Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform debate

Mortgage Arrears Resolution Process: Discussion

Vice Chairman

Before commencing business, I remind members, witnesses and those in the Public Gallery that all mobile telephones must be switched off to avoid interference, as this meeting is being broadcast.

Next week, the joint committee will hold a series of meetings during which we will discuss with the chief executive officers of Ulster Bank, Permanent TSB, AIB and Bank of Ireland the progress made by them in meeting targets in the mortgage arrears resolution process and related matters. The joint committee believes it is important, before next week's meeting, to hear from organisations providing assistance to people who are struggling to manage their mortgages about their experience and what they believe can be done to improve the situation. I thank all the organisations for the material they have provided to the committee and for attending today.

The meeting will take place in two parts, each involving three organisations. Each organisation will make an opening presentation of no more than five minutes, following which members will ask the witnesses questions. We will suspend proceedings for a short period after the first part of the meeting to facilitate the change-over in witnesses.

On behalf of the committee, I welcome representatives of the first group of organisations: the Irish Mortgage Holders Organisation, IMHO, which is represented by Mr. David Hall, director, and Mr. Steven Curtis; Free Legal Advice Centres, FLAC, which is represented by Ms Noeline Blackwell, director general, and Mr. Paul Joyce, senior policy analyst; and the Money Advice & Budgeting Service, MABS, which is represented by Ms Carol Dunne, business manager, and Ms Anna Walsh.

By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the committee. If they are directed by it to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. The witnesses are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

I invite each organisation to make its opening statement in the following order: IMHO, FLAC and MABS. As we have 100 minutes for this session, I would ask them please not to exceed five minutes when making statements.

Mr. David Hall

I thank the committee for inviting us to attend.

This is one of the only arms of the Legislature that is currently taking the mortgage and personal debt crisis seriously. I am accompanied today by Mr. Stephen Curtis, financial operations manager and qualified financial adviser and personal insolvency practitioner, and Mr. Arthur Mullan and Ms Tracy Mullan, directors and solicitors with the Irish Mortgage Holders Organisation.

The Irish Mortgage Holders Organisation was established in October 2012 as a not-for-profit organisation. In addition to advocating for those in debt, we provide the only in-house, one-stop-shop for debtors where their pockets will not be picked nor will they be feasted upon by any external parties. Behind the statistics with which we deal daily are families directly affected by the impact of debt. Many people whom the IMHO represents have been individually, corporately and as a family destroyed by debt. We would like to put a number of recommendations to the committee in the context of an imperfect and largely dysfunctional system that is dealing with distressed borrowers. These debtors are reliant upon this committee to protect their interests where the Central Bank, Government and banks have failed.

We ask first that the committee recommend to the Dáil that legislation be introduced to compel all lenders in this State to make available to borrowers in mortgage arrears four compulsory solutions, namely, mortgage to rent, debt for equity, split mortgage and no interest on the warehoused amount, and in the event of a property being sold, the residual debt will be resolved at the same time. Not all lenders provide split mortgages. Also, one of the pillar banks, the Bank of Ireland, provides for interest on the warehoused amount which accumulates on a monthly basis and is expected to be paid.

Second, the standard financial statement is too complicated, requires a significant amount of unnecessary information and needs to be urgently revised. Third, the mortgage to rent scheme that helps to keep vulnerable families in their homes should be revised and streamlined. It is overly cumbersome. It is now cheaper for a bank to repossess a family home than to participate in the mortgage to rent scheme. This is a disgrace. We have a client before the court next Monday who is perfectly suitable for the mortgage to rent scheme. I am speaking in this regard of a family of a husband, wife and five children. The lender, despite having pilot schemes with six other clients, is insistent on going through this system to repossess this family's home. This is a wholly unnecessary repossession and must be fought at every turn.

We would further urge the committee to urgently review the personal insolvency process which is too prescriptive and is taking too long in the context of obtaining protective certificates. This is not only about debt but about mortgage and personal debt. All aspects of dealing with secured and unsecured debt must reviewed. Yesterday, we announced a new partnership with Grant Thornton. This will allow all debtors within the State, irrespective of their being current, future or potential mortgage holders, to avail of insolvency services, including bankruptcy, at no charge to the debtor, with the exception of court and Insolvency Service of Ireland fees. This is a ground breaking initiative that will do what the State and the Oireachtas should have been ensuring was being done. The IMHO will continue to provide free bankruptcy services through this initiative, funded through the project, which ultimately comes from creditors' funding.

For the past six years bankers have strangled our economy and society by failing to deal effectively with the mortgage crisis. This has allowed unsecured creditors to run amok, sucking all they can from debtors in a menacing and threatening manner, which has risked mortgage holders losing their homes. Irish people are honest and want to pay their debts. Every effort is being made by those in debt to pay those debts. They are not going on foreign holidays, replacing their expensive cars and spending money putting children through private schools. Often the wrong debt is being prioritised. Rather than creating a system to assist people, bankers have chosen to abuse mortgage holders by calling them strategic defaulters without any evidence. In addition - this might appear strange coming from me - debtors have fallen into a false sense of security. They have not been afforded an opportunity by creditors to deal with them in a humane and structured way.

Politicians and media have innocently raised debtors' expectations that a magic solution is coming, that nothing will happen to them and they are safe. That is not the case. The tide has changed. The code of conduct on mortgage arrears introduced last year was a deafening blow to mortgage holders. No information was forthcoming from the Central Bank in relation to the danger of people being deemed unco-operative. The powers of the Central Bank in relation to targets are again a massive disadvantage to the borrower. After six years of inaction banks are popping up and down trying to tick boxes. The only people who can lose when someone jumps to provide an easy fix to keep the boss and the regulator happy are debtors.

In advance of this meeting we circulated the committee with details of the AIB and KBC joint initiatives. We are happy to discuss these in more detail if members wish. The IMHO has been dealing with every bank on behalf of clients. The smallest amount owed by one of our clients is €26,000 and the largest amount is €52 million. We have found that a wide variety of approaches are being adopted. In my view, the three most difficult banks to deal with on behalf of mortgage holders are Bank of Scotland, Danske Bank and Bank of Ireland. I cannot understand how they are resolving their mortgage arrears by stonewalling all reasonable efforts by debtors and those who represent them to try to find long term sustainable solutions. I ask that the committee question those banks about what restructuring arrangements they have entered into.

Ms Noeline Blackwell

I find it extraordinary to be before this committee again in 2014 discussing the issue of mortgage arrears and resolutions for consumers five or six years after this discussion was first commenced by the legislators and policy-makers of this country. Today, I bring before the committee what has been the experience of FLAC in this regard.

FLAC is a non-governmental organisation focused on access to justice. It is clear that those who are in mortgage arrears and struggling to restructure or deal with their mortgage arrears and their debt are not getting access to justice. We have identified nine different areas where reform is needed and where systems and structures need either to be changed or implemented. In this regard, I will hand over to my colleague, Mr. Paul Joyce. We have circulated a background document to the committee which we hope will be of assistance as it considers this issue further.

Mr. Paul Joyce

In the short time available, I would like to set out where we are in this regard. Page 1 of the submission contains a number of statistics, the most significant of which, in our view, is the fact that as of the end of 2013, there are 33,500 mortgage accounts on principal dwelling houses that have been arrears for more than two years. These are the intractable and difficult cases for which solutions are currently not being found.

The Department of Finance now provides monthly statistics for the six main lenders under the mortgage arrears resolution process, MARP. Of the 80,000 accounts of those six lenders that have been in arrears for more than 90 days, only approximately 20,000 have been restructured. This means 60,000 have not as of yet been addressed. Of the 20,000 that have been restructured, only two in three are permanent restructures and one in three is temporary. We do not have information on how sustainable those restructures are.

In the last six months of 2013 more than 3,300 new proceedings were brought to enforced security on a mortgage on a principal dwelling house. This indicates a ramping up of repossession activity. The principal instrument protecting borrowers is the Central Bank's code of conduct on mortgage arrears. The code was revised in 2013 to, we believe, the detriment of consumers. The Central Bank devises, amends and clarifies these codes without any parliamentary scrutiny or oversight of which we are aware. A number of consumer organisations made submissions on the revised code of conduct in 2013 to no avail. We wonder whether the Central Bank should take upon itself or be given the power to take upon itself the role of quasi-legislator in terms of attempting to resolve the problem. The code was adverse to borrowers in many respects. It relaxed the requirements in relation to unsolicited contacts with borrowers and allowed for unsolicited personal visits.

There is a fundamental imbalance in the decision-making process. We would like the committee to note the following The 2010 code of conduct on mortgage arrears obliged lenders to look at all the listed alternative repayment options. There is a subtle amendment in the 2013 code that obliges lenders to look only at options which they themselves offer. As such, they get to choose which options from the list they wish to offer. This is the reason for the maddening inconsistency in this regard. There are people waking up this morning lamenting the fact that their mortgage is one particular provider rather than another because there is no consistency in decision-making. This imbalance of power is further emphasised by the fact that the code is lacking in the basic elements of fair procedure.

The borrower does not have an explicit right to details of the lender's full decision-making process in whether an alternative repayment arrangement should be offered. Equally, the appeals mechanism is from the lender's arrears support unit to the lender's appeals board. The further referral to the Financial Services Ombudsman is also lacking in fair procedures and the ombudsman is on record as having stated he will not interfere with the commercial discretion of a lender to offer a restructuring process or not.

