Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 9 Apr 2014

Mortgage Arrears Resolution Process: (Resumed) Permanent TSB and AIB

Before we commence business, I remind members, witnesses and those in the Public Gallery that all mobile phones should be switched off to avoid interference with the broadcasting of the meeting. I welcome the representatives of Permanent TSB to this morning's meeting. We are joined by Mr. Jeremy Masding, group chief executive officer; Mr. Stephen Groarke, head of financial reporting and planning; Mr. Shane O'Sullivan, managing director, asset management and non-core units; and Mr. Ger Mitchell, director of mortgage and consumer finance. The witnesses are here to assist the committee in its examination of mortgage arrears and to report on progress in putting in place solutions aimed at resolving difficulties in the sector. I thank Mr. Masding and his staff for the written material provided to the committee in advance of today's meeting.

The discussion will begin with opening remarks by Mr. Masding. Following that, questions will be put by members to witnesses as appropriate. It is very important that we manage our time well today. To derive maximum benefit from the meeting, therefore, each member will have a strictly limited time slot within which questions may be put and replies given. The questions of members and the replies from witnesses should be clear and concise.

I advise the witnesses that, by virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, they 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 welcome the members of Permanent TSB before us this morning and I ask Mr. Masding to proceed with his opening comments.

Do we have a copy of the presentation?

Yes. Mr. Masding can continue.

Mr. Jeremy Masding

Good morning, Chairman and members of the committee. On behalf of my colleagues and myself, I thank the committee for the invitation to meet and update it on our progress on relevant matters. As the Chairman detailed, I am joined by Mr. Stephen Groarke, head of financial reporting and planning, Mr. Shane O'Sullivan, managing director of the asset management unit, and Mr. Ger Mitchell, director of mortgage and consumer finance.

I would like to keep these opening remarks very brief as I am sure it would be a better use of the members' time to focus on questions and answers, but I would like to make a small number of points. The past 12 months have been transformative for the Permanent TSB Group. A year ago the bank was marking the end of the first phase of our recovery programme. We had completed the stabilisation of the bank after the crisis. We had put in place the new architecture of the group that was suited for our journey to recovery. The asset management unit, our specialist unit to support and assist our customers with troubled loans, had commenced its work. We were making the first tentative step to re-engage with the market and our customers and begin competing with other banks in what I might call the normal thrust of business.

During the past 12 months we have made further significant progress on all fronts. Much of the attention at this meeting will be on the critically important issue of mortgage arrears, and today we report that we have comfortably exceeded the targets set down for us by the Central Bank of Ireland in respect of putting in place long-term solutions for our customers in arrears. In respect of the targets required us by the end of December last, to have offered long-term treatment arrangements to 50% of our customers who were in arrears, we had in fact offered such solutions for 61% of those customers.

The bank has made very significant progress on re-entering the retail market. We have just ended quarter one of 2014, and during that quarter the bank lent €105 million in mortgages. Twelve months ago, the comparable figure for the first quarter of 2013 was just €14 million. That is almost an eight-fold increase in 12 months. At the end of 2012 and start of 2013, we accounted for just 4% of the mortgage approvals that were given in the market. At the end of January last, we accounted for 20% of those approvals. That is real progress. We have made huge progress also on current accounts. A year ago we effectively challenged the approach taken by every other bank for current accounts by launching an account which has no fees or transaction charges for the vast majority of users. The response has been excellent and we have recruited some 60,000 new customers during the past year. I can confirm that even with no fees or charges for most customers, this is a valuable product for us as well as an important product for our customers.

We have made very important progress in other areas too. We have reduced our loan to deposit ratio from 191% in 2012 to 150% in 2013. We increased our net interest margin from 72 basis points in 2012 to 82 basis points in 2013. We have reduced our cost-income ratio from 144% in 2012 to 119% in 2013. Importantly, we have reduced our ECB borrowings from almost €11 billion in 2012 to less than €7 billion in 2013, and this was down to €6.5 billion at the end of last week.

I am not naive and I do not for a moment underestimate the challenges still ahead of us, or for all the other banks in this market, but I believe the progress we have made is very important and gives us great confidence in our ability to meet whatever challenges lie ahead. We will return to our traditional role of being a relevant and innovative force in retail banking in Ireland. In that context, I note the recent very strong statement of support for the bank from the Minister for Finance who described Permanent TSB as a "genuine and important competitor in the retail banking market" and who stated he would continue to support the board and management of the bank in the delivery of our strategy to rebuild it. That concludes my opening remarks and my colleagues and I will be happy to take any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Masding. I propose to take the first group of questions in 15 minute slots and then move on ten minute slots, and I would hope to conclude by 1 p.m. or even earlier than that.

I thank Mr. Masding for coming before the committee and for the information he provided to us. I will begin by delving into some of that. It appears that Permanent TSB has probably the highest percentages of split mortgages as a resolution that is offered in comparison with the other banks. Can Mr. Masding explain how the bank is probably the greatest provider of split mortgages? Is the bank providing split mortgages to people in positive equity as well as to people in negative equity?

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

I will take that question. When we started the journey of debt resolution and our strategy, we saw the split mortgage as a fundamentally very good proposition for both the lender and the borrower. That was our intent from the beginning. It is a resolution that is quite costly from a bank's perspective but it is fundamentally one that we think can help customers who have struggled in recent years. With that in mind, the Chairman can note from the template we provided that we have offered approximately 4,000 split mortgages to date. The template by its nature - the MART methodology - focuses on late arrears. I am pleased to confirm that, outside of that cluster of customers, we have offered a further 3,000 split mortgages. In total, Permanent TSB has offered 7,000 split mortgages to our customers.

On the Chairman's second question, we do not look at our resolution strategy from a positive or a negative equity perspective. The reality is that we are focused on affordability and sustainability. When we look at a case to see what we can do, certainty is uppermost in our mind. We are looking for a solution or a pathway that can give us comfort that the principal outstanding is repaid at the end of the term, or the extended term, and that there is affordability month by month from here to there. It is really as simple as that in terms of our assessment and the negative-positive equity is not a direct factor in that.

On the mortgage to rent solution, which was another one of the resolution processes set out in the Keane report, I note there has not been completion of any of those to date. What is the current state of play in that respect?

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

It is disappointing that is the case. We have not to date completed a mortgage to rent solution, and there are many that we would like to complete. Our perspective is that the system needs an overhaul to enable mortgage to rent to become a solution at scale. The problems are many and I could cluster them into a number of categories. The process is fraught. There are a great number of parties involved, from the borrower to the lender to the housing association to the housing bodies to the local authorities. It is a cumbersome process that clearly needs streamlining. The criteria at this stage is a little out of date. It made sense at a point in time but, for instance, properties that are over the value of €220,000 in Dublin at present are excluded.

There are issues regarding income thresholds. There is a fundamental problem with valuations which needs to be rectified. I am happy to state the banks are working in a collegiate way with the Irish Banking Federation and have proposed meetings in recent times with the housing authority to see what we can do together. The funding and resourcing of the scheme needs to be examined also. From our perspective we consider we have 100 or 150 customers who would well fit this proposition and we hope in time we can provide this solution for them.

While I accept there may be valuation difficulties arising in Dublin at present the bank's loan book is not exclusive to the Dublin area.

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

Correct.

Why has the bank been unable to complete it in other districts?

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

It is for very similar reasons. The threshold figure outside of Dublin is €180,000. This is a more workable figure.

This is €180,000 as current value and not purchase price.

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

Correct, it is current value. As the economy turns and house prices increase it eliminates more and more people from the proposition. Outside of Dublin the other factors remain. Everyone wants this to work but it is not working at present. It is the only one of our solutions which we do not directly control. We can offer 4,000 split mortgages and almost 3,000 part capital and interest payment arrangements, and we are not slow to do so, but the one proposition we do not directly influence is the one on which we are at zero and I hope this substantiates the factors I am putting forward.

I will move on to assisted voluntary sales. The bank has a proportionately high number of these, as it does for split mortgages. This seems to be out of kilter with what is done by some of the other banks with significant numbers of people involved. To verify the number Mr. O'Sullivan gave us, he stated approximately 1,300 people have been assisted in voluntary sales.

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

That is correct.

We raised this issue with Ulster Bank yesterday afternoon. After the disposal of the property this becomes unsecured debt. What is the bank doing with this unsecured debt?

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

At present our default position is that any shortfall after the sale is the responsibility of our customer, namely, the borrower. In practice this means we will sit down with the customer after the sale and examine his or her financial position. If there is an ability to contribute to the shortfall we will request it. However, we will look at issues from an economic point of view and if there is no affordability or ability to repay the shortfall we will not pursue it.

It is fair to state we have learned a lot on this journey over the past 15 to 18 months. We have not done everything right and we have no monopoly on good ideas. Of our options, the assisted voluntary sale is the one with the least take-up from customers and this is probably not surprising. The take-up of most of our other treatments is approximately 85%. We are piloting an idea whereby we are more explicit and make a commitment upfront to the customer before the property is sold as to what we would do with the shortfall. This proposal would see the use of capital at the end of the process. We are working this through with up to 200 customers at present and once the pilot completes we will assess, take our findings and recommendations and move forward.

Has Permanent TSB engaged in the write-down of debt in these circumstances to date?

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

We have not done so to date. We have not pursued the shortfall where it is clear to us-----

In terms of the previous homeowner moving on and getting on with his or her life is the legacy debt left hanging over him or her?

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

At present the legacy debt is left hanging and we do not pursue it where it makes no economic sense to do so.

It is still there.

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

It is there.

I do not hold the view that everything must be similar in every bank, but we are looking at consistency across the board and it seems to be the case, even in privately owned banks, that this debt is written off as part of a structured resolution process.

Mr. Jeremy Masding

In any banking system I have worked in there is no single rule unfortunately. We examine each customer on a case by case basis and I assure the committee the mindset is not to chase all the debt all the time. We look at each individual customer and should it be appropriate to use our capital in a formal write-off sense I assure the committee we will do so.

The last time the banks came before the committee there was a very strong difference of opinion on stating that writing a legal letter to distressed customers was a resolution process. It might be the commencement of a resolution process to get matters under way, and a legacy debt which is not categorically dealt with or concluded after an assisted voluntary sale or repossession is not a resolution process either. It means that for the rest of their lives the people involved have a debt hanging over them.

Mr. Jeremy Masding

I refer the Chairman to my previous comment. I cannot make a blanket statement. For some, where it would be neither appropriate nor economic for us to pursue the shortfall, we will write off the debt. It is on a case by case basis. I am afraid I cannot give the Chairman another answer.

I do not seek a blanket comment. A property could be in positive or negative equity upon its disposal and this will determine whether a sum is outstanding. In situations where a substantive sum of legacy debt exists and a person has surrendered his or her home because of unaffordability, which is the basis on which the banks deal with cases, has Permanent TSB concluded this debt with people so they know where they stand on whether they will owe the debt for the rest of their lives or whether the debt will be wiped?

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

To date we have not done so. We have concluded assisted voluntary sales where there is an overhang and there has been negative equity, and we pursue it if it makes economic sense. In many cases we do not do so. What is important is today we are signalling that we are examining fundamentally our assisted voluntary sale offer. We have a pilot with 200 customers and this pilot is all about providing clarity and certainty upfront before the sale about what will happen to the shortfall.

Going back to Mr. O'Sullivan's earlier comment, somebody going into an assisted voluntary sale would be more encouraged. I dealt with a case which the Permanent TSB handled quite well. Following a separation a young woman and a child were living in a one-bedroom apartment. This apartment had been bought for €250,000 and is probably worth approximately €80,000 now. This would be an unsustainable living situation never mind an unsustainable debt for the remainder of the woman's life. In such situations, where people can see the end game of the resolution process, they are favourable towards voluntarily surrendering property.

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

Yes.

However if Permanent TSB approaches this process with vagueness at the end of it that will not encourage people to engage in a voluntary sale and the bank will be tied up in court forever.

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

We understand this. I make the point again that we learn as we go and we have not got everything right. We believe there is more we can do on assisted voluntary sales and we are running a fundamental pilot at present in this regard. It is the one option which to date has not been as successful, not surprisingly, as our other treatments. We recognise what the Chairman has stated.

I do not expect the witnesses to have these figures to hand this morning, but will they provide an explanation at a later date, if possible, regarding the 2,302 people involved in legal proceedings at present with regard to how many are still not engaging with the bank even though a legal process is under way; how may are responding to the bank through the legal process; and how many were previously in a mortgage arrears resolution process but have moved to court proceedings? Will the witnesses also tell us how many of these are in positive equity and in negative equity? I do not expect the witnesses to have this detail this morning.

Will the witnesses speak about new lending? They have stated there is positive growth in this area.

Mr. Ger Mitchell

From an almost standing start at the beginning of 2013 we re-entered the mortgage and lending market last year. We lent €67 million in 2012 and the figure for mortgages was €207 million last year, which was a 3.5-fold increase in new lending business.

