A committee of MPs has said it is disappointed at the lack of progress on new measures to tackle fuel fraud in Northern Ireland.
The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee said customs officials should work harder to acquire new technology.
This is to prevent red diesel from being sold illegally by paramilitaries and criminal gangs.
The report comes after the committee heard evidence from a series of witnesses at Westminster.
Laurence Robertson, chairman of the committee, said it was "bitterly disappointed at the seemingly slow pace of progress on acquiring effective technologies to tackle fuel crime".
He wants Revenue and Customs officials to acquire the latest "rebated fuel marker technology" as soon as possible, begin a pilot scheme and report back to the committee before the summer.
In the latest report, the committee said it recognised the commitment and effort of individual HMRC officers in the fight against fuel crime in Northern Ireland.
However, Mr Robertson said: "It should make a more concerted effort to eradicate the problem in Northern Ireland, where it is most prevalent".
Northern Ireland is estimated to have lost £70m in tax revenue due to fuel fraud in 2009/10, down from £250m five years ago.
Mr Robertson said only four people had received a custodial sentence in Northern Ireland when convicted in connection with fuel laundering.
"It is a serious crime. It affects the environment, it affects health and there is the tax evasion element as well," he said.
"We want to see sentencing guidelines, robust guidelines.
"There is a tendency to think it is only the tax man who loses out. It isn't, it's schools and hospitals. It isn't a victimless crime."
Sinn Fein councillor for Newry and Mourne Terry Hearty agreed.
"This has a serious cost on local councils and local councils pick up the tab for it," he said.
"In the last year we have paid out between £80,000 and £100,000 to lift some of the residue.
"There's a site at Cullaville that hasn't been touched yet, but it's going to cost in the region of £40,000 to clear away.
"So the rate payers of Newry and Mourne would definitely see it as a serious crime."
Would the simple solution not be to stop selling markes gas oil on both sides of the border? Get farmers to buy their diesel at the pump and claim back the VAT. QED.
That is an outrage - asking farmers to register for tax (even if only for reclamation of VAT). Whatever next?
Asking them to pay tax ... or for anything ::)
Quote from: Agent Orange on March 27, 2012, 11:27:31 AM
Would the simple solution not be to stop selling markes gas oil on both sides of the border? Get farmers to buy their diesel at the pump and claim back the VAT. QED.
or maybe lower fuel prices so they are affordable and people would no longer need to use illegal fuel. five years ago it was 86p for a litre of petrol, now 1.45.
Quote from: charlieTully on March 27, 2012, 12:21:15 PM
Quote from: Agent Orange on March 27, 2012, 11:27:31 AM
Would the simple solution not be to stop selling markes gas oil on both sides of the border? Get farmers to buy their diesel at the pump and claim back the VAT. QED.
or maybe lower fuel prices so they are affordable and people would no longer need to use illegal fuel. five years ago it was 86p for a litre of petrol, now 1.45.
They used illegal fuel five years ago too!
QuoteWould the simple solution not be to stop selling markes gas oil on both sides of the border? Get farmers to buy their diesel at the pump and claim back the VAT. QED.
This seems to be to be the cure. I suspect heating oil is also a problem though.
Quote from: Billys Boots on March 27, 2012, 12:22:22 PM
Quote from: charlieTully on March 27, 2012, 12:21:15 PM
Quote from: Agent Orange on March 27, 2012, 11:27:31 AM
Would the simple solution not be to stop selling markes gas oil on both sides of the border? Get farmers to buy their diesel at the pump and claim back the VAT. QED.
or maybe lower fuel prices so they are affordable and people would no longer need to use illegal fuel. five years ago it was 86p for a litre of petrol, now 1.45.
i would bet there are a lot more doing it now though.
They used illegal fuel five years ago too!
Quote from: armaghniac on March 27, 2012, 12:23:20 PM
QuoteWould the simple solution not be to stop selling markes gas oil on both sides of the border? Get farmers to buy their diesel at the pump and claim back the VAT. QED.
This seems to be to be the cure. I suspect heating oil is also a problem though.
If it was viable they'd have done it. Administrative nightmare, and would cost an absolute fortune to police, and they'd never be able to police it properly. I think you'd find that any complaints from farmers about bringing it in would die down fairly quickly...
Quote from: armaghniac on March 27, 2012, 12:23:20 PM
QuoteWould the simple solution not be to stop selling markes gas oil on both sides of the border? Get farmers to buy their diesel at the pump and claim back the VAT. QED.
This seems to be to be the cure. I suspect heating oil is also a problem though.
Yep. People are running diesel cars on home heating oil. Not good for the engine but will work...for a while.
I just paid 150.0 per litre for diesel :'(
QuoteAdministrative nightmare, and would cost an absolute fortune to police,
No it wouldn't. Farmers could get an allowance of diesel based on size of farm as reported in the agricultural reporting and that would be that. They might use more, tough, or less in which case they'd save a few bob.