Ms Carol Dunne

This is a good opportunity for us to speak before the committee. I am joined by my colleague, Ms Anna Walsh, the co-ordinator of Waterford MABS. Today we will bring her experience in dealing with families in mortgage arrears for the committee's interest.

The Money Advice and Budgeting Service, MABS, is a State service funded and supported by the Citizens Information Board, under the Department of Social Protection, and it has been in operation since 1992. We have over 20 years of experience as a trusted intermediary in debt resolution, with that trust won through experience, expertise and outcome. MABS operates a network of 51 local companies in over 65 locations, as well as two national companies, a helpline and a website, mabs.ie. The work is supported by the websites keepingyourhome.ie and citizensinformation.ie. There is also the mortgage arrears information helpline, run to date by the Citizens Information Board but which will transfer to MABS from 1 June this year.

Committee members would be familiar with the MABS process, which centres on the particular circumstances of each unique client, seeking to maximise income, examine outgoings, control spend and establish reasonable and sustainable offers to make to creditors. These offers are designed to create sustainable arrangements, which allow a client to discharge his or her obligations to a creditor while at the same time maintaining an acceptable standard of living. It is our experience that sustainable arrangements are those which take a holistic approach to the individual client, examining all debts, commitments and income. The complex, multi-layered problem which is over-indebtedness requires a solution which is equally multi-layered, and there is no silver bullet. All debt and creditors must be examined in the context of the individual client.

The current mortgage crisis is exceptional in its scale, both in terms of the numbers of families affected and the value of the debt involved. Of 20,000 new clients who came to a MABS office in 2013, slightly less than half, at 48%, presented with mortgage difficulties. Two thirds of calls to our MABS helpline pertain to mortgage debt, with support being provided through that channel as appropriate. The vast majority of those living in mortgaged accommodation with debt difficulties, at 36.5%, have a recorded status of married with children. Age of clients tends to be between 41 and 65, with 55% of clients in this age group. Approximately 40% of clients are waged, with the next highest income source coming from the 18% of clients on jobseeker's allowance. Geographically, there is the unsurprising finding that clients correlate with high population centres.

Of those clients presenting with mortgage issues, 45% were already in the mortgage arrears resolution process, MARP, and being supported by lenders, with 54% outside that process. The focus on mortgage debt is essential in that the consequences of failure to maintain payments on mortgage loans can result in the loss of a home. MABS would add, however, that a balanced approach is essential if the client is not to be disadvantaged by the system designed to assist in the resolution of a debt. One of the difficulties we see in participation in a MARP and its necessary focus is the negative consequences it can have for a client. Failure to adequately address other pressing debt problems can result in exclusion from financial services and loss of access to credit. We have seen considerable incidence of this within our client base, and lenders within the secondary tier of debt require a minimum level of repayment to maintain credit status. When this is lost the client has no support for even the simplest household emergency. In a recent case a client was left with no access to credit following a death in his family, with apparently no option but recourse to an unlicensed moneylender if support from charity or friends could not be sourced beyond an exceptional needs payment from the Department of Social Protection. Clients can find affordable avenues for credit are closed and the only credit available is through high-cost moneylending.

Some clients, having defaulted on payment arrangements, are forced to close otherwise functioning accounts in order to agree long-term sustainable solutions with their mortgage lender. Without any social lending programme many distressed borrowers could be tempted to access finance from unlicensed sources. MABS and the Citizens Information Board have made proposals on social lending models and look forward to seeing progression in this area.

The cost associated with over-indebtedness and the loss of the family home is not confined to the individual, although that is where it is most keenly felt. The cost is also borne to an extent by the Exchequer through the necessary resourcing of other supports, including potential accommodation provision. There is therefore an imperative on an individual, societal and economic basis to deal with the crisis effectively. We echo the comments of Mr. Joyce and Ms Blackwell in their critique of the code of conduct on mortgage arrears. There are benefits in that there is a protocol in place, although our experience has not always been positive. We know the success of the MARP will hinge on a comprehensive and factual standard financial statement, SFS. It is incumbent on the lender to support a client in completing the SFS fully, comprehensively and - most importantly - realistically. It is also in the interests of all parties to do so as any other approach will result in failed agreements.

Our experience has demonstrated that some lenders insist on completing this SFS over the phone with a borrower; we argue that an amount of informed preparation is required on the part of the borrower in advance of the completion in order to address this very important issue in any meaningful way.

Vice Chairman

I must ask the witness to complete her presentation.

Ms Carol Dunne

I will finish by echoing Mr. Joyce's critique of the lender's inability to provide tailored solutions to clients and forcing them to participate in what is effectively a conveyor belt approach to mortgage solutions.

Vice Chairman

I ask members and others attending to ask short and sharp questions, with a similar approach to replies, so we can get as much as possible done today.

Deputy Michael McGrath

I will do my best. I welcome the representatives from the three groups before us. The purpose of this engagement is for us to sharpen our questions to be put to representatives of the banks next week. Last September, I found it a very frustrating experience not having an agreed template for information, with much data presented on the day. We were bombarded with information and had to try to interpret it there and then. Trying to get questions answered was like chasing a shadow but I hope next week's experience will be far more productive. As a committee we have learned to refine and improve our approach.

I will quickly come to the questions. However bad a position is now with mortgage arrears - it continues to be an extremely serious national crisis - the elephant in the room is the historically low interest rates that we still have and how they relate to tracker mortgages in particular. The European Central Bank base rate is 0.25%, which may reduce slightly but will eventually, as night follows day, begin to rise again. We could potentially be sitting on an even more serious time bomb in that respect if tracker interest rates go up in line with the ECB rate. Variable rates did not come down in line with the ECB rate but banks could use the excuse of the rate increasing to hike standard variable rates again. I am laying down that marker as I have a serious concern in that respect. Many people are just scraping by now and if rates increase by a 0.5% or 1% over a period, they will really struggle and more people could go into arrears.

I acknowledge the great work being done by all the organisations today to help mortgage holders. Statistics have indicated that 325 deals have been done with AIB alone since the alliance last November, and many of those have involved an element of mortgage write-off. The profile of solutions being achieved by Mr. Hall's organisation for clients seems to be different from the overall profile of restructuring solutions put in place by the Central Bank.

Mr. David Hall

We have been doing this for a number of years. Our view was to have a trusted third party engagement with banks. Many would say it is great to have an adviser when going to a bank but we never met a decision maker within the building in dealing with them. We met somebody who could capture information at the entrance but it would never get up the chain. The structures in question are long-term and sustainable, teased out on a microscopic basis. Would we like somebody to come with a magic wand and say everything is sorted? Yes, but the reality is the system is not perfect but it allows for direct engagement with decision makers within the bank in a much speedier way. The solutions outlined in the template demonstrate a long-term, sustainable and permanent solution, with less risk of it falling over. It was mentioned earlier that there have been suites of solutions with people having short-term, interest-only periods, which everybody has criticised. They are still being done and in each of the monthly figures there is a significant cohort of such examples. We are talking about long-term and permanent solutions.

Three hundred and twenty-five may or may not be a significant number. To those 325 it is an exceptional number, but to the other couple of thousand that are currently in the pipeline it is an enormous prospect of having a long-term solution.

I can keep going if the Chair wishes.

Vice Chairman

I must call Deputy Kieran O'Donnell, who has ten minutes.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

I welcome the witnesses. I wish to mention a few points that regularly arise on a practical level. Mr. Hall referred to Danske Bank and Bank of Scotland. I have been hearing from many people about Danske Bank in the last few weeks, where the bank has become extremely aggressive, in some cases involving the family home. It is moving with receivers overnight. I have one case where the individual is two months in arrears. He brought the payments up to date but the bank still appointed a receiver. In this case he could lose his family home because it is linked with a business asset which has equity, but ultimately it can be got back in terms of the family home.

Danske Bank is effectively what was National Irish Bank, which was a long established bank with a network throughout the country. Bank of Scotland is slightly different in that it emerged from an equity bank so it is a slightly different model. We therefore have people coming out of an Irish banking system. I have had two cases in the last two days where the people are literally not sleeping at night. They brought their arrears up to date. In one case the receiver has been appointed and in another case we are trying to find a way around it. What is required to be done? These banks are seeking to clean up their loan books over the next number of months. Is the issue of the institutions seeking to clean up their loan books impinging on how they are dealing with people on the ground?

Danske Bank is a big worry for me in both cases. In one of the cases the person is a farmer who banked with National Irish Bank all his life. The other person is in business but, once again, is worried about the family home. The bank appears to be appallingly aggressive.

Mr. David Hall

I specifically mentioned those three banks. A great story was spun spectacularly by Bank of Scotland about it doing deals, but it was about commercial stuff. Anybody who visits its offices and tries to negotiate with the bank finds a chaotic residential mortgage office and nobody ever wants to touch their files. When somebody says Bank of Scotland, Danske Bank or Bank of Ireland our team collectively has the same view, that it is next to impossible. All other contributors here today and all other organisations have exactly the same view. When creditor friendly organisations who would have been instructed by and working for Danske Bank and Bank of Ireland, in particular, agree with us, one knows there is a monumental problem. In our financial chaos of the last six years we had good and bad banks and toxic banks but when debtors are in trouble these are toxic banks as far as debtors are concerned, and toxic in the nastiest way one could find.

The Deputy has mentioned quite a number of issues.

With regard to receivership, section 101 of the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act allows a mortgagee or lender to install a receiver once there is an act of default, as defined under the legislation, but the powers of the receiver were not defined or developed in that piece of legislation. There are serious concerns about the actions of receivers and the lack of control over what they do.

