I offer my sympathy to the 760 workers of Bank of Scotland (Ireland) which has just announced its intention to close its Halifax operations in Ireland with the loss of 760 jobs by end July 2010, which is devastating news. In that context, I put the following question to the Taoiseach. The Taoiseach will be only too well aware that the Irish taxpayer has had to write the biggest ever cheque of €54 billion in respect of NAMA. The proposition put by Government before, during and since NAMA has been that in return for our taking the huge risk of relieving the banks of their reckless loans and property deals credit would flow to Irish business. Throughout the NAMA debate last year the Government and Ministers indicated that the tens of billions of euro provided by Irish taxpayers through NAMA to the banks in respect of their toxic developer loans would be used to finance new Irish businesses by way of lending and so on.

I recall that the Taoiseach stated that his sole motivation in setting up the controversial agency was to get credit flowing into the economy. The Minister for Finance told the Dáil on 16 September last that NAMA would ensure that credit flows again to viable businesses and households. He also stated in The Sunday Tribune at that time that a wall of cash from NAMA could help restore credit flow and get the economy growing again. This is in complete contrast with what was stated at the meeting held with the IMF, namely, that it does not believe that NAMA will result in a significant increase in bank lending in Ireland. Why was this relevant and fundamental fact withheld from the House? The IMF is the international reputable body in respect of banks and banking issues. It now transpires from information obtained under the Freedom of Information Act that it told Government that NAMA would not result in a significant amount of credit flowing to Irish business. Why was this fact concealed from this House during the NAMA debate when it was made known to the Taoiseach and Government?

Nothing relating to these matters was concealed. The IMF supports the establishment of NAMA. As regards the issues arising from information contained on the Department of Finance website, a specific paragraph relates to the fact that NAMA will result in a significant increase in bank lending in Ireland. This is on the basis of our encouraging the adoption of a NAMA-type initiative even if the Minister had not already announced the initiative. The suggestion that the IMF was not in favour of the establishment of NAMA or indeed that we could proceed with a NAMA is not correct.

The note on which yesterday's newspaper report was based contains an endorsement of NAMA by the IMF. That particular part of the note did not make it into yesterday's reports. It is clear that the IMF fully backs the Government policy on the banks and the establishment of NAMA. The remarks made on bank lending in Ireland were made in the context of the Minister for Finance, Deputy Lenihan, assuring the IMF that the Government did not wish to see a surge in lending designed to re-inflate the property market to near boom levels. That discussion took place at a meeting last April. We did not then and do not now regard such an outcome as desirable. The IMF agrees with us in this regard.

Since the meeting referred to in yesterday's newspaper report took place we have had an intensive debate about NAMA inside and outside this House. That debate culminated in the passage of the NAMA legislation which allows the Minister to issue guidelines to the participating institutions to facilitate the flow of credit to SMEs. The inclusion of that provision in the legislation arose directly from the concern expressed on all sides of the House that credit be available in this economy. Let us be clear, the intention of the guidelines is not to return to a credit splurge but to ensure that viable businesses and households can access funding.

The purpose of NAMA is to cleanse the banks' balance sheets of toxic loans so that we can create a healthy banking system. The role of the banks in the economy is to make credit available to viable, sustainable businesses and households. It is the Government's view that NAMA is the best way to achieve that aim. The IMF delegation agrees with that view.

The point I made was that the information given by the IMF was that there would not be a wall of cash as referred to by the Minister for Finance arising from NAMA, a fact that was not disclosed to this House by the Taoiseach or Ministers during the debate on NAMA in this House. The assertion made by Fine Gael that NAMA would not result in a return to significant lending to Irish business has been vindicated by what the IMF stated. It was further vindicated by Mr. Sheehy at an Oireachtas committee meeting in November last when he stated that if people believe that the day after NAMA is established the country will be awash with money, they are wrong — that is not going to happen.

Yesterday, the Governor of the Central Bank, Professor Patrick Honohan, criticised bank lending policy in terms of their facilities for extending credit to Irish businesses. Thousands of Irish businesses, including retail and manufacturing industries and so on, cannot get credit from banks. The Irish taxpayer has been duped by Government into writing a cheque for €54 billion in return for a wall of cash which will not be evident. This means thousands of jobs could be lost as a result of credit drying up.

In that context and in view of the fact that this materially fundamental information was withheld from the House and that the Government would have discussed this matter at some length with Government officials, will the Taoiseach tell the House what moneys, in his estimation, will be available to banks for lending to Irish business in what is now a crisis situation for thousands of small businesses. What is the Taoiseach's estimate of the amount of money that will be available to be loaned to Irish businesses all over the country which are now in crisis?

Deputy Kenny has again misquoted the situation. Professor Honohan in his statement stated that the overall thrust and macro economic policy and the pace and scale of budgetary adjustments appeared to him about right as a basis for building a sustained recovery. He also stated that interest rates on Government bonds are much lower than they were only a few months ago because of the degree to which foreign confidence is building in Ireland's ability and determination to restore the public finances and its clearly defined strategy as exemplified by the relatively tough measures already taken.

Deputy Kenny continually suggests that we are writing cheques of €54 billion in respect of NAMA operations. However, what we are doing is presenting Government bonds to the European Central Bank for the purposes of losses being taken primarily by the banks and those who own the loans, which is at great variance to how Deputy Kenny characterises the operation being brought forward.

It is still €54 billion.

Deputy Kenny continues to misrepresent the situation. The Deputy is suggesting the Government is writing a €54 billion cheque but it is not.

It is an IOU.

It is the biggest cheque ever written by the Irish taxpayer.

We are presenting to the Central Bank bonds which will be backed by assets on the basis of the reduced value NAMA will pay for them. The first losses will be taken by the banks and creditors. No matter how many times the Deputy says it, I will still keep saying what the true situation is.

As regards the question of how we deal with providing sufficient credit to the economy, it is by taking the decisions we have taken. Reducing the cost of Government debt, first of all, has reduced the cost to taxpayers. International confidence in the direction we are taking is providing funding to the Irish banking system on an ongoing basis. The fact that NAMA will be operationalised will provide further evidence of the Government's determination to proceed along the lines we have outlined. It is clear that by using the NAMA mechanism and bringing those distressed assets on to NAMA's books, we will be in a position in which banks will be able to obtain funds on international markets in addition to whatever capital they have themselves.

As we have outlined, there will be a recapitalisation programme involved. We will deal with all of that comprehensively. That is the only way we will get to a situation where we have a pathway to recovery and where banks get back to the core franchise of providing loans to the productive sector.

That is theoretical.

Unless we operationalise NAMA and arrange for those assets to be transferred, the Deputy's argument is a circular one because we will never get out of the trouble we are in unless we proceed as we have set out.