First, I join the Taoiseach and Deputy Kenny in paying tribute to Gordon Brown and thanking him for the work, in particular, that he has done in regard to this country and Northern Ireland. I wish Mr. Cameron and Mr. Clegg well as they embark on the leadership of the Government of Britain. Relations between Britain and Ireland greatly improved under the outgoing Labour Government, especially in terms of matters relating to Northern Ireland. It is important that there is a good working relationship between the Government and the British Government. I hope that will continue under the new regime.

We have been talking about the deficit. I wish to refer to the one thing that has contributed, and is contributing most, to the deficit in this country, namely, the continuing story of Anglo Irish Bank. That is the black hole that Fianna Fáil helped to dig and into which €22 billion of taxpayers' money will now have to be put, adding to our national debt. I wish to ask the Taoiseach about an article in The Sunday Times which refers to a set of confidential, internal minutes from a meeting at Anglo Irish Bank dated 18 February 2009 between Anglo Irish Bank and the Central Bank. Reference is made to the fact that the Department of Finance told the then chairman of Anglo Irish Bank not to be too negative in a letter to shareholders relating to the bank’s 2008 annual report which was published after the bank was nationalised in early 2009. According to the article, the then chairman, Mr. O’Connor, was also told by the Department of Finance that he should not refer to emergency funding. It is indicated in the article that Mr. O’Connor was anxious that the chairman’s statement should tell it as it is. The article, astonishingly, states that the Department of Finance drafted a less negative version of the chairman’s statement.

Exactly.

The Taoiseach will recall that, when we heard some weeks ago that Anglo Irish Bank had increased the salaries of some of its staff, both Deputy Kenny and I asked him about that in the House. He told us there was nothing he could do about it because it was all a matter for Anglo Irish Bank and its board and that the Government would not or could not intervene or interfere in the matter. Yet, according to the article, there was a direct interference by Government, through the Department of Finance in which, in effect, the Government was encouraging the chairman of the board of the bank to doctor the information being released to the public and not to share with the bank's shareholders — there is some responsibility on the boards of banks to inform shareholders, as they were in 2008 — the real state of the bank's finances. According to the article, the Government was directing the bank to put a gloss on the information being issued as part of the 2008 annual report, and it even went so far as to draft a less negative letter to go with the report.

A question, please.

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for reminding me.

Hurrah.

My question to the Taoiseach is, first, whether he can confirm that the Department of Finance did in fact draft a less negative letter to go with the annual report of the bank in 2008. Second, can he justify why the Government was encouraging and directing that bank to, in effect, issue false information about the state of its finances and its requirement for additional funding?

I am afraid that to ascribe that sort of motivation to the Department's comments is a conspiracy theory too far. The chairman's statement is a matter for the chairman of the bank.

No matter who writes it.

The draft chairman's statement and the draft accounts for the year ended September 2008 were referred to the Department of Finance for comment and the Department provided a view.

Aha.

The chairman's statement was finalised to reflect the chairman's considered views and published with the annual report. The chairman's statement was his own and reflected his views.

The Taoiseach has convinced me.

The Taoiseach's new strategy.

This is no small matter. We are now told that it will cost €22 billion——

And more.

Yes, and more, to put this bank right. The cost of winding it up would cost huge amounts of money.

It is a zombie.

While the Government had intended that somehow the cost would be at arm's length from the State's own finances and budgets, that cannot now be the case due to what we heard from EUROSTAT. Therefore this is a very major issue. The Minister for Finance only told this House the full extent of the requirement for finance of this bank in April this year. What was the state of the Government's information about the requirement from Anglo Irish Bank for additional funding in February 2009 when the Government directed the bank to doctor the information that was being issued to the public? That is the first question.

The Taoiseach has not addressed the second question, but made it sound as if the bank just sent in the draft statement from the chairman for observation. According to this article, the Department of Finance redrafted the statement. It drafted what it calls a "less negative version". Is that true or not, because it seems to be a serious matter? If there was a gloss put on the information that was put out, this is serious, but it is doubly serious if that was done at the instigation of Government through the Department of Finance.

Can the Taoiseach square these developments with the relationship framework, which I understand the European Union requires to have established between the State and Anglo Irish Bank as a condition for approving the arrangements arrived at for that bank? A reply was given to Deputy Burton by the Minister for Finance only a couple of days ago, in which he stated that in the interests of facilitating compliance with EU state aid and competition policy, the relationship framework recognises the separation of Anglo Irish Bank from the Minister and limits intervention by the Minister in the conduct of the bank's day to day commercial activities.

What does the Taoiseach believe the European Commission is going to think of this report in The Sunday Times, which he has not denied, that states the Government had a hands-on approach in writing what in fact turns out to be a false statement on the financial position of the bank?

I am saying to Deputy Gilmore that I do not accept the motivation he is ascribing to the Department of Finance is correct at all.

An unfortunate little arrangement.

I have stated——

We are not talking about that.

Deputy Gilmore has just made certain points about "doctoring" and all the rest of it. There is no question of that. I just made the point that where it is a nationalised bank, the chairman's statement and the draft accounts are referred to the Department of Finance for comment, which is the norm, and they were commented on.

Were they?

They were and they provided a view. The paramount concern——

The Taoiseach, without interruptions, please.

——of the Department of Finance and indeed, the Government, at the time of this statement was to do everything possible to protect the stability of the entire banking system. at a time of great fragility. In the context of spring 2009, it was important that any statement relating to the liquidity situation in any bank, particularly a nationalised bank where the taxpayer was directly exposed, should have taken into account the potential impact on the broader financial system and ultimately on the entire economy.

That is the simple motivation of the Department of Finance in any of these matters. Any questions the Deputy wishes to refer to the Department of Finance may be referred to it, but I want to make clear that the portrayal, as he puts it, in terms of ascribing such a motivation to the Department——

Is accurate.

I am not here to comment on articles, but rather to give the facts of the situation as they are. The facts are as I have outlined, and any suggestion to the contrary is not the case, whatsoever.

Did it happen?