In tandem with that, our consumer finance business increased by 71% in 2013. Moreover, we have started to recover a considerable amount of lost market share the previous four or five years had witnessed. At the end of 2012, we had less than 2% of market share and we finished last year with 8.3% of market share. I am pleased to state that in quarter 4, we accounted for 12% of all the new lending done in the Irish market last year. Thus far this year, as Mr. Masding noted in his opening remarks, we have lent more than €100 million in the first quarter. It is going very positively and we are seeing very strong growth in our new business pipeline.

On foot of the more prudential measures issued by the Central Bank in 2009 regarding loan-to-value, LTV, ratios, income ratios and stuff like that, has there been a significant change in the schedule of mortgages? Has it gone back from 35 years to 20 years or 25 years? What LTV does Permanent TSB apply on those loans?

Mr. Ger Mitchell

The affordability relative to income that we are seeing on mortgages at present is approximately 20%. Again, back in the early 2000s, that would have been 35% and 40%. Consequently, we are adopting a much more prudential approach to lending. Affordability, cash flow and the surplus of income over expenditure is at the heart of everything that we do. In line with the mortgage directive, all our applicants are assessed both on their incomes and on their living expenses, other debt commitments and the long-term sustainability of the arrangement.

What is the maximum LTV being allowed? Is it 92% or 95%?

Mr. Ger Mitchell

The maximum LTV that we do is 90%. Typically, we are now seeing much higher equity stakes from applicants. Bearing in mind that a sizeable number of people have not bought in the past five years, substantial deposits have been saved up and relative to the property price, deposits are coming in with rates of 20% or 30% being the norm.

Has the loan schedule reduced significantly?

Mr. Ger Mitchell

The schedule is approximately 25 years.

I have one final question before bringing in Deputy Michael McGrath. Are targets now being given to bank staff with regard to reaching a certain number of mortgages to be issued for 2014? Has the staff of Permanent TSB been given targets in that area?

Mr. Ger Mitchell

Our individual staff have not been given targets but the bank has a lending fund and a lending target of €500 million that we have set aside for new lending this year.

I wish to chase this issue, which I will be pursuing with all the banks. The concern is that one downside of seeing growth in home purchasing is that a bubble might be recreating itself again. In respect of loan-to-value ratios, is the LTV applied to the purchase price or the valuation? For example, were I to buy a house for €200,000 in the morning and were I to borrow €200,000, that would mean I was getting a 100% mortgage. However, if the valuation on the property is put at €220,000 and were I to borrow €200,000 to buy that house for €200,000, on paper that could appear as a LTV of 90%. Is Permanent TSB engaging in that type of practice?

Mr. Ger Mitchell

No, absolutely not. Our loan-to-value ratio is based on the purchase price.

I welcome Mr. Masding and his colleagues before the joint committee this morning. I will start by asking Mr. Masding what percentage of the bank's mortgage customers in arrears simply are not co-operating at all, are stonewalling completely all efforts by the bank to engage or to come up with solutions or are not making any payments? What is the percentage of such customers in this regard?

Mr. Jeremy Masding

I thank the Deputy and Mr. Shane O'Sullivan will respond.

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

I am happy to take that question. Approximately 15% to 20% of our customers are not engaging at present. Under the code of conduct on mortgage arrears, CCMA, engagement is defined by the extent to which there is meaningful conversations. The Deputy should not take the figure of 15% to 20% to be those who, as he put it, are stonewalling us. While there is some element of this within the 15% to 20%, another element comprises people who are engaging in a limited way but not in a meaningful way.

It is quite a high figure, that is, in the bank's view as many as one in five of those in arrears are not co-operating with it at present.

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

Yes, it is 15% to 20% or up to one in five but again, the definition is "meaningful engagement".

Yes. From the perspective of Permanent TSB, what is a sustainable mortgage? How does the bank define it, how does it measure it and how does it decide that one customer falls on one side of the fence as being unsustainable, while another is deemed to have a sustainable mortgage? What is Permanent TSB's definition?

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

Our starting point is certainty. From there we ask whether the mortgage, were we obliged to restructure it, would be sustainable. To us, sustainable means there is a clear path to the repayment of the outstanding capital by the end of the term or an extended term. Thereafter, once one can pass that test, the question is whether the customer is able to afford the monthly repayments between here and there, month in, month out. When one can identify that solution, it will lead one into treatments like the split mortgage or parked capital and interest or whatever it might be. Unfortunately, there are times when no matter what way one considers it, up or down, left or right, that affordability and sustainability is not there. Consequently, the certainty is not there and this leads one to the route of the best outcome for the customer being to work collaboratively to sell the property. This is seen by the Central Bank as a sustainable solution. It might not be the one the customer would prefer but it is a credible solution, given that affordability and sustainability are not there.

In terms of the mechanics of how we arrive at these decisions, the Deputy will understand that all customers will complete a standard financial statement, SFS, form. It is a ten-page or 12-page form that they will complete with a member of our staff in a branch. We have two staff members in each branch who will take customers through the SFS. The SFS form is then validated by a team in Dublin, who will compare it for accuracy and will then pass it to an underwriter. The underwriter will make his or her decision based on the SFS, as well as with the assistance of cash flow projections that enable the underwriter to consider what options are available for the customer in each case. Ultimately, the underwriter will make that decision on affordability and sustainability.

On page 4 of the slideshow that was presented in advance, it refers to mortgage arrears resolution targets, MART, and non-MART treatments to the end of the first quarter of 2014. The bank has almost 10,000 cases under the general heading of "closure", which then is broken down further. Can the Mr. O'Sullivan reconcile this with the figures provided on the spreadsheet which, in terms of legal proceedings, were considerably lower for both principal dwelling house, PDH, and buy to let, BTL, properties? How can Mr. O'Sullivan reconcile these figures?

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

I can. The MART target is a measure of how one is dealing with customers who are deep in arrears and "deep in arrears" is defined as being anything from 90 days in arrears plus. That could extend out to a great number of years and the MART focuses exclusively on that cluster. Beyond that, every bank will have customers who are less than 90 days in arrears. They are in arrears for between one day and 90 days. In addition, every bank will have customers who are not in arrears but who are on some form of forbearance or who have indicated that while everything is fine right now, there may be trouble ahead. Outside of MART, we clearly are seeking to put in place sustainable solutions for all of our customer base. The chart to which the Deputy refers shows how we are progressing on the cumulative MART and non-MART accounts, whereas the template that we submitted focuses exclusively on MART.

To tease this out a little, if one looks at the spreadsheet, under the heading "legal proceedings", up to the end of quarter 1, that is, the end of March, Permanent TSB has fewer than 7,000 in respect of both PDH and BTL.

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

Is the Deputy on the template or the PowerPoint slide?

I am on the spreadsheet. It is a single page, showing less than 7,000 such cases, whereas almost 10,000 appear on the PowerPoint slide under the heading of "closure", which means legal proceedings, repossession or assisted voluntary sales. That is an additional 3,000 cases. Mr. O'Sullivan's explanation appears to be that these are outside of MART, which means they are less than 90 days in arrears. However, that is an additional 3,000 people who have lost a home or who are heading down that road and who are not covered by MART. How can Mr. O'Sullivan explain that?

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

The Deputy is accurate in what he is saying. That figure is stating that if one looks across the entire arrears base, there is a larger number who are considering closure. Equally, however, on the long-term solutions, there is a far larger number who are availing of split mortgages or parked capital and interest and so on. To the point earlier, on the template, which focuses on arrears of greater than 90 days, we have offered 4,300 split mortgages across home loans and buy-to-lets. However, if one looks at the PowerPoint slide, one will see the equivalent figure across the entire arrears base is more than 7,000.

I am curious about the reason there are more than 3,000 individual cases that are not covered by MART but are under the heading of "legal proceedings". These are people who are in arrears of less than 90 days by definition. As it appears to be a phenomenal figure, can Mr. O'Sullivan explain it?

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

It comes back to "assisted voluntary sale" not being a legal status. If one returns to the template and considers questions Nos. 5 and 8, there is a line that distinguishes between assisted voluntary sale and voluntary surrender and then the category that is being called "legal proceedings".

We fill out this template as it was presented to us. The point is back to the AVS, assisted voluntary sale. There are accounts that no matter what way one looks at the account, whether it is greater than 90 days or less than 90 days, if affordability and sustainability is not there, the most appropriate solution for the customer is assisted voluntary sale. To do that sooner rather than later is preferable because if the situation is allowed to drag on the amount owed gets bigger and the problem gets bigger.

I understand but it sounds drastic. These people are in arrears of less than 90 days. These mortgages are in some level of difficulty but in many cases they may well be recoverable or can be rescued with a bit of proper treatment. To have more than 3,000 in that category, who are in arrears of less than 90 days but who are heading towards losing their home, sounds like an extremely high figure.

Mr. Jeremy Masding

I can assure the Deputy that the process we follow, whether in short term arrears or long term arrears, has the same disciplines around it. As Mr. O'Sullivan said, we will apply SFS and professional dialogues and it will be underpinned by affordability and sustainability. Sadly, there are some customers who are in early arrears who, once we have had that conversation, have to fall into the closure option. We do everything we can to avoid that but unfortunately the arrears status is a secondary measure; the measure for us is to ensure we treat each customer properly and take them through the right process.

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

If I may add to that because I understand that a piece of information is missing here. I mentioned that there are customers in early arrears, at one day to 90 days, and I also mentioned that there are customers who are not in arrears. For a great number of years, all the banks were providing short-term forbearance. A great majority of the people in the 3,000 to whom the Deputy refers, have for many years had recurring forbearance from the bank, be it a moratorium or interest-only or reduced repayments. What the MART and the sustainability guidelines do is to encourage the banks to move away from short-term tactical solutions and to identify long-term sustainable solutions. Customers whom it would appear have been in arrears or only just in arrears, have actually over a great number of months and years, benefited from short-term forbearance. As that ends, the affordability and the sustainability is not there - it has been there because people have been paying reduced repayments and parking the debt owed - but because that phase is ending it tells one that the only outcome here is AVS.

It is a pretty dramatic statistic that about 10,000 PTSB customers are in court or are heading down that road. It belies what we are hearing from the powers-that-be in the Government that the loss of the home is the absolute last resort. PTSB has 10,000 customers heading down that road and yet it has not completed a single mortgage-to-rent transaction. That may not be the bank's fault but, as I said yesterday to Ulster Bank, that is the ultimate safety net for many people who want to stay in the home, to avoid the embarrassment, in many cases, of losing the home. The solution is not working. We are heading towards a very serious problem or we are in the midst of a serious problem where people are losing their homes or will lose their homes and there is no backstop in place to help them.

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

I agree we are in the midst of a very difficult problem and there is no doubt about that. I would caution around defining the 10,000 as being people who may potentially lose their home. Many of these people are in the AVS space and collaboratively we hope, based on some of the conversations we had earlier around our pilot work, that this may result in an outcome that both borrower and lender can accept. Equally, to start on the issue of a legal letter does not absolutely mean that this will result in repossession; in fact, the engagement with customers post the initial and early legal letters actually encourages engagement. We then move from the less meaningful conversations that we have been able to have, into a meaningful space. I add this information because it will give insight into the situation.

To date, our re-engagement with customers post the legal process is 35%. People can define "engagement" in different ways. In our view, engagement is not just a case of picking up the phone and talking; it is actually completing an SFS in our branch and having a sustainable outcome. Of those 35% we have been able to find solutions for 70% of those people, be it by means of split mortgages or part capital and interest. We have to be careful not to make a direct link between the 10,000 and-----

I accept that but it is very clear from the figures that PTSB has ramped up significantly its enforcement activity against borrowers in the last quarter. I accept the witnesses did not have to provide this information but they did so. Up to the end of the first quarter it has initiated court proceedings against about 2,000 borrowers, between PDH and buy-to-let. That is a lot of activity in the enforcement area. I presume the targets process has driven and accelerated that number of 2,000 people heading for court.

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

The numbers are large but to be fair to the target regime it does not constrain the offers that we make nor does it compel us to make legal offers either. This is a methodology that we as a management team will in all likelihood follow ourselves. It must be remembered that we are looking to resolve this debt resolution crisis as quickly and as efficiently as we can.

I have some questions for Mr. Masding. The no-fees initiative on current accounts has been very successful from the bank's point of view and from the consumer's point of view, resulting in 60,000 new customers in the past year. How does the bank expect to make money from it?

Mr. Jeremy Masding

The Deputy will be aware that Permanent TSB has a long journey to recovery. At the heart of banking is having a strong balance sheet. The management team inherited a weak balance sheet with, for example, much too much dependence on system funding. Current accounts are a valuable source of funding. They are sustainable - they are "sticky", in banking parlance. By putting the threshold at €1,500 and by getting 60,000 and more accounts I can assure the Deputy that is a valuable resource for our bank's balance sheet.

