Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)

The Minister, Deputy Brian Lenihan, is a man of integrity. There is a lesson here for everybody. The Minister did not read the full report but the politics of his ministerial office should have put him on alert when his officials told him a section of this report should be referred to the regulator. He should have asked the reason for the referral and the alarm bells should have gone off at that stage.

While stressing that the Minister is a person of integrity, he might explain to the House why the perception outside in the real world is that there has been some kind of cover-up in that the Government did not bring to the attention of the House the information it was aware of at the time of the nationalisation of Anglo Irish Bank. Irish Life & Permanent issued a statement saying this transfer took place in somewhat exceptional circumstances. What are these exceptional circumstances? Can the Minister explain how a double transfer took place from Anglo Irish Bank to Irish Life & Permanent and vice versa? This did not happen by coincidence. Clearly, there was contact between the two financial institutions so that it would happen.

The Minister stated that an investigation is under way and that if criminal activity is involved, it will be pursued to finality and rightly so. Does he have a suspicion criminal activity was taking place? It is normal in the financial world that inter-bank transfers take place but, given his comment that if criminal activity is involved he will pursue it, does he have a suspicion, assumption or perception, or have some of those officials brought to his attention an indication that criminal activity might well have been involved, and in what circumstances would that happen given the back-to-back transfer?

This was the subject of an incorporeal decision by the Cabinet. The Taoiseach was in Japan and was in constant contact with the Minister of Finance, or at least this is what I understand from newspaper reports. When was the Green Party informed of the eventual decision to arrive at a decision for nationalisation? Was the entire Cabinet up to date on this matter?

In the context of the nationalisation, the Minister has said he did not have the full picture. Why was the House not informed of the extent of the picture he had? This is why people outside the House say this is a continuation of business as usual and protection of what was there. It is the Minister's job to smash that wide open in terms of transparency and accountability, and to prove to the people of the country that there will be no cover-ups during his time as Minister for Finance.

See this speech in context