Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Joint Committee on Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 21 May 2013

Effects of Black Economy: Discussion with National Federation of Retail Newsagents and Grant Thornton

The next item is a discussion with members of the National Federation of Retail Newsagents on proposed solutions to protect small businesses and the jobs they provide and Grant Thornton on the recently published report, Illicit Trade in Ireland. I welcome Ms Deirdre Drennan, Mr. Joe Sweeney and Mr. John Prendergast of the National Federation of Retail Newsagents to the meeting today to discuss proposed solutions. I also welcome Mr. Colin Fearon of Grant Thornton.

I must read out some official instructions so the witnesses should bear with me. By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they are to give this committee. If you are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and you continue to so do, you are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of your evidence. You are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and you are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, you should not criticise or make charges against any persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. Members are reminded of a long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that Members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses, or any official by name in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. After that scary message and if she feels comfortable making a presentation, I ask Ms Drennan to commence the submission on behalf of the National Federation of Retail Newsagents. I ask that the presentations be no longer than ten minutes as it will give more time for engagement with members.

Ms Deirdre Drennan

I thank the committee for having us here today. The National Federation of Retail Newsagents is a trade association representing independent news and magazine retailers all over the island of Ireland and Great Britain. Today we are here to discuss issues facing members in the Republic of Ireland, and we represent approximately 500 shops in the Twenty-six Counties. All our members are independent news or magazine retailers, meaning we do not represent multiple stores; although some retailers would be in small groups, they would be independently owned stores. All our members sell news and magazines. Our members range from the traditional corner shop to the full forecourt with petrol pumps, off-licence etc.

We are delighted to be invited before the committee because we have a number of proposals we think may curtail job losses in the industry and protect current jobs. My colleague and district president, Mr. Joe Sweeney, is a newsagent from Dublin and he will go through some of the proposals we have.

Mr. Joe Sweeney

The scale of the problems facing independent retailers is getting worse, not better. Since 2008, job losses have continued to rise and employment across the entire retail sector has experienced a decline of 47,000 jobs from a peak of 314,000. Within the retail sector, 86% of retailers have fewer than ten employees and the members of our federation would often fall into this category. Unfortunately, we are all too familiar with announcements in the media of large numbers of job losses but what is not captured is the one or two employees sadly let go in small, independent shops all over the country.

The combined total of these losses is often greater than the number of jobs lost when, for example, a factory or large business of any description closes. It gets wide media publicity but the small number of jobs lost in independent retailers does not seem to matter. Equally important is the effect this has on communities across the country. While the shop is a business it is also an integral part of both urban and rural life. Many independent shops are family run businesses. There is a real sadness felt locally when a business of this kind closes its doors.

NFRN Ireland strongly believes in working with Government to help the Oireachtas overcome the many challenges it is faced with. All the proposals in this presentation are solutions that we believe will help independent retailers remain in business and keep their staff employed. As my colleague has already stated, the proposals are also meant to create jobs in the economy and we all want that.

One of our largest problems is dealing with the black market and illicit trade in Ireland. We have a number of inexpensive suggestions to put forward which we feel are very effective solutions to curbing the black market. I will not go through them all now but when we get into conversation we will discuss them openly. Examples are enforcing existing law completely banning the sale of illicit products at markets and, very importantly, using modern technology to fight this business. These illicit traders are well equipped with modern technology because of the profits they are making from the black market. We need to step up and start using modern technology to fight this illicit trade. My colleague, Mr. John Prendergast, will describe some of those technologies in detail in a few moments.

We insist that the Government invest money in more port scanners to fight the influx of illicit products into the country. Regarding keeping SMEs in business and creating jobs, we want the Government to examine introducing a rates relief scheme for small businesses. We will describe that in detail later on. We would like the Government to examine the difficulties retailers and small businesses have getting finance. That will be very important to keep people in business and to maintain and create jobs.

Did Mr. Prendergast want to explain some of the technology? We have approximately five minutes of presentation time left if the witnesses would like to use it.

Mr. Joe Sweeney

I will ask Mr. Prendergast to speak about the technology that is available. We would like the Government seriously to consider adopting it in this country to fight illicit trade. With regard to a smartphone app he is going to speak about, the NFRN will pay to build and implement that app.

