations. This is now becoming a very significant cost of doing business in Ireland. Again, we would urge that adequate attention be given to the costs in both time and money that businesses incur in complying with regulations, and note that ensuring better regulation would benefit all businesses and significantly improve the overall competitiveness of the economy.

On utilities and transport costs, energy costs will always be a challenge in a small economy such as Ireland's, positioned as it is on the edge of a wider European energy infrastructure. Energy and transport costs are a key component of costs for business, especially in intensive sectors such as manufacturing, and will particularly impact on those businesses most likely to be exposed to the impacts of Brexit. In firms in these sectors, transport and utilities typically account for up to 40% of their non-wage costs. They are a very significant cost item. We must ensure that our utility costs remain relatively competitive, despite being extremely exposed to economic and geopolitical events abroad. In addition, transport costs must be reduced by overcoming congestion, improving our infrastructure, and ultimately reducing the costs of moving goods around and from our island.

I will also comment on insurance costs. Employer liability and public liability insurance policies already represent a substantial operating cost to Irish business. Our research has found that they typically equate to about 2% of a company's payroll costs. These are quite significant cost items for most Irish businesses. The recent upward trend in annual premia for employer and public liability is now proving unsustainable for many low-margin businesses, and courts are indirectly driving premia up through the awards that they are now making.

IBEC's research has found that court awards for minor injury claims in Ireland are typically far larger than they are in other EU member states. This dysfunctional system creates uncertainty for insurers and places significant additional costs on businesses.

The final item I will comment on is the cost of finance in Ireland. Before the economic crisis, Irish business was more reliant on bank financing than any other business community in the EU. This has changed somewhat over recent years but we also find that despite some improvements in the cost of lending, lending rates in Ireland still remain much higher than in competitor countries. Investment and growth in SMEs is a key driver of the Irish economy. The continued premium divergence between the cost of finance in Ireland and other countries significantly discourages investment and growth. From a policy perspective, every effort must be made to ensure the diversity of financing options available to business and particularly in the context of Brexit, measures such as export credit financing and export credit guarantees will become even more important. I might ask Mr. Paul Kelly to make some further opening remarks.

Mr. Paul Kelly

I thank the committee for the opportunity to talk to it today. From an agrifood perspective, we need to see an intense and ongoing focus on cost competitiveness in the face of Brexit. While agrifood is the sector that is most at risk in the event of a hard Brexit, there is a much more immediate impact in terms of sterling. Our analysis shows that a rate of 88p to the euro is the tipping point for agrifood exports and every 1% weakening in sterling results in a 0.7% drop in Irish exports to the UK. A sustained period at 90p to the euro translates to losses of more than €700 million in food exports and about 7,500 jobs-----

What is the tipping point?

Mr. Paul Kelly

It is a rate of 88p to the euro. We are obviously in or about that. We have been above it over the past number of months. As one goes beyond rates of 88p and 90p to the euro, the problem becomes significantly worse. All indications are that we are going to suffer a weak sterling for a significant period of time.

The other thing to bear in mind is that while we, hopefully, will avoid the worst-case scenario of a hard Brexit, there is a strong likelihood that we will face customs barriers and will have to face the transactional costs of dealing with those, as well as veterinary inspections for many food products with the associated costs and time incurred. We need to ensure that we can control our cost base to mitigate all of this. We strongly agree with Mr. O'Brien's comments that the primary concerns are labour costs, poorly designed regulation and rising insurance costs. From our perspective, it is also imperative that we take measures to improve utility and transport costs to provide a hedge against future possible cost increases as a result of Brexit. At this point in time, energy, waste and water costs in Ireland are relatively competitive but we need to bear in mind that they are large cost items for business, particularly agrifood, so we need to ensure that we maintain our good position regarding those cost items. We need continued policy measures such as completing major cost-reducing infrastructure projects. We need to minimise further increases in the public service obligation levy as regards energy costs and to avoid introducing legislation that would needlessly undermine cost-effectiveness in the waste sector. We need to ensure that responsibility for cost competitiveness issues, which is dispersed across multiple Departments and local government bodies, is centralised. We echo the IBEC recommendation that we have a single point of political responsibility for cost competitiveness in Ireland.

We will open it up to the floor. Who would like to kick off with a few questions? Okay, I will start. Regarding commercial rates, I, and I am sure all my other colleagues, hear quite a lot from people with small businesses about the effect of commercial rates. A business just outside Dungarvan has been operating for the past 30 years and most of its sales relate to a small shop and petrol sales.

In the past five years, two newer businesses have opened up close by. I will not mention their names. They would be ones that we would see popping up all over Ireland. They are very competitive and offer a lot of facilities like rest areas for large trucks and lorries, toilet facilities, areas where people can eat or have access to Wi-Fi and an ATM. This person's rates are set even though her level of turnover has dropped quite significantly. She has the worry of trying to meet the commercial rates even though her turnover has gone down so much and the fact that when she was rated, her turnover was much higher. Would any of the witnesses like to comment on that? Do they hear many stories like this?

Mr. Thomas Burke

I will take that one. From a retail perspective, we have significant concerns about the local authority rates system and how it is structured. To be honest and without wishing to sound sensationalist, we believe the current system is fundamentally broken. It requires a very significant overhaul. The system needs to stripped back and we need to look at and build it from the base up again. The current system is not fit for purpose in many ways. When we look at how the system is structured, there is a real concern among Irish retailers that it is totally opaque and there is very little understanding or appreciation of how the system works. A number of our member companies have seen significant increases in their commercial rates bill in a given year - in the region of 200% and 300% in some cases. When they query that and appeal it, a reduction of 50% of the increased amount might come back with no explanation as to why and where the new figure came from or how that number was arrived at. One can understand the concern among our members regarding how the system is structured. We have been engaging with a variety of Deputies on a cross-party basis to look at this issue and we feel there is a real momentum building within the political system such that there is an opportunity to reform the system to make sure it works for retailers, particularly in our instance.

Retailers have no issue with paying their way. We understand that a certain level of rates is required by the various local authorities and should be in place and we are very much willing to pay our way for the local amenities those rates bring. Our concern is that the current system is broken and needs fixing. We produced a paper on this, which I have shared with most people in the room. The paper gives examples of two supermarkets across the road from each other that are of very similar size and scale but have dramatically different rates bills. Again, when we queried that, we could not get any answer as to why this was the case. I should say the Valuation Office has done some really good work on the revaluation programme and has an online portal where people can see what rates bills in different areas are but we think that needs to go further and further work on it is needed.

A significant portion of the rates goes uncollected each year so that is much-needed lost revenue for local authorities. We propose that the Revenue Commissioners be tasked with collecting local authority rates in the future. It would improve the collection rate and efficiency and provide that element of clarity that is required by Irish retailers.

We also have a concern about how the current system links rates to rents. This is a concern when we have seen Irish retailers impacted by upward-only rents in recent years. There might be a perception that the upward-only rent issue has gone away. This is the case post-2013 but as the number of new leases taken out post-2013 is quite small in comparison with the existing stock, it is still having a significant impact upon Irish retailers.

In summation, I agree that significant work needs to be done to make the system work and to make it fit for purpose. As we think there is a will to do that, we look forward to engaging in that process.

Are the rates determined differently from local authority to local authority? I think that was another issue that has been raised with me. Rates that are not collected constitute lost revenue. We will all be conscious of our own local authorities that will try to strike a budget in the next few weeks and we will all see the amount of lost revenue involved. I note the person I was trying to advise has continued paying what she had been paying before the increase and there is huge will to keep paying one's way.

In this case, the increase was very substantial and while it was appealed and paired back a little, it was not enough and the business was no longer sustainable. Businesses often fail owing to competitiveness. Competition is the life of trade; we all know and accept that but the fact that businesses are rated for three years and cannot do anything about that is becoming a huge issue.

Mr. Thomas Burke

On the Chairman's initial question, the 31 local authorities operate different systems. Again, for any business that is planning an investment long-term, that is not a great position to be in because it gives rise to a lack of certainty around future cost base. International retailers that are looking to move into the Irish market have to consider issues such as cost base and as depending on where they set up the cost base and how rates are levied will be different this gives rise to concern. The lost revenue point is an important one, which does not necessarily get the coverage it deserves. We estimate it is approximately €200 million per annum, which is a significant amount that is lost every year. Improvements are required to the current system to try to recoup some of that and have an impact in terms of the space in terms of the public realm and so on. The improvements that could be made with capital of that level would be very significant. Again, the system lacks transparency. The concern from the perspective of our members is around the uncertainty as to what their future rates bill will be and that makes business planning decisions into the future very difficult.

On the point that the 31 local authorities operate different systems, do they all work to specific criteria?

Mr. Thomas Burke

Yes, the system is built around the valuation of the property. There are a number of hurdles. The concern is that the system is very complex. I have spoken to people in local authorities who cannot tell me how it works, which is also a concern. We need a clearer system, one that is transparent, fair and equitable across the board such that everybody pays their way. Currently, there are many who are not paying their way. There are a number of free-riders in the system that need to be captured. The problem, I would suggest, is the opaque nature of the system.

I thank Mr. Burke. Would Deputy Neville like to comment?

I would like to comment on the rates issue. During 2014, when I was a member of the local authority in Limerick, one of the biggest issues was the collection of rates when businesses were going to the wall owing to the recession. At that time, we introduced a rates rebates system - a carrot-and-stick approach - to encourage businesses to pay rates. As stated, a one-size-fits-all system does not work when it comes to major retailers in cities versus small to medium-sized cottage industries in rural Ireland which are struggling. Limerick County Council introduced a rates-rebate system which encouraged businesses to pay a particular amount - which meant there was some money coming in - on which they would then get a percentage rebate based on values, which were zero to €10,000, €10,000 to €15,000 and €15,000 to €25,000. What we were trying to do was get the big businesses that were holding back or reneging on their rates to pay them so that we could look after the smaller businesses that wanted to pay but if they did so would go out of business. Nobody wants to see that happen. A one-size-fits-all is very difficult to operate. County to county, markets differ. Leitrim has a different market to Limerick. Kerry is also a different market. I believe that some of the big multinationals in Kerry are paying 20% less than what they pay in Limerick.