Is the expectation that those customers will do other business with the bank?

Mr. Jeremy Masding

That is correct.

Will the bank then start charging fees on current accounts within a year or two?

Mr. Jeremy Masding

I have no expectation or intention of charging fees on current accounts.

My final question is about the bank in general. I hope the bank has a viable future. I know that Mr. Masding and his team are working very hard to ensure this. The restructuring plan is still being considered by the European Commission, the bank is laden down with very high levels of mortgage arrears, it has a lot of tracker customers haemorrhaging losses from the point of view of the bank and it is facing very stringent stress tests by the ECB over the coming months. Has the bank a viable future and is Mr. Masding confident that it will come through the stress tests without the need for additional capital from the taxpayer?

Mr. Jeremy Masding

I will give a series of answers to those questions. The first answer is that I have explained to the committee before that my first task was to decide what alternative to present to the Minister for Finance in terms of the bank and that included liquidation, wind-up or integration with other financial services institutions. We were confident that within the organisation which we found that there was a journey towards a profitable, viable and relevant Permanent TSB. We still believe that. As one would expect we are under the spotlight, whether from our board, from the shareholder, as we were from the troika and increasingly we are under the spotlight from the European Central Bank. I can assure the Deputy that we are on track to create a viable and a vibrant banking group in the retail services sector in Ireland. I am comfortable that we are on the right track.

On the question about the stress tests, we have a strong capital base. We worked with the Central Bank last year on an asset quality review. We made changes to our provision stock as a result of that. What I do not know are the parameters of the stress test, so it is very difficult for me to answer that question.

We have a strong capital base. We await with interest the parameters of the stress test.

I call Deputy Kieran O'Donnell, who I believe is sharing his time with Deputy Harris.

I welcome Mr. Masding and his colleagues. I will make a few general points. Am I correct in saying that the number of legal proceedings increased by approximately 1,700 between Quarter 4, 2003 and the end of Quarter 1, 2014?

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

It was 1,400 at the end of December last year, and that has gone up to just over-----

I refer to the total areas involving legal proceedings. In the summary of the MART proposals provided to the committee the figure increased from 3,624 to 5,318.

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

Yes. We have to be careful because they are not all legal proceedings. If the Deputy looks above the 3,264, the items we have identified at iv, v, vi and vii were defined by whoever asked us to complete the template as legal proceedings. The ones above that are not legal proceedings. The key legal proceeding figure is v, which is a reflection of the proceedings that have been initiated based on our greater than 90 day arrears requirement. That is rounded to 1,100 and the Deputy is right. On the home loan book that has grown to 2,600 at the end of March.

Am I correct in saying that the figure at the end of Q1 of this year is 11,707, which are long-term solutions being provided, plus the 5,318? Is the total figure 17,025? Approximately one third of all the long-term proposals being provided to homeowners more than 90 days in arrears are coming out of the legal proceedings?

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

No. The figure of 73% will come from that first box, which has the split mortgages et al, and the remaining 27% will come from the box that includes legal-----

It is more or less one third.

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

Let us say one in four.

Is it fair comment that Permanent TSB would not make the Central Bank targets without the legal proceedings?

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

That is not accurate because the MARP targets assume we will have two types of solutions like the split mortgage and part capital and interest, but it accepts that affordability and sustainability will not be in evidence in every case. It accepts within the target that there would be a combination. It does not set the-----

I will put the question another way. If Permanent TSB did not have access to legal proceedings, would it meets its Central Bank targets?

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

The Central Bank target would not be 50% as it was at the end of December if they were excluding legal proceedings. The target of 50% was set on the understanding that solutions like the split mortgage could be put in place but, equally, that-----

Was Permanent TSB given any targets by the Central Bank as to the percentage of the solutions it was providing involving legal proceedings? One in three seems very high.

Mr. Jeremy Masding

To answer the question, "No". The targets we were given were the ones that are in the public domain. There were no other targets.

There were no set targets.

Mr. Jeremy Masding

No.

Moving on to the issue of positive equity, about which I have asked the other financial institutions also, I use the term "the paradox of positive equity" because it would appear from people who are coming to us that someone in positive equity could be at a disadvantage. What percentage of Permanent TSB's book is tracker home loans?

Mr. Stephen Groarke

Sixty five per cent of the mortgage book is trackers.

Two thirds of Permanent TSB's mortgage loan book are tracker mortgages.

Mr. Stephen Groarke

Correct.

In terms of the figures Permanent TSB provided, of the 11,707 figure and the 5,300 people the subject of legal proceedings, how many of those were in positive equity?

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

On a case number basis, about 50% of the home loans are in positive equity and 50% in negative. On a value basis, the positive equity figure is as low as-----

In numerical terms, it is 50%-----

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

Yes. On the buy-to-let it is about 20%. If we combine them it is about 40%.

Of the 4,230 split mortgage solutions Permanent TSB provided, how many were in positive equity?

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

I could not say because we do not look at it through that lens. We start with affordability-----

Mr. O'Sullivan, I have limited time. I do not buy that. The banks should have one of the best levels of financial expertise. I have no doubt Mr. O'Sullivan can press a button and the figure for the number in positive and negative equity will come up. I will take it that very few positive equity mortgages are included in that figure. In terms of the question I am asking, if Permanent TSB has someone on a tracker mortgage in positive equity but 90 days in arrears, what does it do with that customer?

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

We will look at the customer from an affordability and a sustainability point of view. I would point out that the customer in that scenario will probably easily pass the sustainability test because they are in positive equity. They then just have to pass the affordability test. It is arguably the counter of what the Deputy is saying.

If someone in arrears is in positive equity, does Permanent TSB sell that property? I will put the question another way. Of the 1,112 assisted voluntary sales, what is the total number in terms of assisted voluntary sales, voluntary surrenders and letters advising legal action? In terms of the repossessions, how many were in positive equity?

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

The number of repossessions is as low as 175. It is shown at question 05, vi. The 175 is the court judgments obtained.

How many of those are in positive equity?

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

I do not know.

I have two questions about someone on a tracker mortgage who is in positive equity. First, is Permanent TSB losing money on tracker mortgages?

Mr. Jeremy Masding

Yes, we are.

Significantly or marginally losing on trackers.

Mr. Jeremy Masding

It would be €75 million to €100 million through cost of funds loans.

If Permanent TSB has a customer on positive equity and it repossesses and sells the house, does that improve the capital ratio on its balance sheet? "Yes" or "No"? If it is a risky loan in that the mortgage holder is not paying, does it improve Permanent TSB's balance sheet if it realises that loan and sells the asset? Does it improve the capital ratio of the balance sheet of the bank?

Mr. Stephen Groarke

The way I would answer that is that it is not something we would seek to do.

It is a "Yes" or a "No" answer.

Mr. Stephen Groarke

It is not part of the strategy.

The question requires a strictly "Yes" or "No" answer. I know the answer but I want the representatives to verify the answer.

Mr. Stephen Groarke

Because, typically, at that point we have already provided for the mortgage it would not have an effect on the capital ratio. The point at which our capital ratio is affected is when we provide, in our accounts-----

If Permanent TSB has a risky loan on its balance sheet - the person is not paying - that should feed into its capital ratio. If that risky loan is taken out, from an accounting viewpoint surely that improves the capital ratio of the bank.

Mr. Stephen Groarke

There would be a very marginal impact in terms of reduction in risk-----

Perhaps in that individual loan. My question-----

The Deputy has a couple of minutes left.

Of the 4,300 split mortgages, how many were in positive equity? I suspect it was very few. Mr. O'Sullivan has not given me the figure for the number of repossessions in positive equity. My concern is that the institutions are becoming bloodhounds in that they are seeking out positive equity on risky loans, particularly in Permanent TSB's case because tracker mortgages are costing it a great deal of money.

What measures or protections are in place to ensure the bank, looking out for its short-term interest, does not repossess positive equity homes with tracker mortgages 90 days in arrears when it may actually be in its long-term interest to allow the owner keep the home?

Mr. Jeremy Masding

As a banking professional, I can assure the Deputy that the arrears management process we go on starts with affordability.

The code of conduct on mortgage arrears refers to incentives paid to people involved in dealing with mortgage arrears. How many people are in the mortgage arrears unit in Permanent TSB? Are any of them paid incentives or bonuses?

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

We have 275 people in Dublin and two people in every branch. No member of staff is paid an incentive or bonus in respect of arrears management.

Will Mr. Masding finish his point on tracker mortgages for homes that are in positive equity?

Mr. Jeremy Masding

We have an arrears management process with which myself, the board and the shareholder are absolutely comfortable and confident that we take the right decisions. The fundamental decision is around cash and affordability. Equity and balance sheet management do not come into it. The key decision rule is affordability.

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

That is absolutely correct. We cannot answer the question because we do not look at whether equity is positive or negative. It is all about affordability.

I welcome Mr. Masding and his colleagues.

He stated Permanent TSB is encouraging lenders with problems to engage with the bank. One way for a lender to engage is by telephoning the bank, which is recorded and which they can access. I wrote to the bank on 21 February with a complaint I had from a member of the public who felt their recorded conversation with the bank had been edited. They categorically said that someone had said that one of the purposes of a letter from the bank was to scare a customer into paying. A Ms Furlong from the bank corresponded with me on 11 March, saying she had investigated the issue and could assure me no call had been edited but there was a known technical issue at the time which had been reported to the Central Bank. What was the known technical issue? How many calls did it affect? Has it been rectified since?

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

I am not familiar with the specific case. I can check it out when I get back to the office. There was a technical glitch at some stage last year which interfered with some recordings. We advised the Central Bank of that and worked with our colleagues in our IT department to rectify it successfully. As to the number of calls impacted, I cannot say without looking into it later.

Mr. Jeremy Masding

We will do that.

I would be grateful if the bank could. The issue here is that I have a constituent alleging that one of the bank's staff members said something inappropriate to them.

I do not want the Deputy to go into the specifics of this. Will he approach this in general terms like how customer communications are developing?

I was not going to name anyone but I will stick to the broader point. Due to the technical glitch, it is impossible to assert whether an issue occurred. Accordingly, the bank’s customers’ - our constituents’ - right to have an accurate recording of what was said to them has been undermined. How many Permanent TSB customers who telephone the mortgage arrears unit are not able to obtain an accurate recording? I have heard the recording in question and it is not accurate. How many other customers were affected by it?

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

As I said I can look into that. I do not have the figure offhand. I have heard of no similar complaint but I am more than happy to pick it up with my colleagues and come back to the Deputy offline.

I will send Mr. O'Sullivan the details.

I welcome Mr. Masding and his colleagues to the committee. I also welcome the fact they have attracted new deposits to the bank while reducing some of the ratios bearing down on it. They have a difficult job which is not made any easier by the fact the bank still seems to be in limbo, not knowing which way it will end up. There has been much speculation about mergers with Ulster Bank and what the European Commission will approve. Hopefully, we can get the bank working as an independent institution fit for purpose again.

The figures the bank presented today show the crisis in mortgage arrears facing many families across the State. The bank claims 15% to 20% of its customers in mortgage arrears are engaging with the bank. The majority of them may feel it is the bank which is not engaging with it. Some of the professional advocates on the front line of dealing with mortgage arrears also believe the banks are not offering the suite of solutions for such cases identified by the Central Bank.

The bank claims it is conscious of vulnerable customers. What is the bank’s definition of a vulnerable customer? How does it deal with them? I have spoken to the bank about an elderly couple from Kilkenny in mortgage arrears whose house is valued well below €100,000 and requires significant renovation. The wife is in poor health having had a stroke and needs medical help which means her husband is her full-time carer. The bank’s solution to dealing with their arrears is for them to leave their house and the remaining debt goes with them. What steps does the bank take in such circumstances to ensure that couple’s needs are met or does it just continue with the legal proceedings?

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

I think we have to be careful about the specifics of this case because there have been positive developments in it, meaning it would not be appropriate to discuss it here. What has happened in that case is reflective of what has happened with other hardship cases. A bank committee meets to consider such cases and see if there are solutions outside of the standard solutions.

That is to be welcomed.

No, I am not allowing the Deputy to continue in this specific way. I made it clear to Deputy Harris about approaching this from a general policy position.

If you let me finish, that is where I am going down. I have not even named anyone. You are eating into my time.

I will give you back your time. I want to be very clear that I am not going to allow specific cases to be raised.

I am not dealing with a specific case.

You were quite specific. Will you proceed on a more general basis?

I asked about the definition of vulnerable cases and how the bank deals with them. The point I am making is that not everyone in such circumstances has access to their Deputy who can bring this to the bank’s attention.

Therefore, through that process, we can get to a resolution. However, when these people engaged with the bank, the sustainable solution they were offered was repossession or voluntary surrender to the bank. How do the banks ensure that somebody who does not have access to a Deputy is not left in that situation when he contacts the bank? How can we ensure the banks are more considerate of the vulnerable nature of these people at an early stage? The point I am trying to make is that there are other cases like this.

