Non-Resident Bank Accounts: Statements.

Minister of State at the Department of Finance (Mr. Cullen)

I am glad of the opportunity to make a statement on behalf of the Government on the allegations in Magill today that the Revenue Commissioners turned a blind eye to tax fraud in relation to DIRT and bogus non-resident accounts. The content of this story is not new. The Minister for Finance gave a detailed reply to a question on this case from Deputy Rabbitte on 28 April.

Since its introduction in 1986 the DIRT system has collected £2.5 billion for the State. It is an important mechanism for revenue collection and it is important that it operates correctly. Financial institutions are required to deduct tax at source from deposit interest earned by individuals tax resident in Ireland. The normal rate of deduction is the standard income tax rate but a lower rate applies in the case of special savings accounts.

Prior to 1986 deposit interest was paid gross in the case of banks — building societies had special arrangements — which were required to notify the Revenue Commissioners where the interest in an account exceeded £50. From 1986 banks and building societies were treated in the same way, deducting tax from the interest paid to residents, and the obligation to notify the Revenue Commissioners of deposit interest was done away with.

DIRT does not apply where the account holder is non-resident and makes a formal declaration to that effect to the financial institution. The law requires that the declaration should contain, inter alia, the name, address and country of tax residence of the person entitled to the deposit interest. The financial institution has a duty under the legislation to satisfy itself that a deposit is not exempt from DIRT before it pays interest gross.

The Magill report that there was a sizeable number of bogus accounts in one or more of the main banks in the late 1980s and early 1990s gives rise to considerable and justifiable concerns. As the Minister pointed out in April, the Government shares these concerns. It is against tax evasion and is determined to ensure it is dealt with as firmly as possible.

The pursuit of tax cases is a matter for the Revenue Commissioners who must deal with these on a confidential basis. On various occasions the Revenue Commissioners have discovered individual cases where false non-residence declarations had been made by individuals for the purpose of evading tax on deposit interest. In all these cases the Revenue Commissioners advise me that they took action as regards the taxpayers involved by recovering any underpaid tax and interest and penalties, as appropriate. The Revenue Commissioners also raised the matter generally with certain institutions concerned in the early 1990s and I am advised were given assurances that steps had been taken to ensure compliance with the legislative requirements. The Central Bank was aware of the matter at the time and of the steps being taken, including those of the Revenue Commissioners, to correct the situation.

Before the initial media reports of historic non-compliance in this area earlier this year the Revenue Commissioners had commenced a review of the position generally. Their work includes an examination of ongoing controls, procedures and liabilities and, where considered necessary, involves an examination of liabilities in past years. The review covers all financial institutions and is well advanced.

The Revenue Commissioners are reported in the Magill article as confirming that the alleged irregularities are being investigated and that they will take all appropriate action. The chairman of the Revenue Commissioners reiterated this on radio today. He indicated that the new information which became available in April and in the Magill article is being taken on board in these investigations and that the Revenue Commissioners are entitled to reopen tax liability for earlier years, as required, in the light of new information.

The pursuit of tax collection is a matter for the Revenue Commissioners who act independently in such issues. The Government does not and has not got involved in the Revenue Commissioners' action in this matter. The role of the Minister is to ensure the Revenue Commissioners have the resources to act in these matters and the necessary powers.

The Minister has asked the Revenue Commissioners and his Department to look at whether new powers are needed for the Revenue Commissioners in tackling tax evasion. This review is wide-ranging and includes the question of the extent of the Revenue Commissioners' access to bank accounts. As is the case in other countries, the Revenue Commissioners do not have unfettered access to bank accounts. This question raises the issue of where the balance should be struck.

The powers available to the Revenue Commissioners in relation to tax evasion were last added to significantly in 1992. These new powers included provision of third party returns to the Revenue Commissioners on an automatic basis; reporting by domestic institutions which act as intermediaries in the opening of foreign bank accounts by Irish residents; provision of information on dealings by related parties such as suppliers; extended inspection powers in relation to certain tax records and accounts, and attachment of amounts owed by third parties to a defaulting taxpayer. These were added to further in 1993 and 1995 when reporting arrangements and other duties were imposed on certain company advisers. The outcome of the latest review of the Revenue Commissioners' powers will be examined in light of the report of the Moriarty tribunal so that whatever measures are considered necessary in this area can be taken.

