Just two months ago on 30 March, the Minister for Finance came to the House to announce that the Government was providing €8.3 billion of taxpayers' money to recapitalise Anglo Irish Bank. That was in addition to the €4 billion that had already been committed to that bank in 2009. This week, just two months on, the Minister for Finance announced yet another €2 billion of taxpayers' money for Anglo Irish Bank, bringing to €14.3 billion the total amount of taxpayers' money that has now been committed to Anglo Irish Bank.

On the day of the bank guarantee the Taoiseach came to the House and assured us that nothing of that kind was likely to happen. I remind him that he said:

With regard to the guarantee there have been what I regard as misleading indications as to the exposure being placed on the taxpayer. . . The banking system in Ireland has assets which exceed its liabilities... It is important to make the point that in the event of any further call, it is my intention to ensure the Irish taxpayer will not be held liable in any way for any deficit that might occur in the event of there being a problem in the future.

Does the Taoiseach now acknowledge that he was wrong when he said that and that there has, in fact, been a very substantial call on the Irish taxpayer for Anglo Irish Bank in particular? I am just concentrating on that bank today. What is the bottom of the pit as far as Anglo Irish Bank is concerned? Taxpayers' money has not been committed to the tune of €14.3 billion. How much more will be paid over or committed to this bank? What is the bottom line?

I ask the Taoiseach to clarify for the House a statement made by the Minister for Finance when he announced the €2 billion this week, in which he stated:

Anglo's restructuring plan is being submitted to the European Commission today. Discussions between the Commission, the Department and the Bank on the restructuring plan will continue and the future of the bank will be determined by those discussions.

What is meant by the future of the bank in that context? Will the Taoiseach tell the House if the Government is now considering an orderly wind-down of that bank?

Regarding statements made on the first matter raised by the Deputy, clearly what has emerged since then, in terms of the governance issues that relate to the bank and obviously the subsequent establishment of NAMA and the subsequent writing down of assets to the tune of 55%, has meant that the capital requirements for that bank have greatly increased. Regarding the €2 billion, we would also make the point that the guarantee in itself had provided us with ability to fund the banking system and indeed banks have been paying for that guarantee, which was set out for a two-year period.

The issue of the €2 billion injection on 31 May is part of that additional capital required to ensure that the bank continues to meet its regulatory capital requirements in the context of the losses the bank experiences from the transfer of its loans into NAMA. As indicated in the statement of the Minister for Finance to the Dáil at the end of March, further capital, estimated to amount to up to €10 billion, will be needed for Anglo Irish Bank to fully secure its capital position based on the information available to us at this point.

The €2 billion capital injection is in line with what was expected might arise from the transfer of the first tranche of Anglo Irish Bank's loans into NAMA and was approved by the European Commission on that basis at the end of March. Without this capital injection, Anglo Irish Bank would not meet its regulatory capital requirements and would need to be immediately wound down. That would mean a fire sale of assets and capital losses of at least €40 billion to the State. In addition, in liquidation the State would have to provide of the order of €70 billion of cash up front to meet the deposits, bond holders and liabilities due to the euro system. Of course, a portion could eventually be mitigated by asset sales.

The availability of the contingency provision was made clear in the Commission's press statement at the end of March providing state aid approval for the provision of additional capital support for Anglo Irish Bank. The €2 billion contingency provision, provided alongside the €8.3 billion capital support for Anglo Irish Bank at the end of March is being activated following the NAMA transfers earlier this month.

The discount on the loans transferred from Anglo Irish Bank into NAMA was 55%, which was in excess of the 38% discount the bank was applying to these loans on its books at the end of March. The total amount of capital provided to Anglo Irish Bank to date is €14.3 billion. Some €4 billion in capital was provided to Anglo Irish Bank in 2009, €8.3 billion in March 2010 by way of a promissory note and €2 billion further capital is now being provided to Anglo Irish Bank by way an addition to the promissory note.

What is it doing with it?

This is taking place by way of an adjustment to the existing promissory note, which issued to the bank on 31 March 2010.

Did Alan Dukes write that?

It brings the total value of the promissory note to €10.3 billion. It is expected that additional capital will be provided to the bank in the course of the year by increasing the value of the promissory note. The current estimate is that the overall capital requirement could be of the order of a further €8 billion, that is the €10 billion estimate less the €2 billion provided on 31 May. At this stage it is not possible to quantify the scale of the capital requirement for the bank which will depend on such factors as the final discount on the assets transferred to NAMA which depends on the loan-by-loan valuation process carried out by NAMA, the scale of the losses arising on the remainder of Anglo Irish Bank's loan book and any capital costs arising under restructuring of the bank. EU state aid will of course be required as appropriate for any amount above that approved by the European Commission thus far.

Regarding the question on the restructuring plan, this was submitted to the European Commission on 31 May. A detailed evaluation of Anglo Irish Bank's restructuring plan will commence immediately and will involve extensive consultation and dialogue between the Commission, the Irish authorities and the bank. The restructuring analyses a number of options, including winding up the institution over different time periods. In each case these are very expensive options giving rise to major capital and funding costs to the taxpayer in line with the estimates set out by the Minister in his statement on banking on 30 March.