In regard to a uniform rate across the country, is Mr. Burke proposing the transfer of the rates process from the local authorities to central government? If so, there is need for a much wider debate in that regard. The system adopted in Limerick in 2014-----

Did the carrot-and-stick approach work?

Mr. Thomas Burke

It did. In the first year, the yield increased by 3% and in the second year, it increased by 6%. The economy was improving but the system was working. There is a blueprint for this. I am not sure where it is at now but the rate of payment did increase. We were encouraging businesses to pay but we were not hammering small rural businesses. As county councillors, we were trying to protect small business. As I said, a one-size-fits-all does not work in this area.

Would Ms Barry like to comment?

Ms Linda Barry

I appreciate all of the comments, particularly the recognition of the issues on the rates side for smaller businesses. As stated a number of times, people are willing to pay their way. However, from a small business perspective the link between what they are paying and the services they get in return has become confused. Over the last number of years a huge number of the services that would logically be connected with the rates payment have been separated out from the system, including waste and water which are now paid for separately. Small businesses want to pay their way but they also want to see that they are getting services for their business in return and are not just subsidising the domestic users of the services.

On the one-size-fits-all issue, a particular issue for our members is that of established businesses versus new businesses. Often when we talk in a policy sense a lot of the ideas thrown around town centre regeneration and so on are about giving rates holidays and so on to new businesses. Our members have a real issue with this in terms of the equity between those businesses that have struggled through the tough years and kept going and retained staff and their being treated differently to new businesses. I ask that Government remain conscious of that. Perhaps one size does not fit all but we must also be conscious of the equity angle.

I come from a small business in the Mullingar-Castlepollard area, which is a village-type setting. The rates were revalued in Westmeath and are now based on rental values. There has been a fundamental shift in how rates are calculated in that in certain lines of business this is based on turnover. This has caused havoc for businesses never previously rated in this way. The rates bills for pub owners are now based on turnover. I know a man who is running a family business, on which he, his wife, his children and his father are dependent. As the family lives above the business, he receives a discount in his rates but they recently increased from €1,500 to approximately €6,000, which is a massive increase. This man is trying to earn a living and pay his taxes. He recently hired someone to go through his accounts to see if there are any further discounts he can avail of in respect of the proportion of the business in which he lives. I have come across several instances of this in the provincial town like Mullingar. There are many large manufacturers and retailers in the area whose rates bills have decreased, which points to a fundamental problem with the current rates system. I am sure the agencies here today represent many of them too. The problem is small businesses are being hammered.

As we all know, for many years rates remained unchanged. They were set by the councils and covered services such as waste collection, parking, water and other facilities. Many of these services, including parking, are no longer covered and as a result consumers are being driven out of towns. Parking charges are considered a cash cow but they will not be much of a cash cow when people stop coming to towns to shop. Another issue is the increase in online shopping. We often hear from retailers that people are calling in to their shops to try on outfits which they then buy online. What is going on in retail these days is criminal.

There has been no engagement with small retailers - the smaller guy on the street and family-run businesses - who have just been thrown to the wolves because it suits the interests of larger businesses and local authorities which take the view that most guys will, whatever else, pay anyway. I am curious as to the witnesses' thoughts on that.

Before I let the witnesses back in, I will allow Senator Gavan to put some questions as he has another committee to attend at 5 p.m.

I thank the witnesses for their presentations and the Chairman for letting me in. I apologise for having to leave in a couple of minutes. I agree with everything Senator Davitt has said. I worked for a number of years in Nenagh which has been gutted because the rates burden on small businesses has been horrendous, even as giant retailers on the outskirts suck the town dry. It is a terrible shame to see a town that was thriving, and which still should be, drained of vital small businesses because of that imbalance. To be fair, there is a cross-party consensus on that issue.

The question I wanted to put to the witnesses was on banking. The presentation rightly pointed out that Ireland has much higher costs of borrowing than other countries. Why is that happening and what can be done about it?

I would appreciate it if the witnesses answered Senator Gavan first.

Mr. Fergal O'Brien

I will comment first on the rates issue and Mr. Burke will come back to the more substantial aspect of Senator Davitt's question. It is important that while we recognise fully the particular challenges rates cause for small businesses, we also see more significant employers facing very large increases in their rates bills running to the hundreds of thousands of euro, with some of them taking bills now into the millions. These are costs which are actually registering for manufacturing and other businesses at international HQ level, with Ireland now seen as a very expensive place in terms of the cost of local government. We have particular challenges around town centres, to which Mr. Burke will refer in some detail, and particular challenges for small businesses, but we do not accept the view that big businesses are all gaining here at the cost of small ones. We are seeing many large manufacturing companies operating in quite tough competitive environments and facing significant cost increases. These are not incidental cost increases. They are costs at the firm level which could run into millions. At an aggregate level, business is paying €1.5 billion towards the cost of running local government, in most cases with very little say as to how that money is spent. It is a real challenge for all businesses, not just the smaller retailers.

My colleague, Mr. Brady, might like to come in on the cost of finance. At the height of the crisis, Irish businesses were paying a very significant premium for credit above what businesses across the rest of the eurozone were paying. This was most acute, again, for the SME sector. Clearly, the single European banking transmission system is not working the way it was prior to the crisis and we are not getting the full benefits of the eurozone banking system. There are things that can be done at EU level to address this around a capital markets union, which is really important. That union would give us a much stronger common European financial sector which would allow Irish businesses to gain greater access to capital funds at a eurozone level. I go back to what I said at the beginning of my contribution on what is crucial. Prior to the crisis, Ireland was, by far, the most bank-lending-reliant business community of any in the eurozone. We need to drive diversity of financing options and Government needs to look at what it can do to ensure that the schemes we have, such as the employment incentive investment scheme, are working effectively and are not too restrictive in the terms and conditions which apply. There are other schemes that will be particularly targeted at small exporters around export credit and trade insurance which will be critical to small businesses which are trying to diversify post Brexit. Any further measures we can implement to diversify the financing mix are important.

Mr. Gerard Brady

I agree with everything Mr. O'Brien said. At European level, a lot of things could be done around a capital markets union in particular which would help Ireland as a small market with a banking system that experienced a lot more trauma in the past ten years than did the systems of other countries which have large mature markets and better general access to capital.

In particular, we have a very small equity market and, when it comes to seeking funding, our companies are among the most reliant on bank lending in Europe. In particular, they are more reliant on overdraft and short-term lending than companies in any other country. They rely on very short-term and, therefore, very expensive lending, which is a massive issue.

Part of it is improving the tax treatment of some of the equity pieces. At the moment, there is a hearts-and-minds piece in that a lot of Irish companies are unwilling to move this way as they have not traditionally had to give up equity. As any business owner will say, equity is blood and it is at the core of their business. We should make the tax treatment of giving up equity and buying into the equity of companies much more attractive. Currently, half of businesses that start up in Ireland fail within five years. As such, it is very risky to invest in a business. Unlike other countries, we do not have a large pool of mature investors who are willing to do it, which is why we probably need to make EIIS, in particular, more attractive. One of the biggest issues we are coming up against at the moment is that the administration of the scheme is taking so long. There have been changes in the administration of the scheme which have made it uncertain, on top of the uncertainty of buying into small businesses in particular. There are risks there which need to be recognised and there is a mindset change that needs to come from business. It is not just on the political side but on our side too to try to improve the attitude towards equity. It is about improving the tax treatment of that funding mix to get people away from it. Even if that is simply short-term improvements which give a shock to the system to get people to change their attitudes, it would be very welcome.

I thank the witnesses.

The witnesses may wish to reply to Senator Davitt now.

Mr. Thomas Burke

As Senator Davitt rightly alluded to, the first national revaluation programme since the mid-19th century is under way, which means we have a great deal of catching up to do. The time that is going to take is a little scary. It is a long time since many of these businesses had property revaluations, and that is giving rise to some of the outrageous increases we are seeing. That is a real challenge for our members. I do not necessarily agree that there is a shift between large and small, rather there is a shift between retail and non-retail. We have seen in some of the areas that have revalued already a significant move of the burden of rates towards the retail sector. The Valuation Office tells us there will be a 60-40 split between winners and losers. Unfortunately, that is not the case in the retail sector where at least 60% of retailers seem to be losing. There have been a significant number of increases passing through the system and that is a real concern going forward.

The move to online is, naturally, of great concern to our members. The market in which Irish retailers are operating has changed significantly. In the context of today's discussion around business costs, that needs to be borne in mind. Competition is no longer internal. It is very much external also. Traditionally, we saw a flight across the Border into Northern Ireland when there were currency shifts and the cost of sterling changed, but that is almost less of a concern now when one compares it with the flight to online. Last year, we saw with the devaluation of sterling a 20% uplift in the rate of online transactions almost immediately. That is the new reality for Irish retailers who no longer compete with each other in the local market. They are now competing with online multinational global superpowers which are working from a very competitive base to target Irish consumers very efficiently and without any of the physical bricks and mortar overheads our members have. That is a new dynamic and context from within which to view the issue of local authority rates.

I share, as would anyone in Retail Ireland, Senator Gavan's concerns around the future of town centres. There has been a hollowing out and we have seen the disappearance of a large number of businesses from the Irish high street, with retailers in particular having borne the brunt. We have to make a concerted effort now to get those businesses back into towns. Businesses will follow people and we need to draw them back in by creating an ambience and environment that is deemed attractive. We need to do a variety of things. It is all very well to have a big box outside towns. We have plenty of them and they are necessary also.

