Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 28, between the lines 19 and 20, to insert the following:

“Report on restriction of share based renumeration to SMEs 19. The Minister shall, within 3 months of the passing of this Act, prepare and lay before Dáil Éireann a report on the impact of the PRSI exemption for share based remuneration for large corporations on the sustainability of the social insurance fund.”.

This amendment calls for a report within three months of the passing of the Act to be laid before the Dáil. The report would deal with the impact of the PRSI exemption for share-based remuneration for large corporations on the sustainability of the social insurance fund. There is no PRSI that applies to share-based remuneration. The question here is the appropriateness of that policy and whether that should be restricted to SMEs as opposed to larger companies.

I note that the 2024 Indecon review on the taxation of share-based remuneration found that Ireland's PRSI exemption appeared generous compared with many countries, where such exemptions are more focused on SMEs. It is probably stemming from that finding in the report that I questioned whether we needed to look at share-based remuneration, the exemption from PRSI, and the importance of the Social Insurance Fund and that fund being able to provide supports for people in need of those supports in terms of whether this restriction should apply to SMEs. We know that, unsurprisingly, larger firms have the highest volume or value of share-based remuneration schemes. It is 83% in total. However, the growth in the micro or SME firms is disproportionately low and stagnant. If we look at micro firms, the share-based remuneration value in 2023 is at the same level as it was in 2019. The value has increased by 21% for small firms, 130% for medium firms and 139% for large firms. If you take the total value of share-based remuneration schemes at just over €2.1 billion, €1.8 million of that goes to larger firms. That comes as a substantial cost to the Social Insurance Fund. That is the proposal before us and it is worthy of consideration.