Equally, as we have said, the code of conduct on mortgage arrears only applies to regulated entities. It only applies to entities regulated by the Central Bank, of which Danske is one. However, the code is not even a statutory instrument. The code of conduct on mortgage arrears is not even signed into law by the Minister for Finance, so what admissability does it have in legal proceedings, even if one had to follow it?

With regard to debt factoring or debt sale, which is a feature of a recession meeting a personal debt crisis, we are seeing a lot of it at the moment. As I understand it, the Government's legislative programme proposes a sale of loan books to unregulated third parties Bill to cater for the sale of loan books by regulated financial institutions to unregulated financial institutions, but it is not expected to be published until 2015.

Ms Noeline Blackwell

I do not wish to take up the Deputy's time.

Vice Chairman

This time slot is complete.

Ms Noeline Blackwell

Sorry.

Deputy Pearse Doherty

I welcome the witnesses to the committee and thank them for their engaging presentations. They are experts in the field and I commend them on behalf of all of the people who have approached me and whom I have referred to them. I commend the organisations on the professional way in which they responded to those people.

As Deputy Michael McGrath mentioned earlier, this is a prelude to another meeting that the banks will attend. We need a broader scope than the bank targets, but let me start with them. The banks will come in here next week and tell us that they have all met and surpassed their targets. They will then ask us why we are getting hot under the collar about the current system to resolve the mortgage crisis. Today we have heard all three organisations state that even though there is something wrong with the system, the banks are happy because they have received gold stars from the Central Bank and the Minister for Finance. I would like each witness to comment on the existing system of dealing with this issue, one which is acceptable to the Government and the Central Bank.

Ms Carol Dunne

The code of conduct is not consumer-friendly, and that is a problem. We have a system that permits banks to operate within a code, but by operating within the code, banks can say that they are compliant with the system. As Mr. Joyce said, there is no statutory instrument associated with it. It is totally consumer-unfriendly. There is also no right of independent appeal and there is no place for a borrower to go. There is nothing in it.

The code of conduct hinges on what is called a standard financial statement, but there is no standard person. Financial statements even for neighbouring families who have a similar composition in terms of make-up and income will not look the same. Therefore, one will end up with problems when one tries to mechanise a system and move people through it. Even in terms of the resolutions that have been reached, time will tell how sustainable they prove to be. My organisation has serious concerns about building long-term resolutions on standard financial statements and their sustainability. As many as 45% of the people in MABS still come to us, and we must ask why.

Targets have proved counterproductive because the focus is on the target and the process and therefore is no longer on the individual. My colleague Ms Walsh would like to make a comment.

Ms Anna Walsh

Due to the targets, banks now offer the option of assisted voluntary sales. Can Deputy Doherty ask the banks whether an assisted voluntary sale is the only option for a 30-something year old who has a life ahead of him or her? Other options should be put in place and the matter should be addressed. That is a critical point.

Mr. Stephen Curtis

Senator Aideen Hayden

I thank the witnesses for being here and for their excellent work. We all agree that without their services we would be in a much more difficult position. I refer to the document MABS gave us, it which it is stated that MABS completed 5,481 standard financial statements on behalf of clients in the period July to December 2013. Out of those, 2,301 - 42% - were subsequently queried by the lenders. It went into a bit of detail as to what it regarded as the vulnerability of its clients and some of the strategies in which banks engaged, including telephoning them. The implication seemed to be that MABS was regarded as being "too soft" in the preparation of the standard financial statement. The document suggested that MABS was queried on, for example, the costs it included for third level education, child care, lifestyle and entertainment, utilities and so forth. What I took from this document, which I would like MABS to confirm, is that vulnerable people were being picked on and telephoned when they did not have advice available to them and after completing a standard financial statement with the assistance of MABS in a manner which it regarded as being fair and which would have set out the expenditure it regarded as reasonable. However, that was being picked apart in what I would regard as a disgusting fashion. Will MABS comment on that?

Ms Carol Dunne

As Senator Hayden noted, 42% of the statements were challenged. We respect and understand the banks' obligation to exercise oversight and examine to their satisfaction the content of the financial statement. Although it is called a standard financial statement - I already noted that one does not get standard people - the approach to the compilation of the statement is standard.

That requires clients to note what they are doing with their money over a period of four to six weeks. In fairness, if budgeting was a simple act of arithmetic, we would all be out of business because there would be no need for our services. What tends to happen is that people underestimate their spending; they do not know where the money goes. If one asks them over the telephone what they are spending on food shopping, they will give a figure, but they will not actually know whether it is accurate. They need a period of time to document what they are doing with their money and they can then look at areas where they are overspending. Many people come back and tell us that they did not know they were overspending on certain things and they revisit that spending. A reasonable period of time is required for this process, after which we would regard the starndard financial statement, SFS, as having been diligently compiled and providing a sound basis in moving forward. The reported experience of clients coming to us is that many of them consider that, if they do not comply in completing the SFS over the telephone, their house will be repossessed and that they must do what the bank wants. There is an incredible imbalance of power and that is true in the context of both the CCMA and the MARP. Power needs to be given back to the individual with the debt problem.

Senator Aideen Hayden

There seems to be a consensus among all of the delegates that the biggest difficulty for borrowers is that there is no effective route to appeal. Will the representatives of FLAC comment on the suggestion made by the Minister for Finance that because we are dealing with mortgages which are commercial contracts, the scope we have, as legislators, is curtailed, in terms of what we can do to address the issue? What does FLAC believe would be legally possible in putting in place an effective route to appeal?

I also wish to ask a question about the Financial Services Ombudsman who appeared before the committee recently. He made it clear that he did not consider he had any role to play in levelling the playing field. He also argued that he had no role to play in investigating the details of the commercial terms of any mortgage, other than ensuring the matter had been dealt with in an impartial fashion and so forth. I ask the delegates to comment on the role of the ombudsman in this area.

Ms Noeline Blackwell

I will start with the issue of the contract. All contracts are expected to be fair. It is perfectly clear that the way these contracts were made, in some instances, was unfair and did not take account of people's vulnerability. It is only the borrower who is paying the price for this. There is no real division of responsibility between the lender and the borrower.

Given that the right to private property in the State is subject to the public good, there is the possibility of ensuring an effective appeals system in order that a fair solution is proposed at the end of the day. That is what happens when it gets to the bankruptcy stage, for instance, where a judge will make a decision on what is reasonable. There is nothing to prevent the State, except policy interests alone, from putting in place an appeals system in order that the word of the creditor is not the final one. Our policy is that each issue is dealt with on a case by case basis and the creditor has the final say. That is only because policy has determined it to be thus, not because it is immutable law.

Mr. Joyce will deal with the question about the Financial Services Ombudsman.

Mr. Paul Joyce

Our view is that the Financial Services Ombudsman is understating his legislative power, albeit the legislation is flawed. We believe he is understating his power to review the decisions of lenders. Having said that, it is apparent that it was the Central Bank that chose the Financial Services Ombudsman to take on the role of being the avenue of referral. The committee should note that the word "appeal" is not used in the CCMA; the word used is "referral". The statement on the Financial Services Ombudsman's website is very clear. He sees his role in terms of examining the conduct of the provider, determining whether the processes were adhered to and whether the boxes were ticked, not examining whether it was appropriate, in the circumstances, to restructure a mortgage. There would clearly be a problem if legislation was passed obliging lenders to go down a certain road in that it could be challenged, but nobody has tried to do this yet. The question of whether it is unconstitutional would need to be considered in the light of the public interest and the common good in clearing up a very large personal debt crisis. We have not had such legislation. Instead, we have had a Central Bank code which has questionable admissibility.

Ms Noeline Blackwell

We have not even had the discussion, much less the legislation.

Senator Aideen Hayden

My next question is directed at the IMHO representatives. They made reference to the categorisation of unco-operative borrowers, which is particularly relevant in the context of couples who are separated. It is often the case, in my experience, that one person is co-operating with the lender but the other is not. In one case of which I am aware one person went without food in order to be able to co-operate, while the partner was not co-operating at all. Has the IMHO come across such scenarios? If so, how can the issue be addressed, given that marital or relationship breakdowns are relatively common?

Mr. Stephen Curtis

It is a very significant problem which we see every day. One party to a mortgage comes to us looking for help but the other will not co-operate, engage or even fill in the paper work. That throws up enormous difficulties because with only one party submitting paper work, the lender will say nothing can be done because the other party is not involved in the process. Then both parties are deemed to be unco-operative. That is not fair on the people who have come to us seeking help and have gone to the lender with their paperwork and a planned solution. Such persons are, clearly, co-operating and doing all they can. However, the lenders will say that in order to put in place any kind of restructuring arrangement, they need the signatures of all parties to the mortgage and so forth. That is fine in the sense that the contracts are in place, but it needs to be changed. If there is a willing party who wants to stay in a house who can come up with some arrangement, he or she should not be precluded from doing so because another party with whom the mortgage was entered into no longer wants to engage or pay. The situation is made worse by the fact that the people who are affected most are often the most vulnerable. They have financial difficulties, certainly, but they also have lots of other difficulties which they are going through at the same time. This exacerbates matters hugely. Some of the most vulnerable people who come to us, the ones in need of most help, support and guidance are in that category. When relationships break down, there are no longer joint finances. It must be recognised that the person who is engaging is making an effort to solve the problem and co-operating. It is not fair to deem such a person to be non-co-operative.