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

Outside of a third party representing a customer within the framework of MARP and the CCMA, there is an appeals process. The appeals board is independent of the decisions made in the unit I manage. The appeals board meets on a daily or weekly basis to consider appeals from customers and often, original decisions are overturned, for good reason. This is how customers can respond directly in terms of decisions we make on their behalf.

In regard to court proceedings, we saw from the figures presented by the financial institutions that Permanent TSB was probably the bank that used legal proceedings least. Half of some of the other banks' proposals involved legal proceedings or assisted voluntary sales. These figures referred to quarter four. However, Permanent TSB has now provided us with the figures for quarter one of 2014 and these indicate that it has now almost caught up with the rest of the banks. I want to follow up on this now.

Let us forget about the letters advising of legal proceedings and look at court proceedings initiated. In the most recent quarter, quarter one of this year, Permanent TSB has initiated 2,000 court proceedings in regard to family homes and buy-to-lets, the majority, 1,500 related to family homes. This equates to approximately 154 court proceedings initiated to repossess homes per week. Do the witnesses feel this is an appropriate figure? How many of these homes do they believe will be repossessed and why have they ramped up legal actions and repossessions in the last quarter?

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

First, there was no obligation on us to provide the figures for quarter one, but we want to be transparent for the committee. That is why, off our own bat, we provided figures that were not requested. The Deputy is correct there is an increase in legal activity and that is a result of a number of factors. When we started this process, we worked quickly to find and identify customers we could help quickly to get back on track. We focused less on the non-co-operating customers at the outset. Therefore, what the Deputy is seeing is a catch-up in terms of our focus on non-co-operating customers in recent times.

I make the point again, that the start of a legal process does not link directly in any way to the ultimate number of repossessions. We have found that once we start the legal process, the level of engagement is 35% and we can find solutions for some 70% of those customers, solutions such as split mortgages and part capital interest. Therefore, where customers engage and work with us, they can remove themselves from the legal process. We are hopeful this will continue to happen as we work through these numbers. Both socially and financially, it is not attractive for us to see high levels of repossession.

As a financial institution, Permanent TSB has obviously looked at the figures and done the financial calculations regarding the expected number of people who will re-engage and how many people it can offer solutions to. Based on those estimates, how many properties will Permanent TSB repossess in 2014?

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

In 2013, which is our starting point, we received repossession orders for 60 properties. It is difficult to extrapolate what this means for 2014, 2015 and 2016, but there will certainly be an increase. We expect hundreds this year, but it is unknown what the figure will be beyond that. The level of re-engagement is a relatively new phenomenon so it is hard to extrapolate other than to say that the 60 last year will increase to hundreds this year.

Will it reach 1,000 this year?

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

No, not this year.

Is that because of the lengthy process for a repossession?

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

That is a factor. The typical repossession process takes three or four years. We have initiated the cases mentioned in the figures presented here, but some people will engage to find a solution. I suspect that at the end of this year, the number of repossessions for the year will be higher than the 60 we had last year, but the figure will be in hundreds rather than thousands.

Mr. Jeremy Masding

I think what we were trying to assure the committee of this morning, being completely transparent, was that we were going through the cases quickly because we were so far behind. We had no arrears management capability, but are playing catch-up now. What we were trying to do this morning was provide transparency and assure the committee that we think about affordability and sustainability, but that those who end up in a legal closure are there not because we have not tried to find a solution, but as a consequence of lack of affordability.

In regard to repossessions, has the Central Bank raised any issue with Permanent TSB in terms of the scale of repossessions? The figure for the most recent quarter for those against whom legal action or court proceedings have been initiated is 154 per week and there has been a ramping up of letters advising of legal action. Has the Central Bank given any advice or expressed any caution?

In my view, this is an abuse of the spirit of what was set out. That was not about threats of repossession, although that may happen in some circumstances. The fact that some banks are relying on 50% to reach the targets on repossession or threats thereof and that Permanent TSB is relying on over 30% is an abuse of the spirit of what was agreed last year.

Mr. Jeremy Masding

Every quarter we are subject to an audit from the Central Bank in regard to the operational process within the asset management unit. Therefore, there is regulator oversight.

Was there any concern raised regarding the scale of threats of repossession?

Mr. Jeremy Masding

Not to my knowledge.

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

We are nearly at the end of our second audit and no issue has been raised in that regard.

In regard to Permanent TSB's split mortgage proposal, the figure on which is 7,250, the bank charges interest on the warehouse portion. What is the interest rate on that?

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

We do not. There is zero interest charged.

What about on buy-to-let properties?

Mr. Jeremy Masding

The warehouse portion of all split mortgages is at a zero interest rate.

In regard to the proposal for a split mortgage, Mr. O'Sullivan has said that a customer must show the ability to pay back at the end of the period. Is the proposed solution in the majority of cases that the house will be sold at the end of the term?

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

That would be one of the options. At the end of the term a customer could also refinance through another bank, trade down to a smaller property or at that point the customer might have a lump sum that could pay the outstanding amount. Therefore, there are a number of options at the end of the term.

Mr. Jeremy Masding

All of this is completely transparent for the customer. It is not hidden from them.

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

Also, we meet the customer formally every three years to review the circumstances. The first three-year reviews will start next year or the year after and this process will continue till the end of the extended term.

In regard to the split mortgages, what is the take-up on the split offers proposed?

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

The take-up is approximately 85%.

What is the take-up in regard to assisted voluntary sales?

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

It is approximately 15%.

It was mentioned there is a pilot project in regard to dealing with the residual amount. I have put forward a piece of legislation, which will come before the House on Friday, which will force the banks to deal with that at the repossession stage. It should also be the case that the bank deal with the residual amount where it is looking for an assisted bond for sale. I am aware of customers who want to surrender their house voluntarily. However, Permanent TSB says they must sign the dotted line and hand over their house and only then will the bank decide what happens regarding the residual amount.

They feel the bank is bullying them into handing over their assets by taking away other options such as personal insolvency or bankruptcy. The banks want the property and will decide the rest afterward. Why is the pilot project the bank suggested not being rolled out across the board, given the low take-up? People should at least be fully informed of what the bank's intention is with the residual amount.

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

The learnings from the pilot will be rolled out across the arrears platform and all the arrears cases. That is the nature of a pilot scheme. One works with a small number of people to identify findings, conclusions and recommendations and then one implements them across the customer base. The asset-backed securities, ABS, activity does not circumvent personal insolvency or bankruptcy so I do not see the two as linked. If we are unable to find a mortgage arrears resolution target, MART, solution for our customers and insolvency or bankruptcy is the route they would like to take with their PIP or third party adviser, we will support that to the extent that it makes sense to us.

There may be a Seanad vote shortly so I am not sure I will have the opportunity to use all my time. Perhaps the Chairman will indulge me when I return afterwards. A colleague raised the issue of how the bank treats mortgage customers in positive equity. This arises consistently among this group because day in, day out we deal personally with people in mortgage arrears. Without any disrespect to Permanent TSB, there is a serious suggestion the bank is milking a cash cow. I am seeing marital breakdown situations where properties are in positive equity and the suite of options being offered is extremely limited to the point where people are being pushed into voluntary surrender.

According to the statistics in the document Permanent TSB provided, there were 1,121 assisted voluntary sales in quarter one of 2014. How many of those assisted voluntary sales related to borrowers in positive equity?

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

I do not have the figure to hand.

Could Mr. O'Sullivan supply it to the committee at a later date?

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

Absolutely. We covered the topic earlier in the discussion. We make all our assessments based on affordability and sustainability, not or positive or negative equity.

I will come to affordability and sustainability. I want that piece of information first. The total number is 5,318. Of all the cases of legal proceedings regarding principal dwelling houses, how many properties were in positive equity? That would be very helpful. Maybe that information could be circulated to all members of the committee.

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

Yes, of course.

Am I correct that Permanent TSB would not offer a split mortgage on a property in positive equity because it would be illogical?

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

We look at it from a sustainability and affordability perspective, so-----

Does the bank or has the bank offered a split mortgage option to borrowers in positive equity?

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

Yes.

Could Mr. O'Sullivan give us a breakdown of the split mortgage options that have been given in such cases?

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

Yes.

Permanent TSB offers interest-only solutions as a short-term option but not as a long-term option. One of the parties who came before the committee at a previous hearing put it to us that there was nothing unsustainable about offering a long-term interest-only option in a positive equity situation where the bank experienced no risk. Why does Permanent TSB not offer a long-term interest-only solution where the borrower is in positive equity?

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

Generally, we see interest-only payments as a legitimate treatment but we are cautious about how it is deployed and where it is used. For example, in our buy-to-let portfolio we use interest-only payments. It is categorised as "reduced payments" rather than interest-only payments in line six of the document we supplied to the committee.

It states "reduced payments greater than the interest rate".

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

As there was not a line for "at the interest rate", that figure includes interest only. In our buy-to-let portfolio we have used interest-only payments in a great number of cases since we started to work through our debt resolution programme. In many of those cases, people have been able to get back on track.

I do not want to be unfair about this but it seems the bank has a much higher proportion of properties in negative equity in its buy-to-let portfolio so there is no loss to it in employing an interest-only option in a position of negative equity. That is why I seek these breakdowns. I want to be able to determine from the figures supplied the breakdown of the entire sheet between properties in negative and positive equity. There is a perception, which I am sure Mr. O'Sullivan would like to dispel if he can, that the bank is clearing positive equity mortgages in distress in order to improve its balance sheet. The perception was put forward by my colleague, who is no longer with us. While Mr. O'Sullivan cannot give us this information today, could he break down all the categories he has given us into properties in positive equity and those in negative equity? Thus we could see the treatments being deployed in situations where, clearly, the bank is not trying to mend its hand regarding its balance sheet, and in situations where that accusation could be made. I am conscious that Mr. O'Sullivan cannot answer now.

Mr. Jeremy Masding

As the Senator used the word "accusation", I wish to respond to that. As a professional banker I assure the Senator that we do not engage in balance sheet management or optimisation or trying to make the position of the bank look better as a decision rule for arrears management. We use affordability and sustainability. Long-term interest-only payments across the global banking system is a sustainable treatment in buy-to-let properties because it is not somebody's home but an investment. We use long-term interest-only solutions if we believe that at the end of the mortgage term there is a chance we will get the capital back.

I am amazed that Mr. Masding says he would deploy that mechanism in a situation where it is not somebody's home but not where it is somebody's home. That is incredible. I would have thought the bank would take a much more generous position where it is somebody's principal residence rather than an investment property. I take what Mr. Masding says. We can rectify this situation by the bank's providing the information I have asked for and we can return to it again.

On affordability and sustainability, one of the witnesses indicated that they do not regard it as-----

Although the Senator is in a rush - I can bring her back in later - she must allow the witness to answer her question.

I apologise. I am just conscious that I may have to go for the vote.

There is no point in asking a lot of questions if the witnesses cannot respond.

I apologise to Mr. Masding for cutting him short. Please continue.

I can bring the Senator in again because this will continue.

Mr. Jeremy Masding

Would Mr. O'Sullivan like talk about how we think about interest-only solutions for home loans?

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

Yes, it is important. We will provide the information the Senator requested. Had it been on the template we would have been more than happy to have provided it in advance. There is an important point about the distinction between buy-to-let and home loans. We have an obligation to demonstrate sustainability and the repayment of the principal at the end of the term or the extended term is a key part of that. There is less emotion in selling a buy-to-let property at the end of the term. That is a very important distinction. There is great difficulty in selling a home loan at the age of retirement, 65 or 70 years of age. That is a very significant reason that we are very comfortable deploying interest-only solutions for a period in our buy-to-let portfolio but quite uncomfortable to deploy it en masse in our home loan portfolio. Although that is not to say we would not do it where it makes sense on an exceptional basis, our default position is cautious regarding interest-only payments as a sustainable solution for the reasons that arise at the end of the term.

I would like to come back on that and I am afraid I am not in a position to-----

If the Senator would listen for a second, I am trying to assist her. She is half way through her time and there are a number of other speakers. If she returns after the vote in the Seanad, I will allow her to contribute again.

Thank you. Unfortunately, I must watch my reputation as well so I must go.

I will address that point before bringing in Deputy Donnelly. This is something that was dealt with in a previous series of meetings. It is the matter of sustainable solutions that may transfer into a person's retirement phase. The resolution process seems to be very much about sorting out debt during a person's working life, if not through the determined period of the schedule of 20 to 25 years. There has been movement by some of the other banks in engaging with the Central Bank and considering what may be sustainable solutions, for example, with cases of people in positive equity who may be in their late 50s or early 60s. These people may not clear the debt by the time they get to retirement but they may be able to sustain an interest-only payment through retirement. That would be far cheaper than having a home repossessed and trying to rent it on the open market, as we know. Has Permanent TSB considered such a long-term solution? I am not suggesting the interest-only solution would be used in all circumstances but in particular cases it may allow somebody to remain in a home while continuing to own it.

