The notices to move the Adjournment of the Dáil are from Deputies Rabbitte, Noonan, Joe Higgins and Quinn. I propose to call the Deputies in the order in which they submitted their notices to my office. I call Deputy Rabbitte to state the matter of which he has given notice to me.
Request to move Adjournment of Dáil under Standing Order 31.
I have already given you notice, a Cheann Comhairle, of my intention to request leave to move the Adjournment of the Dáil to discuss the following specific matter of public interest: the disclosures on RTE news last night that National Irish Bank had been involved in a systematic scheme of rounding up interest charges and imposing additional bank charges without the knowledge of the customer and that no customer has been repaid despite these procedures having been highlighted in internal audits. In the light of these disclosures and the earlier allegations of organised tax evasion, I call on the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment to use the powers available to her under section 8 of the Companies Act to appoint an inspector to carry out and publish a thorough investigation into the activities of this bank.
I propose that Dáil Éireann be suspended in accordance with Standing Order 31 to debate the following matter of urgency and significant importance: the allegations made by RTE that National Irish Bank was involved in deducting significant amounts of money from customers' accounts in an arbitrary manner without the knowledge of their customers and in a manner which appears to be fraudulent and the further allegation that banking fees were applied to certain accounts in an arbitrary fashion without reference to any service provided and without the agreement or prior knowledge of the account holders.
(Dublin West): I seek the Adjournment of the Dáil under Standing Order 31 on the following specific matter of grave public importance and interest: the widespread defrauding of its customers by National Irish Bank and the implications for the banking system generally in this State.
In accordance with Standing Order 31, I seek the Adjournment of the Dáil to discuss the following matter of national importance: the admission yesterday by National Irish Bank that it had been improperly taking money from its customers' accounts, that it subsequently failed to inform its clients or return the money taken, that it failed to compensate them in any fashion, the inadequacy of the Government's response to this crisis in our banking system and the need to consider the withdrawal of National Irish Bank's banking licence.
Having considered the matters fully, I do not consider them to be contemplated by Standing Order 31. Therefore, I cannot grant leave to move the motions. If private notice questions are tabled today on this subject, I will allow them.
I want to give the Chair notice that I will return to this subject to seek Government time to discuss the matter.
I give notice to the Chair that in view of its ruling I will ask the Committee on Procedure and Privileges to consider the effectiveness of this Standing Order. If this matter does not warrant the adjournment of the Dáil it is hard to contemplate what matter would warrant it. To be orderly and not to dispute the Chair's ruling, I wish in all courtesy to give the Chair notice that this matter and the Standing Order should be considered in due course by the committee which the Ceann Comhairle chairs.
I wish to clarify that matter. The criteria laid down for allowing a motion to adjourn the Dáil in the informal report on Dáil reform in 1972 do not allow this matter to be raised. It is a matter for the Members to amend the Standing Order. I will faithfully implement any amendment to the Standing Order but as it stands it is not possible to allow this matter now. I have given it full consideration and indicated I will allow the matter to be raised by private notice question.
In respect of the matter of inviting, quite properly, private notice questions, there is a necessity for the private notice question and answer session to be accompanied by the facility to make statements in the House on the biggest crisis ever facing the banking industry in this country. We must have the facility to make statements in advance of the question and answer session.
I thank the Chair for indicating he will allow private notice questions on this matter. I put it to him and the Taoiseach that if one cannot trust one's bank manager one cannot trust anybody. This issue goes to the core of the banking system and this House must be seen to respond today.
There will be an opportunity for that.
I submit that while private notice questions provide an important opportunity to ask questions it is not a sufficient response. I respectfully request the Taoiseach to bring in a supplementary order to allow statements and questions in the House today so that the Government can commence at this late stage to restore credibility to the banking system despite the fact that it has done nothing to do that over the past seven to eight weeks.
(Dublin West): I have carefully studied Standing Orders and I must take the words as they appear in them, but I cannot understand the Chair's ruling on this matter of grave public importance. If this continues, Standing Order No. 31 should be removed because it is a sham.
My ruling is in line with longstanding practice. I suggested that if Members want to change the rules they have the power to change the conditions under which matters can be raised under Standing Order 31, but we cannot do that now. I call on the Taoiseach to take the Order of Business.
Before I do that, like all Members and the public, I was shocked to hear of these unprecedented acts and I totally abide by the Chair's ruling. In regard to the combined wishes of the House, Deputy Owen said we should have statements and that is entirely satisfactory to the Government. If, as Deputy Rabbitte said, Members want to use the private notice questions to have a combined statements and a question and answer session the Government has no difficulty with that. I know the Chair is restricted in this regard under the Standing Order.
This matter surfaced yesterday at tea time and I know Deputy Noonan has to say things, but regarding the other matters concerning the earlier revelations, the Central Bank, the Revenue Commissioners, the authorised officer under the insurance Act are examining those matters. The Government is concerned to ensure the protection of the interests of the customers of National Irish Bank, to ensure they are repaid the money fraudulently removed from their accounts with interest and compensation, that a full explanation is made available to the public relating to all the circumstances surrounding these disclosures and that what appears to have been a fraudulent practice is not currently in operation in this Bank. It is also concerned to ensure that the banking system generally is not in any way tainted by similar practices, which as Deputy Noonan said is extremely important, and to achieve those objectives. It is important to say this at the start of business. I would like the House to note that the Governor of the Central Bank is intervening and interviewing the Chairman of National Irish Bank. I would also like the House to know that the Tánaiste and Minister for Trade, Enterprise and Employment is considering her legal powers under the Companies Act to arrange for a full investigation of the bank under that Act in conjunction with the Attorney General and that the Director of Consumer Affairs, Mr. William Fagan, will be asked to review the procedures established under the Consumer Credit Act. In the event that it transpires there is clear evidence of criminal wrongdoing steps will be taken to ensure that appropriate procedures are put in place. In conjunction with the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, I have also been in contact with the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána seeking an investigation into the irregularities of National Irish Bank and I expect he will initiate an investigation as a matter of urgency. That is an operational matter for the Garda Síochána.
