Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

First, to respond to Deputy Burton, we publish a report on SARP each year that makes all the information available insofar as it can be without breaching taxpayer confidentiality. Second, I heard a figure of €3 million raised by two Deputies. I remind the House that last year I introduced a cap of €1 million. While €1 million is still a vast sum of money, I introduced a cap that will apply this year for new entrants and to existing people in the scheme from next year. While acknowledging that €1 million is still a vast amount for an individual to earn, I introduced the cap because I was aware of the concerns that citizens and Members of the House could have on tax equity. Third, the main reason I seek to maintain it in the tax code is an appreciation of the reality I see week after week, month after month, where other countries have the same scheme, but one that is significantly more lucrative and, in some cases, more attractive than the SARP scheme. Those countries use their schemes to compete for jobs, some of which are currently located in Ireland.

I understand the House's concerns about equity and the degree of relief that is available to some, but if I return to the figure used earlier, the €100,000 relief is available to an individual earning €1 million, which is the cap for the scheme. Let us also acknowledge that the same individual will also pay approximately €300,000 in taxation, which he or she should. The reason the scheme is there in the first place is not because of a desire I have to grant tax relief to individuals who are already earning well but because of the potential for them to be associated with jobs and economic activity in Ireland that in turn contribute to the public services we want to provide for our citizens. The figures in the last report made available, which includes all the figures for 2017, point to the fact that the individuals involved in the scheme and the companies for which they work paid more than €2.5 billion in corporation tax, employed 155,000, and were responsible for the payment of €1.9 billion in PAYE taxes. I am not making the case that all that income and all that return is entirely due to the scheme. I would not make that case because it could not be made, but I am making the point that a scheme like this is a small part of what we need to offer to ensure that particular kinds of jobs are located in Ireland that in turn have significant indirect effects.

People who do not like the scheme and who do not want it to be continued should acknowledge that other countries have similar schemes and that their equivalents of IDA Ireland would use the absence of this scheme to look at how jobs currently located here could be moved from Ireland. That is the sole reason a scheme like this is justified in its maintenance, albeit with a cap of a figure lower than has been acknowledged in this debate.

See this speech in context