We should not think, "Big box, bad; small retailer, good". What we need is a good retail mix and a little bit of everything because that is what consumers want and we must react to that. We need to be creative in how we find those solutions that will draw people back into town centres. We need to examine this in the context of people living in town centres and regeneration of the physical environment and the public realm to make them attractive for people to spend time there. We need to examine all these elements. This is why we are encouraged by the town centre regeneration initiatives Government has undertaken in recent times. However, we do not think this is ambitious enough and we need to do more. We need to invest more money in this area because we are in danger of losing some of these key high streets and town centres from the Irish landscape. If we do not do something soon, they could be gone forever.

I have a few queries about commercial rates. I was a member of Limerick City and County Council with Deputy Neville in 2014 and 2015 - does he want to come in on that point?

Yes, I will clarify. My comments concerned vacant properties. I just wanted to put that on the record.

Deputy Neville is referring to the carrot-and-stick approach.

Yes. There is a breakdown on the Limerick City and County Council website of the different tiers.

I thank Deputy Neville for the clarification.

It is a very important clarification because it was a good initiative. Unfortunately, in Limerick city, one of the biggest, most profitable companies in the country has kept a site vacant for a number of years and refuses to deal with anyone who wants to do anything with it, perhaps because it is worried about competition. Something needs to be done about this. I think the council itself is trying to address the matter. One of the reasons we came up with that rates system was to address vacant sites.

I agree with almost everything Mr. Tom Burke said, apart from his comments on the centralised collection of rates. It is a very good idea but it should be done by local authorities as the housing assistance payment is done. One local authority would be the lead authority. The reason I am opposed to Revenue doing this is that it is another diminution of local government, and it is important we protect what local government has. Obviously, everyone agrees that companies need to know what their bills will be like into the future. The revaluation process has been difficult for new counties, so to speak. It was a bit of a disaster for us in Limerick. We were one of the first to have it done. Seven or eight global companies benefited hugely from it while smaller businesses had to pick up the balance. We were told at the time that when they came in, the revaluation would be cost-neutral. It did not turn out to be cost-neutral. The right of people to appeal was not factored in. Many did appeal, and I myself helped them to appeal. They were successful and that was extra money the local authority missed out on.

I understand the heads of a new rates Bill came before Cabinet in March or April of this year. We do not know the present status of the Bill, so perhaps a member from Fine Gael might tell us if they have any update on it. I will not put them on the spot.

Again, I agree with everything Mr. Burke said apart-----

The Deputy should table a parliamentary question.

Does he want to know where the Bill is?

If Deputy Neville knows where it is or-----

The Deputy should table a parliamentary question.

I agree with almost everything Mr. Burke said, apart from his comments on the centralisation of rates collection. The local authority should do that.

I thank our guests. I will pick up on a number of points. There are more local government charges than just commercial rates, as we know, and we should keep that in the back of our minds. Water and wastewater charges are a significant source of revenue for local authorities and, as such, are charges to business in the main. They seem to increase annually without any debate or fuss. This points to the lack of transparency within the whole local government sector in how its cost base is rolled up as regards its budgeting process. It is regrettable that a drama is made of the budgeting process of local authorities in a number of meetings which is then played out in the local media. It is my experience of being a member of a local authority that no proper analysis is carried out of the cost base of local authorities. There was certainly no such analysis during my time on a local authority. Then the management would present a draft budget and the wastewater charge and the commercial rates would happen to square the circle, which is very unfair on business because they seem to carry the extra burden every year without any appreciable increase in the service they receive or indeed any transparency, as has been highlighted.

Another dimension concerns the development contribution schemes each local authority has, whereby it charges different rates depending on the sector to build or expand, in this case, business. Some local authorities are charging multiples of other local authorities' rates. The rate, for example, in Limerick for manufacturing is €50 per square metre but next door in Kerry it is €12 per square metre. That is less than a quarter the rate charged in Limerick. Again, there is no proper justification or analysis as to why different rates pertain in different local authority areas, which presents challenges for business.

I have a number of questions. We are all in one way or another saying the same thing and we are all having a bit of a moan. The question is: how does one properly and sustainably fund local authorities? What will the new model be if we want to pare it all back, as Mr. Burke said, strip it all back and start from scratch? As the people who represent all the different sectors of business, I am asking the witnesses what is the Holy Grail when it comes to reinventing the wheel. Is it ultimately a turnover-based system? Is that really what we are saying commercial rates should move to? Every business will want to see a drop in its commercial rates. Business people want to drive down the cost of doing business, which is an understandable goal. Where would the witnesses raise the revenue to plug the difference? Are they talking about increasing local property tax, LPT, or moving away from other areas of core business that the local authorities are doing? What are their suggestions in this regard? I ask them to address these two key questions. What is their preferred model, which would suit all the different sectors - the hospitality sector, manufacturing, technology, pharma, small business, the pubs, the self-employed and so on? I do not know whether we can have different systems of rates for different sectors. If it is to be a commercial rate plan, it will have to have some degree of uniformity.

Who would like to take those questions?

Mr. Fergal O'Brien

I will start and my colleagues might like to join in. To respond very briefly to Deputy Quinlivan's point, what we are really suggesting as far as the collection system is concerned is that we need a more uniform administrative collection process. The revenue should not be collected and managed centrally, but we think there would be economies of scale. If we can do that through a local government shared services approach, as we have done with other local government services, we would see a lot of benefit in that. We consider the non-collection rates across local government and the range is quite spectacular-----

Sorry, but I will stop Mr. O'Brien there. A phone somewhere is interfering with the broadcasting equipment for some reason. Perhaps whoever owns it could put it on one of the back seats. For some reason it seems to be picking up the signal.

Mr. Fergal O'Brien

That is our primary observation. Ultimately, we agree with Deputy Quinlivan's suggestion. If we could do this through a shared service of local government to bring more uniformity to it, it would be beneficial from an efficiency perspective. That is really what we are aiming for here.

To respond to Deputy Niall Collins's observations and questions, it is very important that he highlights that commercial rates are not the only source of local government revenue or the only source of cost from a business perspective. Development contributions are now very significant costs and, again, they have an impact on investment decisions, particularly decisions that mobile investment will make, whether cross-county or across countries. The other element Deputy Collins raised is the cost of water for business, which is very timely. Given all the attention the household water charges issue has got over the past number of years, the cost of water for business has got relatively low levels of attention. We are now about to enter into a tariff harmonisation process between Irish Water and the regulator. Ultimately, we have been told this will be done on a revenue-neutral basis, but there will be winners and losers within that. As with the challenge we have with commercial rates, we can expect to see a similar competitiveness challenge for business within tariff harmonisation for water and wastewater.

Depending on the nature of their wastewater, some businesses will be very constrained in any action they can take to reduce those costs in terms of having treatment on site. For some, including certain businesses in urban areas and constrained sites, that simply will not be possible.

What is crucial in the context of the review of water charges for businesses and tariff harmonisation is that public funding will continue to be available for the water infrastructure that will be benefitting the business sector in the same way as for the household sector. We are concerned that businesses will be left to carry the full tab for water infrastructure, provision and treatment. That could have very significant competitiveness implications. We will be engaging with the regulator very closely on consultation regarding the harmonisation of water tariffs. We see this as having a risk akin to that associated with the revaluation concerning commercial rates in terms of tariff harmonisation. There could be significant winners and losers. For some businesses, this could be a significant competitiveness challenge.

On the question as to what we regard as a more appropriate system, it is a matter of having full sight of all the charges that business are paying in regard to water, development levies and commercial rates. Crucially, it is a matter of having transparency in how all those costs are ultimately decided. We do not have that transparent system at the moment. Having some greater uniformity, while recognising the benefits associated with local authority areas being able to have special incentives or rebates that support certain sectors, is something we would support. We do not believe it would be possible to have an entirely differentiated rates system by sector. Given the degree to which businesses are evolving and integrating, it becomes quite difficult to determine what is a technology company, a retail company, a pharmaceutical company, a medical devices company or a food company. If we were to have a sector-specific rates system, it would ultimately be excessively complex to administer. I do not know where colleagues wish to comment on it.

Mr. Thomas Burke

The only point I would pick up on is the one made by Deputy Niall Collins, namely, the point on how we would fund the gap or perceived gap in the local authority rates bill. It is worth pointing out again that at present, €220 million per annum is going uncollected and that would go a long way to plugging the gap that exists. To echo Mr. O'Brien's remarks, if we can find a way of collecting the money that goes uncollected currently by using a single local-authority-integrated system, with the economies of scale and collection expertise that this would bring, it would certainly go a long way towards addressing any potential gap that may arise.

Mr. Fergal O'Brien

One cannot escape the reality that the residential sector in Ireland continues to pay a relatively low share of local government costs compared with other countries. The business sector will pay a fair share but that needs to be shared with the residential sector across various charges and rates.

What about the local property tax?

Mr. Fergal O'Brien

And charges for water. That is the reality of what we see on an international basis. User charges also have an important role to play.

I apologise for not being here earlier. I was in the Seanad and got waylaid on the way back.

I have read the delegates' documents and some of the comments they have made. I have a few questions. Some were asked already. If rates are not based on rent, as they are at present, on what should they be based?

I wish to comment on the positive element of the budget in regard to the VAT rate for the tourism and hospitality industry. That was much discussed because many people are very unhappy with the manner in which hotel prices have shot up, particularly in Dublin, and how, when there is an event on, there is what people clearly consider to be price gouging taking place, to the point where it was suggested that hotels should not be allowed to avail of the tax relief.

