Public ownership and democratic control of banks
Deputy Higgins argued that the banks’ power and recent scandals made a case for public ownership and democratically appointed boards focused on social need. The Taoiseach acknowledged banks’ influence but rejected nationalisation, citing their importance to trade, investment and exports.
The banks wield enormous power over the economy and over the lives of millions of ordinary working people. Why should unelected seniour executives, faceless to most people, be able to control the lives of so many people in this way? Is there not an unanswerable case now for the major banks to be taken into public ownership and to have democratically appointed boards to run them? These would represent the real interests of the majority of people who deal with the banks. Is there not a case to break up, for example, the alliance of land speculators, profiteering developers and greedy banks that enchain young working people for the rest of their lives because they need to buy a home?
Comment on this
Should we not have a bank policy that is dictated not by greed for super profit but by social need and the provision of what is necessary for people to be able to live reasonable and dignified lives? Is that not the question raised by what has been revealed not just in the past week but in recent years?
Comment on this
The Deputy is correct that the banks wield a great deal of power and control. They have many responsibilities and there are regulatory bodies to deal with them at all levels. There is disappointment about this issue. The banks are important for international trade and investment. This country does extraordinarily well from foreign direct investment. It is also an export economy, exporting approximately €80 billion worth of goods each year.
I part with the Deputy with regard to nationalising the banks. That would not be a bright idea.