On the question of bank regulation, in response to public concerns raised in connection with allegations about certain activities of particular banks, the Minister for Finance established a working group with a mandate to investigate the law and practice governing the provision of financial services in Ireland and the impact this has on consumers. During the working group's deliberations, which are ongoing, the question of a single regulator for the financial services sector emerged. This issue is under examination. This involves consideration of such issues as status, structure and functions. It is anticipated that the Tánaiste and the Minister for Finance will jointly submit a memorandum on the subject for consideration by the Government in the near future. At that stage the Government will decide how to take this matter forward. The issue of legislation will only be decided upon when the Government has made a substantive decision regarding the proposal to establish a single regulator.

Mrs. Owen

It is scandalous that Allied Irish Bank made a deal with the Revenue Commissioners in 1991 to write off a tax liability of approximately £86 million owed to the State for DIRT. There is strong documentary evidence that this deal was done on the basis that there would be no publicity and no prosecutions for tax evasion and that once the deal was done a line would be drawn under any tax liabilities up to that time owed by Allied Irish Bank on non-resident accounts. What makes this even more scandalous is that the deal was done with a financial institution which consistently announces enormous annual profits and which could well afford to pay the taxes due. The fury and frustration of PAYE taxpayers when they hear about golden deals done for the golden circles by the Revenue Commissioners is understandable.

There are a number of questions which must be answered by the Government, the Revenue Commissioners and Allied Irish Banks. I demand that the Government find the answers to the questions raised here today and those already raised in the Magill article and elsewhere. It is interesting to note that the current Government, made up of Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats, is the same coalition that was in power in 1991 when this major tax evasion write-off was agreed. It will not be good enough for the Government to wash their hands of this scandal by indicating it is a matter solely for the Revenue Commissioners, who are independent, and for Allied Irish Banks. The Taoiseach, Deputy Ahern, was Minister for Finance for some of this time in 1991 and the Tánaiste, Deputy Harney, was a Minister of State.

I will put the following questions although I know the time available later for asking questions will be short and I probably will not get answers to all of them. Will the Government give a full and frank explanation of all the circumstances surrounding the deal done between the Revenue Commissioners and Allied Irish Banks? What steps are being taken to recoup the money written off in 1991? Will the Revenue Commissioners be in a position to re-examine the deal done and charge Allied Irish Banks for the taxes due of approximately £86 million? Was the deal done with Allied Irish Banks the only deal done at that time or were other financial institutions favoured with these special write-off facilities? By what authority did the senior inspector of the Revenue Commissioners offer the deal to AIB in 1991, and why did the Revenue Commissioners not use the powers available to them under section 37 of the 1986 Finance Act to examine the declarations of non-resident status account holders? Have the Revenue Commissioners identified any further liabilities for DIRT since the deal was struck in 1991? How many illegal non-resident accounts have been identified? Have any prosecutions been taken against any personnel in AIB or any other financial institutions for non-compliance with the Finance Act, 1986, which required and obliged the financial institutions to return DIRT to the Revenue Commissioners on behalf of those holding interest accruing accounts? What political consultation, if any, took place with the Minister for Finance or the Taoiseach in 1991 about this major write-off of tax due to the State? Was the Government of the day informed, particularly in any pre-budgetary discussions, about the extent of DIRT being collected and the extent of DIRT being foregone as a result of the illegal use of non-residential accounts?

It is clear from the information now in the public arena that serious tax evasion was taking place in at least one financial institution but more than likely in a number of financial institutions almost from the beginning of the collection of DIRT in 1987. DIRT was introduced in 1986 by the Fine Gael-Labour Government. The Government changed in early 1987 and it appears from all evidence that once DIRT became a liability for people with savings accounts, the bank and other financial institutions discussed with their clients ways in which taxes could be avoided.

Tax avoidance is not a crime but tax evasion is and it is now clear that financial institutions were offering to clients the opportunity to move their money off-shore for the purposes of evading taxes. It appears that a client with money who did not wish to pay taxes was offered an opportunity to open an account overseas using an accommodation address. We know from the Magill article that in 1991, following a request from the Revenue Commissioners, AIB conducted an investigation into its own non-resident accounts and found that out of a total of 87,660 non-resident accounts containing almost £1 billion, approximately 60 per cent, or 53,000 accounts, were bogus. Clearly AIB was breaking the law in having 53,000 bogus accounts in their banks because before opening a non-resident account a special form had to be completed registering the customer's declaration of non-resident status. In 1991, AIB's investigation showed that 17,000 of the 53,000 accounts did not even have such a declaration and that the declaration in regard to the remainder of those accounts was equally fraudulent.

