We will move on to a question from Deputy Gilmore.

The captain of a banana republic.

Deputy Gilmore, without interruption, please.

Look after the Taoiseach's buddies.

Propaganda.

Many people have an income of €55,000 a year or less. Many of those people already have lost their jobs or businesses and those who have not have had their pay reduced. All those people this morning picked up their newspapers and read that Mr. Fingleton paid himself €55,000 a month for the first four months of 2009, after he had got the bank guarantee. On top of this, he paid himself €1 million of a bonus that has not yet been paid back. The interesting point about this is that as Members now know, Mr. Fingleton was heading an organisation that will cost taxpayers €2,700 million to bail out. That is almost the total amount of money the Government will be seeking in the next budget. The reason this money is being sought is because of the scandalous way in which that building society conducted its business down the years. The building society was set up to give mortgages to house buyers but instead, it was giving out great buckets of money to approximately 30 people in a process of rolling enrichment or at least that was the expectation.

As I stated in the House yesterday, for some time there had been a degree of discussion in business circles that all was not well in the Irish Nationwide Building Society. Yesterday, I asked the Taoiseach about his period in office as Minister for Finance between 2004 and 2008. I asked him whether he had received reports from the Financial Regulator, the Registrar of Friendly Societies or any State agencies that things were not as they should be with Irish Nationwide. The Taoiseach replied that he had received no such report and he presented Members with a picture that while the banks were running the country, he and his colleagues were sitting around the Cabinet table hearing no evil and see no evil as far as matters being amiss was concerned. Of course he now states there was systemic failure in the regulatory system.

While Members will deal with the regulatory system in due course, I wish to focus on what the Government was doing and specifically what the then Minister for Finance was doing at that time. A letter appeared in this morning's edition of a newspaper from a member of Irish Nationwide, pointing out that he had raised concerns about the building society at its annual general meetings. Yesterday, I drew attention to some comments that I had made in the Chamber in the course of the Dáil debate regarding things I had heard about Irish Nationwide on the grapevine and around the town. When the Taoiseach was Minister for Finance, did he ever hear anything to the effect that things might not be as they should in Irish Nationwide? Yesterday, he told Members he did not get a report from the regulatory bodies or from his officials drawing his attention to any problems in the building society. However, did he ever ask for such a report or did he ever ask any questions? For example, when the Bill to demutualise Irish Nationwide came to his Department in the normal course of events and he was asked for his observations thereon, did he then ask anyone to provide him with a report on what was happening within the society and on how it was conducting its business? Was he lobbied by Irish Nationwide in the run-up to the publication of the legislation to demutualise the society and if so, can he tell Members what was the nature of such lobbying?

First, on the question pertaining to Irish Nationwide and my term as Minister for Finance, I make clear to the Deputy that as I stated yesterday, the issue of legislation came up in respect of the Building Societies (Amendment) Act 2006. That Act pertained to providing an opportunity for building societies to remain mutual or to demutualise. There were meetings between the Irish Nationwide Building Society and the Department of Finance, one of which I can recall from memory attending myself as Minister in the normal way. It pertained to the progress that was being made in respect of the legislation and the input of the aforementioned building society would have been the same as that of others. I also met members of the Educational Building Society in the same way.

As I said yesterday, the question of whether a building society demutualised or not was ultimately a matter for its shareholders and members. The Deputy will recall that there were many small shareholders in Irish Nationwide Building Society at that time who were indicating that they were supportive of a possible demutualisation of the society, but that would be a policy decision for the society, not for me. Therefore, that would be the context in which those issues arose.

Regarding the question of supervision of financial institutions, the decision of this House back in 2003 was to set up an independent regulatory system, as the Deputy knows. That system has not served us sufficiently well, as we now know from all that has happened, but I was not responsible for supervising financial institutions. That was an issue for the independent Financial Regulator. To my knowledge, at no time did the regulator intimate to me that there were issues for legislative change or whatever that should have been considered by me in respect of that society or other financial institutions.

I am finding this a little difficult to understand. The Taoiseach stated that he had certain exchanges with the building society in the run up to the legislation, but reports of the Ombudsman, for example, drew attention to some of the practices going on in Irish Nationwide. At the time, they were described by the Ombudsman as being illegal. I believe that was the term used. They were certainly not good practice.

That building society had moved from being a normal building society lending mortgages to its members to buy houses into large-scale property speculation and lending for it.

Could we have a question, please?

The Taoiseach paints a picture in which he was closeted in his office, he had no idea whatever about what was occurring, he was entirely at the mercy of what the regulator might or might not have told him and he was not told anything. I find it difficult to understand how, as Minister for Finance over a four-year period, the Taoiseach did not encounter the kind of talk that was going on about Irish Nationwide.

We have ended up in a situation with all of the banking and financial institutions. One could say that it came as a big surprise that one or another institution got caught up in this. However, Irish Nationwide was no big surprise, although the scale was. The black hole has turned out to be much larger than anyone had expected. Everyone is shocked at the scale, but no one who knew what was occurring in financial business around this town in recent years was greatly surprised by Irish Nationwide's involvement. The Taoiseach is trying to tell the House that he never heard anything about it even though the Government was preparing legislation for the demutualisation of Irish Nationwide. Incidentally, the Taoiseach stated that the legislation was for building societies as if every building society was involved in it, but the legislation was tailor-made for and designed to facilitate Irish Nationwide. The Taoiseach mentioned the society's members.

Could we have a question, please? We are running over time on Leaders' Questions.

The legislation was tailor-made so as that those at the top of the building society would be the greatest beneficiaries of the demutualisation. The legislation was highly favourable to Mr. Fingleton and some of his close friends in the society.

It was only when due diligence was carried out that it ran aground.

It is all very well to say that we will have some kind of an investigation or inquiry and that we will examine the regulatory system and so on, but the Taoiseach needs to be much franker with the Dáil and the public about the state of his knowledge of Irish Nationwide's conduct over the period during which he was Minister for Finance. It is not credible to suggest that he heard and saw nothing.

I have been fully frank with this House at all times in respect of any questions that have been asked at any time. I have nothing to hide in terms of this matter despite another conspiracy theory that Deputy Gilmore might want to engender today.

The Taoiseach might get caught out saying that.

The Building Societies (Amendment) Act 2006 was not simply about the possibility of a demutualisation of one building society. It was also about ensuring the continued mutualisation of another building society, the EBS.

Come off it.

That is the second point. That is also correct. In fact, the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government would be the line Department in the preparation of legislation in that respect. I was, as Minister for Finance, obviously ensuring——

That was when it was about housing.

I am making the point about where the legislation was brought forward and my role in it. Regarding the other point, the Deputy talks about——

The Taoiseach signed off on it.

——his views, rumours, etc. I deal with the facts as they are presented to me. The issue regarding the financial supervision of financial institutions was a matter exclusively for the independent regulator and IFSRA.

The legislation was not.

Nothing had been brought to my attention that suggested the problem that has now emerged. As Deputy Gilmore has just said in his response, the scale of this is far greater than even he had anticipated, and he had a pretty dim view of it anyway regardless of who was or was not in charge of it. He had a certain view at any——

No one was in charge of it.

No one had a dimmer view than the one that eventually emerged.

To ascribe that foreknowledge to me in the way Deputy Gilmore has done would not be acceptable, true or factual. I have explained fully and frankly everything that I have been doing in respect of that matter and I have nothing to hide in that regard. I will also say that, when the banking inquiry is allowed to proceed and deal with all of these matters, that will seen to be the case.