Mr. John Prendergast

We have tabled four points in the illicit tobacco trade. The first is the smartphone app. We all have smartphones and there are thousands of apps. A new product called Codentify has been developed across Europe. It is a revolving code that can be built into a barcode for cigarettes or any other product. It is virtually impossible for that code to be broken because it revolves all the time. If it is put onto a barcode on cigarettes it gets a unique code subsequent to the barcode. The smartphone app is based on the fact that if one uses one's smartphone one scan the barcode, as you can check prices in a supermarket, the smartphone app would tell one whether that product was duty paid or not. It is as simple as that.

It does a number of things. It gives the person who potentially believes he or she is buying a legal product - because these products all look legal - the information to make an informed choice on whether to buy a non-duty paid product or a duty paid product. It gives the gardaí on the street who are witnessing proxy sales a tool they can use to check whether a product is legal or not on site. I stand to be corrected but I believe the Garda cannot approach somebody directly on the street now, but that is a job the Customs and Excise would normally do. There are people in open defiance of the law on Moore Street, at farmers' markets and at trading markets selling cigarettes they are not licensed to sell. We, as legitimate traders, have to have a tobacconist's licence to sell tobacco. We have to keep the product behind closed doors in our shops, where it cannot be viewed by the public, and these people are openly selling these products in defiance of the law. There are a number of areas around that which we can discuss later.

We have eight main ports in Ireland through which one can bring large freight. None of them have built-in x-ray or scanning machines and the country has two mobile 40 ft. scanners that have to be moved around the country. Realistically the criminals know where these scanners are going to be and which port they are going to choose so it is easy for them to tip each other off. We would like to see a port scanner in every port so it cuts down again on the means by which they can bring these things into the country. It is also a job generation project because one needs approximately 12 people to operate these scanners for every 24 hour rolling period. It is job generative and cost-neutral because the money that will be saved through the catching of the non-duty paid products can go towards maintaining these jobs.

The last item is the criminalising the consumers of illicit tobacco. We are referring here to the province of Quebec in Canada and its experience of pursuing consumers who knowingly purchased illegal cigarettes. Under the provision of the Tobacco Tax Act, consumers found in possession of untaxed tobacco are subject to a minimum penalty of C$350. This policy has received widespread support from tobacco control advocates such as the Canadian Cancer Society. The current regime for tackling the illicit trade in Ireland has focused exclusively on smugglers and we believe by introducing a credible financial deterrent aimed at consumers, the Government may be able to lessen the economic incentive to purchase low-priced cigarettes.

On increased revenue resources, we believe that direct contributions from the tobacco and alcohol industries should be sought by the Government to enhance the Revenue Commissioners and Garda resources as these are the industries which will benefit the most from a clampdown on the black market. We could be using the tobacco industries to finance the port scanners. We do not have to like what they do but tobacco is currently a legal product in Ireland on which the Government raises substantial sums of duty. We think we should be exercising every option to make these technologies available at no cost to the Exchequer.

We move on to Mr. Colin Fearon with his presentation from Grant Thornton.

Mr. Colin Fearon

I thank the committee for the invitation to speak today. I am very grateful. I am a manager in business consulting and I have been invited on the back of a report we have done on illicit trade. We did the report in partnership with Retail Ireland and we presented it on 23 April. I have provided slides today but they are a bit too detailed for us to go through each one in detail.

I will give the committee a brief overview of the report, its objectives, key findings and open it up to the committee for discussion.

The purpose of the report is to raise awareness of the current issues surrounding illicit trade, to attempt to quantify the loss to the Exchequer and to put forward some reasonable and realistic joined up strategies to tackle the problem. Given that our primary focus was to raise awareness, I commend the committee on making this a public debate. A debate is needed to have these issues brought to the public's attention.

