Michael Noonan (Limerick City, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I do not disagree with the Deputy's analysis of the high earner restriction. As a general rule, I am opposed to changes in the application of that restriction because it has been effective. It continues to be an effective measure, and I believe this is due in large part to the fact that it applies across such a wide range of reliefs. In this instance, however, I am satisfied that the cashflow cost to the Exchequer can be justified when it is viewed against the overall benefits to the sector itself and to the environment generally. The high earner restriction is intended to apply to high earners and not to those who are caught simply because of the way their incomes are earned. The most recent report on the operation of the restriction, which related to the 2013 tax year, stated that seven people in receipt of this exempt income were subject to the high earner restriction. On that basis, I do not expect this change to have any appreciable impact on the functioning of the high earner restriction. The people who have expertise in this area have advised me that at present the restriction can kick in when areas of forestry that are as small as 8 hectares are harvested. At present, people who have 25 hectares of forest that matures at the same time are choosing to go in three times, three years in a row, in order to avoid the implications of the high earner restriction. This reduces the viability of what they are doing and causes roads similar to the inaccessible ones the Deputy mentioned in his constituency to get ploughed up by heavy trucks in three consecutive years. The commercial way of doing this work would be to provide for one clean felling. Ultimately, it is not as if people get money from forestry every year. The Deputy knows the way it works. Those involved get some incentive grants when they plant their trees and some more incentive grants when those trees reach a particular age, but the main income comes once, when those trees are felled. It is not as if the people in question are going to get the same income the following year. They get caught in the high earner restriction in one particular year. To avoid this, they tend to spread the felling of the trees over a number of years. Such an approach is less viable and is not environmentally friendly. I think the arguments I have set out in favour of this measure are good ones.