Last week saw the publication of the two preliminary reports into banking by Professor Patrick Honohan and by Mr. Klaus Regling and Mr. Max Watson. Both of these preliminary reports were always intended simply to point the way to a more detailed commission of investigation into what happened. Given the central findings of the reports that the decisions made by the Minister for Finance were a central feature leading to the crisis, why is it that the draft terms of reference for the commission of inquiry merely relate to the failures of bank managers, directors, auditors and regulators, and do not include the policy decisions of the Government? Why are those policy decisions excluded from the draft terms of reference for the commission of inquiry?

The draft terms of reference that have been put forward by the Government are in line with the recommendations as set out in the reports. The Regling and Watson report referred to those issues that can be amenable to fact finding and those issues of a policy and political nature which can be dealt with through the means of the committees that we have in the House. We have indicated our preparedness to do that.

The comprehensive nature of the reports has been welcomed by everybody and we are all grateful for the work that has been done and the professionalism with which the authors have gone about their business. They set it out as they see it. The draft proposals refer to the recommendations in the areas to which the reports refer.

The Taoiseach has always cited official advice given to him in respect of the policy decisions that were made. The draft terms of reference exclude the motivation behind those policy decisions and the official advice that was given. The preliminary reports make sharp criticisms of some Government policies, such as the dramatic growth in spending between 2004 and 2007, which was the current Taoiseach's decision. The extension of tax reliefs at the height of the property bubble in 2006 was also his decision. He also exercised influence, as Minister for Finance, on the Financial Regulator in 2006 so that the proposed tightening of the quality of governance of bank directors was never actually implemented.

In view of the fact that the Taoiseach has always accepted responsibility for his decisions as Minister in whatever Department, and that he claimed to have relied on official advice for these policy decisions, would it not be important for him that we ascertain that through the commission of inquiry? The terms of reference for the commission of inquiry should cover this period and should cover these matters, so that we can rectify any deficiencies. Was the Taoiseach, acting then as Minister for Finance, given faulty or inadequate information and advice by these officials on whose advice he claimed to have relied? If that is not the case, the nightmare scenario is to have the Taoiseach of the day giving evidence about his decisions as Minister for Finance which will be publicly contradicted by officials in the Department from whom he took his advice in the first place.

This is an important matter. Either there is a distinction here that is right or wrong. The officials either gave him advice or they did not. Is the Taoiseach prepared to extend the terms of reference of the commission of inquiry so that we can ascertain whether official advice was responsible for these reckless policy positions, or whether the official advice was not to take those positions, yet he still went ahead with them?

All political heads of Departments take full responsibility for their own decisions. Advice is given by people and we make our own decisions and our own judgments. These are political judgments and decisions that were made. I have sought to explain the rationale for the decisions, as I am entitled to do, given the position in which we found ourselves at the time. I have said that those decisions were based on advice that has subsequently been proven to be wrong, but that does not take away from the responsibility that I take for the decisions that I make. I have always made that clear, so any suggestions by the Deputy or anybody else that I do not take responsibility for decisions made is not correct. I have always accepted responsibility. That is the political and constitutional position.

The Deputy misrepresented the position on property tax incentives. I terminated 11 of those schemes after a full review.

After seven years.

After the damage was done.

I know the Deputy may be under a bit of pressure at the moment——

The Taoiseach has the country under pressure, I can assure him.

The Taoiseach should look behind him.

At least I am sure we can keep things civil inside the House.

Can Deputies allow the Taoiseach to conclude?

I terminated those property tax reliefs, which was the most radical arrangement by anybody in modern times, as far as I know. There were projects in the pipeline for which transitional arrangements were made and a reduction in eligibility was enforced to make sure that we did not have a surge of activity when we were getting rid of those reliefs, so that we would not be increasing property prices again. There is a valid macro-economic argument for those transitional arrangements. I want to emphasise no new projects were allowed after that.

Yes there were. You did the mid-Shannon one.

Deputy Burton, could we have the Taoiseach without interruption?

If I may, a cost benefit analysis was done on that matter and it has to be renewed or looked at every three years, which is not the case with previous tax reliefs.

And all the zombie hotels.

I am sure Ruairí will be able to explain the cost benefit analysis of the holiday home and other tax reliefs he introduced, particularly for the towns that were not on the seaside.

The Taoiseach is in great form this morning.

If we could revert to the question at hand, I have explained to the Deputy that the draft terms we set out are on the basis of the recommendations in the report itself. Policy decisions have been taken, which we are quite prepared to deal with in committee or in any other way they can be dealt with consistent with making sure we deal with these matters comprehensively and in a proper way.