That is a matter the hotel industry needs to address because it will make it very difficult to argue for the retention of the lower rate in the future. That would be regrettable. There is no doubt that the Irish tourism industry is facing huge challenges but at the same time meeting them in many instances and exploring new markets. There are wonderful opportunities in a host of areas, particularly in respect of those aged between 65 and 80 who are healthy, relatively wealthy and looking for something to do but who would get turned off very quickly if they were being charged what I consider to be outrageous amounts for an hotel bedroom for a night.

I agree with the comments on reducing red tape. The Government has been attempting to do that through various mechanisms. The Government has been very strong on ensuring people take more pay home in their pocket by way of reducing income tax rather than driving up the cost of labour for both businesses and industry.

I strongly support the statements made on SMEs and I believe they have a huge role to play. They do play a huge role. Anything we can do to promote more innovation, as we have done through various other mechanisms in the budget, is to be welcomed. I do not disagree at all in terms of business being expected to pay for the full cost of water infrastructure or any other infrastructure for that matter.

Mr. Burke stated €220 million in rates is uncollected. Is that an annual figure or an accumulated amount? I do not have that information to hand.

The Government and committees have spent a lot of time trying to address the ever-rising cost of insurance. I do not refer to this committee in particular but to others. Everybody agrees this matter needs to be kept under review constantly. A whiplash injury in Ireland results in the claimant receiving €20,000, on average. In the United Kingdom, it is £9,000 or £6,000. I am not sure which but it is certainly less than half the award here. We need to get away from that culture.

The cost of legal expenses is not a matter we have touched upon much in this committee but I believe we are out of kilter with many other jurisdictions in this regard. I have quoted Americans who state that, in respect of the simple issue of conveyancing, they can complete their conveyancing tasks online in ten days. Here it seems to take months or years. For a substantial property with a long title, one is definitely facing a year.

If rates are not to be based on rent, how might they be assessed? We are all interested in keeping rates to a minimum but we are all cognisant of the fact that our local authorities need funding to deliver the services they deliver. I would like a comment from the Irish Hotels Federation on the high price of rooms.

Its representatives are attending later so we will leave it at that.

My apologies. Are there any other suggestions on reducing costs for SMEs?

We will still accept the question on the retention of the VAT rate.

The Government has put in place micro-finance and various other initiatives to ensure further availability of finances for SMEs. Sparkasse bank representatives were before another committee. Sparkasse is an independent 200-year-old community bank from Germany seeking to set up here. It specialises in old-style banking that entails walking the land with the farmer or going to the business to see how it works and understand it. In other words, it is a question of learning to lend for business again instead of doing what happened in the past, which was lending based on property alone. Would the delegates like to share their views on what I believe are significant opportunities in this regard?

Water tariffs were mentioned.

The IFA has submissions to make on the blanket uniformity of water charges given that the responsibility for water has now been shifted from the councils to Irish Water. Has the IFA been invited in as part of the session on the cost of doing business?

Is anyone else coming in to speak about retail as part of this module?

Yes, we have the Retail, Grocers, Dairy and Allied Trades Association, RGDATA, the Convenience Stores and Newsagents Alliance, CSNA-----

We know that representatives of Chambers Ireland are coming too.

We have many contributors.

I was just curious. Small retail is really jumping out at me. It is very serious. It is happening on the ground; I have seen it first hand. In this week's Meath Chronicle it is stated that 40% of businesses are going to be judged on their turnovers for the first time under the new valuation system. This has never happened before. In Westmeath, 56% of shops have had an increase. Almost six in ten have had an increase. Likewise, in office space, 30% have had an increase. In big business and industry, only 16% have had an increase but in the hospitality sector, 40% have had an increase.

Small shops are the hardest hit sector. That is not in dispute. Nothing is being done for the people in that area. They are suffering, with the main issues being Internet shopping and Brexit the main issues. This is massive, and nobody is talking about it. We have to plug the gaps and all that. Deputy Neville seems to be up-to-date on what the rates are, but businesses have experienced massive jumps. I gave one example, and I could give 30 examples of similar magnitude. I do not know if we are getting it yet. Mullingar is a long way from Dublin, but this is going to happen in every provincial town. It will happen in Navan next. It is in the post. It will be worse, because 40% of them are going to be valued by turnover. This is a fundamental shift in how rates are valued. It is going to be cost neutral, but it is shifting away from big business and towards small retail, which is on its knees. The figures are there. Perhaps it does not suit all of our interests, but that is the reality of it.

Retail is my background. I have been self-employed for 17 years, and I also worked as a PAYE worker in retail in my sister's jewellery business in Waterford. What has struck me today, having been on both sides of the counter, is that most of our discussion has been around rates. The reason is that the majority of shop owners, shopkeepers and people who own small or medium enterprises feel that they have no control over what they are charged. They get a bill twice a year. It is appalling for many of them. Labour costs, transport costs, and costs for heat and light have to be factored in. Those costs have to be met; one cannot run a business without doing so. The feeling is that business people have no control over what they might be charged for their rates and they do not know what will face them for the new year.

I am struck by the fact that the majority of our conversation has been around commercial rates. If one goes to any provincial town and talks to any shopkeeper - I am purely talking about retail - the first thing that they will bring up is rates. I have been there myself.

I invite the witnesses to comment individually now. We spoke at length about rates, but if there is something else they would like to bring up or draw our attention to we would be very happy to listen.

Ms Linda Barry

I will pick up in particular on some of the comments that Senator Reilly made.

We really welcomed the retention of the 9% VAT rate. Many people are making the connection between the 9% rate and a very small subsection of that category - the hotels in Dublin - but we represent many companies in the tourism, hospitality and related sectors that are under that 9% rate and really benefit from it. Their stories are very different from the story put forward by the Senator today. Many of them are operating in regional economies and are highly dependent on tourists from the UK. They are really seeing a sharp drop in those tourist numbers. We have seen over the past years how effective that 9% VAT has been in supporting those businesses, and it was a really important signal to them this year that it was retained, because many of the companies availing of the rate are in the sectors that are highly exposed to Brexit. We were very supportive of its retention.

Red tape is a huge issue for our members. It has not had much attention today. In his opening remarks Mr. O'Brien said that it is a particular issue for small businesses because the cost is fixed and the business dealing with it is much smaller. In many cases it is the owner-manager who has to oversee compliance. Our members raise this most in the area of employment. They must comply with 40 items of employment legislation even if they only employ one or two people. This creates a huge amount of paperwork, especially when they are trying to bring people from social welfare into employment. That is not made easy for them; there is a huge administrative burden around that whole area. I emphasise that although much of the conversation today has centred on the issue of rates, the administrative burden and the cost of compliance is a huge issue for our members.

Many of our members are interested in tendering for public contracts and becoming suppliers to Government. Again, the administrative burden and the complexity in this area is a real barrier to them. I highlight that as an area that had not come up previously.

I agree strongly about the employment issue. I have met so many traders, particularly in the building industry, who are saying that they are really busy and would love to take someone on but that it is too much hassle and that with the red tape involved they are stretching jobs out instead. To get us from 6% unemployment to 4.5%, which is full employment, this is an area we must drill down into further as a committee, because it is quite a broad area. I fully endorse what Ms Barry is saying - we need to tackle that red tape.

Ms Linda Barry

I appreciate the Deputy's support on that, but in fact much of the discussion in this House of late has been moving in the opposite direction and would make it more challenging for small companies in particular to hire staff in a way that fits with their business needs.

Can Ms Barry give an example?

Ms Linda Barry

The whole movement against flexibility in the labour market in terms of banded hours is an example. Our members watch those debates very closely. There is a move away from giving an employer the flexibility to hire employees when their business needs them.

I thought the red tape was around getting the employee on board, whereas with banded hours the employee is on board.

Ms Linda Barry

There is a whole set of compliance and administrative issues around taking on new employees and around existing employees.

They are two separate issues. One is bringing the employee on board and once they are on board, we can deal with banded hours. We have to find the right balance here. The flip side of that is that we must protect the employee

Ms Linda Barry

In the surveys we have done with our members, rates - which we focused on today - are very high up in terms of cost concerns. It is number three in terms of cost concerns for our small businesses across all sectors. However, number one is labour costs while number two is the cost of insurance. I emphasise that these are the priorities our members have outlined to us.

Mr. Fergal O'Brien

I will briefly reflect on the Chairman's comments on the importance of rates for the retail sector and small businesses. We have already spoken of many of the other cost issues. Our main request of this committee is to see if we can achieve a structure through which we get better Government response and reaction to all these concerns. We think there has been extensive diagnosis of the competitiveness challenges and identifying where we are out of line with others in doing business, such as the reports of the National Competitiveness Council. What we have not seen is a response to these or a reaction. We seek a whole-of-Government approach with a single point of accountability delivered through an action plan format that clearly assigns responsibility for all the individual responses. We do not have that at the moment, and as long as that continues, we will be back here discussing the same cost issues in three or five years' time. We urge the committee to look at this.

