A major global conspiracy assisting the wealthy elite, including individuals from this State, to conceal wealth and to avoid tax was publicised this weekend. The Swiss branch of HSBC advised clients on how to keep money hidden from State authorities and offered deals to aid and abet tax dodgers. Irish money held in that bank, on which due tax was not paid, is ultimately - I am sure the Taoiseach would agree - money taken from ordinary citizens, citizens such as the 530 who lie today on hospital trolleys, including 50 in Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital in my constituency. The people who pay the price are those citizens and moneys have been taken from Irish hospitals, schools, children's benefits, carers' allowances, allowances for children with disabilities and from the elderly. The Swiss HSBC account contained €3.1 billion.

I repeat, €3.1 billion, linked to 350 clients associated with Ireland, yet only 20 Irish account holders made settlements, worth just over €4.5 million, with the Revenue Commissioners. Unlike the anti-water charge activists, there were no early morning raids or arrests. In the USA, France, Belgium and Argentina, the bank now faces criminal investigation, but not in Ireland, which is the smallest, best country in the world in which to avoid tax if one is wealthy. Why did the Revenue Commissioners not pursue a case against HSBC for facilitating tax evasion by Irish citizens? As I have said, it involves Irish accounts containing €3.1 billion held by 350 clients. Does the Taoiseach believe that €4.55 million is a reasonable amount for the State to have recovered in tax settlements? Does he agree that this scandalous and corrupt behaviour is a matter for the Committee of Public Accounts to investigate?

The existence of a foreign bank account is not evidence in itself of tax evasion and clearly no liability will arise where relevant tax is paid on funds or any interest accruing on them. The Revenue Commissioners received data under the double taxation agreement from French authorities in June 2010. On receipt of that, they undertook an assessment and evaluation process which indicated that no further liability arose in the State in a number of cases and that further investigation would be required in a number of other cases. Where required, the Revenue Commissioners, as is their responsibility, initiated an investigation. To date, it has initiated 33 investigations as a direct result of the data received and there have been 20 settlements related to that information. The total amount received was, as Deputy Adams indicated, €4.55 million. A further €174,444 has been received to date as payment on account in two investigations which are ongoing.

The Revenue Commissioners took relevant action in any case where sufficient admissible evidence was available to bring a criminal prosecution in respect of any identified Revenue offences. To date, three prosecutions have been secured and one case is under criminal investigation. The Revenue Commissioners are perfectly entitled under the responsibility given to them by the Act to take criminal cases where they believe that is appropriate, and that is what they are doing and have done to date.

The Taoiseach did not answer the two important questions I put to him, a point to which I will return. We all know that the activities of some of the banks and a small wealthy elite, facilitated by some politicians, caused the financial crash in this State. It is not that well-known that €62 billion in private bank loans was in the hands of just 190 individuals. It is not that well-known that half of the Irish bank loan book of Anglo Irish Bank was held by just 20 individuals. They are the people, aided and abetted by others in the golden circle, who impoverished the vast majority of citizens in the State.

Has the Government learned a lesson from this experience? It appears to me it has not. For example, Michael Geoghegan was the chief executive of-----

Please do not mention names in the Chamber.

I am stating the fact that he was the chief executive of HSBC at the time that its Swiss operation facilitated tax evasion. The Government knew this, yet the Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan, appointed Mr. Geoghegan as an adviser to the Government on the operation of NAMA. Did the Minister ask Mr. Geoghegan about HSBC prior to his appointment to NAMA?

I refer to my earlier questions, which the Taoiseach did not answer. Does he think that the return of €4.55 million, when €3.1 billion is linked to 350 clients, is a reasonable tax settlement? I would like a direct and clear answer to my second question. Does he agree that this behaviour is a matter for the Committee of Public Accounts to investigate?

It is a long-established practice in this House, since the foundation of the State, that we do not mention the names of people who are not here to defend themselves. I would appreciate if that long-established principle would be maintained.

I respect the ruling of the Ceann Comhairle. The position is that Deputy Adams is questioning the Revenue Commissioners.

I am questioning the Taoiseach.

He is suggesting that their investigations should have yielded more than €4.55 million.

I am asking the Taoiseach.

I do not speak for the Revenue Commissioners, nor does Deputy Adams. They have very extensive powers under the Act which set them up.

Why was the Dáil not informed in 2010?

The Revenue Commissioners are well able to speak for themselves. They initiated 33 investigations as a direct result of the data given to them by the French authorities in June 2010, and 20 settlements have been reached in regard to those data. That amounts to €4.55 million.

Were there any arrests?

A further €174,442 was received in payment on account in respect of two ongoing investigations. Deputy Adams is asking me to question the authority or the way the Revenue Commissioners have gone about investigating information that they were given by the French authorities, in respect of which they have taken three criminal cases. Another case is under criminal investigation.

Did they raid any houses for the information?

The Committee of Public Accounts, with its Chairman, can reflect upon this. The Revenue Commissioners are completely independent in the way they do their business-----

What about the Minister, Deputy Noonan?

-----and have very extensive powers to take criminal cases, which they have done under what they said here. In respect of the Deputy's second comment, Mr. Geoghegan-----

It is a matter of public record.

The person mentioned was referred to by the Minister for Finance. He advised, not in respect of taxation issues, but in respect of the remuneration of senior executives and other issues of the strategy proposed by NAMA.

The Taoiseach did not answer the question.

We are over time.

I tend to constantly remind Deputy Adams of this because every time------

Did the Minister, Deputy Noonan, ask Michael Geoghegan about HSBC?

The Minister, Deputy Noonan, will answer that question when he replies to questions here.

I am asking the Taoiseach.

I do not know in their entirety the conversations any Minister has had. I assure the Deputy that the Minister, Deputy Noonan, has been very clear-----

He knew about this. He should have known.

Deputy Adams, please.

-----about the work that the person he appointed was asked to do, and that was in respect of the strategy proposed by NAMA. I remind the Deputy again that every time he speaks in the Chamber he has all the answers to all of the questions.

No, I do not. I do not have any answers.

He is the person who continues to say that the EU should take its money and go away-----

Come on. Answer the question.

-----and does not want the Irish people to get back money they put into AIB.

This is not Deputy Gerry Adams's question time. It is Leaders' Questions.

I remind him of those two black holes in his economic policy and I will remind him of them every day I can do so.