No, please a Leas-Chathaoirligh, I ask you to bear with me. It would result in a small number of the 3,000 or more people who quality for the exemption being excluded in future years. This would not save the State a significant amount of money. However, from the perspective of the integrity of our taxation system, particularly at a time of economic hardship for so many, it would send an important message. We have already had an unfortunate controversy in recent weeks arising from the treatment of student nurses, co…

Section 195 of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 has been amended regularly - on at least ten occasions in the past 15 years. There is considerable precedent for the scheme being tweaked, based on new developments or on the financial circumstances of the State.

Thank you, a Leas-Chathaoirligh. I move on briefly to the successful applicants under the scheme. As I said, my issue with the operation of section 195 is that a number of people with high incomes are availing of the scheme. Revenue has published a list of those granted the exemption from 1998 onwards. You will be amazed by this a Leas-Chathaoirligh. One serving public officeholder with a salary in excess of €200,000 availed of the scheme. A former public officeholder with a pension of €138,000 availed of the schem…

It gets worse, a Leas-Chathaoirligh.

One prominent broadcaster with a salary of €495,000 has been granted the exemption three times.

On each point, as I think I said to you-----

-----there is no repetition and I think you will agree. A number of prominent sporting figures whose earnings are not in the public domain, but whose incomes are known to be high, have also qualified. Each of these exemptions applied in respect of books they had written. Why should any of these people qualify for a tax exemption designed to assist low-paid artists? By allowing high earners to avail of the scheme, they paid no tax on the first €50,000 in royalties they earned from their books. Without the exemption-…

A Leas-Chathaoirligh, I have not got to the amount of money it is costing in each case. Without the exemption they would have paid tax at the top rate of 40%. In the case of the current and former public officeholders and the prominent broadcaster, as well as funding their salaries and pensions, the taxpayer is also potentially gifting them an extra €20,000 per annum in respect of a book they have written.

Why should these individuals not pay standard income tax on income derived from work?

What possible case is there?

Public figures, media personalities and sporting figures who have additional earnings from speaking engagements or company directorships pay income tax on those earnings at the normal rate. Why should earnings from publishing books be any different?

The amendment, which is called a recommendation, would have brought about-----

As I have said already, I am putting this to the Minister of State because I am asking for this to be considered on Report Stage.

Public officeholders, within the meaning of the Social Welfare and Pensions Act 2010, would be precluded from availing of the exemption. This would exclude the President, Members of either of the Houses of the Oireachtas, members of the Judiciary, military judges, the Attorney General, the Comptroller and Auditor General and Members of the European Parliament.

I thank you, a Leas-Chathaoirligh. Members of local authorities would not be precluded-----

-----as they were removed from this definition by the Social Welfare Act 2016. They could still qualify for the exemption, subject to fulfilling the other necessary criteria.

I seek your indulgence, a Leas-Chathaoirligh. It is simply not sustainable for serving Members of the Oireachtas to be availing of a tax break-----

-----which was designed to assist low-paid artists. As I said earlier, since 1998 six exemptions have been granted to serving Members.

To allow this to continue would be the very definition of the golden circle political establishment protecting its own purse.

I will conclude very shortly.