Mr. Gerard Brady

I echo the comments by my colleague from the Small Firms Association regarding the retention of the 9% rate of VAT. We really welcome this. Of course there have been increases in hotel prices in Dublin, which reflects a lack of supply in the market. It goes back to some things around development costs, especially land costs, and how attractive it is to build hotels in Dublin. The lack of hotels is driving the costs. I would not characterise it as gouging, it is reflective of the market where there is a lack of supply. The 9% VAT rate is seriously important for certain regions. If we look at the Border region, the north west and the midlands in particular, more than 40% of tourists to those regions come from the UK. Flights from the UK have dropped by 10%, along with visitor numbers year-on-year in the first half of this year, so the rate is very important for those markets. They already have tight profit margins, some have serious debts, having spent considerable sums on property during the boom, and still have an overhang. That will be a big issue for them. Another factor is insurance costs. This committee and others have talked a lot about the cost for employees and workers and households on motor insurance in particular. We should highlight the cost of insurance for the goods fleet, which has increased by approximately 80% at the same time. It is a major cost in particular for companies that move goods around intensively. In addition, employer and public liability insurance has gone through the roof. I agree with Senator Reilly's comments about our court system, in which awards for minor injuries tend to be much higher than they would be in other European countries and in the UK in particular. The new book of quantum has not done much to solve this and there is an issue within the courts that the levels of awards tend to be used as an underlying benchmark, rather than a ceiling. That is a major factor in insurance costs. Particularly in the context of Brexit, we will see major increases in transport costs and the costs of moving goods and it is particularly an issue for companies in remote areas that are already disadvantaged and companies, especially those which are goods-heavy, which are already facing into the worst impacts of Brexit. The cost of fleet insurance is a major issue.

Mr. Thomas Burke

Senator Reilly asked about the figure of €220 million. It relates to the rates which were not collected in 2014 when around 73% of the total commercial rates bill due for that year were successfully collected. As Mr. O'Brien mentioned earlier, that collection rate varied from 56% in one local authority area to 92% in another, so there is clearly a vast differential in collection rates between areas.

I agree entirely with Senator Davitt and the Chairman about the significant impact commercial rates are having on retailers in particular, whether large or small. We have spent a great deal of time discussing it today. It occupies the mind and it has an impact on how many people such businesses can employ. Only approximately 6,500 new jobs have been created in our sector in the past four years and that is linked to a number of issues, of which the cost and burden of commercial rates is certainly one. Something quite radical needs to be done to address that concern or we will end up in a bad place.

I will touch upon some of our members' concerns about cost base. The recent national minimum wage increase has been a huge problem for our members, not necessarily the rate itself but the relative impacts it will have above that level. It also puts us significantly out of line with the UK and Northern Ireland, of which we are now around 12% ahead in respect of wage levels. That is a concern at a time when VAT rates are also out of line with the UK, which has a 20% VAT rate in comparison with our 23% VAT rate.

The other online retail issues I mentioned earlier also are of huge concern to our members.

Insurance is a big concern for our sector, especially in respect of public liability, where cases of claims tourism have arisen. Groups of people have been going around various stores and having accidents. They have been turning up in different towns week after week. The culture that has been created in recent years, which seems to incentivise claims against businesses, is a real concern. If that is not tackled soon it will lead to very serious problems.

There are ramifications from Brexit. In common with our colleagues in the food sector, Brexit poses serious and significant implications for the Irish retail sector including to the cost base. Areas such as product sourcing, logistics and supply chains will all have to be addressed in the next few years, depending on the outcome of the Brexit negotiations. That has the potential to add cost to our supply chain. We need to insulate Irish retailers and, more importantly, the Irish consumer from any further increases in that area.

Finally, there has been a significant spike in the rate of retail crime recently. We have been in discussions with An Garda Síochána which has confirmed our fears that we have seen a very significant increase in the rate of retail crime, that is, crime in or around retail premises, in the last 18 months.

Does that refer to shoplifting, or does it include shoplifting?

Mr. Thomas Burke

Yes, it includes everything. In some Garda regions, we have seen increases of up to 30% over an 18-month period. From the retail industry's perspective, we need to see further resources allocated to An Garda Síochána to ensure it can address those issues which have a clear impact on the operational costs of retail business.

Mr. Paul Kelly

My opening remarks focused on agrifood exports and the impact and consequences of Brexit but it should be borne in mind that the domestic market remains the largest single market for Irish food and drink produce. I strongly agree with Senator Reilly's remarks regarding the retention of the 9% hospitality VAT rate because in addition to the grocery sector, food service and hospitality are the two other important outlets for Irish food and drink produce in the domestic market. With Brexit we will see a permanent change in our competitive position with the continued weakening in sterling and there will be additional transaction costs in areas such as customs, veterinary inspections and so on for food produce, and that is only if we manage to escape the worst-case scenario of WTO tariffs in which case the story will be completely different.

If we examine what happened in 2009, when we had the last significant weakening of sterling, there was a very large displacement of Irish food produce in the domestic market due to lower priced sterling produce coming from Northern Ireland and Britain. We are now in the situation where in one category, prepared consumer food, Irish producers have a 40% market share so we are in a minority position in our own domestic market. That is the sort of risk we will continue to face in the domestic market and in export markets too. The importance of agrifood should be borne in mind, especially on a regional basis. It accounts for 90% of agricultural output, which we process, and amounts to a payroll of €2.1 billion, which is the largest payroll of any manufacturing sector. We also purchase €3.5 billion in services as well as products in the domestic market in all parts of the country. Our key point is that we must permanently shift the cost of doing business in Ireland for the Irish agrifood sector. Central to that is that we ensure there is a single point of political responsibility for achieving cost competitiveness in the country.

I thank the witnesses for coming here to engage with the committee. Senator Reilly wishes to come back in.

For clarity, I want to return to one of the matters that was raised by Ms Barry. I very specifically mentioned the Dublin hotels and emphasised them as a group, that consideration was being given to exclude them from the reduced VAT rate because of their behaviour. It was not the restaurant sector or the rest of the hospitality sector, because as Ms Barry rightly pointed out, that sector is benefitting from the rate and is creating job and is significantly supported by the Government. I must also dispute remarks by another speaker in respect of insurance costs. It does not explain the sudden hike in the cost of a hotel room when an all-Ireland final, an international soccer match or an international conference are being held.

I support Senator Reilly. To add some context, on the night of the all-Ireland hurling final between Waterford and Galway, the hotel I will stay in tonight, which usually costs €108, quoted me €269. When I asked why, they said it was because it was the all-Ireland final. It bears out the Senator's point. It is a huge increase. We have found that especially if one is living down the country and coming up for a weekend event, whether for a match or whatever sport one follows, the hotel rooms at the weekend are all in excess of €200. I reiterate exactly what Senator Reilly said.

As a consequence of that, people who regularly come to the city to do business cannot get a room and they get cheesed off. The point I am trying to make is it is counter-productive for the whole sector. I am trying to send a strong signal to the hotels that do it to desist or the Government will be encouraged, certainly by me, to take action that the sector will feel.

We will have the president of the Irish Hotels Federation in with us in about ten minutes' time.

Fair enough. On the issue of red tape, it is too late now but perhaps the witnesses could think about it and make a written submission to the committee on how we can reduce it. We would be very interested in being as supportive as possible on that.

I could not agree more about the complexity involved in tendering for SMEs. Some of the complexities are ridiculous for the small amounts of money that are involved. It reminds me of a situation in which there was a tender out for the architectural design of a particular building. We were trying to encourage innovators, new architects and small firms yet one of the stipulations in the terms of reference was that they already had to have completed a building to the value of greater than €1 million. I would be the first to agree with the witnesses.

I also strongly agree with my colleague, Deputy Neville, when it comes to the banded-hours issue. There has to be a balance struck between protecting workers and allowing businesses to get on with business and have flexibility. There is always a small number that abuse. We know that very clearly from the hearings we have held at this committee. I am probably one of the few people here who has worked both sides of the scene. I am an employer as a small SME general practitioner. I run a surgery but I have also been a trade union member so I see both sides of the argument. I emphasise there has to be balance and where there is abuse we have to stamp it out. I am the first to agree with the witnesses that we do not need a sledgehammer to crack a nut and have unforeseen consequences that we do not want to see.

I agree entirely that there needs to be one point of accountability, if we can manage it - and I do not see any reason why we could not - to address all these issues and costs. The Government has shown a lot of coherence in much of what it has done recently. This is another area in which we could make serious progress. The input of the witnesses would be invaluable in that regard.

As for crime in retail, the Government has an extra 800 gardaí going into the system. It will always be a problem and will always be with us. On a lighter note, if one looks at some of the clips on YouTube of what people get up to, the amount of stuff that comes out from underneath their coats is quite extraordinary. That is not to make light of its impact on the retailer because it is very serious. I thank the witnesses and want to leave them in no doubt of our support. We also have to see where the problems are. They have to be addressed from the other side.

Are there any further comments? No. I thank the witnesses for coming here today to engage with the committee. It was the first of four sessions on the issue that we will have between now and December and we hope to have a document produced in January. All members of the committee were very conscious of the fact that we wanted to look at this properly.

In our next session we have Chambers Ireland, the Irish Tax Institute, ISME and ICTU. After that, we will have the Convenience Stores and Newsagents Association of Ireland, RGDATA, the National Off-Licence Association, NOFFLA, the Banking and Payments Federation Ireland and Insurance Ireland and then we will have the Construction Industry Federation. We may also have the IFA. We are trying to look at it from all angles to get a good overview of it. Today's session was very worthwhile so I thank the witnesses. I appreciate their time.

We will suspend for a number of minutes until our new guests come in.

Sitting suspended at 5.45 p.m. and resumed at 5.49 p.m.

From the Irish Hotels Federation I welcome Mr. Tim Fenn, chief executive officer, and Mr. Joseph Dolan, president.

By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the joint committee. If, however, they are directed by it to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person or an entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

I have already read the notice on privilege out. I remind our guests that the presentation should be of no more than five minutes' duration. Members have previously received the witness's submission and presentation. I now ask Mr. Fenn to make his presentation to the committee.

Mr. Tim Fenn

I thank the committee for inviting the Irish Hotels Federation, IHF, to address the Joint Committee on Business, Enterprise and Innovation. I am joined today by Joe Dolan, president of the IHF, who is sitting to my left.

