I have a particular involvement in the sport of greyhound racing. I welcome this section which provides the same status to greyhounds at stud as has been the situation in relation to stallions for some time. It is not appreciated that the greyhound industry provided local employment in the past, particularly in certain parts of County Kildare. Many people in County Kildare own large numbers of greyhounds and some people in the area are employed as a direct result of that ownership. Owning greyhounds provides a source of income to those involved in small operations. I do not know why an exemption was not provided in the past for greyhound sub-fees but I welcome its introduction in this section. I believe it will work well.
SECTION 22.
Question proposed: "That section 22 stand part of the Bill."
I agree with Deputy McCreevy. The provisions in this section will be very welcome in the part of the country in which I live. Much of the business in this area is carried out in off-farm operations. Irish greyhounds have been very successful throughout the world and the business has given a boost to the economy.
I agree with Deputy McCreevy that there is an analogy between stallions and stud greyhounds. I am fascinated by the fact that both of these opportunities exist to make politicians and other people very rich. If I wanted to take a bribe, I need only state that I sold a nomination for a stallion or stud greyhound that I own. No one can ever inquire about the source of the money which is tax free. Payments made to the owners of stallions are effectively a money laundering operation. If a rich Saudi Arabian prince gave me £1 million for a nomination for a stallion, it cannot be queried.
It is not the same thing because one would have to own a stallion.
That is correct. However, owning a stud greyhound is a slightly easier proposition.
I do not see how it would operate on that basis. Horses are syndicated and stand in stud. Thousands of people are employed in horse breeding.
Chairman
Is it open to the dangers to which the Deputy referred?
If there was significant information in that regard, I am sure the Revenue Commissioners would have hotfooted it to the Department of Finance seeking to amend the legislation. They are pretty sharp and are alleged to be very knowledgeable.
I did not refer to tax evasion. My point is that if somebody gave me money and I used it to buy a house I would only have to state that I obtained it from stud fees on a stallion or greyhound and the Revenue has no function in the matter.
Chairman
What about Deputy McCreevy's point?
Some years ago the law relating to owning shares in horses anywhere was changed. The point raised by Deputy McDowell is not relevant because he would have to be the sole owner of, or own shares in, a stallion for that situation to apply. I do not believe it has ever been a problem.
One does not even have to own a horse or employ a stable-hand, one need only have a greyhound in the garage.
Chairman
There are two greyhounds in Deputy McDowell's constituency if he ever needs them.
The situation to which the Deputy referred would be a serious abuse. We are not aware——
The Department would never be made aware of it because no one would report it.
I do not believe that it would be a simple matter of the Deputy stating that he had £100,000 to spend which he obtained from some involvement with stud fees. The case would have to be more conclusively stated.
Owners must produce accounts, etc.
There is also a stud book and registration. The system contains many checks and balances.
Question put and agreed to.