Mr. David Hall

In terms of consistency, some of the banks have got around this problem-----

Vice Chairman

My apologies, but I must bring this session to a conclusion. I call Deputy Stephen S. Donnelly and will try to ensure everyone who wishes to contribute will be able to do so.

Deputy Stephen S. Donnelly

I thank all of the groups present. I have three years' worth of evidence that the Government has abandoned distressed mortgage holders. The groups before the committee and those who will appear before us later are trying to do their best to fill a gap. In the Chamber today the Taoiseach rubbished the idea that there could possibly be one repossession a day when, in fact, there are several, as we all know. We have a Government that is both in denial and delusional. The Irish Nationwide Building Society mortgage book has been sold to two distressed asset firms from the United States. The Minister for Finance said that was a "hugely successful" outcome for the special liquidator. As long as we define screwing Irish families for the profit of foreign vulture funds as "hugely successful", I would agree with him. He said he was extremely pleased with the progress made, but tens of thousands of Irish men and women were not allowed to bid for their own mortgages which were sold at a discount.

There are three issues for me - quality, quantity and consistency. The Government is pushing on the quantity issue by setting targets, while completely ignoring the quality of the measures taken and their inconsistency. I ask the delegates to talk a little more about the inconsistencies.

Deputy McGrath has already raised this, but I have a major problem with it as well. In other words, Bank of Ireland will screw a customer, whereas AIB will not. If one banks with Bank of Ireland and is a customer in trouble - tough. The customer's life will be destroyed by Richie Boucher and his henchmen.

Vice Chairman

Will the Deputy please be careful how he uses people's names?

Deputy Stephen S. Donnelly

Okay, Mr. Richie Boucher.

Vice Chairman

I remind the Deputy not to use names at all.

Deputy Stephen S. Donnelly

Okay, by the chief executive of Bank of Ireland and his henchmen. If one is a customer of AIB, that seems not to be the case. All the witnesses are dealing with cases on the ground. Will they flesh out how this inconsistency is playing out day-by-day for Irish citizens?

Mr. David Hall

The IMHO has 4,500 active files. From our perspective, it is absolutely tortuous. Anybody attempting to assist a debtor has a categorisation of the various banks. If one goes to work and does the same job every day, one knows that some things are easy and some things are difficult. It is exactly the same with the banks; the inconsistencies are absolutely horrific. This is apparent whether one is speaking to bank officials, trying to arrange a solution, or, as the representative from MABS mentioned, determining the standard financial statement. In reality, there is no functioning system that is in any shape or form consistent. Trying to determine consistency within one lender is in and of itself dramatic.

When the banks appeared before the joint committee previously, they were asked about the legal queue. I suggest members put the question: "What is a legal queue?" Some say a legal queue begins when a solicitor's letter issues, while others say a legal queue begins when they determine the entitled letter "legal". The implications of getting out of a legal queue with some lenders involve a 50% payment of the mortgage arrears, while in other cases a 15% payment of the mortgage arrears is required. That is a complete and utter inconsistency. Of the 325 deals IMHO has done with AIB, 22% of those involved repossession proceedings. Some 22% of existing clients are faced with repossession proceedings. The Taoiseach is wrong; there are many hundreds of active repossession proceedings. AIB handed out 1,800 cases to a number of organisations to try to intercept people prior to going to court. Yes, there is sensitivity in AIB. Bank of Ireland does not care. There are monumental differences.

To return to the issue of consistency around the CCMA, there is no consistency. It is like the Gaza Strip. Individual lenders can do anything. Some are exiting the country, as Deputy O'Donnell said, some are trying to stay, and some are advertising that they got people a home, but they might not keep them in their homes. There are inconsistencies all over the place. There are land mines everywhere for the indebted person who is doing his best to try to navigate through an impossible situation with the help of under-resourced and under-funded organisations. We and the other organisations should not be in existence. The Government and the Oireachtas have failed miserably. I should not be here. I have been a volunteer for the past three years with IMHO. Other organisations that are present should not be here. Instead, MABS should have been beefed up and given funding to deal with this on a listed basis.

I get all excited when somebody mentions the Keane report. The Keane report recommended the appointment of 100 additional mortgage advisers to help the situation, but that part gets forgotten about. The inconsistencies are one of the major challenges that IMHO and other organisations face when dealing with banks. It is very dangerous. One is sitting across from a person who thinks he or she will lose the family home, and may very well lose the family home, but in the back of one's mind one is calculating his or her chances, depending on the bank. That shows the banks are completely inconsistent.

Deputy Stephen S. Donnelly

I thank Mr. Hall. May I ask the witnesses from FLAC and MABS to share their thoughts on this matter?

Ms Anna Walsh

I will echo much of what Mr. Hall has said. I applaud the initiative of IMHO with AIB. My major concern is that it is just for a certain cohort of people; it is not available to everybody. I witness the disillusionment, the disgruntlement and the pain of the clients coming into MABS for whom these options are not available.

I noted Deputy Donnelly's comment on quality. I am very concerned about the quality of solutions. We have spoken at length about the quantity, but the real issue is quality. I really wonder if the standard financial statements are sufficiently stress-tested. I suggest they are not. Further, I think there is a great need for some organisation such as MABS to monitor the arrangements post-resolution and continually review them, particularly split mortgages. Somebody has to be there to assist and support the borrower in looking for review and monitoring post-resolution. It is only then that we can deliver quality.

Ms Noeline Blackwell

Everything that Mr. Hall and Ms Walsh have said is correct. We must remember who the banks are sending out to deal with borrowers. They are sending out unqualified, inexperienced people who really only have the job of getting through a number of files in a particular time and reporting back to somebody who is only interested in the figures at the end of it. There is no capacity to have a proper conversation with the client. It depends on how terrified the person at the other end is as well. The borrower is terrified but sometimes it seems to us that the person who is trying to manage it for the creditor is terrified as well. They are not trained. They are not doing business in a professional way. They do not know the law around it.

On the issue of inconsistency, last week we had a case in which we established that the bank was using guidelines that were kind of consistent with the insolvency service arrangement, but then it started to ask about the €20 a week that was being spent on something or other. We have to say, we have been there and done that, so one recommendation would be that the banks accept at least the Insolvency Service of Ireland minimum guidelines. As Ms Dunne from MABS said, people are people. Could we at least start with not having to go through every tuppence on a standard financial statement? That is something that could be done immediately.

Mr. Stephen Curtis

Let me add to what Ms Blackwell has said. All the banks have spending guidelines. They use these guidelines. When one talks about negotiation, in the banks one is not negotiating with a person but with a computer. The person whom one meets puts the figures into the computer, which spits out the answers based on a set of guidelines. In some instances, we know the guidelines, and one can get a grasp of it from what the Insolvency Service of Ireland has set as reasonable living expenses. There is no negotiation, and the consistency or lack thereof is based on how the computer is programmed and nothing else.

Ms Carol Dunne

It is also important to note that the RLEs should be taken as an absolute minimum. There is sometimes a temptation on the part of borrowers to say they do not need a certain amount of money and they can manage on less. That should be absolutely prohibited. It is an absolute "No." Another thing we have found in terms of consistency, even within lenders, is that every five weeks the relationship manager changes, so that there is no potential to build a relationship, which obviously tells us the intention is that there should be no rapport. Every time a money adviser commences a case, one will find that five weeks later one is back to square one.

Deputy Stephen S. Donnelly

Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Vice Chairman

None.

Deputy Stephen S. Donnelly

We focus quite rightly on the banks that are behaving poorly. May I ask each of the delegates to comment on whether a bank or lender is worthy of recognition for acting well in this crisis?

Mr. David Hall

One will never get a positive answer to that question as long as the current system exists. The reason we made an arrangement with AIB and KBC was to have a humanitarian way of dealing with the crisis through a formal channel in which decisions were made within an eight-week period, as opposed to dealing with what Ms Dunne referred to as a relationship manager. Until such time as there is a proper system to allow people be afforded the support and help they need, I respectfully suggest that nobody can bathe themselves in glory. There are unqualified and uncaring people, half of whom do not have a mortgage, making phone calls and harassing people for information. There are guidelines available; they even have their own guidelines. We interviewed two members of staff recently from two different lending institutions and one of their key functions was to discuss with customers how they could reduce the spending in their SFS, particularly in relation to hair products and food and entertainment. The guidelines were debated in this House and are already in existence. They should be used as an absolute minimum. I suggest the banks should be asked what they use as their guidelines. Let us ask Mr. Boucher what guidelines Bank of Ireland uses and how close they are to the minimum guidelines.

Vice Chairman

Mr. Hall should not mention names of persons who are not present.

Mr. Paul Joyce

The answer to Deputy Donnelly's question is "No." I suggest members ask the representatives of the Central Bank, when they come before the committee, how many borrowers in arrears they have spoken to about how they are being treated under the MARP, because there is a complete lack of proper monitoring and enforcement.

Ms Carol Dunne

In our experience, lenders make themselves available to us to talk at a high level. Although those discussions appear fruitful, unfortunately they do not result in improved customer experience on the ground. The age profile and experience level of those who are making the calls to the customers is a cause for concern. There are cultural issues that cannot be overlooked. A number of banks have outsourced their collections outside the State. As a result, a man sitting in Scotland might be discussing a standard financial statement with a woman who lives in Charleville. He might have no idea of where Charleville is, or what it means to live there. Those things cannot be underestimated when one is talking about someone's home.

