Alan Kelly (Labour)

There are a number of actions the Government must take and these should be addressed in the Bill. For example, serious consideration must be given to having State representatives on the boards of the relevant banks in order to ensure that proper practices are put in place to protect taxpayers. That condition should be absolute. Members of the public want to see such a measure put in place because it would give them comfort, which is important and which they deserve. If there is an excuse for not including provisions in this regard in the Bill, I hope the Minister will provide it later and will, if necessary, introduce supplementary legislation to deal with the matter.

We should follow the US model and put limits on executives' pay and perks. We cannot allow millions of euro to be given to bankers in pay and perks while the taxpayer is obliged to write a blank cheque. Last year, the chief executives of the six institutions covered by the Bill were paid €17 million. It would be preposterous not to cap their salaries and the Labour Party will be pushing an amendment to ensure such a cap is put in place. In addition, bankers cannot be allowed to issues shares to themselves during this bail out and a structure must be put in place to deal with how dividends are paid out in order that, should a bank need to be bailed out, taxpayers will not be obliged to look back in envy at the money shareholders received on foot of recent dividend payouts.

Rules must be put in place in respect of how banks are audited. In particular, auditing must be rotated in order that sharpness is maintained. I am concerned that charges which will come into play for the banks as a result of this underwriting are not adequately penal. We must teach the banks a tough lesson for the future. As my party leader, Deputy Gilmore, stated earlier, we have effectively given an insurance policy to the banks under which they will be obliged to pay the premium when they make a claim. That is a good analogy. We must take a stronger line. The banks should be obliged to pay a much higher price, particularly if they are being given a blank cheque by the taxpayer. They should have to pay for the privilege of knowing that such a cheque, the purpose of which is to underwrite their work to date, exists.

In view of the fact that taxpayers are bailing out the banks, what chance is there of latitude being extended in turn to mortgage holders, small businesses and other customers of the banks? During the heady days of rapid economic growth, banks and other financial institutions were dishing out mortgages to first-time buyers hand over fist. It is now incumbent on the banks to allow latitude to home owners to ensure that the nightmare scenario of houses being repossessed and families being turfed out on the street does not materialise.

What does the Government intend to do about non-Irish banks, particularly British institutions, with a significant presence on the Irish high street? This matter, about which there has already been some discussion, must be addressed. I understand the Government is moving towards including other institutions. Such a move threatens to open up a financial Pandora's box and further increases the potential exposure of taxpayers. What will happen if the EU decides that state aid rules have been broken? The British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, has already commented on this matter, which is a cause of some concern and which is being examined by the EU Commissioner for Competition.

The Bill simply does not contain enough detail regarding the terms and conditions of the deal. I refer, in particular, to section 5. There is also no indication of the amount the banks will pay for the insurance cover that will be provided under the Bill. This is another matter which must be addressed. What guarantee is there that the banks will limit their current exposure? How can we be sure that the €400 billion liability will not increase to €800 billion? Should the banks covered by the Bill be obliged to seek permission——