In the past year or so, we have spent a great deal of time discussing the banks. Time and again, the Government has come into the House to ask us to stump up taxpayers' money to help out the banks. The State guarantee scheme, which was introduced in September 2008, was followed shortly afterwards by the nationalisation of Anglo Irish Bank and the €7 billion recapitalisation of some other banks. The NAMA legislation proposes to put up €54 billion in Government bonds to take the bad loans from the banks. In return for that, we were told time and again there would be big changes at the top of the banks. The guarantee scheme, for example, provided that the Minister or regulatory authority could give directions taking specified steps to restructure executive management responsibility, strengthen management capacity and improve the corporate governance of banks. Unfortunately, we have not seen much change of this kind at the top level of the banks. Bank of Ireland appointed a new chief executive but it was an internal appointment. The chief executive of AIB announced his retirement on 30 April and has not yet been replaced. Newspaper reports suggest AIB wants to make an internal appointment whereas the Government wants to make an external one. One commentator, Mr. John McManus, writing in The Irish Times this week on these circumstances, stated “the decision of AIB to face down the Government indicates that the amazing arrogance that has characterised AIB’s behaviour over the past 12 months – and no doubt contributed to the mess it has found itself in – remains undiminished”.

What exactly has changed, if anything, at the top level of our major banks in return for the taxpayers' largesse? Is there a stand-off between the board of AIB and the Government with regard to the appointment of a new chief executive? If so, will the Government hold its line on it?

It is important to point out the NAMA legislation and the changes in banking generally are to effect orderly restructuring of the banking and financial system over time. Instead of speaking continually about stumping up money for the banking system, one should note an investment is being made by the taxpayer in a shareholding in two of our main banks and by way of having to nationalise another. We get paid for the cost of giving the guarantee and also in respect of the preference shareholding we have taken in the two main banks. That is important to point out.

With regard to the question on specific changes in specific banks, there have been changes in a number of banks. Discussions between the chairman of the board of AIB and the Minister for Finance in respect of seeking a prospective successor to Mr. Eugene Sheehy, who announced his intention to retire, are ongoing. We seek to achieve what is best for the banking system generally.

The Taoiseach talked about changes being made at the top of the banks. There is little or no evidence for them. Let me outline the position regarding the main covered institutions since the guarantee was introduced. All ten of the directors of AIB who were in place at the time the guarantee was made are still in place. Eleven of the 13 directors of Bank of Ireland who were in place at that time are still in place. With regard to EBS, eight out of 11 directors are still in place and, with regard to Irish Life and Permanent, six out of eight are still in place. That is with the exception of the public interest directors.

There is little or nothing changing at the top of the banking tree. All that is happening is that the State or taxpayer is being asked time and again to put up funds to keep the banks going. At the top of the banking tree, nothing significant is happening.

The Taoiseach stated discussions are ongoing between AIB and the Minister for Finance on the appointment of a chief executive. The State owns a 25% shareholding in that bank. Will there be an internal appointment, as the board of the bank wants to insist upon? Will there be an external appointment, as it would appear the Minister for Finance desires?

Which is the dog and which is the tail in the case of banks? The banks are very quick to come with their hands out seeking assistance. We are to spend much of this week and most of next week dealing with the banks' requirements in terms of the writing down of bad debt but there seems to be no significant change at the top of the banking institutions.

I do not agree with the contention that there has been very little change. There are different chairmen in various banks and different chief executives in various banks and building societies. With regard to the institutions covered under the guarantee scheme, there have been a number of changes. As the Deputy stated, there was an increase in the number of public interest directors appointed by the Government, and quite rightly so, in an effort to promote public confidence and ensure stability and continuity in a way that will in turn ensure the orderly reform of the banking system. It is important that the matter be dealt with in an orderly fashion.

I do not wish to discuss any individual banking institution but it is clear, on the basis of Mr. Sheehy indicating his preparedness to retire from his position, that there has been an ongoing effort, internally and externally, to determine who the best candidate for the post would be.

In one particular bank, an internal candidate was decided upon on the basis that it was in the best interest of the bank given the candidates available or interested in taking up the position. This is an ongoing issue. As I stated, it has been dealt with regarding another bank. I would like to see us proceed in this regard as best we can and as soon as we can.