Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael)

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 17, between lines 40 and 41, to insert the following:

" "(1A) From the 21st of May 2009 any application for this relief shall be accompanied by an analysis conforming to guidelines set by the Revenue Commissioners demonstrating that the social benefits of the project exceed the social costs.".".

On Committee Stage, the Minister indicated in his reply to a similar amendment that he believed the Revenue Commissioners were not the best to develop guidelines to demonstrate the benefits and costs of different tax reliefs. In some cases, he is satisfied that the certification process is robust enough. In some other cases we have discussed, however, the process is not so robust. For example, the case for the extension of the hospital cover for private hospitals being developed on public hospital campuses is highly disputed. While it is politically disputed, the social and economic benefits to the community are also disputed.

Will the Minister examine the provisions contained in this amendment? The Minister's predecessor engaged consultants to compile a report on the costs and benefits of the property and building tax reliefs in the tax code. They found the costs to the taxpayer were twice the benefit they were to society. Effectively, tax relief schemes are being dreamed up without the same rigorous analysis that would be applied to spending programmes. There is no system of reporting back to the House on their impact and value. It becomes a soft way for Ministers for Finance to distribute largesse.

The Minister's predecessor said one lesson drawn from the consultants' report was that every further subsequent tax concession should have a cost-benefit examination and a sunset clause. As seen today with the hospitals scheme, the habit of extending sunset dates is creeping back. We need to draw a line in the sand to ensure there will be a clear approach to all tax relief schemes. I have my views on the non-desirability of private hospitals on public hospitals campuses. It is wrong, inappropriate and should not be supported by taxpayers' money. I do not know about the Shannon tourism scheme but I am sure the projects are estimable and the Minister has given us some assurances. There is also a new relief on intellectual property.

We need to have the discipline of attempting to indicate the costs and benefits, establishing guidelines on vetting each project and having an automatic reporting mechanism to the House. This would also ensure those seeking support from a Minister for a tax relief would know there are ground rules in place and that a scheme's social value and costs to the taxpayer should wash. While the Minister might quibble about this amendment in respect of the Shannon scheme which has a certification procedure, a clear structure for tax reliefs in general needs to be put in place.

See this speech in context