Joe O'Toole (Independent)

It would be worthwhile if the House noted and welcomed the new initiative from the library and research service of the House, namely, a digest of each new Bill. One of the reasons this House wanted such a service was that it would get an unbiased, unprejudiced and neutral view on the legislation and would not have to depend on the explanatory memorandum issued by the sponsoring Department. It is a very important initiative and should be used by the House.

After all the populist comment in recent weeks, it is interesting that the people who have been lecturing us for years about having too big a Government, Government interference and a nanny state have been proven to be people not to be trusted. The House may not be aware of who David Doyle is, but he is Secretary General of the Department of Finance. He and his officials and officials involved from other Departments deserve our congratulations for coming up with a proposal that is unique, creative and deals with an issue we must address. We need all the detail on this and for that reason I support and second Senator Fitzgerald's proposal that we have a question and answer session on it. This is not something that should just develop into an argument over and back across the floor of this House. We need information. When the bankers were in the counting houses and those in the private sector sat on their hands, we saw how useless they were at dealing with a problem outside of that realm. For that reason, we should always recognise the importance of the public sector.

I do not welcome this development out of support for bankers. As far as I am concerned, they should take much of the responsibility for the difficulty in which we find ourselves. They are the people who invented sub-prime lending, handed out 110% loans way above the value of property, increased limits on credit cards without being asked and who urged youngsters to change their mortgage accounts into current accounts and use them to go on holidays, buy cars, extend their houses or whatever. They deserve to pay the price now. I do not welcome this initiative as in any sense a threat to the taxpayer nor as being a support for bankers. The bankers are now on their knees screaming and we should do unto them as they did unto us over the years.

I want to hear from Government today how it will make the banks pay for this. We should get a full list of how it will charge them. I want to hear there will be a surcharge and levy on bank profits and what the charge will be for insurance cover. I want to hear there will be no more million euro salaries and that directors' bonuses and perks will be taken off the agenda. I want to hear that the State has seats on the boards of all the institutions mentioned today. That is the starting position. We need to move through that list, but more than anything, we need oversight on how these people do their business.

For the past year we have been looking at what banks have been doing, but we still do not know the element of exposure or their liabilities. We still do not know the total outline of their risks. We need to have people in that area to present these facts to us. In the meantime, I welcome the Government's unique initiative. Global economies and finance houses are watching in amazement, wondering how it will work. I do not know if it will work, but I welcome it as a positive move. I look forward to debating the issue. It is crucial for every Member of the House to support the view that there should be a question and answer session on the Government's proposals which, I presume, will appear shortly in legislative form.