The ordinary PAYE taxpayer and indeed many self employed taxpayers know only too well how diligent and persistent the tax authorities can be if they do not send in their VAT returns on time or if they have not fully complied with their tax liability. Threatening letters will arrive on their doorsteps. This morning one PAYE taxpayer received a letter demanding the immediate payment of a small liability of £250 immediately with the dire threat of action being taken if it was not paid. How can the taxpayer have faith in a system when such small liabilities are followed up with vigour while the bigger and more profitable companies, such as AIB in this instance, can work out cosy deals.

The Revenue Commissioners and all other institutions publish annual reports. Why was the Revenue Commissioners' annual report of 1991 so coy in its chapter heading "Deterring Evasion" when it knew it was already in correspondence with AIB about a serious breach of the 1986 Finance Act? Why in its annual report did it not refer to the fact that the Revenue Commissioners were in the process of writing off £86 million worth of tax on the basis of a nod, a wink and silence? At the same time in 1991, the Revenue Commissioners were indicating to AIB that detection of offences arising after June 1991 would give rise to prosecution. How can the Revenue Commissioners have this a la carte system of deciding on tax liabilities and who will be punished? Why did the 1991 AIB report not refer to the settlement being worked out with the Revenue Commissioners? Why was there not a reference to a letter from Jimmy O'Mahony, Group Taxation Manager, to Anthony Spollan, Group Internal Auditor, on 28 February 1991, which stated “we are being offered a way out of a very difficult situation which I believe will meet the needs of both the Revenue and the other financial institutions without it being publicised — this being very much in the interest of the bank”. What about the ordinary taxpayer?

What is the point of launching annual reports at glossy PR occasions announcing profits if those reports hide what really is going on? The role of the Central Bank is central in the way our financial institutions operate and it is now clear that the Central Bank does not have the powers or is not a suitable vehicle for controlling and ensuring the legal operation of financial institutions.

In March this year, the Fine Gael spokesperson, Deputy Michael Noonan, proposed the setting up of an independent banking inspectorate. He brought that proposal to the Select Committee on Finance and the Public Service. In July of this year that committee concluded that current legislation and regulations are inadequate to supervise the commercial banking sector effectively and recommended the establishment of an independent financial services authority which would have the effect of restoring public confidence and guarantee that financial institutions would be properly and comprehensively supervised.

Today on the Order of Business, the Tánaiste told us that she and the Minister for Finance were examining a proposal. In view of the fact that the credibility of our financial institutions is central to the way we do our business and attract investment to the country, it is not sufficient for the Tánaiste or the Minister for Finance to continue to have discussions about this matter. I want a commitment from the Government that an independent financial services authority will be set up as a matter of urgency. Fine Gael will co-operate in whatever procedures are required to take such legislation through this House as we proposed in March of this year.

The tax evasion that occurred in 1991, on the scale of at least £86 million, could not have come about without the connivance of a number of people and institutions — individual account holders who lied about their non-resident status; Allied Irish Banks which allowed people who were not non-resident to open non-resident accounts and then knowingly did a deal with the Revenue Commissioners to avoid paying tax; the Revenue Commissioners who worked out a deal whereby taxpayers in general would be at a loss of many millions of pounds of due tax; the Central Bank which was aware of the possibility of abuse of non-resident accounts and did not take the necessary action to prevent this happening in the financial institutions; and the acquiescence of the Government in 1991-2 which was either unaware of the abuse of non-resident account systems or was aware and did nothing about it thereby allowing the loss of tax revenue to the country.

This is a bad day for the ordinary taxpayers who have worked hard and paid their taxes to make this country as successful as it is now. The Government owes it to compliant taxpayers to make all the information about this situation known, to ensure that taxes due are collected and to take prosecutions if people have behaved illegally.

Mr. McDowell

Today's revelations confirm what we have known for some time, that the firmament of Irish banking in the 1980s and early 1990s was rotten to the core. Some months ago we learned that one of the associated banks was ripping off its customers. Now we find out that at least one other associated bank was ripping off the Revenue Commissioners as well.