I am aware the Construction Industry Federation appeared before the committee earlier today. I was not privy to its conversation but it would have talked about cash and the cash economy. For our report we narrowed the focus to intellectual property crime, illegal manufacturing and contraband and examined the economic impact on those sectors. Ultimately, we found the cost to the Irish economy was €1.5 billion, which is a very large amount especially when every cent of tax revenue is vital to the recovery of the public finances. Beyond the losses to the Exchequer there are wider losses to the economy, to the consumer in terms of health, clean-up costs, etc., and to legitimate business such as the NFRN in terms of loss of sales and footfall which is very important. There are also the non-financial losses.

We focused on four specific areas, some of which will be of more interest to others, fuel laundering, tobacco, digital piracy and pharmaceuticals. The reason for selecting those is that they are viewed as the biggest financial losses to the economy. However, there are losses in other areas also. We touched on some of them in the report but these four are the areas into which we went into more detail and attempted to quantify.

What are the costs to the Irish economy? It may be beneficial if I was to put some of the key findings up on the screen. The loss of €1.5 billion is actually €1.48 billion. It is important to recognise that there is an inherent difficulty in quantifying anything that is illicit. Something that is illicit is, by its nature, illegal and illegal traders do not prepare proper books and records and do not give returns. To combat this we have done a range of low to high assessments in order to best assess the actual losses. There are losses to the Exchequer, retailers, consumers and right holders. I shall concentrate on the higher end losses. We think the loss at the higher end is about €550 million and for the Government the loss to the Exchequer is about €930 billion or €940 billion. These are significant losses. The biggest loss arises from tobacco followed closely by fuel laundering. As I expect some questions on these later, I will not go into the numbers in too much detail at this stage.

One of the key recurring themes throughout our study was organised crime and the involvement of organised crime in illicit trade. It is an illegal activity but the scale and scope of some of the organised criminal activity that is taking place is significant. The Garda, the PSNI and Interpol have considerable evidence of a growing linkage between these trades. Therefore, one will not find a person involved only in fuel laundering, but also involved in fuel laundering, tobacco, pharmaceutical, alcohol, food and a broad spectrum of illicit trades. That was one of the key findings from our study.

Another key finding is the involvement of terrorist groups. They use this to fund terrorist activities. However, the Garda want to say it is not just financing terrorists, they are in it for profit also and there is an element of pure greed. Once they have established a supply route, it does not matter what they bring in as there are only two scanners at the ports and airports.

For each specific area we had specific recommendations. On an over-arching level we suggested an eight point strategy in terms of what can be used. This strategy can be used individually in the sectors but, more important, we want it centralised and used across all the sectors. It is important to understand the size and nature of the problem. There needs to be an evaluation of the facilitators of illicit trade and there needs to be effective legislation and deterrents. There needs to be a balanced and effective tax collection system and we need to strengthen enforcement and to educate the public. As this is not an issue solely for Ireland but is an international issue, we need international co-operation and an open and frank debate with the legitimate industry. Our strategy is about a balanced approach across all industries because there are key links.

By implementing a more consistent and evidence-based approach to the problem, we believe it is possible to tackle the drivers of illicit trade and reduce illicit trade across Ireland. We recommend the establishment of a task force, a committee or some group of people from a broad spectrum of public bodies, key stakeholders of industry and experts to debate and, ultimately, take responsibility for implementing the strategy and ensuring co-ordination and communication between the State agencies and the industry. I commend the work done by State agencies but more needs to be done as clearly the problem is not going away but is actually getting worse.

I will be happy to take questions. I thank the committee for its time and commend it on what it is doing.

We are delighted that Mr. Colin Fearon has appeared before the committee. Questions will arise through members engaging. I have a number of speakers listed - Deputy Dara Calleary, followed by Deputy Peadar Tóibín and Senator Feargal Quinn. I will take questions from Deputies Calleary and Tóibín to be followed by a response.

I thank the two groups for appearing before the committee. The committee also met the groups at its recent meetings in Castlebar and Ballinasloe. To hammer home the point in terms of employment, when we left Castlebar we stopped at a newsagent in Ballinrobe which employed 15 people two years ago, between full and part-time, and today employs one person plus the owner. Mr. Colin Fearon gave us the same figure that morning in Castlebar but it was brought home to us very vividly a couple of hours later in Martin's own shop. He is back working full-time and a member of his family helps him, having had 15 people, between full-time and part-time, just over two years ago. Will he please describe the smartphone app, the development costs of which he said he was willing to fund? I presume it can be extended to products other than tobacco, for example, alcohol and pharmaceutical products.