Vice Chairman

Ms Dunne has made some excellent points. There is no one indicating from Fianna Fáil, so I will call Deputies Regina Doherty, Richard Boyd Barrett and Arthur Spring in that order.

Deputy Regina Doherty

I did not indicate.

Vice Chairman

Okay. I call Deputy Boyd Barrett.

Deputy Arthur Spring

I have been here since the very start.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

So have I.

Deputy Arthur Spring

I was here before the Deputy. It is supposed to be a Government speaker first.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

The Chair should show consistency of treatment.

Vice Chairman

I am consistent.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

A blueprint for the banks.

Vice Chairman

It is Fianna Fáil first, then Fine Gael, then Sinn Féin and then the Technical Group. There is nobody offering from Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael or Sinn Féin. Therefore, I call Deputy Boyd Barrett.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

I thank the Chair. When I listened to what the witnesses had to say about the use of computers, it struck me that the comedy "Little Britain" was prescient when it depicted a customer being given the response "computer says no" regardless of what he or she asked. That seems more or less to sum up what the banks are at. I have to say that the bleak picture which has been painted by the witnesses is reflected in my clinic daily when I hear from people who are in dire straits. One of the worst aspects of all of this is that people are threatened with homelessness.

I do not know whether the witnesses would like to comment on a point that should be made. I recently asked my local authority how much it costs weekly to look after someone who is homeless. I was told it costs approximately €800 a week, which means the State has to pay approximately €3,200 a month to look after a homeless person. Given that this is probably a fraction of the monthly mortgage repayment someone might be required to make, it is clear we are getting screwed. I refer not only to those who are in danger of homelessness because of the activities of the banks, but also to the State and the public finances, which are screwed when repossessions take place.

The witnesses seem to be saying that the banks will act as banks do by taking the fastest and most direct route to get money. If that means repossessing people's houses, that is what they will do. There is an onus on the Government to change this. I would like the witnesses to set out specifically what the Government needs to do in that context. Most ordinary people are wondering how the hell we can let the banks, which we bailed out, act as a law unto themselves to the detriment of mortgage holders and society as a whole. Can the witnesses specify what they want the Government to tell the banks to do and how this should be done?

Do the witnesses agree that unless someone refuses point blank to engage in any shape or form, the State should not allow repossessions to take place? This is the proper approach for financial reasons and for humanitarian reasons of basic human decency. No other approach makes any sense, as it will put people out on the street and we will have to pick up the bill. Do the witnesses agree that the approach I have set out should be written clearly into the guidelines? Do they agree that all this is simply about the bank veto, about which many of us kicked up at the time? If this problem is to be sorted out, the bank veto must be removed from the insolvency legislation.

Vice Chairman

Do Members mind if I call on a few of them to ask questions at this point and allow their contributions to be banked?

Deputy Arthur Spring

I think we should take contributions separately.

Vice Chairman

Okay.

Mr. David Hall

We have a crazy situation, whereby it is alleged that repossessions take place only as a last resort but there is no front-end supervision or monitoring and no rules to ensure that is the case. It is like a football match with a bunch of kids on the pitch, but without a referee or any stewards. We need to understand that clearly. We are six years into this process. We need to start again tomorrow morning by designing a system that will succeed, rather than failing as the current system has. When banks that are State-owned or partly State-funded evict people from homes, the local authorities are required to house them by making payments to landlords who then make payments to foreign banks. One could not make it up. A coherent approach to all of this is needed. If we had half a brain, half of the houses that are being funded through the various rent schemes would be owned by the local authorities at this stage.

Ms Noeline Blackwell

I would do three things. I would provide for an objective system of appeal - outside the banks - against unfair decisions or solutions proposed by banks. I would beef up the mortgage to rent scheme. I would put in place an insolvency regime for people on low incomes, as this would crystallise in the minds of the banks what they need to do to come to decent solutions.

Ms Anna Walsh

I suggest that an holistic approach to this whole level of debt is needed. The implications of someone becoming homeless should be costed. All of the costs should be assessed. Consideration should be given to the schooling implications for children of homelessness. Who will house people the morning after they are made homeless? The mortgage to rent scheme is about to be abandoned. We have to look at some of these things. It was intended as a short-term arrangement anyway. We need to consider longer-term solutions. If the type of client we are discussing is about to be made homeless and no other options are available to him or her, we have to revisit the mortgage to rent scheme. As it stands, the scheme is not fit for purpose. Senator Hayden spoke about separated couples. Where is the equality for a family if a judgment is imposed on the family home because one of the separated partners has deserted that home? Such a home is immediately deemed to be unsuitable or ineligible for the mortgage to rent scheme. We need to re-examine many possible initiatives. Overall, we have to take an holistic approach to this matter.

Deputy Arthur Spring

I agree with the sentiments expressed by most of my colleagues who have spoken up to now. However, I would not agree that the Government is in total denial or that it is delusional. For the past five years, I have been adamant that the mortgage crisis, particularly as it affects my generation, is one of the biggest problems facing society. I think the Personal Insolvency Act 2012 has the potential to take more people in this country out of trouble than any other legislation. It is not yet doing that, however. There are a couple of problems with it. Prior to today's meeting, I heard some of the witnesses' opinions on how the legislation might be improved.

I am of the belief that the fundamental problem in this regard revolves around money. Some of the banks that we recapitalised for the purposes of dealing with mortgage distress have said they intend to pay that money back to the Government with some interest. I did not ask the Government to give the banks money for the purposes of getting it back. I wanted people to get a break on their loans and their mortgages. I want us, as a community, to spread the distress among all members of society. That is not happening. The quintessential representation of how to deal with distressed mortgages in an equitable manner involves a mortgage to rent situation whereby there is an equity stake to be dealt with. We must not forget that such a solution creates a fundamental problem for the banks. Their fundamental legal obligation - their fiduciary duty - is not to their borrowers but to their shareholders. That is why we ultimately need legislation to protect them. What can we do to increase consumer knowledge of the Personal Insolvency Act 2012? What can we do to make the process cheaper? How can we improve these matters so that the banks are no longer looking after their shareholders only?

Mr. Paul Joyce

The personal insolvency legislation allows for both secured and unsecured debts to be written down by way of a personal insolvency arrangement. However, many people do not have sufficient income to propose such an arrangement. Even if an arrangement is proposed by a personal insolvency practitioner on behalf of an insolvent debtor, the lender effectively decides whether to pass the arrangement. If a person's only secured debt is a mortgage, the lender has a complete veto over whether the proposal passes.

The legislation envisages that the insolvency practitioner would, at least, look for the write-down of the secured debt to something approaching the market value of the property, something Mr. Hall's organisation has achieved in some instances. Currently, however, the lender decides and there is no appeal or review. It is a one-sided equation, just like the code of conduct on mortgage arrears.

Deputy Arthur Spring

Just add an appeals system.

Mr. David Hall

We need much more than an appeals system. Other jurisdictions with decades of experience in regard to what went wrong have perfectly functioning insolvency regimes. Here, we decided we would bring in some young fellow who would create the most complicated, complex, convoluted system we could ever undertake. Yesterday, a court record showed we have had 69 protective certificates and ten concluded deals in the past six months. Everyone accepts every new process requires ramping up, yet we have 4,500 clients.

We have approximately 1,000 clients who are ready to deal with their unsecured debt, having done a satisfactory deal on their secured debt. We teamed up with Grant Thornton yesterday to ensure no one will be charged a fee, up to and including bankruptcy, because we have a responsibility, irrespective of our concerns regarding the mechanisms involved in the Act, to allow debtors and our clients deal with their unsecured debt. The cost is too prohibitive, not just the PIP cost, which is unclear and uncertain, although many PIPs do not charge upfront. It can be €500 for a personal insolvency arrangement, PIA, just to get a meeting with creditors, who may say "No" and exercise their veto. A charge of €950 can be made for a bankruptcy arrangement.

We have an entire industry of court fees that deal and pick off the carcases of debtors in order that they can have an audience with their creditors, who may then go through an act and then decide to veto any request. The charge should be only €30 and then, if a successful deal is agreed, a charge of €300 could then be applied. Judge Ryan was in the Circuit Court yesterday and she reminded a number of people in court who were having a dispute in regard to an insolvent person, having raked up fees three times the level of the person's debts, that it was an insolvency case and that no one had any money to pay the fees.

We need to step back and look at this issue. There are 95 staff in the Insolvency Service of Ireland and my calculation is that the charge in fees for a year amounts to €4.5 million a year. They would be better off giving everyone a cheque for €100,000 and telling them to go and talk to their creditors.

Mr. Stephen Curtis

The sad thing in regard to the Insolvency Service of Ireland is that it is dealing with people who do not have any money. That is the reason they turn to the service. However, the system as set up means the people administering the service must run it as a business and try to make a living from it. This involves charging people or passing the fees on to the creditors. If there is no pot of money available to pay creditors, the business model for being a PIP will not work. We need to have public practitioners in place who can administer deals for people who are insolvent and cannot pay their debts. Otherwise, we will not have PIPs and the system will not work or else only those who can afford to get into an insolvency arrangement will be able to do so. This does not make any sense.

We did not get a chance to circulate to the committee the most recent example we have, but we will provide it in order that the committee can see the exact details of how this scheme operates. There is no secrecy around this. There is no one sitting in a bank centre choosing Deputy Higgins over David Hall and deciding to give him a better write-off. It is done case by case.

