Ivana Bacik (Independent)

It is clear there is immense concern on both sides of the House about the leaking of announcements from AIB and a need for a debate on control of the banks and who in them is calling the shots. It is extraordinary, in the wake of the lengthy debates on NAMA we had last week, that the taxpayer is shouldering the entire risk but the State, which should act in the public interest, cannot assert any control over who is appointed to the boards of the banks. How can the Government, which has €54 billion worth of bargaining power, be forced into what has been described as a compromise whereby it appears that the bank's choice will be appointed chief executive?

Senator MacSharry referred to section 2(10) of the National Asset Management Agency Bill. As many colleagues will be aware the Labour Party tabled an amendment to that section which called for the establishment of a credit mediator along the lines of that established in France. It would act as an ombudsman and intervene when banks fail to extend credit to viable businesses. I again call for a debate on that or a similar model which could be set up under section 2(10) as it is currently constituted because it is urgently needed to get the banks lending in the public interest. However, ownership and control of the banks is another question.

I also ask for a debate on the use of imprisonment. A report in The Irish Times yesterday——