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

With cases like that, our default position is that lending into retirement on the family home is fraught with risk because, generally, one can assume a pensioner of 65 or 66 will have less income than he or she had when in employment.

That applies in some cases but we know from the likes of medical card applications that some pensioners have income of thousands of euro every week. There are thresholds in that respect. I am not talking about somebody in receipt of the non-contributory pension but rather somebody who has been in the public or private sector with a considerable pension income. The certainty in such pension payments can be considered. I am suggesting a possible move from the default position that a solution must be dealt with in all cases before retirement.

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

Absolutely. On a case by case basis we will consider exceptions. I have set out the default position but the Chairman's example is very specific, and where such a specific case makes sense, we will do what is right by the bank and the customer. In other cases, the default position is 65 but we review the position every three years with the customer. As circumstances change we are open to putting the right solution in place. With regard to buy-to-let mortgages, our resolution policy goes to 70 for the reasons I outlined. It is a less emotive subject than the family home.

I thank the delegation for its time and the witnesses are very welcome. We will get into the detail of some of the restructuring processes but I recognise the improvement in the underlying performance of Permanent TSB. Taking over the institution in the state it had been in was a very difficult job and I recognise that there are some very welcome figures coming through at a macro level with the bank's performance.

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

I thank the Deputy.

I wish to discuss the legal proceedings. Various figures have been bandied around the room today but does Permanent TSB have an estimate for the likely number of repossessions that will occur through this process?

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

We can extrapolate from the figures we have what might be the total. We can consider the figures at the top of the template and that, to date, for every four cases we have examined, three are restructured and one is legal. I refer to the earlier point in that we should be very cautious in linking that figure directly to repossessions as there is significant engagement after the legal process. I am cautious about being specific with a figure. Over time and cumulatively it is likely to be a relatively low single digit in the thousands.

For example, it could be between 2,000 and 4,000.

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

It could be in that range and perhaps not as high.

Does the witness expect that to be a mix of buy-to-let properties and residential family homes?

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

Yes.

Is there an idea of the mix? Is it a case of 50:50 or is it very skewed to one side?

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

There will be a bias towards buy-to-let properties.

One of the issues that jumped at me from the provided figures was the number of court proceedings initiated in the past three months, at approximately 1,500. That is around 23 per working day, so there is a very serious amount of activity. Why have we seen such a big jump and what has changed in the bank to drive this very serious growth in the initiated court proceedings?

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

There are two points. The figure comes from a very low base relative to other banks. I also reiterate the fact that when one must work at pace through the number of distressed accounts that we have had to deal with, there must be choices of what clusters or groups of customers are worked with first.

Mr. Jeremy Masding

We allocate resources accordingly.

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

Exactly. In the early days we primarily worked with customers we felt would be successful with respect to proposals for split mortgages and part capital and interest cases. In recent months we have worked to a greater extent with customers who to date have not been co-operating. That explains the increase from a very low base. One should not extrapolate that the increase in that quarter will continue.

Mr. Jeremy Masding

I can offer some help. The Deputy knows we were quite slow out of the traps; that was a conscious choice because we wanted to do the best data analytics we could to find the right cohorts of customers and give them the right treatment. Ultimately, we are trying to bring certainty to people as quickly as we can. Once we found the right cohorts through data analytics, we allocated resources against a particular group of customers. I would like to think we have got that right, give or take some cases, when we consider the number of non-closure treatments we have put in place. Our data indicates we are now moving to the cohort of customers which may be more difficult to engage.

On the basis that Permanent TSB has the analytics, will the witnesses tell the committee a bit more about who are these people? There are 1,500 cases and I hope the number will not continue to rise at the same level. Are these people who refuse to co-operate or are the people engaging but they do not have the money to pay a mortgage? As the analysis has been done, who are these people?

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

It is a combination of all those categories. These are people who will not answer the phone or the door or engage in any way. These are also people who commit to come to our branch to complete a standard financial statement, having agreed an appointment date and time, but who do not turn up. These are people who come to the branch to do all that and make a commitment to provide supporting documentation but who do not do so subsequently. There are also people beyond that point who make a commitment to contribute to their debt but the level is low or not maintained. That is the journey of the customer who does not co-operate. People sometimes think such a customer refuses to even discuss the matter but it is a little more than that.

Mr. Jeremy Masding

A point of principle is that we think we have a treatment tree that follows logic. We are happy to speak with any customer at any time if he or she engages to try to achieve a treatment. That is the right action for everybody. We can look members in the eye this morning and say that anybody looking at closure is not in that position just because we are sending out legal letters. We have followed a process and, sadly, the numbers are what they are.

On that point, I echo the Chairman's statement regarding residual debt. If people refuse to engage with a bank I have no problem with legal proceedings being initiated against them. If the bank has made every reasonable effort and the people refuse to engage, so be it. Sadly, there are many families which are engaging but because of unemployment, pay cuts, etc., these people no longer have the money to service the mortgage. Maybe the split does not work and maybe inevitably no remedial action can be taken.

I was very disappointed to hear that there is no policy in place for the residual debt. I think Mr. Masding's phrase was the bank does not "chase all the debt all the time". That is no use to a family trying to resuscitate its finances. If the customer wants to get another mortgage the first thing a new lender will say is the customer still owes permanent tsb €60,000 and although the bank did not ask for it, the money is still owed and presumably interest is still tipping away. If someone wants to set up a new business the debt is the first thing that will be seen.

I would like when permanent tsb returns to the committee in three months time, or whenever, to hear a policy has been put in place, that it has been dealt with and closed off. I am not suggesting that all residual debt in all cases has to be completely written off but that finality must be given so that people can get on with their lives. Might we see that when permanent tsb appears before the committee again?

Mr. Jeremy Masding

We learn as we go through the thousands of cases and we recognise that our assisted voluntary sale product needs to be tweaked. I can assure the Deputy when we are back here in six months’ time we will be able to give him better data points and I hope we can look him in the eye and say we have learnt, and we have an assisted voluntary sale product that is next generation, if I may call it that.

The mortgage holder support groups, the Free Legal Aid Centres, FLAC; the Money Advice and Budgeting Service, MABS; Irish Mortgage Holders Association; Phoenix Project Ireland; New Beginning etc., appeared before the committee last week. They all said that in most cases mortgage holders are not offered choices nor are they offered an explanation for the offer that is made.

Does permanent tsb write to a customer with an offer, for example, of a split mortgage with 20% on the shelf and invite the customer in to talk about it; or does it say a reduced payment or a split mortgage might work, set out the advantages and disadvantages of each, explain why it is offering them and invite the customer in?

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

We recommend one treatment and provide significant detail on that treatment, for example, the split mortgage. We then outline the other treatments we considered but discounted.

I know a great deal of detail is provided but the detail I tend to see is technical detail about the offer. Does that include an explanation of why, in one case, for example, a split mortgage has been provided?

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

Yes but the focus is on the recommendation, which in this example is a split mortgage. We refer in passing to the other options we considered but did not recommend. Once that letter is posted, our team of 35 customer care staff follow up on those letters and speak to the customer after receipt of the documentation, to ensure the person has received it, understands the detail and can answer one-to-one by phone any queries the customer may have. We also at that point-----

Mr. Jeremy Masding

I think it is important to say that, as far as I am aware – the other banks may have caught up now – ours was the only institution that did that, insofar as we broke the value chain down into different components. I know from experience in other jurisdictions the customer care team is a very important part of this because while one needs a letter for an audit trail that must be complemented by a human interaction and that is why we have built the team.

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

Agreed. One final, important point, we will also contribute €250 to each customer who has received one of these long-term offers from us to meet an independent adviser, to take advice independent of our customer care or management teams on the offer and alternatives.

I want to bring two points together, one of which the Chairman mentioned, what happens at retirement. I accept the split mortgage can work and the bank takes a real hit and there is a real financial gain to the borrower. It falls down, however, on retirement. I have publicly advocated a debt-for-equity solution initiating at the restructure. It can certainly be used at retirement when the split mortgage is turned into a debt-for-equity. AIB is considering this. Mr. O’Sullivan has a reasonable concern that because household income halves, approximately, on retirement that raises a concern about affordability. Debt-for-equity gets rid of all that risk and maintains the asset position for the bank because it is converting part of the mortgage into equity in the house. Has permanent tsb considered this or will it do so?

Mr. Jeremy Masding

We started a long way behind everyone else in respect of our home loan treatment. We are working through and learning. Eventually, there will be different challenges and cohorts for which we will have to find a solution. We need to work on assisted voluntary sale. If the Deputy will allow me to take away the retirement debt-for-equity concept I give him my word we will put that into the science and see if we can make it work.

I thank Mr. Masding and while we are on a roll, will he consider the debt-for-equity product generally? It makes a lot of sense at retirement but, as I have advocated publicly, it is part of the answer. It works in ways that debt write-downs do not. There was a lot of push-back from people following the much publicised AIB debt write-down, who asked “What about me?” The main issue is not people asking “What about me?” but that nobody profits from a debt write-down, which is a legitimate concern. A debt-for-equity product, rather than a debt write-down, sorts that out.

Maybe Mr. Masding would add into the hopper a more general debt-for-equity product which I believe would help maintain the health of the permanent tsb balance sheet and that of other banks. Critically, it would return the individual or family to a normal life whilst not living in fear of the bank’s knocking on the door every three years and asking for a portion of a pay rise or bonus. It provides more clarity and incentivises good economic behaviour for many people.

Mr. Jeremy Masding

I assure the Deputy we will take the principle of debt-for-equity away with us.

I thank Mr. Masding. My final question is about mortgage to rent which is not working. I was disappointed to see that permanent tsb does not have any mortgage to rent, neither does Bank of Ireland or Ulster Bank.

Mr. O’Sullivan mentioned that the levels are wrong for Dublin. There has to be more than that to the problem. I will not get into the specifics of the case but I am aware of a mortgage to rent case that permanent tsb followed through. It was agreed with a housing authority but in the end there was a dispute on the sale price and permanent tsb walked away, which is its right, and said it would not sell for that amount. What needs to be done to the mortgage to rent scheme to make it work?

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

There are a couple of points. The process is unnecessarily cumbersome. A lean six sigma type of exercise, if the Deputy is familiar with that concept, needs to be completed so that all these double touch points and this lack of joined-up thinking are reviewed and improved.

At the core is the issue of valuations that the Deputy mentioned. The bank will look to the open market valuation, which is the norm in banking, to establish the value of the property and the price the bank expects to receive for it. On the other side, the housing associations or bodies look to the valuation based on rental income. Those two differ. That delta or gap causes a problem because it usually means that the bank will receive less than it might have anticipated for the property and as a consequence the subsequent shortfall for the borrower if one arises, is larger. That also brings up a point the banks need to consider in respect of the shortfall.

A number of issues arise and a lot of ducks need to be in a row to bring a mortgage to rent case across the line. That is unfortunate because I feel the proposition has value and we have a pipeline of 100 or 150 customers who we think are appropriate for this solution. By and large they are happy that this would be the sustainable solution for them. It is difficult to get there, however. I recognise that everyone is trying his or her best but we need to collaborate with different parts of the system.

Mr. Jeremy Masding

It is correct to say there are probably two questions. In regard to the question of whether it is a product that we would like on the shelf, the answer is "Yes". On whether we can make it work unilaterally, the answer is "No". It is probably a system or policy question in that we just need help to make it work.

I welcome our guests. I concur with Deputy Donnelly's comment that those who are not compliant ultimately end up facing legal proceedings. I am sure my constituency experience of the matter is repeated the length and breadth of the country. I often find that a certain cohort of the people involved in legal proceedings with whom I have become familiar through my constituency activities are personally incapable of dealing with the machinations of mortgage arrears. They might, for example, have mental incapacity or illiteracy problems. I suspect that the paperwork on mortgage approvals will show that a number of the people who end up in court, having ignored all previous correspondence, were marginal cases in terms of deciding whether they should have been offered mortgages in the first place. Have the banks tried to explore alternative arrangements with the Central Bank that would allow for a final card to be played by approved intermediaries, whomever they might be, to avoid the nuclear option? I appreciate that a cohort of people will come to the table subsequent to being issued with legal proceedings but another cohort will not. Is there room for manoeuvre on that issue?

Some sort of advocacy support.

MABS would be one option. I appreciate the issues arising in regard to allowing the banks to divulge information to a third party but I am simply wondering if alternatives to the nuclear option have been explored.