There are two questions at the core of this matter. Did Allied Irish Banks make full disclosure to the Revenue Commissioners before the so-called settlement was reached in 1991? If not, the settlement cannot be allowed to stand and must be revisited by the Revenue Commissioners. If, on the other hand, the bank disclosed the facts to the Revenue Commissioners then we are entitled to hear from the Revenue Commissioners why such an incredibly lenient settlement was reached. What is most shocking about these revelations is the sheer scale of the abuse. The Magill article asserts that in 1991 AIB harboured some 87,000 non-resident accounts, of which at least 53,000 were bogus. It is alleged that these bogus accounts contained some £600 million. Magill contains extracts from alleged internal memos and extracts from a report of the internal audit department of the bank. We need to know if this documentation is accurate, and we are entitled to be told by the bank whether the extracts set out in Magill reflect the true position.

What struck me most about those extracts, if one accepts that they are accurate, was the cosiness of their tone. All Members know small businessmen who have been subjected to Revenue audits. Those businessmen are quaking for weeks before those audits and sometimes for weeks, months or even years afterwards. There is no sense of that from this correspondence; there is no sense of people quaking in their boots or fearing for their jobs. They seem to be relaxed in the knowledge that they will be accommodated.

If the extracts are true then the implications are very serious because the information confirms beyond any reasonable doubt that individual officers and managers of AIB, if not the system, were engaged in systematically ripping off the Revenue Commissioners. In a sense we already knew. We also knew that this practice was widespread throughout the bank network and that it continued for a period of at least five years. However, we need to know more and we must insist on being told more. We need to know that the chapter is closed and we need to know just how it was closed. A full account must be given for that period.

Tax settlements and tax amnesties are nothing new, but the conditions are crystal clear. The person or company looking to make the settlement must make all the facts known to the Revenue Commissioners. If they are looking for mercy then they must come out with their hands up. To borrow a religious metaphor, if you look for absolution then you must make full contrition.

The chairman of the Revenue Commissioners made it clear on radio today that the Revenue Commissioners were investigating new information which had come to their attention. The implications of this statement are unambiguous. If the Revenue Commissioners were not given the full facts then the so called settlement was based on misinformation, very likely on fraud, and cannot be allowed to stand. If that is so then the Revenue Commissioners must apply the full rigour of the law to putting the matter to right. This means that arrears and penalties must be pursued and that those who withheld information, if information was withheld, must be called to account.

It is difficult to understate the anger of PAYE workers and ordinary taxpayers when stories such as this come to light. PAYE taxpayers have each and every penny of chargeable tax deducted at source. Small businesses are frequently hounded for relatively small amounts of money, as Deputy Owen said. Yet Allied Irish Banks plc, one of the most profitable companies in the State, a company which will make close to £1 billion pounds in profits this year is allowed to make a settlement which will save it tens of millions of pounds. This sends out a shocking and unacceptable message. It says quite simply that there is one law for the big guy — in this case, the very big guy —— and one law for the small guy. It falls to us as the democratically elected representatives of the Irish people to say that this is not good enough.

Of course we have a responsibility to ensure the stability of the banking system, but we have a greater and more important duty to ensure that law and the rule of law is applied fairly and equitably to all our citizens. We cannot fail in that duty because if we do we bring the law, and particularly taxation law, into disrepute with all the predictable consequences which flow from that.

This is not the first time in recent months that issues of this kind have been discussed in the House. We have had a sequence of controversies relating to bank charges, interest rate loading, money laundering, Irish registered non-resident companies and bogus non-resident bank accounts. What this says about our banking system is beyond doubt. The system — and not just AIB or National Irish Bank — was thoroughly corrupt. We need to be brutally honest and say that this could not have happened if a significant number of people were not prepared to use and abuse the system for their own dishonest purposes.

These revelations also tell us something else. They tell us that the system of control and supervision simply did not work. In particular they tell us that the Central Bank cannot be asked to perform contradictory functions. The Central Bank is concerned only with the prudential supervision of the banking system, as its governor has told us many times. It is not concerned to ensure that banks comply with tax law, much less the interests of consumers.

