The question is that these issues could be raised by an Opposition Deputy, issues such as, for example, Irish Nationwide and its management having been, for years, the subject of accusations, some substantiated, of bad business practices, lack of accountability and failing to pass on interest rates. He went on to draw attention to things the Ombudsman had to say in that regard.

If those issues could be raised by an Opposition Deputy on 5 July 2006 when the Bill to enrich Michael Fingleton was introduced by the Government and put through the House in one night, how can the Taoiseach tell us that as Minister for Finance at that time he apparently had no knowledge of any of this, did not know anything of what was going on in Irish Nationwide and had no report from any of the regulatory bodies? The situation now is that we were told yesterday that Irish Nationwide has lost €2.5 billion, had been giving out loans at 120% of the value of properties and so on. There may be more to come but to date the taxpayer has been asked for €2.7 billion to pay for all that folly yet the Taoiseach knew nothing of it.

Did he commission a report?

I made the point to Deputy Gilmore because he asked specifically about this matter. I said there was no information then that the difficulties that have arisen now were about to arise in Irish Nationwide. That is a fact. He made a point about the legislation and characterised it as an effort to enrich individuals. It was about providing an opportunity for building societies as to whether they wished to stay mutualised or to demutualise.

It was the golden circle at work.

It was one of the Taoiseach's boys.

The Taoiseach, without interruption, please.

I am not involved in any golden circles and do not know anything about them. I simply brought forward legislation——

The Taoiseach does not seem to know anything.

Nobody knows anything in this House.

If I may answer the question——

Deputy Rabbitte, please.

——apart from Deputy Rabbitte's interruptions, I make the point that the legislation was brought forward to provide both for the retention of mutualisation and for demutualisation if a building society so required. Whether building societies demutualised was a matter for the membership of those societies to decide. It was not a question of forcing anything through the House but of facilitating those building societies that wished to demutualise——

It was facilitating one man.

It needed a law.

May we have answers without interruptions, please?

It was a 70th birthday party.

The debate on the Bill is in the record of the House. The purpose and objective of the legislation are set out and were there for some time in regard to their preparation.

To answer Deputy Gilmore, the fact is there is no question from our point of view but that the banking inquiry should ask all necessary questions in regard to these matters and get full accountability for them. That is what we intend to ensure will happen. However, I also wish to make the point that it was not the case that there was any idea that such losses were imminent or that people were suggesting that this would take place during the time I was Minister for Finance.