Mr. Joe Sweeney

It can be extended-----

Does the Deputy have any further questions?

I have some further questions.

I suggest Mr. Sweeney take a list of Deputy Callerary's questions followed by Deputy Tóibín's questions and respond to them all accordingly.

Is the smartphone app solely for cigarettes or tobacco or can it be used for pharmaceuticals and electrical equipment?

I think Mr. Prendergast said it again, the majority of our ports and airports still have an insufficient number of scanners. There is nothing to stop people bringing this stuff into the country.

Can Mr. Fearon confirm the methodology that he used in the Grant Thornton report? Everyone accepts that there is a problem. Everybody accepts that the figure being lost to the economy is quite big. A few weeks ago the Minister for Finance supplied a different figure in his reply to a parliamentary question. There is a difference of almost €200 million between both figures which is a lot of money. Where did Mr. Fearon get his figures? Was it from the tobacco industry, Revenue or another source?

I thank the Deputy. I call on Deputy Peadar Tóibín and then the delegation can respond to both sets of questions.

Go raibh míle maith agat agus fáilte roimh anseo anniu. I understand that retailers are in crisis. It has been mentioned that nearly 50,000 people have lost their jobs and another 30,000 jobs are in jeopardy in the sector. That proves that the sector is in crisis and, if the current economic climate continues, it has not reached the bottom unlike many other sectors. The State does not give enough support to retailers and enterprise. In the North of Ireland local authorities will often develop strategic plans for towns, merchandising Internet development, social media development, and different supports can be achieved. Some local authorities provide the same support in the South but on an ad hoc basis.

As much as 30% of all tobacco sales in the State are illicit which threatens the Government's health policy. An illicit tobacco seller can be fined €2,800 but some gangs earn up to €3 million per week on the trade. I would like hear the delegation's views on deterrents. Can it suggest an appropriate fine?

Illicit fuel sales have been regularly debated by the committee. The illicit trad will continue until an all-Ireland fuel price is introduced which is the only way to solve the problem. As long as a differential exists someone will exploit it to make a profit. No matter what type of response, such as surveillance, the trade will continue to exist. We must resolve the matter.

Earlier Deputy Áine Collins mentioned that one of the barriers to facilitating a fuel rebate may be the North's policy of marked gas oil. The committee and the Oireachtas should work with the Assembly in the North to create a joint response to the marked gas oil problem. Fuel suppliers in my part of the country are under enormous pressure. As mentioned earlier, anybody north of County Meath who fulfils their responsibilities regarding fuel and the State are, in many ways, not competitive.

I want to hear the delegation's views on progressive rates. Should some element be based on the profitability of business? My party is working on progressive rates. We want small retailers who are struggling to pay a slightly lower rate and large profitable companies, such as Tesco, should pay a marginally larger rate. Such a provision would give small retailers breathing space because they are suffering during these very severe economic times.

Perhaps the delegation will respond to the questions raised by both gentlemen.

Mr. Joe Sweeney

I shall respond to Deputy Calleary's questions first. He asked for a description of the app which is connected to the use of Codentify technology and replaces the paper tax stamp with a digital one. The codes would be controlled and issued by the Government. Anybody who wished to produce tobacco products would have to apply to the Government to use them. The codes can be changed daily and that is why they are so attractive to the legal trade. Illicit traders can copy the paper tax stamp in three weeks but they cannot copy the codes as quickly. The Government has also spent quite a bit of money on producing, storing and transporting tax stamps but they are vulnerable to theft and are easily copied by counterfeiters. The new technology can track and trace trade and each packet of tobacco can be traced back to the machine that produced it. If legislation is put in place to allow the Garda to use the product via a smartphone app then gardaí will be able to identify whether duty has been paid on cigarettes in seconds.

We advocate an on-the-spot fine for the possession of counterfeit products discovered using this method. The technology can be extended to other products. I talked about using it on tobacco products because that is what we have concentrated on. It can be used for anything that is bar coded.