Heating oil is a bigger problem, I imagine.
I'd still change things though, having two sorts of road diesel is nonsense.
One part of the problem is that Stormont cannot change this themselves and London probably doesn't care. If Stormont had control of oil revenue I'd say that the minister would be on the phone to Dublin in short order.
Quote from: armaghniac on March 27, 2012, 02:26:48 PM
QuoteAdministrative nightmare, and would cost an absolute fortune to police,
No it wouldn't. Farmers could get an allowance of diesel based on size of farm as reported in the agricultural reporting and that would be that. They might use more, tough, or less in which case they'd save a few bob.
And how would you prove what one agricultural limit was compared to the next? A farm with 40 acres and a fleet of diggers and harvesting equipment will use more than a farm with 100 acres with little machinery. And if you think of putting an allowance to a particular machine then what about one which works for 10 hours a day against one that only does a few hours a week? Wouldn't work and if it was forced upon the economy there would have to be a serious amount of leeway and lax administration to get it to balance up. And with lax administration would come abuse of the system and fraudulent cases.
After all that the farmers would simply just buy the clear diesel, sell it to the motorists at a discount and continue to f**k the exchequer.
In my reckoning, this a problem for Westminster and, in all seriousness, f**k them. Disappointed to see SF wade in behind MP's and the Crown to give support to a country that doesn't give a f**k about us and whose outstanding legacy in Ireland is one of theft, abuse and genocide.
If Westminster has a problem with people dodging tax in NI then they should be told we have a problem with a government who waged war upon the ideals of equality and freedom and today still continues to do so in the Middle East.
A crime against the British government is no crime at all.
Quote from: armaghniac on March 27, 2012, 02:26:48 PM
QuoteAdministrative nightmare, and would cost an absolute fortune to police,
No it wouldn't. Farmers could get an allowance of diesel based on size of farm as reported in the agricultural reporting and that would be that. They might use more, tough, or less in which case they'd save a few bob.
Thats just ludicrous
QuoteThats just ludicrous
What exactly is ludicrous about it? It may not be quite precise, but it is not "ludicrous".
There are a huge number of variables, and it fails to take into account the overwhelming majority of them. Dont take it personally, those in power havent been able to come up with anything that works either :)
QuoteThere are a huge number of variables, and it fails to take into account the overwhelming majority of them. Dont take it personally, those in power havent been able to come up with anything that works either
I didn't imply that a simple acreage should be used, but that farmers nowadays do report in some detail what they are doing, tillage, grazing or whatever.
Quote from: armaghniac on March 27, 2012, 02:26:48 PM
Farmers could get an allowance of diesel based on size of farm as reported in the agricultural reporting...
Backtrack much? ;)
As an off the cuff means of measurement it prob seems like the obvious one, but I'm just justifying my use of 'ludicrous'.
When you look into any of the means of regulating it, I'm sure you can start to see the difficulties yourself. It seems as though the current system, while not perfect by any means, is as good as any of them.
lads your incorrectly assuming that farmers are the only people using red rebated diesel. quarries use it, contractors (non agric.) hauliers put it in reefers basically any non road going vehicle. alot of ec countries also colour their fuel. the trouble is that oil is getting more expensive daily and will soon be out of reach of the normal working man.
Quote from: lawnseed on March 27, 2012, 11:01:04 PM
lads your incorrectly assuming that farmers are the only people using red rebated diesel. quarries use it, contractors (non agric.) hauliers put it in reefers basically any non road going vehicle. alot of ec countries also colour their fuel. the trouble is that oil is getting more expensive daily and will soon be out of reach of the normal working man.
Still fail to see what is wrong with giving all these people a diesel card and letting them buy the real deal and claim back the VAT using receipts traceable to their card. The father-in-law does it for white diesel he fills the pick-up with at the pumps so why not apply the same principle across the board.
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 27, 2012, 11:39:04 PM
Quote from: lawnseed on March 27, 2012, 11:01:04 PM
lads your incorrectly assuming that farmers are the only people using red rebated diesel. quarries use it, contractors (non agric.) hauliers put it in reefers basically any non road going vehicle. alot of ec countries also colour their fuel. the trouble is that oil is getting more expensive daily and will soon be out of reach of the normal working man.
Still fail to see what is wrong with giving all these people a diesel card and letting them buy the real deal and claim back the VAT using receipts traceable to their card. The father-in-law does it for white diesel he fills the pick-up with at the pumps so why not apply the same principle across the board.
The farmers would have to buy it bulk as they currently do, they would then sell it to you and other non-registered people at a discount whilst they lift the VAT back on it. With thousands of farms and individual tanks it would be impossible to police who was selling what.
