There was, perhaps, a hint of exaggeration when a senior SIPTU official predicted that the proposed abolition of duty-free shopping would be "the most unpopular action ever undertaken by Eurocrats". Certainly, there is a palpable sense of unease - among both the industry and the travelling public - about the proposal to abolish (intra-EU) duty-free sales from July 1999. For most travellers, duty-free shopping is an enjoyable and much-cherished part of a journey. In moving to abolish it, the EU is vulnerable to the charge that it is being mean-spirited and pernickety. That said, the case presented by the EU Commission to support the abolition of duty free shopping has much to recommend it. The whole concept of such shopping is an anachronism in a single market with no borders; that is why EU finance ministers voted to abolish it. Ideally, the single market should, by now, be one seamless garment across the Union. With harmonised tax and excise duties in situ there should be no need and no demand for "duty-free" shopping. The problem, however, is that the reality of the single market has not matched these heady ambitions. Shoppers travelling between this State and Britain or those travelling between Finland, Sweden and Denmark clearly believe that duty-free shopping delivers cheaper prices - notwithstanding the profiteering evident in many "duty-free" stores.
And there is not just the consumer interest to consider. Duty-free shopping helps to support many regional and international airports, ferry companies and indeed manufacturers throughout the EU. Some 80 per cent of duty-free purchases within the EU are manufactured inside the Union. Indeed, Aer Rianta estimates that over £70 million worth of business is at risk, while SIPTU reckons that thousands of jobs in Ireland alone are threatened by the abolition of dutyfree. There is understandable concern that the abolition of duty-free will reverse the progress that the single market has made in helping to reduce transport costs - as airports and ferry companies move to recoup duty-free revenues. It may be that these fears are overstated. Experience in the US shows that well-heeled travellers, with time on their hands, will visit and purchase goods at airport shopping malls; they do not need to be lured by the promise of "duty-free" goods. In framing its response to the very energetic campaign to preserve dutyfree, the Commission must in the first instance prepare an independent assessment of the overall impact of the proposed abolition, as requested by the European Parliament. It might also do well to adopt a less theological approach towards the issue. At a time when there are some 18 million jobless in the EU, the Commission cannot afford to view the abolition of duty-free as an article of faith. The issue should be resolved solely on the basis of what is in the best interest of the workers, the consumers and the citizens of Europe.