Deputy Calleary mentioned scanners. We are anxious that the Government takes the initiative to install scanners at all ports. Ireland is an island nation and its ports make it vulnerable to the importation of illicit products which is an easy option for illegal traders. They even use Ireland to smuggle stuff into the UK because it is so easy to smuggle stuff in here. Port scanners are self-financing. A port scanner costs about €3 million and would pay for itself in a week because that is how must revenue is lost through illicit trade. There is no reason not to go ahead with the option.

I shall now deal with Deputy Tóibín's questions. I want all members of the committee to understand that retailers and the federation are not pro-smoking. However, tobacco is a legal product in our shops and we deserve the business. Our legal channels are the only way that the Government can implement a regulation to curb the availability of tobacco to young people. Many of the NFRN members have found that people under the age of 30 do not frequent our shops seeking tobacco. I have no problem with young people trying to buy tobacco in my shop because they can buy it easily and cheaply on the street.

The Deputy asked what help can be given to small businesses. He said that not enough has been done for small businesses and we feel the same. The federation has adopted a policy of carefully examining the matter in the hope of providing solutions which is one way that we differ from other groups.

The Deputy proposed a new rates scheme for small and medium sized enterprises. We would like the Government to give a break to smaller retailers and businesses and charge larger retailers more. We want it to implement a system similar to the one in the North that was introduced by Sammy Wilson. Large businesses were levied rates and the moneys were put into a fund to offset the rates charged to small businesses. Last year was its first year of implementation and 24,000 SMEs benefitted to the tune of €1,000, or the equivalent in sterling.

The beauty of the scheme is that it is cash neutral for Government. There is a further positive aspect to it here in the Republic of Ireland in that it retains some of the profits. Many of those companies will be foreign national companies and it retains an amount of their profit in this country for the benefit of this country and businesses in this country. We think it is an ideal scheme for here.

Councillors around the country have told me that they are constantly trying to figure out a scheme that will benefit small businesses. They state that if they implement a reduction in the rate to accommodate small businesses, they must give the same reduction to large businesses and they will lose revenue. This scheme solves that problem.

With regard to helping SMEs, we also need the Government to look at financing. There is a big problem with getting finance for small and medium-sized enterprises at present. The Government has a fund to which SMEs can apply for funding. When I speak to politicians about this, they wonder why there is a small uptake on that. The reason is that the term is too short and the interest rate is too high. We want the Government to look at that scheme again. We recommend that the term should be five years, not three, and that the rate of interest should be at least as low as 5%, not the current 8%. These are unsecured loans and we understand the reason for the regulation surrounding it, but it needs to be changed. If it is changed, there will be a much better uptake on it and it will benefit small and medium-sized enterprises.

On all-island fuel prices, does Mr. Sweeney want respond?

Mr. Joe Sweeney

Yes.

Ms Deirdre Drennan

If the Vice Chairman does not mind, before we move off Deputy Tóibín's question on the rate relief scheme, we have been lobbying for this for quite some time. We have met several Senators and Deputies, some of whom are present, and we have travelled to Brussels and spoken to various MEPs. As the Vice Chairman referenced earlier, we have attended Oireachtas committee meetings. We have tried to get a level of awareness for this scheme. What we need now is for it to come into effect. We would ask the committee to consider that it come in with the budget via the finance Bill. We are conscious that new legislation can take a couple of years, if not longer, to come into effect and there are retailers closing by the day which do not have two years to wait. If we could get it brought in to the budget in October, it would be most advantageous to the sector.

The point is noted. The question on all-island fuel prices might be better directed to Mr. Fearon. Has Mr. Sweeney any final points on those before I move over to Mr. Fearon to whom there were a couple of questions directed?

Mr. Joe Sweeney

No. When you are is finished with Mr. Fearon, if you would come back to Mr. Prendergast, he may have a different view.

Mr. Prendergast might make a few brief comments. I am conscious Senator Quinn wants to come in as well.

Mr. John Prendergast

Mr. Sweeney fairly stole my thunder and there is not much that I can say. I will add what we would believe as being the functional aspect of the application, app. The app is a simple technology. One has ZAPA tags now for one's coffee. Tesco has a tag. Everybody has a tag. It is not difficult technology to develop.