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

A number of options or sequences of events would be considered in the type of case to which the Deputy referred. One is the hardship approach. Where customers or borrowers suffer the difficulties that the Deputy outlined, they are appropriate to be considered under a hardship policy. By its nature, this is not normal to the more routine process. The process becomes more difficult according the numbers and types of loans a customer may have. I am not saying it is easy to deal with a mortgage in distress but it is certainly more difficult if the customer also has a credit union loan, a term loan or a visa card in distress. Efforts have been made in recent times to appoint an intermediary. A charity, StepChange, fulfils that remit in the UK and the Central Bank has facilitated a certain amount of work to introduce the concept to Ireland. While it has fallen away in recent times, after a pilot with the banks and unsecured lenders that lasted 11 months, that is not to say the banks cannot act in a collegiate fashion to put the trusted intermediary model at the centre of the aforementioned type of difficulties. Another option worth considering is the Insolvency Service or, beyond that, bankruptcy. I hope I am answering the Deputy's question. We discussed the options with the Central Bank and it is involved with some of them.

I note the welcome growth in mortgage lending in 2013. I understand there is a legal obligation on customers to take out life insurance policies before they can be approved for mortgages.

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

Perhaps my colleague, Mr. Mitchell, will address that question.

Does permanent tsb have a preferred provider for mortgage insurance?

Mr. Ger Mitchell

A customer for a mortgage is allowed to take out a policy with any company he or she prefers. We are a tied agent for Irish Life and if the customer wishes to do so, he or she is entitled to meet a qualified financial adviser to discuss his or her requirements. There is no compulsion on mortgage customers to take a policy with any company.

Did that situation apply in previous years?

Mr. Ger Mitchell

Yes.

In regard to mortgages that are currently in arrears, in respect of which customers took out life assurance policies and, perhaps, payment protection policies, does the bank track payments on those policies? I would like to know the number of people in mortgage arrears who have up to date payment protection policies.

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

I am not sure of the exact figure but it is tracked. Our first recourse with a customer who is in arrears is to investigate if an assurance or insurance policy can assist with the situation. To the extent that they exist, they are used to pay off or reduce the arrears.

If somebody cancels a direct debit or a life assurance policy, does the bank or the provider of the policy pursue that as diligently as it pursues mortgage arrears? The provider would clearly notify the bank given that it has an interest in the policy.

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

They do but I am not sure of providers' actual obligations. On occasion we are advised by the insurance company that the direct debit has fallen away. I do not think they are obliged to inform us but it certainly happens in some cases. When we contact customers who have fallen into arrears we investigate what policies are in place. It is frequently the case that one of the reasons for the customer being in arrears is due to unemployment or reduced income and the customer may already have decided to forgo his or her life assurance or mortgage repayment protection plan.

I apologise for my enforced absence. In regard to the buy to let loan book versus principle dwelling houses, it is not unusual in Germany to offer intergenerational mortgages. Furthermore, many people will trade down when they come to the term of their mortgages. I think the bank should re-evaluate the interest-only option in situations where people are in positive equity. There is also an option of the family helping out at some point in the future. It is intensely distressing for people to be forced to sell their homes, but they are often happy to do so later in life.

In regard to the standard financial statement, we engaged with a number of organisations dealing with mortgage arrears, including FLAC, MABS and the Irish Mortgage Holders Organisation. MABS was particularly critical of the standard financial statement because it found that in 40% of cases where it had used its expert knowledge to complete statements on behalf of clients, they were overturned by the lender because, reading between the lines, it thought MABS was being too generous. The Insolvency Service sets out minimum guidelines for living expenses.

Does Permanent TSB abide by those guidelines or are there situations where it accepts lower amounts than are set out in those guidelines? If they cannot answer the question, I would be happy for them to come back to the committee with an answer.

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

I will be happy to answer that. In terms of the MARP, we do not abide by the ISI guidelines and we have our own guidelines in place by which we abide. However, once a borrower is in the personal insolvency regime, we clearly abide by the ISI guidelines.

Our guidelines are possibly more comprehensive than the ISI ones in that the ISI guidelines have different clusters of demographics, say, six different type of individuals or families, and they provide one figure as the typical expenditure for each one of those clusters. We prefer to operate on a range basis. While we might have the same number of demographics, rather than have one figure we will have a range for each of those demographics.

Will Mr. O'Sullivan furnish us with those guidelines?

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

We do not provide them to third parties and I am not sure what is the situation.

I am speaking from personal experience. I have had situations where borrowers have either been involved in completing financial statements or I have seen standard financial statements. I am concerned that in many instances borrowers are being left critically short of money to pay for basic necessities. In fact, MABS has raised the point with us that there is no stress testing of the standard financial statement and proposed that there should be independent stress testing of the standard financial statement. What I am trying to establish here is whether permanent tsb's internal criteria are more or less generous than those of the Insolvency Service of Ireland because we would require the Insolvency Service of Ireland guidelines as a bare minimum. Could Mr. O'Sullivan, perhaps, reconsider giving that information to the committee?

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

I can confirm that our guidelines are more generous than the ISI's.

For the record, more generous.

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

For the record, more generous. I would also add that we stress test. Where there is free cash flow, we do not take 100% of that cash flow; we take 90% of it. Let us say the disposable income is €1,000, that is, in the more generous expenditure review than, say, the ISI review, we will not take that €1,000 as being available for the mortgage repayment. We will take €900 being available for the payment for exactly the reason Senator Hayden set out, that sometimes expenditure is more than people planned and real life kicks in. One does not want to put a sustainable solution in place only to find X months down the road that people are back in arrears because the expenditure guidelines were too conservative.

In regard to the MABS clients that permanent tsb deals with, would Mr. O'Sullivan have a breakdown of any MABS standard financial statements furnished to him the amount of which he has subsequently queried or reduced where MABS proposed a higher amount? If he cannot furnish that, perhaps he could consider furnishing to us at a later date.

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

It is a key part of all that we would do. Whether the SFS comes from our branch network - I mentioned earlier we have two members of staff in each branch - or from MABS, we have a duty to challenge SFSs and I would be more surprised if we do not challenge them.

Mr. O'Sullivan would consider it his duty to challenge what is considered as reasonable expenditure by MABS, which is a statutory body.

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

We have an obligation to ensure that the information, from wherever it comes, is validated and that it is supported and substantiated by documentation. That is the cut and thrust of the debt resolution policy and it would be unusual to take SFSs from intermediaries, third parties or our own branch network without that validation and check.

One of the issues that has come up in the document permanent tsb gave us on insolvency arrangements is that the bank has been involved in only one personal insolvency arrangement. From the recent Insolvency Service of Ireland report, I note there were 58 applications, of which only four were successful. What number of applications for a personal insolvency arrangement involved permanent tsb? I note the bank was engaged in one PIA. How many applications involved permanent tsb?

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

Of the four PIAs that have been successful to date-----

It was the case that permanent tsb was party in one of them.

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

We were party to one of them, the first one.

How many of the 58 applicants were permanent tsb's?

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

I will answer it in two ways because we have to be careful about the 58. Beyond that one, there are three other PIAs to which we have been party and we have approved two of them. They were subsequently vetoed by other lenders and we ourselves vetoed one. Beyond that, and I am not certain of the 58 number, a considerable amount of discussions and negotiations happen, and that is a pipeline. Whether the number is 58 or whatever, I would not see it in the system. I would only have an awareness that our team clearly work with PIPs to prepare cases and identify whether the solution is a MAR solution or a PIA solution. We actively work with PIPs to work out what the best outcome is likely to be but, formally, the ones that have come across our desk are the four I mentioned.

On that point, in terms of how borrowers are categorised as, say, non-co-operating borrowers, as Mr. O'Sullivan will be aware, if somebody has been categorised as a non-co-operating borrower, he or she cannot access the insolvency arrangements. How does permanent tsb determine whether somebody is a non-co-operating borrower? For example, in a situation in which I am involved where somebody is separated and that individual is co-operating but the partner or spouse is not co-operating, the former has been deemed a non-co-operating borrower, which means that person cannot access the insolvency arrangements. Could Mr. O'Sullivan give me more detail on how permanent tsb categorises somebody as non-co-operative? If he cannot do so today, maybe he could furnish us with it.

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

We stated earlier - I note Senator Hayden had to leave the committee for a period - that there are different categories of customer but the broad catch-all is that for customers to be deemed co-operative there must be meaningful engagement. There are levels of non-engagement and they start at the point where the customer will not answer the phone or the door, if one provided customer notice of a willingness to meet at his or her property. Beyond that, there are those who will answer the phone or the door who will agree to come meet at the branch in a week or two who, subsequently, do not turn up in the branch, and they repeatedly do that. They engage every time, agree an appointment but, subsequently, do not turn up. Then there are those who will come to the branch and make a commitment that they will provide the substance of the information that they have provided, such as a P60 or P45, utility bills or whatever it might be, and yet will never submit that information so that the SFS cannot progress. Then there are those who will provide the documentation and will make a contribution towards their arrears, but, unfortunately, the contribution will be negligible in the bigger picture. Broadly, that is the definition of those who are non-co-operating.

There are difficulties in separations but, ultimately, the two borrowers together made a commitment on a mortgage or whatever the lending might be. I can empathise and understand that separations can be bitter but, ultimately, there is an obligation on whoever's name is on the mortgage deed to honour their obligations to us. We look to work with both parties, if there are two parties on the deed.

On that point, I will give a practical example. I am dealing with one borrower who is prepared to make all of the repayments and yet the bank is not prepared to do business because the second borrower will not co-operate. If one had a different situation where, for the sake of argument, one was a mark and the other one was not, the bank would have no difficulty in pursuing the mark, and it is quite amazing that the bank cannot put in place facilities to engage with a borrower who is engaging.

On that point of non-co-operative borrowers, which is a matter for the Central Bank when we have it before us, I have a question. Permanent tsb does not have an independent appeals process. None of the other banks do. Is it reasonable that a body such as permanent tsb that does not have an independent appeals process, that is, a non-statutory process, can be in a position to deprive somebody of a statutory solution?

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

We have an appeals board, as we are obliged to have under CCMA. A number of points are worth making - Mr. Masding might add to this - about that appeals board. It is independent of myself and my management team and it sits in another part of the organisation and it independently reviews appeals that we receive. While it is made up of members who are independent of my team, we also have external independent parties who sit on that board.

How many of the appeals are successful?

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

To date, the success rate of appeals is about 20%.

That refers to earlier decisions overturned.

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

Correct.

Mr. Jeremy Masding

We should go through the process. It is absolutely right that a customer has the right to appeal. As in any bank, I segregate duties because I do not want conflicts of interest. The appeals board is not staffed by anyone from the asset management unit. I also decided - to be fair, with the encouragement of the Central Bank - to bring in non-executive directors to the appeals board. Within the boundaries of what I can control, I can look in the mirror and say that it is independent, that there is segregation of duties and that we have introduced independent non-executive directors. At the policy level, if the system decides there must be a different way for appeals to work, I cannot control that. Do I believe I can look committee members in the eye and say that we pass the independence test and that we have an appeals board? The answer to both questions is "Yes".

I must conclude because we are running out of time. Clearly, I disagree. I have worked in the law and that is a Chinese wall that would not pass muster with anyone, particularly when prohibiting people from accessing a statutory service. We will raise that again with the Insolvency Service of Ireland. Of 3,813 buy-to-let mortgages in arrears of more than 90 days, 1,518 are subject to legal proceedings of one sort or another. This is a much higher proportion than the private dwelling house, PDH, loan book. There is enormous concern about the treatment of tenants by lending institutions who live in these buy-to-let properties as their homes. This is particularly the case where receivers have been appointed. Permanent TSB has not provided information on the appointment of receivers. What is the view of the witnesses on the duties of receivers? I do not know if the witnesses are aware of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004, which sets out the obligations of landlords. Are the witnesses in favour of supporting an amendment to the legislation to ensure that, where receivers step into the shoes of landlords, they must abide by the obligations on landlords when they accept the rent?

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

Let us clarify the figure of 1,518. Of those, some 1,000 are categorised as being in legal proceedings and the number above that are not in legal proceedings but refer to voluntary sales.

With regard to the point about rent receivers, we must distinguish between rent receivers and fixed charge receivers. The rent receiver is engaged on behalf of the borrower and is engaged in scenarios where there are tenants in place and rent is being paid, but it is paid to the borrower, not the lender. The rent receiver is appointed on behalf of the borrower and the tenants continue to pay rent but the money goes to the lender rather than the borrower. More often than not, the property can be left in disrepair over a period so the rent receiver has an obligation to tidy up the property. It is a win-win situation in that the tenant gets to remain in the property and, if it is in disrepair, it is tidied up; the lender receives the rent that it had not received in the period up to the appointment; and the borrower, as a consequence, is now in a position to work with us to see what we can do to keep the property in his or her portfolio.

The fixed charge receiver is a different case and we do not appoint them. We have never done so and do not intend to do it. The fixed charge receiver has the authority to liquidate the asset and to sell the property without going through the traditional legal process that one goes through with a rent receiver in a buy-to-let property. In that scenario, the tenants tend to fare less well and it can lead to tenants having to vacate the premises sooner than they would want. From the perspective of Permanent TSB, we do not appoint fixed charge receivers and do not intend to do so. We have rent receivers in a small number of properties, some 360 accounts, which amount to about 700 properties. Where we have them in place, it works because there is a contribution to the mortgage, the tenant remains in place and the property is not vacated as part of a court process.

