Pearse Doherty (Donegal South West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I am very opposed to the type of relief mentioned. Amendment No. 17 provides for an analysis of the cost of tax expenditures and their impact on job creation, the volume of new start-up companies and the prevention of job losses. We have been looking for a provision of this nature for quite a while because it is appropriate that we examine the larger tax reliefs, in particular, to determine their cost to the State and whether they offer value for money and provide jobs. Not all tax reliefs provide jobs because some are focused on bringing in revenue. We need to get a proper picture of tax reliefs and whether they are working.

I refer to the example of the special assignee relief programme, SARP, for which figures are not yet available one year later. It allowed high earning individuals coming from abroad to discount 30% of their income, up to €500,000, for tax purposes and provided a tax relief if they sent their children to private schools in the State. The programme remains in operation even though we do not know whether it has worked. After an appropriate period of time it is important that the cost of a tax relief be estimated. For all we know, 2,000 of these individuals could have landed in the State to have their children educated free in private schools. It is not that significant, because we would have heard about it otherwise, but as a substantial measure which the Government has linked to job creation, we should be able to evaluate its impact.

I spoke earlier about the aviation leasing sector. There was a long discussion on this issue on Committee Stage and I am very supportive of the State's efforts to capture activity in that sector. Successive Finance Bills have provided incentives to the sector, including a measure contained in the Bill before us to which nobody in this House objects other than on the basis of achieving a level playing field. If we need to offer an incentive to attract jobs, let us do so. However, given that the leasing sector is valued at €80 billion, or 61% of GNP, the question arises of whether we are getting bang for our buck. Can we tweak the incentives to get a bit more from the sector without jeopardising what we already have or scaring off further investment?

We need to know how much these tax expenditures cost. The Minister makes the argument that certain reliefs are so insignificant that they do not need to be costed, but a substantial number are not costed. When introduce a tax we have to find out, after a period of time, how much it is costing the State, because otherwise it is back-of-the-envelope stuff. We cannot afford to do that any longer.

I proposed a period of three months in my Committee Stage amendment, but I appreciate that three months may not be appropriate, given the need to allow sufficient time to elapse. When the information becomes available after the following tax year, there is no reason the cost and impact of a tax expenditure should not be set out. We need to make a proper evaluation of tax expenditures. This is not an argument to get rid of all tax expenditure, because I hope I have made it clear that we have to incentivise certain sectors. However, we also have to know that the incentives are working and are not being abused. If we had had such a measure in the days of section 23 tax reliefs, perhaps we would not be dealing with the disaster of all the empty houses in County Leitrim and the Shannon basin. The Government of the day might have been able to hear the alarm bells. This amendment is tabled in good faith and I hope the Minister will give an undertaking that he will move in this direction.

See this speech in context