We have known all of this for some time. In April of this year the Minister for Finance asked the banking section of his Department to make proposals as to how the role of the Central Bank could be clarified and as to how the interests of consumers could be safeguarded. The report was to be submitted within weeks. We were later told that the report was expected by the end of July. The Taoiseach said me yesterday that he expected to have proposals soon. It is quite clear that as soon as the glare of publicity was directed elsewhere the question quickly slipped down the Government's list of priorities.

We all know what has to be done. An independent financial services authority should be set up without delay. This authority should have the power to regulate and supervise all the financial institutions in the State, be they banks, building societies, insurance companies, investment intermediaries or anyone else involved in similar business. There is no end of international precedents for such an authority and the Minister knows that; there is no excuse for further delay. All Members know what has to be done and the Minister should set about doing it.

However, a financial services authority is not enough in itself. There are a whole range of other measures which need to be taken. Banks should be obliged to furnish the Revenue Commissioners with a list of non-resident accounts and the names in which they are held. The banks should be obliged to provide a list of special savings accounts and the names in which they are held. The Revenue Commissioners should be entitled to access to bank accounts if they have good reason to believe that an individual or company is not paying their proper share of tax. All Irish registered non-resident companies should be required to register with the Revenue Commissioners, even in cases where they are not active in providing goods or services in the State.

AIB is one of the most profitable Irish companies and it has been for many years. On the one occasion in recent years when it did run into trouble it was bailed out by the taxpayer. That makes it all the more shocking that it deliberately connived in ripping off the taxpayer. It is worth remembering why this was done. AIB did not assist tax evasion for the sake of it but to gain market share, to make greater profits and because it evidently believed that that needed to be done in order to compete in an increasingly competitive business.

All Members know that the financial services business will become even more competitive in future years. If that happens, if there are more players in the market and if the profit margins are reduced as they likely will be, then we must be absolutely sure that the shoddy and illegal practices which have come to light over recent months are a thing of the past. We must be sure that this sorry chapter is well and truly over and we must give ourselves the means, the institutional structures and the power of law to ensure that this is the case.

Mr. Rabbitte

I will not rehearse the arguments of my colleagues; the information is in Magill. Coming on top of other disclosures it has done serious damage to confidence in the tax collection system. Why did we have to wait to read it in Magill? The now retired chairman of the Revenue Commissioners was before the Select Committee on Finance and the Public Service and the Committee of Public Accounts in recent months and we received none of this information. It is right that the Revenue Commissioners are independent and that the tax affairs of each citizen are confidential. However, the Revenue Commissioners cannot use confidentiality as a shield behind which to conceal deficiencies and lapses in the efficacy of the tax collection system.

I remember making statements in the House ten years ago concerning tax evasion on a huge scale in the beef industry. I was able, on the basis of documentary evidence, to make these allegations before the beef tribunal. The largest corporate tax evasion scam in the history of the State was unveiled. However, when the report of the tribunal was published, the chairman devoted most of the chapter on tax evasion to disputing an allegation I made when I asked if the Revenue Commissioners turned a blind eye. It was only at the end that he established that there was the largest corporate tax evasion scam in the history of industrial Ireland.

I did not mean then to imply any dishonesty on the part of the Revenue Commissioners, nor do I now, as I ask the question again. Was there no benchmark in that case? How could a company claiming to be one of the largest in the country make tax returns more suitable to a corner shop? How, in the case of the largest company in the country, can there be tax evasion on this huge scale and the Revenue Commissioners not know about it? The new chairman, whom I wish well in office, declared today that the tax affairs of any client are confidential. The Committee of Public Accounts today decided that he should come before it next Tuesday. If the new chairman of the Revenue Commissioners says he cannot comment on the AIB case because it is confidential, there will be no point in having the meeting. His predecessor came before the committee after the Irish Independent initially revealed and Charlie Bird and George Lee elaborated on similar incidents in National Irish Bank and we received a similar answer. This poses the question: quis custodiet ipsos custodes— who will guard the guards? If we are to have confidence in the efficacy of the tax collection system, the chairman will have to come before the relevant committee on a matter of such huge public interest and explain how it happened.

No one alleges the Revenue Commissioners were complicit in it, but if AIB had 56,000 bogus non-resident accounts, it is certain that Bank of Ireland matched it bogus account for bogus account. If the remainder of the commercial banks and financial institutions are included, more than a quarter of the tax paying population was involved in tax evasion practices. There were 14,251 bogus non-resident clients in Tralee, which amounts to £187 million, and the only people who did not know about it were the Revenue Commissioners. Hundreds of thousands of people were on the streets of towns and villages in the late 1970s and early 1980s because they said they were being brutalised by a penal tax code and that others were not paying their fair share. They did not know how right they were. Apparently all one had to do was have a word with the bank manager, give him the name of a cousin in the Bronx and one need not have paid any tax.

