Former public officeholders who are in receipt of a public service pension would also be excluded, as I said, in cases where they receive more than €20,000 from their pension.

I think that is a reasonable threshold because it allows that individuals who served in the Oireachtas only for a short time-----

-----and who might-----

I accept that, a Leas-Chathaoirligh. I have accepted your ruling, but I am speaking to the section, as you permitted me to do.

I promised, and I intend to keep the promise, that I do not intend to repeat a single thing. I want to make important points for the Minister of State to consider ahead of Report Stage. The threshold of €20,000 for retired public officeholders is reasonable. It will ensure that individuals who have served only for a short time and who might have a relatively small or no pension at all would not be excluded from qualifying. As I mentioned earlier, one exemption of €20,000 was granted to a former officeholder. Any pe…

I will conclude very shortly. There is a wider issue here that goes beyond the scope of this but needs to be mentioned because it relates directly to the recommendation. It is the question of whether non-fictional books are involved. Most of the small number of people who would be excluded from this scheme had this recommendation been in place in previous years were granted the exemption in respect of books that were political memoirs. It seems that the granting of the exemption in respect of non-fiction books such…

I am coming to the conclusion. Clearly, the ministerial guidelines that apply to the grant of this exemption need to be reassessed so that these strange inconsistencies are ironed out and an exemption that was designed to promote and encourage artistic expression should do just that and no more. In conclusion, and I mean this literally, there are issues I have just mentioned that go beyond the scope of the recommendation. The recommendation I was proposing today would iron out a main glaring inconsistency in the op…

I think I have the right to come in.

I am speaking to the section.

As I understand it, I have a right as a Member of this Seanad to respond to something the Minister said about section 4.

I do not think I should have to fight for that right. I think I have proved to the Leas-Chathaoirleach that I am not engaged in filibustering. I am making a serious point.

I have great faith that the Minister of State will go away and think about this.

I have brought up something of substance. My recommendation has been ruled out of order on a technicality and as a result, I was advised by the Cathaoirleach and the Leas-Chathaoirleach that I was within my rights to speak to the section. What I am saying is that section 4 should include a recommendation of the kind I am making, which proposes the insertion of a new section 5 that would amend section 195 of the principal Act. If the Minister of State is going to talk in respect of the content of the recommendation …

I will just finish the point if I may - not in an overly leisurely way but I think I am entitled to that. The Minister of State seems to be saying that even if my recommendation had not been ruled out of order, there is no need to engage with it because the scope of it is somehow different to other matters treated within section 4 of the legislation. That is certainly a very novel approach to legislation. The better approach would be to acknowledge that the recommendation has been deemed out of order but that it is…

You have not done me any favours, a Leas-Chathaoirligh-----

No. I will take a little more than two sentences but nothing excessive, I promise you, a Leas-Chathaoirligh. First, I am going to do something that is relatively unusual in this House. I will apologise and say I was wrong on one point. I acknowledge that the Minister of State is correct because I now understand what he was saying about the purpose of the section. What I was clearly proposing here was the insertion of a new section 5, thereby renumbering all succeeding sections. Therefore, the Minister of State's qu…

It is a point that needs to stand in the House.

Thank you, a Leas-Chathaoirligh. You say such kind things to me-----

-----even as you take the legs from under me. May I just address the substance then?

No, not the substance of my amendment but the substance of the Minister of State's objections. He said two things. First, he took issue with me for referring to a particularly high-earning individual-----