Senator Quinn, coming as he does from the retail business, will appreciate that there is no smoking gun out there that will fix this problem. It is not a matter of pulling the trigger and then it goes away. It is a combination of issues. Fixing one issue in isolation will not fix this problem. As Grant Thornton stated, an overall approach needs to be taken.

First, there is virtually no penalty on the smugglers coming in. The maximum fine is €3,800 or something like that. There is no minimum penalty. It is not a hard drug and there are much lower penalties than in the case of cocaine, heroin or such like. It is much more lucrative for the smugglers.

Generally, the worst the smuggler's people on the street will get, if they are caught, is a minimum fine or they will lose their product. We know of one case where a Polish girl was caught in possession of a large quantity of cigarettes and she stated in court that she was made to by her boyfriend and the case was dismissed. She was fined €1. For me, as a legitimate trader who is licensed by the State to sell a legal product, there is a minimum penalty of €10,000 and a week's closure of the business, and I am heavily legislated for. I am obeying the law, yet I am the one who has the biggest stick hung over his head. We are doing all of this and we are acting legally, while those on the other side are being given carte blanche.

On the end-user side, there are consumers who are unknowingly smoking illicit product that is incredibly damaging to their health. They are buying the product that they think is legal-----

Is Mr. Prendergast suggesting that some of these are being sold in corner shops?

Mr. John Prendergast

I am not saying that. I am sure it is possible. What I am saying is they are being sold across the road out of the boot of a car opposite the corner shop and one can stand in one's door and see the people buying the stuff across the street from the local seller.

My point is that there must be an overall approach. One must catch the smugglers. The Garda must have the proper legislative tools and the proper electronic equipment to establish if something is duty paid or not. One also must make the end-user responsible.

The end-users cannot get a free ride in this. They are buying, knowingly or unknowingly. If one takes the person who is unknowingly buying a non-duty paid product that is very dangerous for him or her, and if he or she has a smartphone app, one has given him or her the tool with which they can establish that this product is what it is. A large percentage of those may stop smoking that product simply because they know what it is or they may stop smoking because they may get caught. Then there will be the hard core who will continue to smoke it. People are put in prison for non-payment of a television licence but there is no penalty for bringing into the country, and smoking, an illegal non-duty paid product.

All this is needed at the ports, with the Garda and the end-users. If one takes that overall approach and one applies it evenly, we believe that one will get a good result out of it and everyone will buy into it. That covers what I have to say and I thank the committee for listening to me.

Mr. Fearon might address a couple of points. I refer to the figures that were used in the report and in respect of all-island fuel pricing.

Mr. Colin Fearon

The first question was about the methodology and I will answer that first. We used much of the data that is already available, such as Revenue data and Irish Tobacco Manufacturers' Advisory Council, ITMAC, data. Then we discussed the matter with retailers. There is a KPMG star report, which is a detailed EU-wide report which compares tobacco instances, the amount of counterfeit and contraband, etc., against Ireland. The committee will note that Ireland is still the fourth highest, at 19% of total cigarette consumption, for counterfeit and contraband. That is still very high.

I will move on to the Vice Chairman's main point, which is the €200 million difference to which the Minister for Finance referred. I acknowledge that is correct. I think it is approximately €182 million. In our report, we add it as a caveat. When we use that number, we have it noted below. That €182 million relates to non-domestic legal tobacco consumption. Given the fact that there is a free market, that is technically legal consumption and it should not be classified as illicit. The reason it has been included in our report is it has been widely accepted - the National Federation of Retail Newsagents, NFRN, will support this - that much of that is not necessarily being used for personal consumption. If I go to Spain and I buy a pack of cigarettes in Spain for €5 and then I come home and smoke it, that is perfectly legal. We put it in our higher-end estimate because, based on the current personal consumers of persons, it is not possible that the number is really being used for personal consumption.

We have included it but they are correct in saying it is not technically illegal. However, that is not to say people are not selling it. We do not know, but it is probably not possible that the sheer scale of the non-domestic legal consumption is all legal. It is a fair point. We wanted to highlight that in our report, and we included a point at the bottom of it to state that. I accept that the Minister for Finance is-----

The next question is the all-Ireland fuel pricing.