Quote from: armaghniac on March 27, 2012, 10:34:50 PM
QuoteThere are a huge number of variables, and it fails to take into account the overwhelming majority of them. Dont take it personally, those in power havent been able to come up with anything that works either
I didn't imply that a simple acreage should be used, but that farmers nowadays do report in some detail what they are doing, tillage, grazing or whatever.
That's a complete lie. No farmer anywhere in the North is obliged by law to detail their tillage or grazing patterns. Next to no-one does. If you expect farmers and other business to detail exactly how long they left the engine running whilst feeding or ploughing you are off your rocker.
QuoteThat's a complete lie. No farmer anywhere in the North is obliged by law to detail their tillage or grazing patterns. Next to no-one does. If you expect farmers and other business to detail exactly how long they left the engine running whilst feeding or ploughing you are off your rocker.
I propose to compensate farmers for having to use white diesel and I have suggested that this could be done near enough with available data. You seem to think that an approximate solution is not enough and that every litre must be exactly accounted for. That is fair enough.
However, it is well out of order to imply that someone is telling "complete lies", "off their rocker" (or "ludicrous") simply for disagreeing with you.
Ask the jolly farmers to provide evidence of all the red diesel they have purchased in bulk over the last five years.
Take an average over the five years.
Allow this amount of white diesel to be purchased at a discounted rate. Every litre above this charged at the full amount the rest of us pay.
Anyone unable to provide evidence (they are all audited businesses by the way) gets no allowance.
I hate culchie farmers.
How much is red diesel these days?
Quote from: trileacman on March 27, 2012, 08:19:26 PM
In my reckoning, this a problem for Westminster and, in all seriousness, f**k them. Disappointed to see SF wade in behind MP's and the Crown to give support to a country that doesn't give a f**k about us and whose outstanding legacy in Ireland is one of theft, abuse and genocide.
If Westminster has a problem with people dodging tax in NI then they should be told we have a problem with a government who waged war upon the ideals of equality and freedom and today still continues to do so in the Middle East.
A crime against the British government is no crime at all.
well said.
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 27, 2012, 02:11:34 PM
I just paid 150.0 per litre for diesel :'(
is it not cheaper at Silverstream there at the border??
Quote from: armaghniac on March 28, 2012, 01:05:36 PM
QuoteThat's a complete lie. No farmer anywhere in the North is obliged by law to detail their tillage or grazing patterns. Next to no-one does. If you expect farmers and other business to detail exactly how long they left the engine running whilst feeding or ploughing you are off your rocker.
I propose to compensate farmers for having to use white diesel and I have suggested that this could be done near enough with available data. You seem to think that an approximate solution is not enough and that every litre must be exactly accounted for. That is fair enough.
However, it is well out of order to imply that someone is telling "complete lies", "off their rocker" (or "ludicrous") simply for disagreeing with you.
You said "that farmers nowadays do report in some detail what they are doing, tillage, grazing". That is simply not true and you'll find no evidence that it is.
QuoteI have suggested that this could be done near enough with available data.
That is not true either, provide one shred of "available data" that could be used to approximate "near enough" how much farmers use.
Quote from: saffron sam2 on March 28, 2012, 01:45:43 PM
Ask the jolly farmers to provide evidence of all the red diesel they have purchased in bulk over the last five years.
Take an average over the five years.
Allow this amount of white diesel to be purchased at a discounted rate. Every litre above this charged at the full amount the rest of us pay.
Anyone unable to provide evidence (they are all audited businesses by the way) gets no allowance.
I hate culchie farmers.
So farmers use exactly the same amount of diesel year in year out? What allowance is there for expansion of the business or overhaul of the yard, land or machinery?
An equivalent suggestion would be to average everyone's taxes over the past 5 years and charge them, in future, simply on those figures.
Feck it...................i'm away to South Armagh!
Quote from: armaghniac on March 28, 2012, 01:05:36 PM
However, it is well out of order to imply that someone is telling "complete lies", "off their rocker" (or "ludicrous") simply for disagreeing with you.
Listen, I explained why what you said was ludicrous. You pretty much agreed with me by backtracking like f**k, and you've continued to attempt to 'clarify' what you said. It didnt require clarification - you said there should be an allowance based on the size of the farm. It
is absolutely ludicrous, and its not such just because it disagrees with my point of view, its ludicrous becuase its f**king stupid. I've tried to be concilatory in pointing this out, but its clear that doesnt get through.
Quoteyou said there should be an allowance based on the size of the farm.
I did. I did not say that it should only be based on the size of the farm. All other things being equal this would seem to be one of the factors.
Quote
its ludicrous becuase its f**king stupid. I've tried to be concilatory in pointing this out, but its clear that doesnt get through.
"f**king stupid", conciliatory language indeed. How can I fail to be impressed with such eloquence? Are you EG?
Eloquence would be wasted on you, given it seems you dont understand past and present tense - the concilatory was very much past tense while 'f**king stupid' was the present btw ;)