I move recommendation No. 1:
In page 7, before section 1, to insert the following new section:
"PART 1
COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF TAX EXPENDITURES
1. —The Minister shall within one month from the passing of this Act prepare and lay before Dáil Éireann a report on a cost-benefit analysis of tax expenditures provided for by this Act, setting out the costs of tax foregone, and the benefits in terms of job creation or otherwise.".
It was interesting last night to hear the Minister say that even he was surprised to discover, with regard to the so-called section 23 relief which has been the subject of so much debate, the breadth or extent of rental income that an individual could rely on in claiming that relief and that it was not just rental income in respect of the particular property but all rental income across the board from all property held by that individual taxpayer. It was interesting not that the Minister was surprised but that, perhaps, it was something that had only come to light in his and many other people's minds recently when there was far more scrutiny and public debate about these various reliefs. It raises a number of interesting questions, not least the desirability of having these reliefs in terms of policy and also the way we do business in these Houses and in public.
There is little or no debate about them, and this is not a criticism directed necessarily at this Government although it is culpable in many ways in respect of these reliefs. However, my point is not directed purely against the Minister but relates to the system of public debate about tax reliefs. Tax reliefs equate to income forgone by the Exchequer and, as the Minister has correctly pointed out on more than one occasion this week, if one reduces taxes or one's income in one respect, one must look to another source to balance it. We must move towards a more mature public debate about taxation and the link between it and public services. We have not had a satisfactory debate on those issues for many years in this country but I believe we are returning to that now. People have a much keener understanding of taxation, the different types of taxes that are put in place in legislation and what it means if the State does not have sufficient income for the Exchequer to fund public services. That is at the heart of the current crisis.
There must be a deeper and more meaningful debate continually on these matters, not just once or twice a year at budget time or when there is a crisis. It should continue at a certain level across the board in our public discussion. However, we cannot do that unless we have information, and the public cannot do it without information. The Minister and his officials obviously develop a level of expertise on these matters but any Minister can only develop a certain level of expertise given all the things he or she must do. He or she must rely on expertise. We know from what we have observed in recent years that there is great ingenuity available to some citizens and taxpayers with regard to these schemes. Great imagination, to put it benignly, is applied to the issue of how people can use and maximise these schemes to their advantage. Often the expertise that is brought to bear in that regard is not always matched by the same fire power in the public management of our affairs, and that is not to reflect on the professions of the people in the Department of Finance, in terms of what is available to people for getting their way around and maximising these schemes.
It would greatly help the public and deepen the level of debate we can have in public if the Minister was required to publish a cost-benefit analysis of all these schemes, certainly the more important and prominent ones which have a higher yield. It may not be something everybody would want to wake up to in the morning, but at least it would be available to the people in order that the debate could be enhanced and the level of information would be increased.
Deputy Burton said in the other House that there was essentially a democratic gap in these schemes. We know they are there and have a vague debate about them every year. We probably think there is a justification for them somewhere, as we remember something about a time when an attempt was made to incentivise people to develop particular parts of the country, be it along the River Shannon or parts of our inner cities and so on. We know there was a general public dividend at one stage that made it important to have these schemes in place, but many are not sure about the rationale for their continuation. Rather than simply say we will put an end to them, let us take the opportunity to have a better debate on what they mean. We should do this to deepen the level of public understanding about what is going on and, ultimately, avoid the abuse of these schemes, which clearly has occurred at various stages.