The Minister for Finance was in London on St. Patrick's Day telling the assembled gathering that the Government would crack down on crony-capitalism in Ireland. The Labour Party warmly welcomes that. There are certainly a few cronies on whom one could crack down. We have Mr. Fitzpatrick, who is known to his cronies as Seanie; Mr. Fingleton, known to his cronies as Fingers; and now a Green crony, Mr. McCaughey, who, of course, has legally avoided the payment of capital gains tax by the convenient means of transferring the shares to his spouse who then transferred herself to Italy for the best part of a year to qualify as a tax exile. I want to ask the Taoiseach a couple of questions arising from these.

On Mr. Fingleton, like Deputy Kenny, I was surprised at the statement which has just been issued by the Minister for Finance which effectively states that the Minister will take a month to investigate what remuneration was paid to Mr. Fingleton. It is already in the public domain that Mr. Fingleton paid himself a bonus of €1 million after the guarantee scheme came into effect. Taxpayers who await the worst of news on budget day, which is less than a month away, will want to know whether the Government will recoup that and how such a bonus could be paid after the guarantee scheme came into effect when we were told the Government had given itself very considerable powers to exercise control on these institutions.

What Mr. McCaughey did was perfectly legal; that is the problem. Can the Taoiseach give some assurance to the taxpayers of the country, who are likely to be hit with further tax increases in the budget, that this arrangement concerning tax exiles will be ended once and for all? People are scandalised that this type of arrangement can be entered into, that if one is wealthy enough and has good accountants one can get around tax liabilities while PAYE workers and businesses which are trying to keep going have no escape.

The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, who appointed Mr. McCaughey as chairman of the Dublin Docklands Authority, said he is "one of our most successful green entrepreneurs and in the past decade has shown clear leadership on issues including regulatory reform [and] sustainable business practices". Does the Minister still have confidence in Mr. McCaughey as chairman of the Dublin Docklands Authority?

This morning the Minister for Finance informed the Government of his intentions to ensure the public interest directors are given the opportunity exclusively to investigate the circumstances in which such a bonus payment was paid in the Irish Nationwide Building Society. The mandate given to them was to do so within a month. He has also indicated that the members of the board will come to see him within the coming week with a view to examining the situation as he believes the board and management need to be reviewed and changed in view of what has been happening. Upon establishment of the facts we are as determined as anybody else, working within the legal means available to us, to see how the Government's intent and policy on the payment of bonuses to people in covered institutions is respected and implemented.

I am aware of the report on the second matter, which was aired this morning and the Deputy will appreciate that I cannot comment in any detail on individuals' tax affairs. These are matters between the individuals concerned and the Revenue Commissioners. As a result of cases that have come to the attention of the Revenue Commissioners involving transfers of assets between spouses and the use of reliefs provided under tax treaties with other countries, changes in the capital gains tax legislation were introduced in section 75 of the Finance Act 2006. That amendment of the principal Act removed the exemption of gains on transfers between spouses in such cases. Arrangements undertaken before the Finance Act 2006 are the subject of litigation and it would be inappropriate for me to comment further on them. The Revenue Commissioners will continue to hold the view that requires it to pursue these matters in respect of those arrangements prior to enactment of the Finance Act 2006 through litigation. When this matter came to the attention of the Revenue Commissioners, its recommendation was adopted in finance legislation and arrangements prior to the Finance Act 2006 are the subject of litigation.

When the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government appointed the individual concerned as chairman of the Dublin Docklands Authority, was he aware that these matters were already under consideration by the Revenue Commissioners and that they had given rise to the change in legislation the Taoiseach described? I do not understand why the investigation of the payment to Mr. Fingleton has to take a month. When the United States Government discovered very big bonuses were being paid to people in AIG, it did not take a month to deal with it. Taking a month here means deferring a decision until after the budget and Easter, and putting it into Never-Never Land where matters under investigation are overtaken by other events.

On 30 September 2008 Deputy Burton proposed specific amendments to the bank guarantee legislation to the effect that caps should be placed on the remuneration given to the top people in financial institutions. The Minister for Finance assured her that there were sufficient powers in the Bill he presented to deal with any eventuality of this kind. Section 5 of the Act provides that "The Minister may, in respect of any difficulty that arises in the operation of this Act during the period of two years ... make regulations to do anything that appears necessary or expedient". The Act goes on to provide that in circumstances where the institutions concerned do not comply with such directions and rulings by the Minister for Finance, he could withdraw the financial support and guarantees given to these institutions.

The Minister for Finance has the power to require that these bonuses be repaid and to ensure that whatever other steps to deal with it are taken. Why are we waiting a month for this? Facts are easily established. What payment was made? When was it made? Who authorised it? Was any clearance sought from the Minister or Department of Finance or the Financial Regulator? Was it cleared by the board? It does not take a month to establish these facts. This must be dealt with speedily because the public, which is being asked to shoulder the burden of the difficult economic circumstances, needs to have it addressed before the budget. The international financial markets, which do not look very favourably on this country or our banking and financial system, need to see that our Government is dealing with this quickly. The Government should not be looking for a report in a month's time when it might be considered and dealt with on a méar fada basis. The Taoiseach should deal with it quickly. The power to deal with it is in the legislation and there is no justification for delaying for a month.

The Government reserves all the options available to it. It needs to establish the facts to act legally.

A month?

A month?

The statement makes clear the matter will be addressed within a month. In the meantime, apart from meeting with the public interest directors, the Minister will meet the board and existing management within the coming week and has outlined his views regarding the Government's arrangements in the building society for the future. He has indicated that the public interest directors alone will investigate this matter on his behalf and the public interest directors have the confidence of this House so to do in a way that will ensure an outcome that will comply with the legislative intentions of this House and within the law.

The question arises as to whether in fact a bonus arrangement was agreed by the board in respect of the chief executive concerned which predated the enactment of the State guarantee legislation. That issue must be established as well as the circumstances in which, if that were the case, it happened and, third, what legal options are available to us as a result. This can only be established on the basis of facts to be obtained by the public interest directors. It is a question of ensuring that we proceed in the proper fashion and make sure we achieve an outcome the Government is as anxious as anyone else to see, which is the return of the bonus concerned.