I am sure the Taoiseach saw last night's splendid "Prime Time" programme on taxation. If not, I am sure he has been advised of its content. Essentially, it depicted how the powerful and wealthy in our society exploit the tax code to minimise their tax liability or avoid paying any tax at all. The blood of anybody who saw the programme and who goes to work in the morning and pays his taxes as best he can would boil at the unfairness of the operation of the tax code. Such a person has no discretion in terms of his or her tax liability while the elite seem to be able to write their own tax bills or pay a voluntary tax.

The Taoiseach will recall that he is the author of a particular measure concerning tax exiles. The record of the House shows that at 6.05 p.m. on Friday, 6 May 1994, a bank holiday weekend, he introduced an amendment in this regard. He will recall that he advised me of it at 11 p.m. the night before. His explanation of the very opaque amendment was very technical.

The Deputy's two minutes have concluded.

He concluded by saying:

In recent days I had much contact with staff in FÁS International Services, Telecom Éireann, ESB and other agencies who are concerned about matters that affect them when going abroad for contracts of short duration. I hope we have dealt with most of the points in this regard and I will deal with the remaining points over the weekend.

This had nothing to do with anybody employed in FÁS, the ESB or any other organisation whose staff were going abroad. To have stated it did was misleading. In the ten years that have passed since this statement, has the Government made any plans to restrict the extraordinary latitude we give, under the tax code, to very wealthy people to disport themselves in this country as and when they choose without being subject to any enforcement, monitoring or supervision that one can see, thus benefiting at the same time——

The Deputy is a minute over time.

——by not paying any tax in this jurisdiction?

I did not see the "Prime Time" programme last night but received a briefing note thereon. Before dealing with the question, tax incentive schemes have been good in this country and have generated much economic activity. They were introduced with a view to providing incentives for economic development and not to enrich particular individuals.

As Deputy Rabbitte knows, there is an ongoing examination of all the tax incentive schemes to determine whether some of them are too generous, whether they are needed now, whether they require amendment or whether they should be capped. All of these issues have been discussed and the Minister has brought in outside financial experts to assist him in the ongoing examination.

On the last point raised by Deputy Rabbitte, I remember the issue very well but do not remember introducing the amendment at 5 p.m. on the Friday of a bank holiday weekend. I would be surprised to hear that the committee was even sitting then. However, I remember the issue, which was debated for a long time. It arose from the Commission on Taxation's report of that year. There was much argument on the issue outside the House. I may have tabled the amendment late because, as I remember very well, there had been considerable discussion at the time between the leader of my party and the Labour Party. The Deputy will recall this very well. Neither of us would have been surprised that the amendment was tabled so late.

Deputy Rabbitte was implying on "Questions and Answers" last night that I had thought up the amendment over night. However, as he knows, the issue had been discussed for a long time. Former Deputy Ivan Yates expressed concern that if a person came to the State at 11 p.m. and left the following day at 6 a.m., that person would be treated as being in the State for two days. He and I, the then Minister for Finance, tabled similar amendments on Report Stage, of which Deputy Rabbitte would have been well aware. I found this out today having checked the matter quickly at lunch time. Had I had more time, I would have found out more.

The amendment was agreed by the Dáil and continues to apply today. To make a mild political point, if the Labour Party, which Deputy Rabbitte now has the honour of leading although he was representing another party during the debate in question, believed it was so terrible at the time, it had an opportunity to change it through the Finance Acts of 1994, 1995 and 1996. It did not deem it a bright idea to do so.

It should be noted that the administrative practice of Revenue prior to the 1994 Act was based on a number of nights spent in the State. The Report Stage amendment merely confirmed the procedure being adopted at the time. It was quite a contentious issue.

The Deputy asked me if this issue should be examined ten years on. All the tax incentive schemes are being examined and this one should also be examined.

The first half of the Taoiseach's answer dealt with tax incentive schemes but I did not raise any issue pertaining to these at all. I have been clear that tax incentive schemes comprise a legitimate instrument to stimulate economic activity, depending on circumstances and the economic cycle. Of course they ought to be reviewed and subjected to a test determining their demonstrable economic benefit. This has not and is not being done.

The study the Taoiseach referred to is the first that was undertaken under pressure from my colleague, Deputy Burton, last year. I will go back to the point. The record will show that the Taoiseach brought in an amendment at 5 o'clock on Friday evening. That is the simple fact of the matter. There is no point in trying to blame former Deputy Ivan Yates or anyone else. The Taoiseach gave the assurances to me, privately, which I was happy to accept, although I am on the record as saying: "I think one could be forgiven for being suspicious about getting a major item like this on a holiday weekend, by way of a last minute amendment." That is on the record of the House for 6 May 1994. I went on to raise the objections to it and so on. There is no point in talking about the Labour Party reviewing this in 1995 or 1996. This is one of the areas little focused on or understood, a very arcane area of tax law that was only in operation for a year or two at that time. The question I put to the Taoiseach was about the fact that ten years later we now know how it has been abused and the Minister for Finance said last night that he had no intention of reviewing it and that it was working perfectly.

The Deputy is two minutes over time.

I cannot, for the life of me, see what this has to do with FÁS or ESB employees working abroad. This was brought in, like other matters at that time, with certain people very clearly in mind. The PAYE taxpayer believes that this is profoundly unfair, to put it at its mildest. I ask the Taoiseach again whether this will be included and if there is any intention——

I ask the Deputy to give way to the Taoiseach.

——to restrict the 183 days requirement to be in this jurisdiction.

I have three brief points to make. Deputy Rabbitte raised the matter of tax incentives on last night's "Prime Time", which was what the entire programme was about.

I was very thankful to the Taoiseach, last night.

I thank Deputy Rabbitte. I appreciate that greatly and will thank him, personally, when I meet him.

Second, as I understand it the Minister is looking at all of the allowances. The third point is that this particular mechanism does not just relate to a handful of people. I am not sure what the figure is but it is used by quite a lot of people. The argument which has been used for a long time is that there are many people, some termed non-resident who come here and pay tax, who spend quite a lot of money and have many businesses in this country. They generate a good deal of wealth. They could go elsewhere or stay elsewhere and it is better to have them in the country over a longer period. The Deputy is right in that it covers a certain category of people in this country. There is no doubt about that. I well recall the arguments about that. They are generally wealthy people, not FÁS workers, as the Deputy said.

The reason for the operation of the clause is that it was agreed it was better to have these people spending as many days as possible in the State. That means they have directorships, investments and property here. They spend money while they are here, probably more than the rest of us would in the entire year.

They do not pay tax.

Even if a person is non-resident, Irish people are liable to income tax on directorships, rental procedures and in other areas. It is not simply a black and white situation. We all know the types of people we are talking about.

They are chancers.

They are not chancers.

They are chancers and dodgers.

They are significant Irish people who come back. As regards Deputy Rabbitte's question about whether this should be examined in the review, I have no difficulty with that.