This goes to the heart of confidence in the democratic system. If people do not pay their taxes in the belief that they are fairly levied and for the equitable running of society, there cannot be a democratic society. This threatens the basis of the system. We cannot deal with some of the questions in this short debate because it does not do justice to a subject of this magnitude. I agree with a great deal of what the Minister said. The House will have to return to this matter to consider all aspects of it.

Mr. Gormley

I wish to share my time with Deputy Joe Higgins.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Gormley

I asked the Tánaiste this morning whether the Government would now speed up the publication of the Fraud Offences Bill, given that we are confronted almost weekly with new revelations about financial scandals, tax evasion and fraud. The Tánaiste said she shared my concern but that the Government would not take special legislative steps to deal with these matters.

This reaction does not inspire confidence. It confirms public cynicism about the relationship between Government and big business, that there is one law for the rich and another for the poor and that there is no real justice and equality in the State. Worst of all, it is a provocation to those many honest taxpayers and PAYE workers. It says they are fools to have thought ethics demanded that everyone pay their fair share and shoulder the burden for schools, hospitals and education, which are essential services in a civilised society, and that, all along, they have been laughed at by a certain sector in society which has been mollycoddled by the financial institutions and banks and by certain parties in the State.

There has been no urgency about tackling the problem of tax evasion and fraud because the banks and political parties enjoy an extremely cosy relationship. The Government claimed this was a matter for the Revenue Commissioners. Surely we, as public representatives, must keep a close eye on them and on the Central Bank. Are these institutions accountable to anyone? Why did the Revenue Commissioners not take action against Charles Haughey for many years? Why were NIB, Guinness Mahon and AIB allowed to proceed with fraudulent schemes for years?

We have been told by no less a person than the Minister for Finance that any interference with the unethical rights of the privileged would cause a flight of capital and endanger the economy. Therefore, the law cannot be enforced, law breakers cannot be punished and justice cannot be done. Law breakers are in a more powerful position than those who obey the law. Those who break the law call the shots. That is not the basis on which to run a society.

The message it sends out is clear: one can cheat, swindle, steal and break the law because ethics are for suckers. If one is rich enough, one can get away with it and be lauded in our society. Witness Larry Goodman swanning around the ploughing championships and being asked for his opinions on the state of the economy. It is sickening. This morning, I spoke to a widow whose pension is being taxed and she is very angry.

It is time to call a halt. It is payback time, and the only way honest taxpayers can be repaid is by punishing those in the Revenue Commissioners who ignored this problem and those in the financial institutions who facilitated tax evasion and hold to account those politicians who have the power to introduce stricter legislation. Only then will justice be seen to have been done and can we begin to restore the faith of ordinary people in society and in the political system.

Mr. Higgins

(Dublin West): A few months back, a Government Minister was charged in the Dáil with receiving £30,000 from business interests. The House was full on that occasion with the serried ranks of Ministers and Deputies. Today, we ask questions about taxpayers being robbed blind of a massive £80 million and only a single Member is present on the Government side. Unconsciously, a message is sent out to tax evaders that the issue does not concern the Government.

The scandalous deal made by the Revenue Commissioners was preceded by the 1987 tax amnesty of the Fianna Fáil Government, and it foreshadowed the 1993 tax amnesty of the Lab-our-Fianna Fáil Government, when hundreds of millions of pounds owed by tax evaders were written off. It is no surprise that the Revenue Commissioners make deals of this nature when their political masters show them the way. In the past few weeks, decent compliant PAYE taxpayers, who took a principled stand in boycotting an unjust water tax, had their names splashed all over Stubbs Gazette for arrears of a mere £210. Allied Irish Banks walks away with £80 million of taxpayers' funds and what is the story? —omerta, the Mafia code of silence. It is time these institutions were taken from the hands of this unaccountable, greedy minority and put into public ownership so they can be used for social purposes for the good of the people, not to enrich a few faceless individuals who are a law unto themselves.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We will now have 15 minutes of questions.