I will skip through some of my introduction to get to the issues we want to address. Tourism is one of Ireland’s largest indigenous industries and is essential for Ireland’s economic well-being. It is a major source of employment generation nationally and is of enormous importance to many areas of the country that have an otherwise weak economic base. In 2016, tourism generated a total of €8.3 billion for the economy, made up of €1.8 billion in domestic tourism revenue and €6.5 billion in foreign exchange earnings and carrier receipts. Overall, tourism accounts for 4% of GNP and contributed an estimated €2 billion in taxes to the Exchequer last year.

Having supported the creation of more than 60,000 new jobs since 2011, tourism and hospitality now account for approximately 230,000 jobs throughout the country, which is equivalent to 11% of total employment. In particular, our industry is continuing to play a vital role in supporting economic activity in the regions, with 66% of tourism-related jobs located outside of Dublin. The hotels sector is a large employer within Irish tourism, employing over 60,000 people directly in hotels and guesthouses in every town and county. Hoteliers are recruiting significant numbers of additional staff across all areas of their operations. Employment generation depends, however, on ensuring the right conditions are in place to support sustainable long-term growth in the industry.

Having achieved significant recovery in recent years, Irish tourism is now under severe threat from Brexit, particularly in regions that are heavily reliant on visitors from the UK. This was brought into sharp focus during the first eight months of 2017, which saw a 7.1% drop in the number of trips to Ireland from Great Britain compared with the same period in 2016. Some 69% of IHF members are reporting a fall in business from this market and we are also seeing a significant weakening in visitor numbers from Northern Ireland. This worrying trend is being reflected in figures for advance bookings for the remainder of 2017 and there is considerable concern that we will see a further decline next year. It is therefore essential the necessary steps are taken to safeguard Irish tourism and mitigate, as far as possible, the risks arising from Brexit. Cost competitiveness is a key factor in this regard.

As outlined in further detail in our submission to the committee, the recovery experienced by the industry in recent years has been underpinned by a number of important Government policy initiatives such as the 9% tourism VAT rate, which has brought Ireland more closely in line with tourism VAT rates in other European countries with which we compete. This has made Irish tourism more competitive when marketing Ireland internationally. This measure continues to be one of the most successful job-creation initiatives in modern times with the positive impact on tourism exceeding all expectations. In addition to supporting the creation of tens of thousands of new tourism jobs throughout the country, it has resulted in the generation of additional revenues that are being used in the sector on an ongoing basis to expand employment and increase investment in maintenance, refurbishment, renovation, innovation and sales and marketing. This investment is critical for improving competitiveness and ensuring sustained growth in the industry. It is an essential element of the sector’s response to the direct and indirect consequences of Brexit. We therefore welcome the decision by the Government to retain this important measure as part of budget 2018.

Other important policy measures include the zero-rate air passenger tax and the liberalisation of the visa regime for visitors from selected markets. Irish tourism has also benefitted enormously from external factors that have supported growth in overseas visitor numbers, including good economic performances in our major overseas markets such as North America and mainland Europe. The strong tourism growth achieved in recent years illustrates the economic and job creation potential of our industry and the capabilities of tourism entrepreneurs and enterprises. There is, however, no room for complacency. Irish tourism faces a number of significant challenges that require a co-ordinated policy response in addition to the efforts of the industry. These include cost competitiveness issues within the Irish economy which are compounded by Brexit.

Brexit poses a particular challenge given Ireland’s heavy reliance on holidaymakers and business travellers from Great Britain, which last year accounted for approximately 41.5% of overseas visitors. Combined with visitors from Northern Ireland, the UK as a whole accounted for 49.4% of out-of-State visitors last year. As such, this market is a very strong determinant of our overall tourism performance. The drop in the value of sterling verses the euro is, therefore, very worrying. More broadly, a sustained weakness in sterling poses a threat to tourism businesses in relation to our other key markets such as North America and the rest of Europe. We compete with the UK to attract visitors and holidaymakers from these markets with price being a significant competitive factor. We, therefore, risk losing future market share.

We recognise that the Government cannot influence economic conditions affecting the UK but there is a wide range of policy measures within the control of the Government. From a tourism perspective, these include enhancing competitiveness within the economy and supporting an environment that encourages investment by tourism businesses throughout the country.

I will now turn to recommended tourism priorities for improving cost competitiveness. As identified by the National Competitiveness Council, Ireland remains a high-cost location for doing business. Given the exceptionally competitive nature of the international tourism market, this has a major impact on the viability of Irish tourism and our ability to attract visitors and holidaymakers. Every €1 in tourism expenditure by visitors to Ireland is hard won and corresponds to €2.16 in revenue generated within the wider economy, so it is important that the Government prioritises policies and actions that are within its control to enhance competitiveness. In this regard, we have identified a series of policy areas in our submission to the committee that we believe should be prioritised in relation to our international cost competitiveness, particularly in the context of Ireland's response to Brexit. The Government should continue to seek to mitigate the current negative effects of Brexit, which have resulted in increased economic uncertainty and a significant weakening of Ireland's tourism position in the UK market following the fall in the value of sterling.

There are other policy areas that should be prioritised. The retention of the 9% VAT rate is very welcome. The 9% rate has been shown to be the correct and appropriate level in relation to the international competitiveness of Irish tourism and will continue to enable further recovery and growth. With regard to insurance costs, more needs to be done to address the escalating cost of insurance for businesses, which is having a detrimental impact on hotels and guest houses. Measures are required to address the excessive levels of awards, to reduce the high legal costs of administering claims, to tackle unacceptable levels of exaggerated claims and to support additional participation by insurers in the Irish market.

Local authority rates are another policy area that should be prioritised. Full implementation of the Valuation Act is required as committed to in the programme for a partnership Government. Pending the full revaluation of hotels, local authorities that have not yet been revised should reduce hotel and guest house rates bills by 30%. On the matter of other State-determined costs it is vital that the Government avoids any increases in Government controlled costs, particularly in relation to labour regulation, public sector taxes and the public service obligation, PSO, energy levy.

I thank the Chairman for giving us the opportunity to address this committee and we look forward to addressing any matters that the members may wish to raise.

I thank Mr. Fenn. I will now open the debate to the floor. I invite Senator James Reilly to kick it off.

I welcome our guests. I do not know if they were listening to our previous exchanges with the Small Firms Association, IBEC and the food industry representatives. They came with many suggestions on how to reduce red tape, which we would welcome. We also welcome the input of the Irish Hotels Federation. I hope that we may have an opportunity to collate all of the suggestions together at a later meeting relating to this subject to see what would make sense and what might not. With regard to helping to keep costs down we would at least have the benefit of the suggestions being from those who are at the coalface.

I believe that everybody would agree with Mr. Fenn's points about insurance costs, legal costs and the constant vigilance required in that area. Much work has been done on that to date but the work needs to continue, by this and by other committees that have led on the issue.

In dealing with local authority rates, I will ask Mr. Fenn the same question that I posed to other witnesses. If we are not to base it on rent then what might we base it on? I believe that a lot of people in business are very exercised by rates and the sense of a lack of transparency around how the figures are arrived at. Anyone in this room who is in business would understand and know that if a person appeals their rates bill, in many instances they receive a reduction. This is because they have employed someone to do it who knows how to make the argument. This, however, costs another couple of thousand euro. There is no question that these issues need to be addressed.

I wish to speak about one specific issue that relates to the hotel industry. It relates to a very great unhappiness that I have personally, and that many people have politically, with the situation of price gouging. That is not too strong a term for it. It occurs every time there is a major event in the capital city. Costs go through the roof when people are trying to get a hotel room. People in the industry have argued that it is down to insurance, which it clearly is not. Why is it a different price the rest of the time? All of us in this room understand tourism. All of us understand that there is a high season, a mid season and a low season but what occurs around these particular events is nothing short of outrageous. It does the industry tremendous damage. It does this in two ways; people have to pay the money the first time they come and then they think twice about coming back. In the Irish Hotels Federation presentation we heard how we all must do our utmost to ensure that we continue to attract visitors from abroad, but scalping people when they arrive here is not a way to do it. With modern social media now and all sorts of sites that rate people's experiences it gets out very quickly and can have a very negative effect.

I have previously spoken on the idea that there is a large cohort of very healthy and relatively wealthy individuals between the ages of 65 and 80 who are looking for things to do and places to go. This is a market that Ireland is ideally set for with our climate, wonderful sights, food, entertainment and the safety we can bring to a visitor's experience of visiting Ireland. If visitors get scalped when they get to Dublin it will have a very negative effect, and I believe it is having a negative effect. The other people who get particularly cheesed off with this, and who are dissuaded from coming back to Ireland and from doing business here, are regular business people. When there is a big event on they find that they cannot get a hotel at a reasonable rate. They continually complain to me and my colleagues about it. They ask how come it is a different price on a particular weekend to the price on every other weekend they arrived in the city. The Dublin hotels who are Irish Hotels Federation members who engage in this practice are in danger of killing the goose that lays the golden egg. I do not mind saying this to the federation representatives here today that, such is the concern, excluding hotels from the 9% VAT rate was being considered, letting it apply to the remainder of the hospitality sector but not hotels. This practice is exercising people and the Irish Hotels Federation members would do well to listen.

Mr. Joe Dolan

In regard to the first point, I do not believe that we have heard the argument that hotel rates are a result of insurance. I would accept that insurance rates are consistent throughout the year, where hotel rates can fluctuate.

Mr. Tim Fenn

I have a few points to make on hotel rates in Dublin. In 2015, Dublin had an average occupancy rate of 82.2%, which was the highest in Europe along with London. At that stage, the average room rate was €112 on aggregate right across the year, which was the 15th highest city in Europe. In 2016, it was 82.5% and, on its own, the highest occupied city in Europe. It was 11th highest in average room rates. Dublin is a very competitive city internationally. Where Dublin has a problem is in its capacity. There are currently approximately 3,000 to 5,000 rooms at the planning stage or in the process of being built which represents investment of somewhere in the order of €1 billion. That will go a long way towards dealing with the issue raised about big events.