I will be brief in my response. I understand the legal nuance of the situation but I must disagree with the rosy view on the appointment of rent receivers or any other type of receiver to buy-to-let properties. In many cases, tenants have had money taken from them and have been forcibly evicted. There is no maintenance on the property and there is a significant need for clarity in the legislation with regard to treatment of tenants. There is no code of conduct on mortgage arrears for buy-to-let properties and, quite often, tenants are left in a poor situation and treated badly by lending institutions. The area must be rectified.

One member has asked me to deal with one question about an outstanding issue. We will look for this from all the banks. I do not expect the witnesses to have this information to hand, but they can inform us of it at their earliest convenience. Can the witnesses tell us the total estimated amount in value terms of negative equity in respect of all owner-occupier mortgages?

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

I have that figure. The positive equity on our home loans greater than 90 days in arrears is 25%. From a value point of view, the negative equity is 75%. In the buy-to-let sector, the positive equity from value point of view is 10% and the negative equity is 90%.

In cash terms, how much is the value of the PDH sector?

Mr. Shane O'Sullivan

I do not have that figure.

Mr. Jeremy Masding

We have two cells that are empty and we will come back to the committee with the information to fill those cells.

I thank the witnesses from Permanent TSB. I concur with the sentiments of members that a good body of work has been done since we last met. It is a difficult journey and dealing with this crisis is like trying to unravel a ball of knots. Pulling at one side tightens up the other side and creates difficulty. I welcome the acknowledgement of the deep learning curve, as exists for all of us. I welcome the remarks referring to giving regard to other resolution processes that were not in the Keane report and that are evolving now. I welcome the openness to other types of thinking in that area. I thank the witnesses, Mr. O'Sullivan, Mr. Groarke, Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Masding, for attending.

Sitting suspended at 12.20 p.m. and resumed at 2 p.m.

We resume in public session with No. 7 on the agenda, matters relating to mortgage arrears and resolution processes. I remind members, witnesses and those in the public gallery that mobile phones must be switched off to avoid interference with the broadcasting of the meeting. I welcome the representatives of Allied Irish Banks. We are joined by Mr. David Duffy, chief executive officer, Mr. Bernard Byrne, director of personal business and corporate banking, Mr. Fergus Murphy, director of products and capital markets, and Mr. Brendan O'Connor, head of financial solutions group. The witnesses are here to assist the committee in its examination of mortgage arrears and detail their progress in putting in place solutions to resolve difficulties in the sector. I thank Mr. Duffy and his staff for the written material provided to the committee in advance of the meeting. Our discussion will begin with opening remarks by Mr. Duffy, followed by questions from members. It is important to manage time well and, to derive maximum benefit from the meeting, each member will be strictly time-limited for questions and replies. Questions from members and replies to them should be clear and concise.

By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, the witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence you are to give this committee. If you are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence in relation to a particular matter and you continue to so do, you are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of your evidence. You are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and you are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, you should not criticise nor make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

Mr. David Duffy

I thank the Chairman and the committee members for the opportunity to brief the Oireachtas on AIB’s ongoing progress and on how we plan to address outstanding issues facing the bank. This is my third time meeting the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform since becoming chief executive, and I have found it a most valuable forum for explaining the bank’s position to members - and, by implication, to our customers and the wider public. It also serves the purpose of informing us about the committee's thinking and how best we can work together.

Our primary concern is to brief the committee, in as much detail as possible, on our strategy to deal with mortgage arrears and lending, but I would first like to give a short overview of the current position of AIB. We have completed two years of a three-year strategic plan to restore stability, achieve sustainable growth and return to profitability. AIB recently reported a return to pre-provision operating profit for 2013. In essence, after major restructuring, deleveraging, and securing a much reduced cost base, the bank has progressed to a point where it has stabilised its balance sheet, successfully returned to the funding markets, met Government lending targets, and is now positioned for lending growth. We are reducing the level of impaired loans in the bank and targeting a full return to underlying profit during 2014. Ultimately, the goal is to see the bank make a return to the Irish State over time. That is the primary objective.

While we are encouraged by this, we remain steadfastly focused on mortgage and SME arrears management and implementing solutions for customers in financial difficulty. We will discuss that in detail during questioning. Resolving these cases is difficult, labour-intensive and a constant operation in the bank. It demands our time, empathy and resources, but, as I hope to demonstrate, it is not intractable. Our enduring priority is to keep people in their homes where possible and to safeguard jobs and businesses while ensuring taxpayers’ capital is appropriately utilised.

We have developed a range of tailored permanent solutions and are achieving results in implementing these with customers who engage and work with us. I have full confidence that these models are allowing us to make real inroads into the problem. The issue of SME distress and arrears receives a disproportionately small level of coverage in the national debate despite the fact that its resolution is critical for the long-term sustainable growth of the country. In monetary terms, it is by far the larger proportion of AIB’s troubled loan book.

I am pleased to say that we have made very strong progress in resolving our SME arrears book and are seeing much higher rates of customer engagement with regard to our mortgage book. We are confident that we will have completed the substantial majority of the SME restructures over the next 12 months.

I will not labour the point, but our key theme is that engagement is the key that unlocks the conundrum for most distressed borrowers. Having established positive engagement, we can then proceed to agree an outcome that provides certainty to all parties and allows both the customer and the bank to move on to a sustainable financial arrangement. In a bid to maximise the bank's reach to customers in financial trouble, and after reflecting on feedback from Oireachtas Members at our last meeting, AIB has explored new avenues, including the involvement of customer and consumer advocacy groups – a development that has already led to breakthroughs in a significant number of areas.

All resolutions offered to customers in difficulty are assessed on the basis of affordability in respect of the borrower’s mortgage. It is important to clarify the definition of the term “affordability”: this is calculated on the totality of a customer’s net income from which reasonable living expenses are subtracted - in AIB, we calculate these expense as being approximately 20% in excess of the Insolvency Service of Ireland guidelines. What remains is net disposable income, NDI, for the purposes of our calculation. Cognisant of its responsibility to the Irish taxpayer, AIB must, as a core fiduciary principle, seek full repayment of mortgage debt where the customer has the ability to meet that payment from his NDI. Any other outcome is unacceptable from a commercial perspective and would be grossly unfair to the significant majority of mortgage customers across the country who continue to meet their full mortgage obligations despite changed circumstances.

The committee is aware of recent media reports of mortgage debt write-down and we are aware that some commentators have questioned the consistency with which we are dealing with our customers. It is therefore necessary for AIB to be unambiguous in this regard. AIB will compromise on debt with co-operating customers only if there is no prospect of that debt being paid, where there is no affordability to pay it, or when considered against the economics of alternative options open to the bank and, of course, against our requirement to optimise our recovery. All AIB's decisions regarding the nature of the forbearance solution offered to any given customer is grounded in the principle that customers must pay the maximum they can afford from their net disposable income. This principle equally applies in situations where debt compromise forms part of the solution. Decisions are based strictly on customer affordability. I will talk about that in more detail when responding to questions.

Meanwhile, it is not possible or practical to set out absolutely strict guidelines in relation to applicable levels of compromise. The principle is consistent but each case is indeed different and circumstances vary from customer to customer. However, once it has been determined that a customer’s level of net disposable income does not allow for a standard forbearance solution, it is sometimes necessary and commercially sensible to involve debt compromise as part of the resolution. This debt flexibility can arise in the application of a split mortgage or a voluntary sale for loss arrangement, although it is not the case that it always arises in every situation of a split mortgage or voluntary sale for loss arrangement. Where a customer has affordability in such situations, the issue of debt compromise does not arise and is not offered. At our last meeting with this committee in September 2013, we considered at some length the issue of the bank’s legal processes. I again reiterate that AIB only pursues the legal option where customers do not co-operate or engage with the bank and do not maximise their payments of their mortgage based on their affordability after the calculation of reasonable living expenses. These actions are predicated purely on the need to protect capital and to ensure that the bank operates commercially and in compliance with the regulatory guidance. Customers always receive ample opportunity to engage in an effort to reach a financial arrangement, and the possibility of having to resort to legal proceedings is repeatedly flagged by the bank. In fact, the Central Bank has set down clear guidelines on the responsibility of both bank and customers in respect of that engagement.

We engage with people who are in the legal process to seek a sustainable solution for their mortgage difficulties. We cannot leave the legal process until agreement is reached on a sustainable solution based on the affordability principles, as discussed, and the customer demonstrates a commitment to sustain the payments as part of that sustainable solution. However, even in a legal process AIB is amenable to pausing that process when a customer chooses to engage meaningfully to reach a non-legal sustainable solution.

I believe AIB has demonstrated a clear and differentiated willingness to pragmatically engage with co-operating customers in reaching sustainable solutions and also to leave the door open to those in the legal process who are non-co-operating to re-engage despite being in the legal process with the bank. However, the flip side of this is that we must, as a commercial entity, enforce our rights over the property in the event that the customer continues not to engage with us. To do otherwise would be a misuse of the capital that has been provided by the State and would ultimately lead to an unfair transfer of taxpayers' funds from one citizen to another.

Overall, we are seeing a reduction in the bank’s total impaired loans. In addition, the number of early and pre-arrears in our mortgage portfolios reduced materially in the second half of last year. All of this meant that our provision charges in 2013 were €625 million lower than in 2012, including consideration of substantially all of the findings from the Central Bank of Ireland balance sheet assessment. I am optimistic that over the next 12 months AIB will have completed the majority of SME and mortgage restructures, allowing the recovery and growth of viable businesses, the protection of jobs - very importantly - and an improvement in retail confidence.

The bank exceeded the Government’s lending target in 2013, approving credit to 32,000 customers, and issued almost two in every five mortgages drawn down - that is, utilised mortgages. The bank is focused on a €7 billion to €10 billion target of lending approvals over the next five years and is positioned appropriately in capital terms for that. These cover mortgages, personal and business loans. While there is much public conjecture as to whether banks are lending or not, I can categorically state that, having undertaken a significant level of balance sheet restructuring in recent years, AIB is squarely focused on positioning our bank for lending, as the primary balance sheet and as part of our overall strategy to return to profit.

In summary, on behalf of AIB, I want to use this opportunity to again express thanks to the Irish taxpayers for their support, without which we would not be here. Our objective is to re-establish AIB as a profitable investment bank and this is the optimum way to deliver a return on the shareholders' investment over time. Let me reassure members that our team, AIB’s workforce and myself will continue to pursue relentlessly the goal of restoring this bank to good financial health in the shortest possible timeframe.

While we are focused on addressing legacy issues of the past, we must continue to invest in developing a customer-centric banking model that is fit to meet the challenges of our recovering economy and the needs of our customers. We are dedicated to that project until it reaches a successful conclusion.

I thank the Chairman and members, and we are happy to answer questions on our submissions.

I thank Mr. Duffy. May I advise witnesses that I may make an adjustment to the regular rotation in order to accommodate members who wish to speak on legislation in the Chamber. As Deputy McGrath needs to be in the Chamber shortly, I invite him to lead off.

Chairman, I really appreciate that. I welcome Mr. Duffy and his colleagues to this meeting. I thank Mr. Duffy for providing his opening statement and other information in advance, affording us the opportunity to go through it before the meeting. In line with the data provided by the other institutions, there seems to have been a significant ramping up of enforcement activity. Between mortgages on family homes and buy-to-let properties, there are more than 9,000 cases that are under legal proceedings or in which the customer has been advised that legal proceedings will commence if a resolution is not agreed. Is Mr. Duffy satisfied that in all of those cases every opportunity has been given to the customer to engage meaningfully and to come up with an alternative solution? Have people been offered other sustainable solutions before taking the legal route?

Mr. David Duffy

The Deputy has asked a very important question, but I think it is useful to frame it with a few facts. Let us look at the process of engagement, where it might lend itself to a legal outcome. In the first instance, we advise people that they may enter into a legal position and try to outline all the alternatives. In that circumstance I can confirm that 50% of the people contacted on a potential legal path re-engaged with the bank. That is a very positive outcome. It is largely related to the various solutions that we offer, as the Deputy identified, rather than pursuing the legal position. When we are in the position of saying that we will now enter a legal process, we have seen on average a 10% re-engagement pretty quickly. When those 10% of customers engage with the bank they are paying the full capital and interest, subsequent to the advice around the potential legal process. It is worth mentioning also that when one looks at the legal letters in totality, the average duration of arrears or non-engagement for people who have received legal letters is greater than two years. In terms of civil proceedings, the average is greater than three years of arrears. We are satisfied that we have engaged as substantially as we can.

