Derek McDowell (Labour)

I second the amendment. As it refers to the Director of Consumer Affairs, or Consumer Director as will be, perhaps I can say what I would have said in response to the previous amendment.

The structure being developed is ingenious, although I am not totally convinced it will work. I was never completely persuaded that it was not possible to have the exchange of information to which the Minister of State refers within the structures we had previously. In the light of the legal advice we were given about the application of the European directives to the previous position, I am not totally convinced the new structure gets around this. We can argue law until we are blue in the face and it will do us no good and give us no satisfaction but let us assume for the moment that the structure being put together is legally sound.

It is hugely important that there should be the exchange of information referred to. The most recent example of this was when specific practices within a certain bank were discovered – perhaps not as extensive as we were led to believe at the time but nonetheless they were discovered – which clearly were not in consumers' interests. On the contrary, it was suggested that consumers were being ripped off by the bank. It came to light later that the Central Bank was aware to some degree at least of these practices but did not disclose the information. It made the case that it was not obliged or allowed to under law. Such a position is intolerable. Certainly, if the bank in the exercise of its prudential supervision powers comes across practices which are clearly not in the interests of consumers, there must be some facility whereby that information is shared with the consumer directorate side of the business. In so far as the new structure allows this, clearly it is a good thing.