They could have closed it down two years ago.

The bank has proposed splitting the bank into two elements, an asset management company to run down some of its loan book——

The Taoiseach should be allowed to speak without interruption.

——and a bank which will continue to operate as a viable going concern——

Rubbish.

——and eventually would be sold back into the market to recoup some value for the State.

We cannot proceed on the basis of meetings going on around the place while the Taoiseach is in possession. It is simply unacceptable. Could we have the Taoiseach without interruption, please?

For the purpose of putting the facts on the record, while work remains to be done on the precise details of the restructuring plan and its implementation, it is seen to provide a superior outcome for the State and the taxpayer and in particular avoids significant additional losses and funding costs that would arise for the State under other scenarios.

Time for a fire sale.

It is extraordinary that we seem to have two different types of language when we talk about taxpayers' money. When we talk about money needed for schools, special needs assistants, pensioners, those on social welfare and pay for employees of the State, the country is broke and there is no money for them. When we come to talk about the money that is going into Anglo Irish Bank, we talk about billions as if it were Monopoly money and did not matter. To cut to the chase with regard to the Taoiseach's response to my questions, is he now telling us that on the day he and the Minister for Finance came into the House and asked us to guarantee this bank, that bank was bust?

It was bust.

What is the Taoiseach saying about the bottom line? He has said that €14.3 billion has already gone into the bank and that it may need another €8 billion. Is he saying it might even need more than that, because there was uncertainty around what he said? What exactly is the Taoiseach saying about the future of this bank now? I heard him say that one of the options now being considered is a winding up of the bank over different timescales and scenarios. When the Minister for Finance was talking to us here on 30 March said: "Winding up the bank is not and was never a viable option." Is it now a viable option, albeit in a timescale that must be determined with the Commission and discussed with the bank?

People whose taxes and money are being poured into this bank and who are likely to be saddled with the cost of that for years to come need to hear with some degree of certainty what exactly is happening with this bank.

Where is Seánie now?

While the Taoiseach is explaining that, will he also explain how the Government ended up appointing three more insiders as non-executive directors of this bank, one of them a former finance director of AIB and another a former Fianna Fáil Senator? Lest the Taoiseach think I am making this as a political charge, I am using the term "insider", which was used in one of the national newspapers commenting on the situation this week. It described it as the Government's "obsession with insiders" and as the Government not having learned anything from the way in which corporate governance of the banks has been handled in years past.

The Deputy is asking what was the situation with regard to this bank at the time of the provision of the guarantee. The situation concerned the whole banking system and the Deputy's continued position that no guarantee should have been given on 29 September would have meant the collapse of the Irish banking system.

That is not my position.

The position was there should be no blanket guarantee.

The Deputy opposed the imposition of the guarantee and voted against it. The next position taken by the Deputy, which is shared by Fine Gael, as expressed by Deputy Reilly in an interview during the week, was that the Anglo Irish Bank should be wound down immediately.

I said there should be an orderly wind down.

I will get to that point in a minute. The Deputy should not move his ground all the time.

I have not moved my ground. I said there should be an orderly wind down.

First, the Deputy said there should be no guarantee and he voted against it. Without a guarantee, the whole banking system implodes and we no longer have an economy. The Deputy's second position is that we should wind up the bank immediately.

I never said that.

I have explained that would involve a fire sale of assets, €40 billion losses and would also mean €70 billion having to be found immediately to fund deposits, bond holders and those moneys that have come from the euro system. That is the second option. The third issue that is being dealt with here is one about which the Minister for Finance, the Department of Finance and the Government must deal with the EU Commission, because these are issues for which we must get its approval and confirmation. First we needed its agreement that this, unfortunately, was a bank of systemic importance.

Fianna Fáil said that. Nobody else in their right mind would say that.

That is what the EU Commission says.

The Taoiseach, without interruption, please.

The Deputy's leader has asked the questions and I would like to provide the answers he seeks.

That is a Fianna Fáil story. The Taoiseach sounds like the Israeli Defence Minister now, defending the indefensible.

With regard to the bank being of systemic importance, even if it was not, we should recall that Lehman Brothers, a much smaller bank in the US system than this bank is in the Irish system ——

Now the Taoiseach is talking total rubbish.

I will suspend the House if Deputies do not refrain from interrupting.

Why does the Taoiseach not answer the questions I asked him?

I am answering the questions. With regard to the restructuring plan the Deputy asked about, what is being put forward is the proposal by the bank to split the bank into two elements, an asset management company to run down some of its loan book and a bank which could continue to operate as a viable going concern. Work remains to be done on that and there have been queries from the European Commission in that regard. This work is continuing and the queries must be resolved for the agreement and approval of the European Commission. That will determine how the bank will be wound down and dealt with. The fundamental point is that we are seeking to minimise the exposure of the taxpayer, considerable as it is, to the greatest extent possible. The proposals that have been put forward by the Opposition have consistently been far more expensive options than what we are trying to achieve.