Maurice Cummins (Fine Gael)

The banking sector is constantly changing. It has certainly changed a great deal since this matter was last debated in the House. While I welcome Mr. Boucher's decision not to retire at 55 years which would have necessitated the payment of €1.5 million into his pension fund, I must question why the board of Bank of Ireland rubber-stamped a deal of this nature in the first instance. Ordinary citizens are obliged to ask whether the people concerned live on the same planet. Have those to whom I refer learned anything from the largesse, extravagance and mistakes of the past? What were the public directors of the bank doing when these decisions were made? How could the Minister of State and the Minister for Finance allow such a situation to develop?

Following yesterday's announcement, the State's shareholding in Bank of Ireland will increase to 36.5% and the Government will retain the right to appoint 25% of the board of directors. Is it the Minister's intention to appoint further public interest directors to the board of Bank of Ireland? I am aware of the fiduciary duties of the bank in respect of public interest directors. However, people have an expectation that the individuals concerned will be given specific riding instructions by the Minister and his Department in order that the public interest will be represented at all times. Surely, that is why these directors were appointed in the first instance.

What is the position on AIB? The Government has capitalised the Bank of Ireland to the tune of 36%. When will we be informed about the plans relating to AIB? Surely, it will be necessary to increase the State's shareholding in this institution to a level above 50%.

The boards of these institutions have still not been cleared out. There are still people on them and in top management positions who sit comfortably in their jobs, despite the fact they presided over, to put it mildly, reckless practices. All these people must be rooted out and replaced sooner rather than later.

I wish to turn to the European Union and its recent rulings in respect of NAMA. Does the Minister of State envisage amending the NAMA legislation in view of the European Union's concerns? For instance, what is the position with regard to vesting orders and what effect will the rulings in this area have on the NAMA legislation? Moreover, how will the ruling on what the Revenue Commissioners can and cannot disclose affect the NAMA legislation? These areas require clarification and there is a need for complete transparency on such issues. The Minister of State should address these questions at the conclusion of the debate this evening.

The Financial Regulator also has made proposals regarding the fitness and competence of directors and management of banks and financial institutions, as well as in respect of corporate governance, and I await the Minister of State's comments in this regard. In addition, what is the position with regard to the third force in Irish banking, as previously advocated by the Minister? What is now envisaged in this regard, as not much has been heard about it from the Minister recently? The Anglo Irish Bank debacle and whether it should be wound up must be debated in this House. It is crucial that all the facts and figures are laid before Members to enable them to make an informed decision on this issue, which will have far-reaching consequences for generations to come. The Government and the board of Anglo Irish Bank have not chosen to share with Members the basis on which they concluded that keeping the bank going is the least expensive option for the State. I believe the European Commission's ruling changes the goalposts in this regard. As a piece in today's edition of The Irish Times stated, the European Commission's ruling "has some bearing on the cost benefit analysis and in the interests of transparency some sort of clarification would be welcome" on this issue. I hope such clarification will be forthcoming this evening.

In particular, in addition to those accountants and solicitors who represented developers and banks, the role of auditors also must be scrutinised and I do not subscribe to the proposition that their own professional bodies should investigate any malpractice in this area. That is akin to saying one is going to court with the devil and the jury is from hell. It is taking a long time to bring people to court for their apparent fraudulent practices but all the so-called professionals who bent and broke the law must eventually be called upon to account for their actions. While the law must take its course, there is no doubt but that public patience is wearing thin in this regard. I hope the Minister of State will answer the pertinent questions I have raised this evening in a comprehensive manner. I refer in particular to those pertaining to the European Union rulings, on which he made little comment in his speech.