This is very unusual. I gave the Chair notice that we would be seeking Government time to have statements and questions, the Taoiseach has started to make a statement and we will not have a chance to make any intervention at this stage.
A Deputy
It will be on the 1 o'clock news.
The Deputy will get an opportunity.
The Taoiseach has made a statement but he will not allow Government time for this.
I thought the House would consider it odd if the Taoiseach of the country did not say something about this matter at the start of business today.
We want to know what the Taoiseach is offering.
I am offering——
The Taoiseach is making a statement.
Let us hear the Taoiseach.
I apologise if I did not make myself crystal clear. Deputy Owen proposed we should have statements on this matter. That was also requested by Deputy Noonan and Deputies Rabbitte and Quinn requested a comprehensive session of statements and questions and answers, that is acceptable. It is a matter for the Whips to agree how we should do this, but those proposals are acceptable.
I am deeply concerned about this matter as is the Government. We worked on this until the early hours of the morning and in the absence of any rational explanation from the bank concerned it seems that the information disclosed by RTE amounts to fraudulent behaviour. The bank must be made accountable, its customers must be properly compensated and steps must be undertaken to ensure that the banking system is not tainted by this activity. All this must be done to ensure the preservation of national and international confidence in our banking system and we intend to do that.
Is the Taoiseach suggesting that the Whips should meet to decide on this?
Yes.
I want to be absolutely clear about this. This side of the House is looking for statements followed by questions, not a limited private notice question session. Is the Taoiseach giving Government time for full statements not only by the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment but also by the Minister for Finance? Why did the Taoiseach not introduce a supplementary order to provide for that? Why did it have to be dragged out of him by the Opposition?
The Deputy has been upstaged.
(Interruptions.)
I welcome the steps the Taoiseach has taken to deal with this crisis in our banking system and his willingness to allow statements here. I emphasise time should be allowed for them this morning because the period of an hour or less after Question Time from approximately 3.45 p.m. to 4.45 p.m. is not sufficient for statements and questions. The period allocated for this matter should be the time slot after item No. 21 which is due to conclude at 11.30 a.m.
We should have statements followed by questions and answers for two hours from 11.30 p.m. to 1.30 p.m.
The House is agreed that the Whips will meet to finalise the arrangements.
While this matter has arisen with regard to the NIB, there are also serious questions about the Central Bank and its regulatory function and why it has taken RTE to divulge this information about what is going on. I want to ensure statements by the Government spokespersons cover all relevant issues.
The more time we take up now, the less time will be available later.
Also on radio this morning, a person claiming to be an employee of another bank claimed this was a practice also of another bank.
We are talking about arrangements for the statements now, not the statements themselves.
This is a scam.
If we proceed with business, the Deputy will have an opportunity to make these points.
Time has been given, and rightly so, to the Taoiseach to make his points. I also wish to make a number of points.
Why not allow the House to make arrangements? The Deputy is preventing the House from making the arrangements he wants.
The chief executive of the NIB who held that position at the time of the scam was appointed by the Government to the Dublin Docklands Development Authority and it must be questioned whether that person is suitable for that position.
The Deputy will have an opportunity if he does not use up time to deal with this matter. Members should not obstruct the House in trying to arrange this debate.
I am assisting, not obstructing.
I will try to be of assistance. I welcome the offer by the Taoiseach in advance of the Order of Business to, in effect, alter it subject to agreement by the Whips. With regard to Deputy De Rossa's remarks, rather than taking Private Notice Questions at 3.45 p.m., before the Taoiseach formally announces the Order of Business which to a certain extent he has pre-empted, will he consider, after the items relating to the Amsterdam Treaty have been disposed of and No. 5 has been reached, taking statements and questions then and allocate two hours for them? The Taoiseach has indicated unilaterally that he proposes to change the Order of Business before he announces it.
I welcome the Taoiseach's offer. I understand there will be statements and an opportunity to question, subject to the arrangements made by the Whips. Can I have a commitment on the record of the House that the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment and the Minister for Finance will make statements because both have responsibility for this issue?
Subject to agreement of the Whips, we need time to prepare for the debate. The Minister for Finance is taking the Finance Bill in the Seanad and I need to consult him. We are talking about holding the debate between 12.30 p.m. and 2.30 p.m. After the Order of Business, there is a meeting with lawyers to try to arrange the preparation of our case for the courts. I am anxious that the Tánaiste attend that meeting as it is important to get these matters right before we make our case in the courts. As soon as that is over at approximately 12.30 p.m. we can make the arrangements requested by Deputies Noonan and Quinn.
Will both Ministers contribute?
I must arrange to take the Minister for Finance out of the Seanad which may mean suspending its sitting, but I do not want to ignore the other House.
That is reasonable.