When one talks about big events in Dublin, one is talking about a capacity issue, rather than some of the other words the Deputy used. It is an issue but in relation to pricing in Dublin there are only 25 to 30 days in the year where the last available room rate reaches the average rate. I ask the members to think about that. There is lots of good value in Dublin for the people coming here. They book their rooms in advance, they get here and they are fine. Many of the business people who were referred to have corporate rates and they are not subject to the last available room rate which is the rate that is caught when there are major events. When one is talking about a major event, one is also talking possibly about the last 2% to 5% of rooms. There are approximately 19,000 rooms in Dublin, of which approximately 18,500 are sold at great rates. It is the last few rooms as with a flight or some other activity. Quite a lot of the room rates that people quote in the media are not even for hotels but are for other types of accommodation.

We are acutely aware of the requirement for our industry to be competitive and we are acutely aware of the fact that Dublin has a capacity problem. We believe the market is working to fix that. It should be recalled that this happened because of the crash, which was only six or seven years ago and which meant hotels in Dublin were now worth a fraction of what it cost to build them. All of the money that came to work in Dublin was able to buy distressed assets rather than to build new capacity. We are now in a lag period where we have to catch up on our capacity. It is a supply-and-demand situation but it is only a supply-and-demand situation which affects those last 5% of rooms. I hope that helps to clarify what is going on. It is not as simple as some of the media hype and headlines suggest.

I would like to come in there because I do not believe it is media hype and headlines. I will give an example. I am a Deputy from Waterford. When I come up on a Tuesday, I stay two nights and get a very good rate of €108 in a hotel quite close by where I am looked after very well. On the first Sunday in September when the all-Ireland hurling final took place, I looked for the same room I stay in on a Tuesday and Wednesday and was quoted €269. I said "You must be joking" and the answer was "No, it is all-Ireland Sunday". That is an absolute fact. I have no reason to put it any other way. I would have expected €169 or €179 but €269 was the amount quoted for the exact same room I get mid-week. I understand that weekend prices are different. I would expect them to be perhaps €50 or €60 more. The increase from €108 to €269 is a fact and these are the people around the country who are coming to Dublin at weekends for concerts, conferences and matches. They try to book rooms in advance, but it is impossible to get a hotel room at the weekend for less than €200 per night in Dublin. Those are the facts as I know them.

Mr. Tim Fenn

Yes, there are approximately 30 nights of the year when that happens. It is a capacity issue. That is the problem.

I am not going to tell Mr. Fenn how to sell his message, but presenting it as a capacity issue does the federation a disservice. We had our party conference, as all parties do, this weekend. I spoke to an individual who has travelled every time there was a party conference. On the previous occasion, he travelled with his wife, stayed two nights and was charged €350. On this occasion, he was asked for €750. Hoteliers would do themselves more justice if they owned up to the fact that they are pricing rooms way out of the league of most people. They might say there is a demand and that they can sell the rooms but they are making it very uncompetitive for a lot of other people in terms of the rates being charged. We will probably not persuade the federation today to approach this differently but there has been a transformation in the rates being charged. Trying to explain it away as a capacity problem that the market will rectify does not do it for me. I am sorry, lads.

Mr. Joe Dolan

It is unquestionably a capacity issue. There are simply not enough rooms. Some people actually confuse rate and capacity. I have had people approach me who were very cross because they simply could not get a room. The issue is not the price; it is the availability of a room. I have seen people who had to bring a child to hospital and who could not get a room within any reasonable commuting distance of it. That is a capacity issue. As Mr. Fenn said, the big problem is the lag time. It is two years from the paper stage to getting a shovel in the ground in Dublin. That is the issue. In Belfast, it takes six months. One has all the issues in Dublin that hotel developers come across. The planning system is a joke, there are height restrictions and there is very limited availability of sites. One is competing with office and residential developments where the yield is faster and larger. Those are the things that militate against hotels coming on stream at a faster rate.

Capacity, planning, lag times and all the rest of it are not forcing hotels to put up their rates. Hotels are taking an executive decision themselves to put up these rates. No one is forcing them to put them up. They are doing it themselves. That is the point.

We need to be clear that the argument does not stack up. The average rate quoted is a rate per annum and it does not catch the peaks, which I call "the peaks of abuse". What they are based on is what the hotels feel the market and the customer will bear. That is the long and the short of it. I have a lot of time for the hotel industry, which is a hugely important one to our tourism. We want to support it. However, if the industry is not prepared to address this issue where super profits are being sought on these weekends, there will be a public outcry for Government action. I advise the witnesses that this was already looked at and decided against on this occasion. However, the clamour for action will grow stronger if something is not done about it. We do not want to see the hotel industry destroyed and I want to see the 9% VAT rate remain, as do my colleagues. However, the issue is whether we are going to be listened to about this obvious and clear practice. No disrespect to the witnesses, but their arguments lack any credibility. There may be capacity issues, but they do not result in this peak of abuse in the rates being sought. If we follow that argument to its natural conclusion, we will be told when we have sorted out the capacity issue that hotels cannot sustain themselves for the rest of the year because they will have empty beds.

The federation cannot have it both ways. There has to be an acknowledgment that super prices are being demanded for these events. Perhaps the federation is throwing down a challenge to us. Maybe the committee needs to retrospectively investigate how many rooms were let at the super price and how many were let at the proper price that is normally charged to ascertain whether the percentage of rooms in the first category is truly just 5%. I have a sneaking suspicion that anybody who telephones two weeks before an event will find that the rates for the weekend in question are at the higher level. We are trying to help here. We do not want to castigate the witnesses or beat them up. We want to send a strong message that this issue has to be addressed. I ask Mr. Fenn and Mr. Dolan not to ask the committee to believe it is not an issue because we are hearing about it all the time from business men and woman who find when they come to this country that the rates have shot up by comparison with what has been described as the usual corporate rate. Not every company is in the nice position of being able to block-book a rate for the year for its employees. Many people come to this country on a regular but unpredictable basis. They do their business when the opportunity arises. That is the reality of life.

I ask the Senator to allow the witnesses to respond.

I will be happy to hear what they have to say. I do not mean to be confrontational, but I think we need to be realistic. We should have a proper discussion about this issue, rather than pretending it is not a problem.

Mr. Tim Fenn

I would like to make two points. First, we accept there is a problem. We are trying to define and explain it as best we can. We have been presenting figures to the committee today. STR Global is the recognised source of average room prices and occupancy rates in Dublin. Approximately 15,000 of the 19,000 rooms in Dublin are on its books. This is a hugely significant sample size. Nobody else has figures like STR Global's average figures, which are written in tablets of stone. We do not have such figures. We accept STR Global's figures as the industry figures. That is the reality.

The second point I would like to make is that the last available rate, which seems to be the issue here, peaks when big matches and events are taking place and there is very little availability. I am not aware of anybody who has information on the composite rate and can say what percentage of rooms are sold at the last available rate. The STR Global figures show that a Dublin has a high percentage of four-star and five-star hotels. The hotel stock in Dublin is of a very good quality. Its percentage of high-end rooms is greater than that of other European cities with which it is compared. My point is that the STR Global figures are the best figures available to us. We cannot give the committee any other figures.

Mr. Fenn has accepted that there is a problem.

Mr. Tim Fenn

Absolutely.

His contention is that there is a problem 30 nights of the year.

Mr. Tim Fenn

Yes.

I suggest that the federation, having accepted there is a problem 30 nights of the year, could be in danger of losing the golden egg, as Senator Reilly called it. All political parties have had huge discussions about the lower VAT rate that applies to this sector. It has been suggested that the rate could be maintained outside the greater Dublin area. Mr. Fenn has accepted it is a problem that exorbitant prices are charged 30 nights a year. Why would the federation not try to address that problem?

Mr. Tim Fenn

I will make two points in response to that. I have accepted there is a problem but I have not described the type of pricing set out by the Chair. My first point is that while we accept there is a problem, our job is to promote the trading environment so that new investment comes into place and increased supply ultimately deals with these issues. My second point is that competition law precludes the Irish Hotels Federation, as a trade association, from having any hand, act or part in setting or creating prices or doing anything about them. We are certainly able to bring the committee's message back to the industry to pass it on - that is what we have done time and again - but we can have no role in fixing or setting prices for our industry.

I understand that. I ask the representatives of the overseeing body to bring back the message they are hearing on the ground.

Mr. Tim Fenn

We certainly can do that.

We are hearing it all the time. Like my colleagues, I travel to Dublin every week. We have to book hotel rooms, so we are very aware of the prices that are being charged and of the existence of capacity issues. If we do not book in advance, it is hard to get a room during the week or at the weekend. This issue has been the subject of a great deal of discussion. I think the federation should take it on board. The focus of today's meeting is on the cost of doing business. If the hotel sector loses the lower VAT rate, the price of hotel rooms will certainly increase.

Mr. Joe Dolan

I will make a couple of comments in response to that. As Mr. Fenn has said, there are problems 30 nights a year. There are no problems on all the other nights. The Irish hotel sector is not confined to Dublin; there is a much bigger story out there. A significant number of rooms will come on stream from mid-2019 onwards. There is light at the end of the tunnel. There have been a few disappointing planning decisions recently. On paper, up to 5,000 hotel rooms are in the pipeline. They might not all come through. A conservative estimate would be that 3,000 of them will come through.

