Leaving aside killing and maiming people, does the Taoiseach agree that the second greatest injustice in the past three decades in this society has been the extent to which the same people have been expected to pay for the running of the State while many of the wealthier elements have engaged in tax evasion and underpayment to the extent that the Committee of Public Accounts heard from the chairman of the Revenue Commissioners before Christmas that €922 million has been recouped as a result of investigations into non-payment of DIRT, Ansbacher, National Irish Bank and other areas?

In that context, will the Taoiseach examine the conflict in Manchester United? People interested in soccer are fascinated to see the club apparently intent on destroying itself by causing the dismissal of its most successful manager. This is not a dispute about football, transfers or dodgy dealing but about a horse and tax-exempt stallion fees. What could put this into sharper focus than the controversy in the most famous football club in the world that is prepared to tear itself apart over the fees from a single stallion?

What must the income from the entire industry be worth? We do not know because the Minister for Finance will not address this ongoing injustice. An additional 1,000 hospital beds could be provided by spending €100 million. With what the Taoiseach can see happening at Manchester United, will he ask the Minister for Finance to address this ongoing injustice once and for all in the Finance Bill that is due before the House shortly?

I agree with Deputy Rabbitte that all taxes should be legally paid and, where there are exemptions, the case should be made for them and their value to the economy. That is what happens with all remaining exemptions. The exemption in this case has existed since 1969 and has not changed much since. It was amended in 1997 and a number of groups have analysed it in the period since then.

There was an anomaly that those who owned stallions were exempt from income tax on the profits or gains arising but did not have to produce accounts. That point was made in the House on a number of occasions. The Finance Act 2003 made it a requirement that accounts would have to be provided for all income earned from stallions. The Minister for Finance stated that the Department of Finance or Revenue Commissioners would examine the information those accounts provided to see if change was necessary.

It was a fair point that, until that change and even though the exemption had been on the Statute Book since 1969, with an amendment in 1997, stallion owners were not required to submit accounts. They argued that they were not making huge profits but provided no evidence. That is a fair point, but it has been corrected. The reason for it is that we can see there is a significant amount of employment in this country due to the fact that the stallions are here. If there was no incentive the stallions would be elsewhere and so would the employment related to the industry. I do not know where Rock of Gibraltar would have ended up, whether in Ireland, Gibraltar, the Middle East or somewhere else. That is another issue. I agree with Deputy Rabbitte in that I hope this issue is resolved. I do not want to see it affect a club that has flown the tricolour over its grounds for many decades and is, by connection, an Irish-supported club. I hope those matters are resolved, but I do not think they will be resolved around changes in section 231 of the Finance Act.

I know the history and the country has changed a great deal since 1969. I know that the Revenue Commissioners cannot tell us how much tax has been foregone. I know that when the industry was prepared to pay a tax tailored to its particular requirements, the Minister for Finance would not go along with it and that we dragged the commitment from him that in future they will have to make returns only from 1 January this year. They will not have to pay tax. The stable lads will have to pay tax but the owners will not. However, they will have to declare their earned incomes. That is a grave injustice. I know the history of it. I also know that the Taoiseach pulled a great stroke for the owners when he allowed them to have tax exile status and spend more years here. While the Taoiseach worries about Rock of Gibraltar going abroad, it would only be following its owners. They have already gone abroad. They do not pay any tax here.

If stable lads are expected to pay tax, how is it that people who have tens if not hundreds of millions — the earnings of Rock of Gibraltar alone are reckoned to be €5 million per annum — do not pay tax? How can it be justified that the Taoiseach will not require the Minister for Finance to address this ongoing injustice in the tax code? I know the Taoiseach knows the parties on both sides, including Sir Alex Ferguson. I think he togged out a few times for Manchester United when he was at the London School of Economics, but that is not the issue. The issue is whether he is going to change the Finance Act.

He certainly did not fail to get on the Ballindine Juniors team.

A few Members of the House played at Manchester United's ground last year, if I recall correctly. Unfortunately I was not privileged to be one of them. I would make a few points in reply to Deputy Rabbitte. I am not too sure whether the individuals involved in this case would be beneficiaries to the extent that he thinks. I may be out of date with my information, but I am not too sure that the stud that is well-known is one of the beneficiaries in terms of our tax law. Perhaps my information is out of date as regards the situation as it existed.

Will the Taoiseach say how we know this? How does he know?

I was in the Department of Finance a number of times when this issue was discussed, as was the Deputy's party.

The Revenue Commissioners will not tell——

No, they will not, but the structure of the studs is well known in the Department of Finance. The bloodstock breeding industry in this country has grown substantially over the last number of years. It is a world-renowned industry. Whether it requires changes or not, it would be interesting now to see an analysis of the accounts. I agree with that, but the export of horses and sales and nominations to foreigners from this country is an enormous business. The latest figures calculated for the entire industry showed that that aspect of its activity employed between 4,500 and 5,000 people. I am totally in favour of the analysis being done based on the accounts now being put forward. However, I would not like to see an amendment being brought in that removes the stallions from this country and the jobs, without proper analysis. The analysis will take place. We will wait and see whether section 231 of the Finance Act needs to be changed but I would prefer that an analysis should be done first based on the accounts.