Deputy Joe Higgins

In general, I would say that the banks act in an arbitrary fashion in this regard. The so-called split mortgage solution, of hanging people with debt into their old age and hanging it on their children after them if they inherit the home, is not a solution but tortuous cruelty over a lifetime.

Mr. Hall, I chair the meeting. Ms Dunne wants to make a contribution.

Ms Carol Dunne

It is tempting for policy-makers and banks alike to imagine that there is one large-scale solution that will fit, and I think that is possibly where everyone is falling down. There is a struggle in terms of the scale, and I think that banks are trying to push people through systems that simply do not work. One of the questions that could be explored with banks is how they interpret their corporate social responsibility obligations. Rather than sponsoring local football teams, perhaps it would be useful if banks could be asked to consider how they can exercise their corporate and social responsibility through being more responsible for customers' needs by providing basic banking, access to credit and fair complex debt resolution.

Sitting suspend at 3.55 p.m. and resumed at 4.10 p.m.

Vice Chairman

The joint committee will resume its discussions with organisations providing assistance for people who are struggling to manage their mortgages about their experiences and what they believe could be done to improve the position. On behalf of the committee, I welcome the representatives of the second group of organisations. AskAboutMoney is represented by Mr. Brendan Burgess; Phoenix Project Ireland by Ms Julie Sadlier and Mr. Tom O'Reilly; and New Beginning by Mr. Ross Maguire and Ms Ruth Fanning.

By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the committee. However, if they are directed by it to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against a person or an entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

I will invite each group to make an opening statement in the following order: AskAboutMoney, Phoenix Project Ireland and New Beginning. I will invite members to put their questions at the conclusion of the opening statements. Applying the same time limits as in the first session, there will be ten minutes for each party spokesperson and five for each other member. As we are pressed for time, I ask delegates to confine their opening statements to five minutes each to allow more time for questions. I ask members and delegates to keep their questions and answers brief and to the point. I invite Mr. Burgess to present the first statement.

Mr. Brendan Burgess

I would like to talk about the fundamental principle of what is a sustainable mortgage. The conventional wisdom is that it is a mortgage which is paid off in full by the time a person reaches retirement and enables the house to be mortgage-free for the children when the person dies 20 or 30 years later. That conventional wisdom is incorporated in the Central Bank's definition of what constitutes a sustainable solution. However, this view is leading to very many perfectly sustainable mortgages being classified as unsustainable. The borrowers affected are receiving letters to tell them that there should be an assisted voluntary sale of their home. That is wrong. It is also leading in some cases, but not as many, to people with sustainable mortgages having split mortgages and other solutions at the expense of the taxpayer, which they should not be given. If we do not have an understanding of the definition of a sustainable mortgage and if there is no proper definition, much of our analysis and policy decisions will be faulty. I will argue that a mortgage does not have to be paid off by the time a person reaches retirement. If a borrower can pay the interest on the mortgage at the standard variable rate, that mortgage is sustainable and it is sustainable whether the person is aged 25, 45 or 75 years. People ask what will happen when a borrower retires while still owing a mortgage. If the person can still pay interest at the standard variable rate on that mortgage, it is a sustainable mortgage and the mortgage will be repaid. For some reason, a mortgage is the only expenditure that is regarded by conventional wisdom as an expenditure that it is necessary to repay in advance of retirement. For example, we do not have to pay our health insurance or meet any other expense in full by the time we retire. I met a woman who is in her mid-50s and has ten years before retirement. She can pay the interest on a mortgage of €150,000, while the house is worth €250,000, but the bank has told her that her mortgage is unsustainable and that she has to sell her home. She can easily afford to pay the interest and has done so for the past three or four years, but that is all she is able to do. It does not suit her to do otherwise because she has children in school and college.

The definition is completely wrong. This arises from the Central Bank's insistence on having sustainable solutions for a certain percentage of customers. This sustainable solution is not designed to help borrowers; it is designed as a prudential measure for the banks. This is a very important point. That is the reason repossession is a sustainable solution. It is a sustainable solution for the banks, not for borrowers. This is a point the committee needs to bear in mind when asking the banks about their targets. What are their targets for treating customers properly? That is the most important aspect. The interest-only option is a fine solution for some borrowers, but we tend to dismiss interest-only payments as kicking the can down the road. The Central Bank categorises it as a temporary solution, but it is nothing of the sort. Interest-only payments offer a sustainable solution. This should be remembered.

When the committee makes policy decisions and prepares questions for the banks and the Central Bank, I suggest it asks them to state their attitude and ask why they repossess houses from borrowers in positive equity who are able to pay the interest in full. The same definition also applies in cases of negative equity. In cases of deep negative equity where a borrower has a mortgage of €300,000 on a house worth €100,000, if the borrower is unable to pay the interest on the loan but is able to pay the interest on the current value of the property, a sustainable solution involving a debt write-off or a split mortgage could be developed. However, this is all based on a proper definition and understanding of what is a sustainable solution. It is a little uncomfortable to challenge the conventional wisdom and most people react negatively when I put it to them. However, once they have considered it for a while, which might be a few weeks, it sometimes sinks in that there is some sense to it. I ask the committee to think about this and can discuss with members the implications for those with cheap tracker mortgages, as well as other unsecured debt, with other issues they wish to raise.

Ms Julie Sadlier

My colleague, Mr. O'Reilly, will assist me. I am a solicitor working with Phoenix Project Ireland, while Mr. O'Reilly is a financial adviser with many years experience in the financial services industry. We have gathered some statistics from a wide range of people with whom we have dealt since the foundation of the project in 2008. I will give details of the worrying aspects of the statistics, while Mr. O'Reilly will help to answer questions about these statistics and financial information.

Ours is a unique organisation which was specifically formed in 2008 to deal with this crisis. We are not funded by the Government or banks and do not charge fees. We rely entirely on donations from the public to provide the service. We have seen 20,000 people since our foundation. Since the introduction of the MARP targets last August, we have seen more than 3,000 people and surveyed all of the details of their experiences. That survey produced some startling results, showing that in the case of more than 50% of the people we had seen, their only resolution option was eviction. That comes dressed in three sets of clothing. Court proceedings have been issued in the case of 3.35%; 14% are being threatened with repossession by means of solicitors' letters; 33% have received letters from banks asking them to surrender their homes or, in some cases, offering them the option to sell their homes. Interestingly, almost all of the letters contain a reference to the availability of a mortgage-to-rent option, yet I heard for the first time today that this was no longer available. Up until today all I could see in statistics was that funding was available from the Government for 250 mortgages-to-rent this year. From the statistics at our disposal, if, as the March Central Bank figures claim, there are 136,000 home loan mortgages in arrears across the banks covered in the Central Bank report, we calculate that just over 50% have received direct threats of proceedings for repossession or invitations to sell their properties. All of the available official statistics from the Central Bank and the Department of Finance deal with court repossessions only. They deal with restructuring offers and court repossessions. We have provided the committee with a pie chart of repossessions not covered by official statistics; these are the voluntary surrender letters and the letters threatening legal proceedings. We can give the committee more details about these statistics.

One of our greatest concerns about the voluntary sale-voluntary surrender letters is the silence. We have no idea how many people are offering up their keys every day. Whenever we talk about the number of court repossession orders being one or two a day, we have no idea what is happening in this silent area and I am not sure if we will ever know. This is a significant concern. We see people daily who have no idea where they will go. At this point they believe they have no choice but to hand over the keys. In fact, one of our biggest roles is to advise people no to do so, that there is due process in law.

If one waits for proceedings to issue, as one is entitled to do, it could take up to two years for due process to take place. One may even be able to challenge some of this under the MARP code. The High Court recently handed down a decision in which it refused repossession because the bank had not complied with the mortgage arrears code. Part of our brief is to stop people from handing over the keys. The bigger problem for such individuals relates to where they should go and where they should live. They do not qualify for restructuring because they do not have enough money. I was interested in the statistic produced by MABS to the effect that 60% of the people with which it dealt were unemployed. This means that 40% of its clients are on wages, but we must ask what wages they are on. That is our experience. Another interesting statistic provided by MABS is that 55% of its clients are aged between 41 and 60 years. Again, that is a common statistic for us. The people concerned do not fit into the sustainable criteria to which Mr. Burgess referred.

Another worrying trend is that there is a huge focus on positive equity. Anybody in positive equity is not being offered restructuring. That is where the whole process is moving. Unfortunately, as the groups which addressed the committee before us indicated, transparency around resolution options is completely absent. Mr. Joyce from FLAC dealt with this matter in the context of provision 40 of the code of conduct on mortgage arrears. I outlined the actual wording of that provision in the submission I made to the committee. Provision 40 is not being adhered to. We asked the banks, in line with the rules on data protection, to provide us with a detailed consideration of the options for borrowers, but they have failed to do so. In the context of the rules on data protection, the banks are very willing to provide information on every other area within 40 days. However, we are not receiving the information we are seeking on this matter. We are really concerned about this. The Central Bank has informed us of its belief the banks are not obliged to provide this information for their customers. That does not make sense. We cannot advise people on their restructuring options until we know what are the criteria being applied. We need to be informed. Nobody else can do it either.

Vice Chairman

I must ask Ms Sadlier to conclude.