I thank Mr. Fenn and Mr. Dolan for their presentations. I hope they understand that we are raising these issues in the interests of protecting the hotel, hospitality and tourism industries. I think they will acknowledge that a great deal of business, notwithstanding the hard-nosed end of it, is based on sentiment. This is particularly true in the tourism industry. People might not remember everything that happened when they were in Ireland, but they will remember how they were made feel. We make people feel welcome, but we charge them exorbitant rates because they happen to come here on a weekend when there is an event on. I was acutely aware of this when I served as Minister for Health and we held many big health conferences. We were attracting large numbers of people to this country who would not have been here otherwise. Part of the idea behind that, in addition to the sharing of information, etc., was to let them see our country in the hope that they would say, "Wow, we must come back here again". That will not happen if the sentiment they feel is that they have been fleeced. I will not labour the point.

I take Mr. Fenn's point that the Competition and Consumer Protection Authority would by no means allow the Irish Hotels Federation to set or influence rates. There is a need to send a strong message that many people are deeply unhappy, that this sector is in danger of losing the goodwill and positive sentiment that makes it successful and that a change in attitude is needed. We accept that more beds will be needed in Dublin as the tourism industry grows. We absolutely accept that there is more to tourism and to the Irish Hotels Federation than Dublin. The problem is that Dublin is sticking out like a sore thumb and needs to be addressed. I hope this will happen because I think there is a bright future for tourism. There are many possibilities if we get our model right.

What percentage of hotels are members of the Irish Hotels Federation? I presume plenty of hotels all over the country have not joined this umbrella group.

Mr. Tim Fenn

There are approximately 820 hotels and 200 guesthouses in Ireland. We have approximately 750 members.

A substantial percentage of hotels and guesthouses are members of the federation.

Mr. Tim Fenn

Yes.

How many of the federation's members are hotels and how many are guesthouses?

Mr. Tim Fenn

I have given the figure I have in my head. We do not differentiate between hotels and guesthouses. We have just one category of member.

If there are 820 hotels and 200 guesthouses in Ireland, or 1,020 businesses in total, approximately three quarters of them are members of the federation.

Mr. Tim Fenn

Correct.

We have spoken about the 9% tax rate and in our earlier session today we spent a lot of time talking about rates, particularly from the perspective of small and medium industries and retail. Will Mr. Fenn comment further on that? In the earlier session we found rates to be a huge issue because it is a cost people feel unable to control.

Mr. Tim Fenn

Local authority rates have always been a bugbear for us. People have been waiting on their revaluation for many years after the introduction of the new Act. Despite the Acts of 2001 and 2015, large parts of the country have not yet been revalued. We in the Irish Hotels Federation have always looked for fair valuation for everybody. It is easier to pay rates if one believes them to be fair. The difficulty with our particular industry is that many businesses do not have an open market rentable value from which to work out what the fair value should be. For many years, and in the difficult years in particular, hotels were paying rates that could amount to €300,000 or even €600,000 before even opening their front doors. When one wonders about hotel pricing, it must be remembered that hotels are underpinned by a very expensive business model. While the Valuation Office is doing its level best to roll out a fair valuation system, another issue, that of local government efficiency, has arisen in the meantime. Some local authorities have not been as successful as they might have been in collecting rates because businesses have been unable to pay them. The business model, therefore, is not fulfilling their needs. All of the sudden, then, a question mark appears over who is paying for what. Are any services coming out of this? The guy paying €400,000 or €500,000 in local authority rates may not even be able to get someone to come to fix a pothole outside his front gate. That is the aggravating factor because when people pay for a service, they expect to get it, and it is hoped they believe or try to make sure that what they are paying is fair. Our industry has been hugely aggravated by the fact that we never believed that our rates bills were fair. Since revaluation has come on stream in different local authority areas, hotels have enjoyed decreases of up to 30% or higher in their rates bills.

Is that in general?

Mr. Tim Fenn

Yes. Rates bills have dropped by 15%, 20% to 30% once hotels get a fair valuation based on the rentable value of the property.

That must be very welcome.

Mr. Tim Fenn

It is very welcome and will be even more welcome once it rolls out across the entire country.

Has this roll-out been very slow? We heard in the earlier session that the 31 local authorities operate different rates systems. Is the roll-out happening more quickly in some counties than in others?

Mr. Tim Fenn

The Valuation Office is charged with revaluing the entire country. It started in Dublin and worked down towards Waterford and Limerick, then up towards Sligo and back down through the middle of the country. It is now announcing new valuations. The Valuation Office is getting there but it will be about 2021 before the final counties are finished, all this from legislation that was enacted in 2001. Is that fair?

No, it is not fair. I am very glad that the Chairman has brought this discussion back to the issue of rates and, indeed, other costs. One of the questions I have concerns the manner in which the industry is assessed and whether there is a form of discount. For many hotels outside of Dublin and the bigger urban conurbations, the tourist season de facto stops in October and kicks off again in April. Many hotels and guest houses shut for this period because it is just not viable to run the business during these months. Many take the opportunity to revamp or bring in whatever changes need to be made.

Staff are employed on contracts reflecting that reality and they know it. Do businesses in this situation get any form of discount for this or is the rentable valuation taken as an average of six months over the 12?

Mr. Tim Fenn

No. There is no discount for a seasonal trading operation. Rates are based on the NAV, net asset value, which is the rentable value of the property. The fact that something is a seasonal property will dictate the level of rent.

That six months' rent is spread out over the year as an average.

Mr. Tim Fenn

It should be quoted into the valuation of the business somewhere.

Is the federation happy with that?

Mr. Tim Fenn

We are happy to see everybody get these new fair valuations. We are very unhappy with the old system which was a tone of the list based on the size of the property and a few other factors which we believed to be inherently unfair.

Would Mr. Fenn say that the hotels that got the new, fair valuations are much happier than those still under the older system because many of them have seen a reduction in rates?

Mr. Tim Fenn

A significant reduction.

Is it taken into account that those in a coastal area, for example, might not be doing business in the winter months? I find the point raised by Senator Reilly to be very interesting. I remember calling into a lady who does bed and breakfast, and she only does so from April to September and not during the winter. Her complaint was that she had to pay rates for the year. Mr. Fenn is saying that the Valuation Office would look at the rentable value of this woman's business for the six months in which it is open. Am I correct there?

Mr. Tim Fenn

I am not sure whether she should be paying rates at all because bed and breakfasts have some kind of exemption.

What of the big hotels in places like Killarney?

Mr. Tim Fenn

Big seasonal hotels in counties that have not yet been revalued are in a very difficult and unfair situation with their rates. The fact is that the process is taking far too long because some of the owners of such hotels have already gone.

Are these hotels paying on the basis of turnover or square footage?

Mr. Tim Fenn

Those that have not been revalued typically pay rates based on what we call a tone of the list. A town might have a hotel that was originally valued 100 years ago or so, for example. Somebody then builds a new hotel of the exact same size, with the exact same number of rooms and to the exact same specifications. This new hotel would then get the same value as the existing property. Somebody else comes along and builds a third hotel of the exact same size. This also gets a tone of the list comparative valuation. Pretty soon we might have five hotels, all valued at, for example, €2 million each. This amounts to €10 million even though the combined value of all of the properties might only come to €4 million or €5 million because there is only so much business to go around. The reality is that these hotels should be valued based on their rentable value and not on some comparative value drawn up in relation to another property. Therein lie the big differences that we in the federation see in the new system currently being rolled out. Each of those properties should be entitled a revaluation in which it would be valued on its own merits.

It is significant that a huge amount of our discussion today with all the other witnesses we had in earlier has been around rates. Would Mr. Dolan like to come in here?

Mr. Joe Dolan

If those who are unfortunate enough to be waiting two or three years to be revalued are fortunate then to get a significant discount, it will not be retrospective. They will be paying the old rates right up until that point and are thus being penalised by the inefficiency of the roll-out of the revaluation, which is no fault of the hotelier.

Mr. Tim Fenn

Another factor is that where there is an asset-based valuation for paying taxes, the asset value does not always track the trading performance. This is particularly the case after four or five years of very bad trading performance which, combined with a valuation that was wrong in the first place, leaves people in a very difficult situation.

Is that based on overhead falling income?

Mr. Tim Fenn

Yes. Where there is a functioning valuation system, which is what we are getting now, hoteliers will at least be able to get regular revaluations and all the properties will have a fair valuation.

They will be less exposed to changes in turnover or even the commercial circumstances of the businesses.

Are there any further questions? Do the witnesses have further comments to make before we conclude because I know they had to wait a long time outside, which we appreciate? The other session ran on for quite a while.

Mr. Tim Fenn

We were very happy to come in, present and answer members' questions. At the end of the day, the key point about where we are going in tourism is that 230,000 people are now employed in the industry. The number has increased by 60,000 in the past five years. The 9% VAT rate has been pivotal in that respect. There is an issue with capacity in Dublin and we are doing our level best to see if we can fix it. We estimate that about €1 billion has been put into trying to solve that problem. I hope it will be less of an issue the next time we meet.

I thank Mr. Fenn and Mr. Dolan for coming in to engage with the committee. This is the first of a series of meetings we will hold on the cost of doing business. We will produce a document in the new year and when we do, we will invite the witnesses to the launch.

I am sorry to cut across the Chairman, but can we invite the hotel industry to make a further submission on how we could reduce red tape as we did with the previous-----

Yes, absolutely. We invited the earlier witnesses to make further submissions on how we could reduce red tape to make life easier for somebody involved in the hotel or guesthouse business. If, after meeting us today, there is anything further the witnesses would like to add in a submission or even by way of comments or feedback after they meet their representatives, we would welcome receiving it. We will be working on this well into December. If there are issues around red tape that the witnesses find difficult in relation to employees, rates or otherwise, we would welcome anything further they may wish to add that we may not addressed today.

Mr. Joe Dolan

We would appreciate the opportunity to do so.

That concludes today's business.

The joint committee adjourned at 6.40 p.m. until 11 a.m. on Tuesday, 24 October 2017.
Top
Share