Tom Parlon (Laois-Offaly, Progressive Democrats)

There is an enormous amount of detail in the Bill, which is why there are so many officials from the Department of Finance and the Revenue Commissioners in the House today.

The conditions for exemption are very tightly drawn. Obviously, there is a need for expenditure on security for employees. This was exemplified recently in one of the biggest heists in Dublin, where the employees of a security company and their families were targeted.

The conditions are very tightly drawn and the exemption is only intended for those people whose work exposes them to a threat to their physical safety from terrorists, criminals or others who may resort to violence. It follows that a deduction cannot be granted for security measures against a general criminal threat, which all citizens must face. The amendment does not cover expenditure incurred to protect against a threat to property from burglary or larceny or for security measures against threats not connected with an individual's work.

The position up to now was unclear. This legislation specifies that exemptions only apply where there is a threat related to employment and that, in those circumstances, the provision of security would not be charged as a benefit in kind. It addresses a real need in society, as security provisions can be very expensive.