Ms Julie Sadlier

I wish to dispel a couple of myths. Engagement presents a bigger problem at bank level than at client level. When we take up the issue of engagement on behalf of clients, we have difficulty in getting through to banks. One can imagine what the position for ordinary people is in trying to contact them. The myth relating to moral hazard is completely overstated; we just do not see it. We do not come across people who can pay but who do not want to do so. The treatment of people on a case by case basis is another myth. The banks have moved completely away from providing relationship-based services to using call centres and encouraging staff to use Christian names only. When one contacts such centres, one can never speak to the same person twice. The banks also have extremely draconian ways of defining people as being non-co-operative. I can show the committee what they do to people. It is really unfair.

Mr. Ross Maguire

I thank the joint committee for giving me the opportunity to make a presentation to it. New Beginning believes that, at least in principle, the structures are in place to facilitate the working-out of a solution to this problem, whether it be through the code, the Personal Insolvency Act 2012, the Bankruptcy Act 1988 or section 2 of the new Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2013, on which we worked with Deputy Stephen S. Donnelly. The difficulty is - it cannot be underestimated - that waiting for banks to provide solutions is not the way to proceed anymore. Debtors need to understand what is available to them. In that regard, New Beginning has embarked on a national tour and will have visited every county in Ireland by the end of next week. The idea in this regard is to make known to ordinary people the solutions available thanks to the introduction of the 2012 Act and, most importantly, the new bankruptcy laws. I will deal with the issue of bankruptcy.

Negotiation is the first step available via the MARP process. The problem with this is that it is a completely opaque system. As previous speakers pointed out, there is no transparency with regard to the criteria the banks apply. In addition, some of these criteria are deeply unfair. If, for example, one is in positive equity, one simply cannot obtain a deal. The person living next door, however, who happened to purchase his or her home a few years later and is in negative equity will get a deal. We are concerned about the lack of transparency because it leads to resentment on the part of those who do not obtain deals. It can also lead to resentment on the part of the community in general who are, in the case of banks such as AIB, financing these deals. For those who have business with a number of banks or debts with various parties, it is impossible to put everyone in the same room together in an informal sense. We have grave concerns about transparency and recognise that in the case of multiple creditors, informal deals are almost impossible.

The next part of the process involves the insolvency system. While the take-up has been low thus far, international comparisons show that this is to be expected. One would expect the rate to spike later this year and into 2015. The idea behind the system is that one puts creditors in a room and forces them to agree to debt restructuring. The question which arises is this: why would a creditor agree to such debt restructuring? Why is it that over 94% of individual voluntary arrangements, IVAs, arrived at in the United Kingdom are accepted, particularly when, in the context of a standard IVA, one would expect a 70% or even greater write-down of unsecured debts? The reason for this is the existence in Britain of a benign bankruptcy law. While our laws are not quite as benign, they are sufficiently so to allow people to start to put pressure on banks. People must understand that, for all its disadvantages, bankruptcy means that all of one's debts are written off in a moment and that one can start again there and then. It is, therefore, a reboot. It is not the case that everyone must go bankrupt. However, it is a card that people now have at their disposal. Their having it fundamentally changes the negotiation process involving creditors. It is important that people understand what is involved.

What are the negatives in bankruptcy? People say there is a stigma attaching to it. We just need to get over this in this country. People here have faced a perfect storm. On the one hand, there has been an enormous recession and the collapse of real estate prices, while, on the other, the fact that we are in the eurozone means that our debts have not deflated as they would have done if we still had our own currency. The other aspect is that we have not had our own insolvency system up until now. As a result, there was no way out. The position in this regard has now changed and we hope this will force the banks to do the deals they ought to have been doing in 2008. The other concern people have with regard to bankruptcy relates to the family home. The assignee has repeatedly stated he does not want to sell family homes in bankruptcy. He has indicated that he will do so if he has to do so, but in reality the houses in question were going to be lost. In many cases, family homes will not necessarily be lost in bankruptcy.

Bankruptcy does not make any difference in the context of employment, unless one is a pharmacist or an auctioneer. It is bizarre that if one is bankrupt, one cannot be a pharmacist, but one can be a doctor and that one cannot be an auctioneer, but one can be a solicitor. There are some anomalies in the system and I understand legislation is going through the Houses to facilitate people who are bankrupt and want to run in Dáil elections. That makes sense because we need to get over the stigma attaching to bankruptcy. Many people, small business owners and the like, have been obliged to put up with this nightmare for the past five years. For them, bankruptcy has no downside in the context of employment. At the height of the crisis in the United Kingdom in 2008, there were 70,000 bankruptcies. In Ireland last year the figure for bankruptcies stood somewhere in the mid-40s. I inform people that Abraham Lincoln, Walt Disney and Donald Trump who recently visited Ireland in order to purchase the golf resort at Doonbeg were all bankrupts at one point. We need to get over our difficulties with bankruptcy. That, in my respectful submission to the committee, would have the effect of forcing through the deals which need to be done.

Deputy Michael McGrath

I welcome our guests and thank them for the work they are doing on behalf of consumers and, in particular, those mortgage holders operating in very stressful circumstances. Ms Sadlier referred to a key issue. One of the most sinister developments in recent times was the change to the code of conduct and the option for banks, in certain circumstances, to declare people as not co-operating. It is very much at the discretion of the banks to do this and this is happening at a time when their systems are still not up to standard. During the break in proceedings I returned a number of calls, one of which was to somebody in mortgage arrears and who in the past two weeks received three conflicting letters from the bank. The first declared the person in question to be not co-operating; the second offered a solution, while the third stated the current arrangement was going to expire. The person's telephone calls are not being returned and on each occasion contact is made with the bank, it is with a different individual. The bank is not prepared to facilitate proper engagement in writing, with the exception of the standard letters to which I refer. It is extremely difficult for people to know where they stand. The banks now have at their disposal the weapon of being able to declare people as not co-operating and, essentially, are in a position to move against them - in a legal sense - immediately.

Ms Sadlier made a point also about the percentage of solutions that are in the repossession or voluntary surrender realm. The official figures show that more than 60% of the offers of sustainable solutions under the MART framework are in that area whereby the family home will be lost. It is difficult to understand how that can be stood over in any way.

Mr. Brendan Burgess put forward a different interpretation of a sustainable solution, which is not properly defined at present, but we read that the protocol the Central Bank is trying to put in place with lenders, whereby multiple debts can be dealt with under an agreed formula, is being resisted. What would be the impact of his definition of sustainable mortgage on the other forms of debt, the unsecured debt?

Mr. Brendan Burgess

For a mortgage to be sustainable the borrower must be able to pay the standard variable rate of interest on it, and that can be extended to stage two. If the borrower can pay the standard variable rate of interest on their unsecured debts, those debts are also sustainable. If the borrower cannot pay the standard variable rate of interest on their mortgage and there has to be some sort of deal on their mortgage, the unsecured creditors should be taking a big hit. When one has a measure of sustainability, one can see what one would do with the unsecured creditors. If a person has a mortgage of €300,000, a house worth €200,000 and owes another €50,000 to the credit union, if the bank has to write down unsecured debt to make the mortgage sustainable, the other unsecured debt should be written off. Against that, a bigger problem for the credit unions at present is they are being asked to write off debt under the Central Bank waterfall scheme in order that the borrower can repay capital on their mortgage. That, to me, makes no sense. There is no reason a credit union should have to write off debt to make a mortgage sustainable when that definition of "sustainable" means the mortgage has to be paid off by the age of 65 or so.

Deputy Michael McGrath

Mr. Maguire has put forward bankruptcy as a more attractive option than many people would have seen it as being up to now. That is a very important debate to have because with the discharge period being reduced significantly under the legislation, it is now an option for many people. There is the stigma of becoming a bankrupt, but I agree with him that as a country we have to get over that and be more mature. The reason people are so anxious to fight for their life to hold on to their home, whether it be by restructuring the mortgage or avoiding bankruptcy, if that means they would lose their home, is that they are afraid they will never get credit again. That will become an issue in the next decade or so when all of this washes itself out and people have had write-offs, an insolvency arrangement or bilateral arrangement with their bank. What are their prospects of ever buying a home again and getting credit? That is the reason I believe many people are fighting for their life to hold on to what they have, even if it means accepting what is not a great deal from the bank.

Mr. Ross Maguire

That is a super question. That is one of the issues that has raised its head on our tours. It is not that everyone has to go bankrupt but the knowledge there is the threat of it helps the negotiating position. That is the first point. The second point is that one comes out of bankruptcy in three years but the effect of bankruptcy is from the first moment. In terms of a person getting credit again, there is a need for lenders in the State, whether it be a new lender, and that could well happen, to consider people who have gone through insolvency and see them as better credits. In other words, I could say to someone that if they go bankrupt and eradicate their debt or enter an insolvency arrangement and eradicate their debts, I am here to lend. Often people are in stable employment and are perfectly good credits. The difficulty is that they have too much debt. It would put huge pressure on the incumbents if someone came into the market to do that at a fair rate as opposed to a type of sub-prime loan. That is something we are actively considering. That would be the perfect solution where one could say to a person to fix their position by using the insolvency system or bankruptcy and one would be there for the person because that person would be a better credit risk in three years' time when they were free of debt than someone who had been trying to bail out a sinking ship for all that time.

Ms Julie Sadlier

I would add that we have done some research on bankruptcy because many people have made inquiries about it, and even in the UK personal insolvency is a preferred resolution to bankruptcy from a banking point of view when the persons concerned are 20 something years old. Despite the liberal and more advanced nature of that system, bankruptcy still holds less weight for credit into the future.

