Mr. Larry Broderick:

Again, that is a Government decision. We are asking what the experience of State ownership has been in the banks for the past number of years. Without State ownership, under no circumstances would the banks have survived. The amount of money put into them was enormous. Has the culture in the banks changed? Not dramatically, I would suggest. Has there been a change in direction that has taken more on board the needs of the customers and the taxpayer? Probably not. The culture has been very focused on getting the banks back into profit and getting them out of State ownership. There is a balancing act in this regard. The challenge I am throwing out to the politicians is that they need to decide what they want out of their State involvement in the banking industry. If it is about maximising the return of capital for the State, the question is how one can influence, while the banks are in State ownership, a better banking environment, a better banking model and a better banking value that allows for profit, a changing model and digitalisation but also factors in politicians' needs and the economy's needs. This has been lacking and there has been a reluctance in this regard. I can understand it because the culture has been so focused on trying to put the capital in and save the banks. We do not need to go over the history of the industry and the huge amount of moneys involved. I put the question: what is the strategy? If it is to maximise capital, to what extent can the members use their bargaining position at this point in time to influence a more sensitive - as the Chairman said, perhaps a more compassionate - industry that can still be profitable and maximise profit, but not at the expense of everybody, and can do business more sensitively.