Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)

This section deals with penalties for offences under this Bill in which a bank, acting in a quasi-fraudulent or risky way and of which there have been many examples, puts deposits at risk. The penalties comprise, on summary conviction, a fine not exceeding €5,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, and, on conviction on indictment, a fine not exceeding €250,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years. Considering what some guys have made with our banks, such penalties might be worth the risk to them.

The Residential Institutions Redress Act contained a gagging clause to prevent residents, many of whom were treated horrifically, from disclosing their cases. The fines and terms of imprisonment are not too far off these - six months on summary conviction and two years in jail on conviction on indictment. Are we proposing a penalty regime as light as this for "banksters" - that is bankers who have turned into gangsters? Is there a reason for this tenderness towards our banksters?

We have been very tender to our recent banksters to whom we are all now in hock. I do not want to be vindictive and would not like to see anyone going to jail. However, those in the redress scheme, many of whom must give evidence and can be cross-examined, face virtually the same penalties if they speak about their cases as does a person found guilty of an offence under this Bill. Where is the proportionality in that? What is the reason for such tenderness towards banksters?

See this speech in context