Deputy Michael McGrath

Deputy Pearse Doherty

I had an instance two weeks ago where we got a phone call from a bank and a girl left her first name. I phoned back some time later when I was free and I asked for that girl. The man I spoke to had never heard of that girl, who had an unusual name. I spoke to him and said that I needed to talk about the client. He said there was a note on the file that, because that girl had phoned looking for the client and then looking for me because the client asked her to call me, the client was now deemed not to be co-operating and he could not talk to me. The client then got a letter to say she was not co-operating. I have written to the bank detailing all this and so far they have not come back, but this is how it works. It is that bad. It is so ridiculous it is scary.

Deputy Peter Mathews

This is how it does not work.

Ms Julie Sadlier

This is how it does not work - exactly.

Deputy Peter Mathews

Ms Sadlier is quite correct.

Ms Julie Sadlier

Sadly, I am getting acclimatised to it, but that is how bad it is.

Mr. Ross Maguire

Where there is no one to bail one out, as implied by Deputy Higgins, the assignee is saying that if one’s income is such that one can pay a reasonable mortgage, although the assignee technically owns the house, one can continue to pay the mortgage or whatever one can pay. There is no question of his selling the house unless he has to. If the bank wants to gain possession, it must go through all the normal processes. In many ways, it is more difficult to gain possession of someone’s house in bankruptcy than it is in the normal way because the court has all sorts of factors it must take into account that it does not have to account for in the normal course of events. The most important point is that one does not lose one’s house automatically in bankruptcy. According to the assignee, he will do everything to avoid that but, of course, there will be circumstances when a house will be lost. If so, the debt goes with it and one is in a better position than one would have been in.

Deputy Arthur Spring

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

I thank all the attendees. I commend them on filling the gap in trying to help people to navigate through the crisis they are facing.

A question I have on the big picture concerns the fact that there was, in effect, a ban on repossessions. Perhaps the banks had no great inclination to repossess at the outset of the crisis because property values and rents were on the floor. There was not a hell of a lot in it for them, but now the ban is gone and the pressure is on them to repossess. There is a growing incentive for them to do so. Are the delegates alarmed by the prospect that the current rise in rents and property values could actively incentivise the banks to ratchet up the number of repossessions?

Mr. Brendan Burgess

The point is that the banks will not do what Deputy Mathews asks-----

Deputy Peter Mathews

They need more capital and resources. Loan provisioning stands at a total of approximately €18.5 billion in AIB Group and €8.5 billion in Bank of Ireland Group. They have approximately the same size loan portfolios and are in the same economy. There is something wrong about that. As a matter of policy, Bank of Ireland is splitting mortgages and, according to Mr. Burgess's formula, resetting the variable interest rate portion to an interest rate of approximately 5% redeeming over a period of 30 years, leaving the non-parked portion of the loan as shadow, increasing, cumulative, rolled-up interest at the same rate. That is absurd.

Mr. Brendan Burgess

Bank of Ireland? No, it is not.

Deputy Peter Mathews

I am sorry; it is. I am dealing with a case. It is absurd. Bank of Ireland should be writing off the asset price collapse for its own account and resetting a mortgage over the period of the original mortgage. Bank of Ireland, collectively with the sector, created the asset price bubble, the Ponzi scheme, because it abandoned the golden principle of banking, fractional reserving. When the bad bubble burst, Bank of Ireland had €61 billion of senior secured debt on its balance sheets funding a crazy balance sheet. That is the challenge for the banks.

Deputy Ann Phelan

If we are serious about trying to help people who find themselves in such extreme circumstances it is all around the issue of people being told they are unco-operative. Most days I come across people who tell me they keep diaries of when they try to contact the bank by telephone or in writing. Some of them have thick dossiers of their attempts to engage with the banks. They tell me the biggest difficulty is that every time they telephone or write, a new person is dealing with their case. They get only the first name, not the surname, of the person who is dealing with their case. This is seriously impeding people's ability to deliver for themselves some kind of deal with their banks. Should the banks designate their own panels of people who will do this as their daily jobs? I am not sure if the banks are willing to do that because this passing the parcel within the bank is a way for the bank, rather than the distressed borrower, to be unco-operative.

I have a difficulty with how AIB is doing these deals. Some of the people who contact me are asking why some people are getting deals with AIB while they cannot get a debt write-down. The lack of transparency and criteria around those deals is creating an artificial expectation that people will get a write-down simply by going to a certain person or bank. It is not very helpful. I may be proved wrong and, if so, I will admit it. It is not that I do not want to see people getting deals, but I want a level playing pitch for the people with whom I deal who are not getting deals.

What would the witnesses think of the Government establishing an advisory group on the lines of a tier-two of MABS that could possibly move up a level to try to deal with these people? Ms Sadlier said many people have engaged with her. A huge number of people are in distress and I know many who are not engaging with anybody and do not know where to turn. Should we do a national drive on the supports available and who to speak to? We have not done this at a national level. There are many websites but perhaps we should do a drive on national television to encourage people in distress to contact somebody and tell them that there are people here to help.

Deputy Peter Mathews

The banks should be doing this, and we should force them to.

Deputy Ann Phelan

We should.

Deputy Peter Mathews

It is absurd that six years have gone by. That is why we should have nationalised all the banks.

(Interruptions).

Mr. Brendan Burgess

The AIB debt write-down must be welcomed. It must be clarified that people are getting this only in cases where the mortgage would otherwise be totally unsustainable. They are in deep negative equity and the only other solution would be repossession or bankruptcy. People in mild negative equity are not getting this. It is a great idea in situations that are very bad. Even a red-in-tooth-and-claw capitalist such as myself thinks the banks should write off debt where it is the only solution. It suits the bank, borrower and society. Let us encourage AIB to do more and ask the other banks next week why they are not doing it.

Deputy Peter Mathews

They should all be doing it.

Ms Julie Sadlier

It turns on two issues. First, the criteria for that type of resolution are not adequate to cover all the people who need it. It applies to a very limited group that suits the banking sector and its issues. My other problem with anything to do with more advice and resources is the fact that despite the length of time we have been trying to sort this we are getting nowhere. Hand on heart, we see no permanent resolutions, as the Deputy calls them. They all have reviews built into them.

Deputy Peter Mathews

The two stress tests were wrong.

Ms Julie Sadlier

The case-by-case approach is the greatest myth. This process will be ongoing for the rest of our lives if we go case by case. We need some across-the-board solution.

Ms Ruth Fanning

On the concept of an advisory group, there is money to fund a panel of accountants for people who have been offered options by their banks but people are not accessing the panel. The Department of Social Protection is trying to expand that panel so other people who are used to giving advice on mortgages can benefit from that fund. The money there is not being used and that could be raised with the Central Bank because that is where it is stuck. On the banks deeming people unco-operative, the code of conduct says the banks must send a warning letter before they deem a person unco-operative. We do not see that happening across the board. People are being told they are unco-operative and the effect of that might be to rule them out of taking the insolvency route. If they have been found not to have co-operated with the bank, they are ruled out from a personal insolvency arrangement. The consequences are grave.

People may not know that one has to be warned before being deemed uncooperative but that often does not happen.

Vice Chairman

I thank the witnesses for attending. It has been a long afternoon but it has been very informative for the committee. I hope they all listen when the banks respond next week. They might offer their critique of what they say because many of the questions we ask them will stem from some of the issues raised here today. The witnesses have given us different points of view and we will challenge the banks with questions on those issues. I thank the witnesses for coming in and giving us their time.

The joint committee adjourned at 6.11 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 8 April 2014.

Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform debate - Wednesday, 2 Apr 2014

Mortgage Arrears Resolution Process: Discussion

Mr. David Hall

Ms Noeline Blackwell

Mr. Paul Joyce

Ms Carol Dunne

Ms Carol Dunne

Mr. David Hall

Mr. Paul Joyce

Ms Noeline Blackwell

Ms Carol Dunne

Mr. David Hall

Mr. David Hall

Mr. David Hall

Mr. David Hall

Mr. David Hall

Mr. David Hall

Mr. David Hall

Mr. Paul Joyce

Ms Noeline Blackwell

Ms Noeline Blackwell

Ms Carol Dunne

Ms Anna Walsh

Mr. Stephen Curtis

Ms Noeline Blackwell

Mr. David Hall

Mr. Paul Joyce

Ms Anna Walsh

Ms Carol Dunne

Ms Noeline Blackwell

Mr. Paul Joyce

Ms Noeline Blackwell

Mr. Stephen Curtis

Mr. David Hall

Mr. David Hall

Ms Anna Walsh

Ms Noeline Blackwell

Mr. Stephen Curtis

Ms Carol Dunne

Mr. David Hall

Mr. Paul Joyce

Ms Carol Dunne

Mr. David Hall

Ms Noeline Blackwell

Ms Anna Walsh

Mr. Paul Joyce

Mr. David Hall

Mr. Stephen Curtis

Mr. David Hall

Ms Noeline Blackwell

Ms Carol Dunne

Mr. David Hall

Mr. David Hall

Mr. David Hall

Mr. David Hall

Mr. David Hall

Ms Noeline Blackwell

Mr. David Hall

Mr. David Hall

Mr. David Hall

Ms Carol Dunne

Mr. Brendan Burgess

Ms Julie Sadlier

Ms Julie Sadlier

Mr. Ross Maguire

Mr. Brendan Burgess

Mr. Ross Maguire

Ms Julie Sadlier

Ms Julie Sadlier

Mr. Brendan Burgess

Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform debate -
Wednesday, 2 Apr 2014