Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael)

I am not really satisfied with the Minister's response. I can see the "suck it and see" argument and accept that the "surrender and regrant" approach has a long tradition, which goes back into the annals of history. People pay the money, in effect, and the concession is regranted. That gives a better hold, as the original inventors of the scheme thought it would, over their fiefdoms. I am still uneasy, however. While the Minister says Revenue may refuse, it may not do so on grounds that are of concern to people on this side of the House, namely, that this is being used for purposes for which it was not intended. The only grounds on which Revenue could refuse it would be those as set out in the sections. The Revenue Commissioners cannot act unreasonably. They are not courts and cannot invent reasons for challenging a relief of this nature. While they can use these sections, they can only ask whether a claimant was here for a period of three years or whatever. It is a very limited box-ticking exercise. Once claimants comply with these very narrow requirements they will be seen to be in order, even if the purpose is wholly different from that which the Minister has described in his articulation of the scheme. I have no doubt the Minister has the numbers to get his way, but I am not happy about introducing a scheme that is loose in its drafting in the hope that it will work out. We, as an Oireachtas, never get to see these things again. Perhaps in ten years time some expensive consultant will do a report that tells us we got it wrong and defined the scheme too widely when it was originally designed. We will rub our hands sagely and say: "What foolish people the original draftsmen were." We might as well draft this tightly now and, perhaps, expand it next year if the Minister feels it is not achieving the required results.

See this speech in context