I said "if", but I am not – this is a hypothetical situation.
The Minister of State continued:
The performance of the bank during the past 12 months demonstrates that it is in a strong position and confirms its strengths in its specialist market segments. I have every confidence in the bank going forward, however [imagine this coming out of the blue] the long-term future of the bank is best served by a change in ownership. The skills and expertise in the ICC will be best used under the umbrella of a bigger commercial operation.
I do not disagree with the last sentence. Why is the ICC best served by a change of ownership, given that it is doing wonderfully under its current ownership? Why can it not be best served under the umbrella of a bigger commercial operation in a joint venture? Why does there have to be a change of ownership?
It beats me why all the profitable operations have to be sold off. I am not an ideologue regarding State ownership of the banks. This speech is what one would put into an auctioneer's office and one would say this is a wonderful business and anybody with the money who does not jump at the opportunity to buy it is missing a golden opportunity. This is the Minister of State's blurb for the sale of the ICC. Fair play to him. I hope it is going well. I presume the details presented here are accurate and I have no doubt a bank will come into the market. It seems the Bank of Scotland is about to do so.
I am not sure if Senator Quinn was here for the Order of Business, but I, like Senators Ross and Doyle, am deeply annoyed that all Stages of this Bill are being taken in one sitting. We have consistently opposed, in principle and practice, the taking of all Stages – First Stage, Second Stage, Committee Stage, Report Stage and Fifth Stage – of any Bill in one sitting. We had a row in the House yesterday on the taking of Committee and Report Stages of the National Pensions Reserve Fund Bill in one sitting, even though Second Stage of that Bill was taken the previous week, but now we are going the whole hog with the taking of all Stages of this Bill in the one sitting. That is not good enough. It is not the proper way to treat parliamentarians. We need the presentation of the Second Stage of a Bill, the response to it by the Minister concerned, then Senators and perhaps the Minister, having heard what was said on Second Stage, should have an opportunity to table amendments to the Bill on Committee Stage. There should be a break before the taking of Report Stage to provide for further reflection on Committee Stage and consideration of suggestions that may be put forward. The manner in which we are dealing with this Bill is unacceptable. It is highly unsatisfactory, the ultimate in a guillotine measure. By taking all Stages of this Bill today, it is clear that the Minister of State does not intend to accept any amendments proposed.
I was elected to this House to represent the people of Ireland. That is my function here. I do not want to rubber-stamp legislation, but this is what I have been asked to do here. I have been asked to deal with all Stages of this Bill, but the Minister of State will stonewall any amendment I may table to the Bill, and I am sure he has already agreed to do that. The Minister for Finance has not come into the House to take this Bill, but I am sure the Minister of State was given riding instructions on how to deal with it. His instructions were to get this Bill through this House today since it will not be brought back to the Dáil. I am sure he was told not to accept any amendments to it as, if he did, the Bill would have to brought back to the other House.
That is not acceptable, particularly because, as Senator Ross said, an EGM of ICC Bank is being held tomorrow, 1 December. Why is that extraordinary general meeting taking place? The Minister of State did not refer to it in his speech. Why should this body decide to have its EGM the day after we have to rush this Bill through the House? It seems extraordinary. It seems we are dancing to the tune of an external body rather than making our decisions, having had the opportunity to give our full attention to all the provisions of the Bill.
This Bill must be passed in this House so that the ICC can tell its shareholders at its EGM that the Bill has reached a certain stage in the Dáil and Seanad and it can set out the options. Perhaps a proposal will be put forward regarding increased authorised capital or the sale of the bank, as those are the two items for which this legislation makes provision, but we do not know that. This legislation must be passed through this House for something like that to be done, there fore a decision has been taken prior to our even discussing it. That is unacceptable. It is disgraceful, outrageous and an insult to this House. I hope we never go through this charade again. The Minister of State should listen to me as my opinion is different from those of previous speakers but I know it is falling on deaf ears and that no action will be taken.
ICC has obviously provided a good service since it was set up in 1933. None of us can remember that time but it was a period in which the land annuities were refused by the then Taoiseach, Eamon de Valera, after he came to power in 1932. There was a virtual commercial war between this country and Britain and there was no Irish capital available. Irish goods were not being bought by Britain, particularly our livestock, and we had a rather weak ban on British goods. All capital, such as it was, was leaving the country and that was the context in which the ICC was established to provide some capital funding for small to medium sized business.
ICC has functioned successfully in that regard. It was a pioneer and is now the market leader in providing venture capital for the small to medium business sector. That is a wonderful role as that sector is the heart of the nation. The commercial world depends on small to medium sized industry, as that is what keeps things ticking over. The large private banks will provide as much money as is wanted by big business but small to medium sized industry is at the heart of the nation and it is important that it continues. Some of the bigger players are coming into that niche market but ICC is still the foremost operator in the field.
What is the future for ICC and banking in general? This morning the House gave me permission to publish the Central Bank (Amendment) Bill, which proposes that the Central Bank fulfil a wider role in regulation than that referred to by Senator Quinn. It has a role in regulating and supervising the banks, though it has not exercised that role very well, as we know from the DIRT inquiry. It took a hands-off role and let matters go without paying too much attention. I want to extend its powers of regulation to a wider dimension. Section 9 of the Central Bank Act, 1971, provides for the proper and orderly regulation of banking and I want to extend that to ensure that the banks maintain a sufficient number of branches and other offices and, where appropriate throughout the State, meet the reasonable requirements of their customers.
Nobody apart from Senator Cox has referred at any length to the customers of the banks. Other speakers probably mentioned them but not in any great detail, dwelling instead on the operation of the bank. However, the customer is crucial. If one does not have a loyal and satisfied customer it is bad business. The banks operate as if they are no longer customer-oriented. Their literature is about how customer friendly they are, but they are not, they are customer unfriendly, the exact opposite of what they should be.
Imagine Senator Quinn putting together a customer service plan for a new supermarket not to suit the customer but to suit himself. That is what the banks are doing. They are telling people to use Internet banking, the telephone and the hole in the wall. The banks are saying they will not provide a regional bank structure for accessible service. People will have to come into the centre of Dublin if they want to use banks. Suburban bank branches are being closed down. That is the practice, to get rid of customer service. The banks want the customer's money but do not want to provide a service and do not want to see the customer. They just want to see the money and to get the business of the big operators. The ordinary Seán or Sheila in the street is to be kept out altogether, otherwise extra overheads, staff and hassle are involved. There is no great money made from cashing cheques or paying bills or old age pensions. That is disgraceful. Customer service is disappearing fast without a word from the Central Bank or the Government.