I refer to today's front page story about Sir Alex Ferguson and his ownership of a stallion which brings in €5 million tax free per annum in breeding fees. Does the Taoiseach know that this is but one example in a mega-million euro industry? Is he satisfied that owners of stallions, in these circumstances, are not even required to note, for income or other profits purposes, in their income tax returns the income generated from this area? In reply to a parliamentary question, the Minister for Finance could not say how much tax was foregone. Some experts estimate it to be of the order of €100 million, although others say it is far more. Does the Taoiseach know that €100 million in tax would create a thousand extra hospital beds?

What is the excuse for allowing this industry to operate effectively outside the law? Why is this industry not required to make returns so that the State can calculate precisely how much is being foregone? How is it that this regime has not been reviewed? Is there any other single industry operating within the State in which returns need not be made, where normal compliance with company law is required? These companies do not even have to retain books. Is the Taoiseach aware that one bloodstock owner is dominating the industry to such an extent that abuse of dominance is evident and that the loophole, such as it is, is being exploited by the export of stallions for a period of the year? The resultant loss to the Exchequer is massive.

I am aware of the story in today's newspaper about Sir Alex Ferguson's horse, The Rock of Gibraltar, and many other stallions down through the years. It is the case that this aspect of the racing industry has had a special tax concession for many years. A decade ago, when the last fundamental review of various allowances and thresholds took place, this concession was not removed. It was left as it was because it was seen at the time as a very good vehicle for employment in many rural parts because those who were beneficiaries of it employed a large number of people. The view was that Coolmore Stud, which is clearly the company we are talking about, and all the smaller organisations with the ability to move, would move elsewhere if they did not have this concession. In fact, many of them would not have been here in the first place without it because in that industry, many of the stallions and their owners are from outside the country. There are other parts of the industry in Australia and Asia and they could have moved to those locations. That was the logic behind it and it has been developed for ten years.

The Minister for Finance said recently that he was reconsidering tax shelters and allowances in various areas. The case could still be made that there is a tax argument for retaining the concession. Of course these companies must comply with company law. I do not know the amounts of money they save with these concessions and I am sure the Minister would take this into consideration in any examination. I do not want to give the impression that the Minister will come to the conclusion that it should be dispensed with – this would have to be examined for its benefits. It is true that these companies have a lucrative arrangement under successive Governments. Deputy Rabbitte must agree that he sat at the Cabinet table and agreed to leave it there through three budgets. If the matter is examined again all these arguments will be considered.

Does the Taoiseach accept that when I sat at the Cabinet table, we did not need money as badly as we do now? Considering the rate of deterioration of the public finances, if the State can levy income tax on stable lads, it ought to be able to levy income tax on the owners of a mega-rich industry. The Rock of Gibraltar, to whom the Taoiseach referred, brings in €5 million per annum in breeding fees. In the case of Sadler's Wells, the amount is estimated to be €30 million per annum. Hundreds of millions of euro per annum are returned without any computation by the State. Why should this not be measured? Why should an incentive considered necessary for a fledgling industry in the 1960s be continued in circumstances in which such huge profits are being made?

The Taoiseach does not know how much is being made because he does not want to know. It amounts to hundreds of millions euro at a time when the Government is cutting CE schemes and imposing charges for services, when registration fees for students are increasing by 69% and the meals on wheels service cannot be run because the CE personnel are withdrawn. How can we justify not imposing a modest tax regime on this industry? It will not happen under the present Minister for Finance, although he will probably not be around for much longer. Will the Taoiseach make a commitment to review this or at least make a statement with an assessment of the amount of tax foregone?

I do not know the amount of tax foregone but the Department of Finance is reviewing all shelters and tax allowances and it will examine this scheme. Deputy Rabbitte is incorrect in saying that times were not worse. This tax allowance existed when there was emigration of 40,000 people a year and unemployment of 18%. It was in place when the country was on its uppers.

The only emigration taking place in this industry is to Monaco.

I have no problem analysing this issue. Rock of Gibraltar has the capacity to move around. Last year another Irish horse went to Australia and won the Breeders' Cup. Horses can move around and so can the industry.

Like their owners.

The taxes are only foregone when the animals are in this country. If they are not here, there are no fees for them and there is no employment related to them. The Deputy should take that into account. I have no problem with an assessment but I do not want to wipe out all of the staff that work in this industry in one fell swoop. That would happen if it was changed totally.