Mr. Colin Fearon

Regarding all-Ireland fuel pricing, currently there is not a great disparity. However, over the long and short term, and in the past, there has been illicit trade due to that specific issue. I do not know if I can get into tax policy. Would that mean that we would follow the United Kingdom tax rate or how would-----

My suggestion would be that the Assembly in the North and the Oireachtas would work together on a particular price. The price would likely develop to be different in the North of Ireland to that in Britain but given there is not a land bridge between the two, it is not likely that people will drive to Britain to avail of the cheaper price. It would contain the price on the island and reduce the need for people to smuggle. In addition, we spoke with representatives of the Construction Industry Federation, CIF, earlier and it would start to level some of the inputs into construction, which would then make a level playing field more achievable North and South among different sectors of industry. That is the idea behind it.

Mr. Colin Fearon

Practically, it is probably a good idea. We did not look into it in too much detail because at present it is not a huge issue. However, I believe it will fluctuate and eventually become an issue. I cannot speak too much on that because we did not go into too much detail on it.

Our final set of questions is from Senator Feargal Quinn.

The witnesses are welcome. I found their submission very educational. I have met them previously and I know there is something to what they are saying.

The bad news is that I will not be supportive of their suggestion to tax the supermarkets higher to subsidise the smaller shops. That would be a tax on every housewife who shops in a supermarket, and that could not be the right thing to do. Increasing the costs to larger stores to subsidise smaller stores at a time when we are trying to contain costs is not a runner.

On the other hand, I am fully supportive of the steps they are taking about tobacco. I cannot understand the reason we have not moved in various ways. One of the witnesses mentioned that if a garda sees somebody whom he or she suspects has illegal cigarettes in his possession for sale, he or she cannot approach that person because that must be done by a customs officer. Will the witnesses explain that again because I am not sure I understood it? Do I understand that if there is a danger of them being imported it is a customs officer's duty rather than a garda's duty?

I am excited by the thought of this app, which I gather costs very little, and that it could be used by every garda and customs officer to identify people. Does it identify counterfeit as well as illegally imported goods?

I was surprised by the witnesses reference to the fact that it costs €3 million to put a scanner into the port but that it could pay for itself within a very short period. Will they touch on that again because if we have eight ports and only two scanners, it does not make sense when we can spend €3 million on a scanner that will pay for itself in terms of stopping these imports. If the importers of illegal tobacco know there are only two scanners, they can easily avoid ever being caught.

The fines for people caught with illegal tobacco are very small. Mr. Prendergast mentioned a Polish girl who had a €1 fine imposed whereas those of the witnesses in trade have to pay approximately €10,000 and close their shops for a week.

The steps the witnesses are taking are the right way to proceed. We should be well able to argue the case for the State to take the right steps in that direction.

Mr. Joe Sweeney

Ms Drennan will respond to some of the questions.

Ms Deirdre Drennan

Does it matter in which order I take the questions?

Not at all.

Ms Deirdre Drennan

We agree the fines are far too low and because they are so low it makes it a low consequence crime. If somebody who has been in the business of smuggling heroin or cocaine gets a prison sentence they are never seen again but they can literally transfer industry and begin to bring in tobacco for which they get a paltry fine. For example, under the Casual Trading Act the first fine is €68 and the second fine is €317. If someone is bringing in goods worth thousands of euro every week, that fine will not deter them. There is a maximum fine but there is not a minimum fine. We would like to see a minimum fine of €10,000 introduced for two reasons. First, it would be a greater deterrent but, equally, it would narrow the price point between legitimate and non-duty paid items because they will have to recover their costs. I do not know if that answers the Senator's question. I think he just wanted the point confirmed.

Equally, the Senator wanted the point about the scanners confirmed. To us it is a no-brainer. We have six ports that are wide open and with the level of counterfeit and contraband coming through, the scanners are self-financing. They would make a profit in a couple of weeks. To clarify how the scanner would work, we are all familiar with the scanners at airports through which one puts hand luggage. It is that type of scanner but on a much larger scale. A truck would drive through it, and that is how it would work. We cannot understand the reason there is a problem with putting scanners in every port. Does that answer the Senator's question?

What other countries have best practice in respect of these scanners? What do we know about those countries? It seems to be a no-brainer that it has not been done, especially if they will be self-financing or cost neutral in a short period. Is Ms Drennan aware of any other countries that use these scanners?

Ms Deirdre Drennan

I am not aware of a country that has a scanner in every port but I can say that because Ireland is an island it is more accessible. As we are close geographically to Britain and Europe we are an easy target.

Mr. Joe Sweeney

Regarding the rates, I appreciate the Senator's comment and I understand where he is coming from.

It is on behalf of the housewives of Ireland.

Ms Deirdre Drennan

I am a housewife.

Mr. Joe Sweeney

As a retailer I do not appreciate anything that restricts people coming into a shop and spending money. I get annoyed every time I see the cutbacks to people's income being made in the budget. I regard it as €1 lost to my shop. I do not believe it would have a noticeable effect in that way. The multiples can well afford it, and I am not specifically targeting supermarkets. It applies to any large business. It might be a manufacturer or any large company over a certain size with a certain turnover. In the North of Ireland the rate of the levy is 8.5%. It may be nothing like that here in the Republic because we have a bigger catchment of companies to target. I do not believe it would be a noticeable cost increase to large companies to the effect that it would affect the housewife. I will continue lobbying for it.

Mr. John Prendergast

I will put it in a slightly different context.

Generally speaking small retailers such as us are high street-based and town centre-based serving local established older communities. Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council has one of the highest on-street car parking charges in the country at €3.60 an hour. One gets ten minutes free and the traffic wardens are extremely aggressive. Three miles up the road in Carrickmines one finds 5,000 car parking spaces and the businesses based there get ten years rates free. What is fair about this? It is not necessarily about taxing a company such as Tesco more; it is about more equitable distribution of the rates. Major multinationals in out-of-town centres do not pay rates while small and medium enterprises in town centres pay very high rates and their customers are highly taxed. There is a dichotomy.

Progressive commercial rates would not be levied on retailers only. They would be levied on all businesses which currently pay commercial rates. From our perspective, the idea is similar to what happens in the North whereby various components are based on the type of business, the size of the building and the level of profitability of the business. Considering that Apple has been in the news recently for paying a corporation tax of less than 0.1% we are not looking to tax items bought by househusbands or housewives. The idea is that all taxes implemented, except commercial rates, would involve some level of progressiveness. The idea that the more one earns the more of a particular tax or rate one pays has been around since the 1700s but it has not been applied. A flat level has been applied against retailers. Many retailers are just keeping their heads above water and are on the tipping point. If we can create a mechanism which is revenue neutral to the State so the local authorities are not at a loss these people will have a chance to see the next year or two through and, please God, if there is an upside to the market they will continue to operate.

Mr. Colin Fearon

We stated we want larger fines for illicit tobacco and I fully support this, but I would like to see it broadened to all illicit trades such as pharmaceuticals and clothing. We must focus on the broader picture.

Mr. Joe Sweeney

I hope the committee sees the benefit of the solutions we have proposed today and that its members push as far as they can and speak to the appropriate Ministers. If the rates relief scheme were put through it would be a legacy of the Government-----

I very much agree.

Mr. Joe Sweeney

For years small and medium enterprises have stated the Government has done nothing for them. The Government needs to do something for them now. These solutions would be very beneficial to small and medium enterprises and would create jobs.

I thank Mr. Fearon, Mr. Prendergast, Mr. Sweeney and Ms Drennan. Their presentation was very practical and informative and we can all relate to it. It is important to state the questions asked by committee members were genuine. It is clear a number of committee members are actively pursuing solutions to the issues faced daily by the witnesses and their members. The appearance of the witnesses before the committee has been a chance for their voices to be heard here. We have also been travelling throughout the country to hear about issues about the black economy. I assure the witnesses that committee members from all parties are working on the issues they face. Politics is about the art of delivery so let us see some delivery on some of these issues.

The joint committee adjourned at 3.55 p.m. until 1.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 28 May 2013.
Barr
Roinn