The whole legal and regulatory process is well defined. Significant and frequent engagement takes place by telephone, letter and other means. When that fails and we warn of the potential process, 50% engage. When we enter the process, a further 10% engage, and one is left with a population that has not responded for between two and three years.

For the sake of completeness, do the figures provided in the questionnaire capture all of the legal proceedings relating to mortgages? Representatives of another bank stated before the joint committee that in some cases involving arrears of less than 90 days it had entered legal proceedings. Is all of the activity of Allied Irish Banks captured by the figures provided?

Mr. David Duffy

Yes. To be specific in respect of the Deputy's question, we have no customers in arrears of less than 90 days who are in a legal process.

On a point of order, the presentation refers repeatedly to June 2013 and quarter 2 targets. The joint committee is dealing with the quarter 4 targets. Is this a typographical error or does the presentation relate to quarter 2 targets?

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

These are the quarter 4 targets.

In that case, should all references to "quarter 2" read as "quarter 4"?

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

I apologise if there is a typographical error. We will cross-check the submission. Every point I made and every answer I gave relates to the quarter 4 targets.

I presume the figures are for the period to the end of December 2013, rather than June 2013, the date that appears in the document.

Mr. David Duffy

We will cross-check that reference also, but the Deputy is correct.

On the mortgage-to-rent sector, how many of the 300 solutions provided have been finalised and how many are still being processed?

Mr. David Duffy

I ask Mr. O'Connor to respond to the question as he is executing those arrangements.

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

We have not completed any of them. We have between 20 and 30 in the late stages. It is an extremely complex process.

I gather that is the case from the evidence presented. The presentations made by the three banks that have appeared thus far and some data provided by Bank of Ireland indicate that legal proceedings have commenced, or customers have been advised they will commence, in 30,000 mortgage cases. While not all of these cases will result in the loss of the mortgage holder's home, that will be the outcome in many of them. It is important that a safety net or ultimate backstop is in place. That was the purpose of the scheme. Of the three banks that have appeared thus far, only one, Ulster Bank, has completed a transaction in the mortgage-to-rent sector. Permanent TSB and Allied Irish Banks have not completed any and Ulster Bank has completed only one. What is wrong with the scheme?

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

We proposed 300 solutions. We met recently with one of the housing associations to try to figure out if there is a way to smooth out the process. There are many players involved in the process, including many different agencies, Departments and the banks. The principal issue is the difficulty of getting clarity at the start of the process on whether somebody will qualify. One tends to find out whether that is the case later in the process, when one has travelled some distance. A complex set of rules surrounds the scheme, which is not built for speed, if I may use that phrase.

That is clearly the case.

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

We met representatives of the Clúid housing association to ascertain whether there is some way we can accelerate the process. We believe this is a very good product and a real alternative but it is just not functioning at the moment.

Allied Irish Banks has been criticised for claiming that approximately 20% of its customers are strategic defaulters. There is a difference between a strategic defaulter and a person who is not co-operating. Some of those in the latter category may simply not have any money and cannot, therefore, be described as strategic defaulters. What is the bank's current position on this issue? What percentage of its customers are stonewalling and not co-operating or responding to calls, requests for standard financial statements and so forth?

Mr. David Duffy

It is very hard to be precise. To be clear on my definition, I was not referring to those who were afraid to co-operate but to those who had made a conscious decision to pay an alternative debt which may be unsecured versus the secured debt. The indicative points are significant. When one is two years down the road of non-co-operation, 50% re-engage when one issues advice of a potential legal process and a further 10% come back and pay the full capital and interest on their outstanding mortgage, without variation, when one issues legal proceedings - that is, when one takes the first step in a convoluted process. The figure the Deputy seeks is in the order of magnitude of the actual percentage of people who come back after two years of not paying and engage in full payment.

To refine the Deputy's earlier point, we have been explicit with the Financial Regulator and everybody else that we do not want to send out a single legal letter. That will not serve us or anybody else well. If one does not engage for two or three years, one ends up in that position. What we did after listening to Members of the Oireachtas at our previous meeting was to look at motivation. At that time, Deputy Spring raised the issue of fear. We contacted consumer advocacy groups requesting that they ask those who were not willing to come to the bank to please approach the one champion consumers have, namely, the group that is noisy about being their champion. This approach has had considerable traction. Our objective through this and two other initiatives we have taken is to eliminate legal letters by providing alternative means of addressing the issue and bringing it back to the table. We are seeing engagement in that space.

The issue of mortgage write-off has garnered considerable publicity recently. Where is this listed under No. 4 on the questionnaire, relating to solutions provided?

Mr. David Duffy

I will define the principle before asking Mr. O'Connor to discuss the cases. I have seen a great deal of commentary on the issue of write-offs. The one point I would like to make is that this is not about a policy but a simple reality. If we judge that a person has an amount of debt that will never be repayable, we sit down with the customer and seek to do two things, namely, keep him or her in his or her home and maximise value to taxpayers. Different banks have different processes. If, at the end of the process, one knows the debt is not repayable, one deals with it in such a manner that the person stays in his or her home and we end up maximising the value over the term. Whatever numbers the Deputy sees are not relevant. The principle is very consistent and is designed to prevent legal processes from becoming repossessions. Mr. O'Connor will answer the specific question on point 4.

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

The information is contained in the split mortgages category, although not every split mortgage has a debt write-down, and in the category of voluntary sale or surrender. We agree a treatment of the residual debt before the individual sells the house to give him or her some certainty as to what he or she is getting into. As such, debt write-down is in both of those categories.

Is Mr. O'Connor prepared to advise the committee as to the number of cases in which there has been an element of debt write-down?

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

I do not have the number in front of me because we made the decision that anyone who was given a split mortgage should not be disadvantaged by a matter of timing. For this reason, we reissued all split mortgage offers. I do not have figures on how many have been accepted, but it is likely that between 600 and 700 of the 1,100 split mortgages that have been offered will feature some debt write-down. I imagine there will be an element of debt write-down in between 60% and 70% of cases involving assisted voluntary sale or customers choosing to surrender the property.

Does Mr. O'Connor have a figure on the total amount of mortgage debt that has been written off or written down?

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

I do not have that figure.

Mr. David Duffy

We can provide that figure as we reconcile the numbers.

Please do so. I am one of those who raised the issue of consistency. I accept that writing down mortgage debt will be a solution in a certain proportion of cases. It is important that people know the circumstances under which they may be able to avail of such a solution. One can argue, if one writes off sufficient mortgage debt, that almost every mortgage is sustainable. It is important, therefore, that people know what criteria are being used and are assured that the process is transparent and there is no suggestion that only people in a certain circle or those who are in the know, as it were, will benefit from this attractive solution. I ask Mr. Duffy to comment on the issue of transparency and the criteria used. On what basis is the decision made that a debt write-down is a solution in some cases but not in others?

Mr. David Duffy

The Deputy raises a fundamental issue to which we gave an immense amount of thought as we were going into this process. People speak of moral hazard and other risks. A cohort of people, or eight in ten mortgage holders, are paying their mortgages. What would be their view on people seemingly being given a random gift, as some people may put it? The issue is very straightforward. We look at the models that create solutions, namely, those that are defined and agreed by the Central Bank. We take these solutions and, to return again to the issue of affordability, we sit down with the person and look at our criteria on net disposable income, which are 20% better than those used by the Insolvency Service of Ireland. We look at the person's complete and total income in a full and detailed standard financial statement. Based on the outcome of that process, we look at the total debt and determine what is realistically repayable. One cannot publish a criterion other than the absolute principle of affordability because every circumstance is different.

There are joint, separate and connected debts. The debt structure is what defines the discussion around the principle of affordability. We would love to be able to publish in the press "Go and check your criteria," but it is an actual negotiation. At the same time, because there would be concerns about who one knows, we will never let that happen as a principle of integrity of the bank. I stand firmly in that space. We have an internal appeals and review process to double check and make absolutely sure that we are implementing those types of solution for consistency reasons. As the committee can imagine, in years to come, there will be look-backs for consistency and equitable treatment of the customer. We look not only at the consistency across those customers but at whether the actual solution was fair and equitable, and we do a backward review across all of the solutions on that basis. It is the principle of affordability with a balancing review.

I have two final quick questions. On the issue of the forthcoming stress tests, how confident is Mr. Duffy that we will come through those without requiring additional capital?

Mr. David Duffy

I am reasonably confident. It is clear from the stress test that took place that we were able to confirm that we absorbed the entire amount, or almost all of the amount - these things are never exact because of the nature of the models - from the findings of the Central Bank, yet our capital was a very robust 14.3% against the thresholds of 8%. In regard to the upcoming tests, the first part is similar in nature to what happened already. We do not believe there will be new discovery, as we have spent years looking at every single asset, so we are not inclined to believe there will be a material outcome. The part on which we do not have an absolute view is the forward-looking stress test, the criteria for which have not yet been published by the ECB. Based on the modelling we do as a bank, in which we use very negative potential scenarios, we believe that the buffers we have, which are in excess of €4 billion, mean we will be able to pass those tests without requiring more capital from the State.

I know that Allied Irish Banks keeps interest rates under constant review. In respect of variable interest rates for mortgage holders, is that an issue that is being examined and, if so, are any changes anticipated in that area in the coming months?

Mr. David Duffy

As the Deputy said, interest rates are under constant review. At this point there are no planned changes, positive or negative, to any of our rates.

I thank Mr. Duffy.

The last time that Allied Irish Banks and all the banks appeared before the committee, there was an issue of contention as to how the target figure was reached because it involved a number of letters going out. As we have moved on from that, the question is how many people are in resolutions. The issue of consistency in resolutions is confused with similarity and the idea that people get the same solution regardless of their ability to pay. Is Allied Irish Banks in a position, given that it is 100% owned by the State, to provide different types of approach compared to the other banks that are regulated by the Central Bank? Does it find it has more space to do things?

Mr. David Duffy

I have a tiny quibble with what the Chairman has said. AIB is not 100% owned by the State, although I understand that-----

I understand.

Mr. David Duffy

In respect of our flexibility, I do not believe we have any special flexibility or special ability based on the ownership architecture, as the bank has to be run at commercial arm's length under the terms of the framework agreement and, second, these matters are overviewed by the Regulator and, therefore, consistency between banks is governed by that framework. What we have is, perhaps, innovative approaches that we try to apply; for example, we are engaging with one of our largest critics to try to get people to speak to them instead of us. We can put that kind of innovation on the table, which may be different from what the other banks are doing, but as to the core principles of how to deliver solutions, they are, effectively, regulated.

Following on from what Deputy Michael McGrath said, a case in point might be that the setting of the variable interest rate by AIB - certainly, that is the political comment - might be more responsive in this bank than in the other banks. Is that the case?

Mr. David Duffy

The committee will have seen AIB implement increases in that rate. Notwithstanding any political ownership, we operate on a purely operational basis. Our ultimate goal is very simple: to return €20 billion to the taxpayer. If at any point any investor perceived us to be acting in the political interest, there would then be no investor. To maximise the valuation, we operate at arm's length, so the answer would be "No" in that circumstance.

In fairness to Mr. Duffy, every time he has come before the committee he has acknowledged the support of Irish taxpayers and set out the goal of re-establishing Allied Irish Bank as a profitable investable bank in the optimum way to return the State's investment over time. Does Allied Irish Bank have in its projected plans a time by which the State will no longer be an owner of AIB?

Mr. David Duffy

I do not have a specific time because it is entirely at the discretion of the Minister in terms of timing and the associated pricing. Fundamentally, for any discussion to be viable, we have to create an investable bank, so the timing for that subset is to deliver by the end of this year a fully profitable bank that can demonstrate publicly that it is adequately capitalised, post all the stress tests. Then we are in a position in which, as the bank with the largest balance sheet and the largest lender, it would look attractive as a profitable bank. When he was in Davos, the Minister flagged - I am not disclosing anything inappropriate - that he would like to test the price of AIB's equity before 2016 - that is, 2015. The partial answer to the Chairman's question is probably that the process could begin, at the Minister's discretion, in 2015 and thereafter, and then the timing will be out of our hands. Our job is to make sure it is a well-run bank.

So in layman's terms, although it is not written in stone, there is an expectation or some movement towards having AIB in the market as a sellable institution, or to be prepared as a sellable institution, by this time next year.

Mr. David Duffy

Certainly by the end of this year, or when we deliver our results in the first quarter of next year, we would like to be able to make that exact statement.

Would that be a percentage sale or a sale in its entirety?

Mr. David Duffy

The Minister's view would be more important than ours. The market suggests that there will be a wide variety of interested buyers, so that one can do a combination of either small parts, large parts or multiple sales. It is too early for us to give guidance on that issue.

I will return to some borrowing, but an issue that is popping up with the institutions we have seen so far is the legacy debt that becomes unsecured after repossession of a property. How is Allied Irish Banks dealing with that debt? Is it writing that debt off after the sale or is it being left there as a legacy?

Mr. David Duffy

I think there are a few treatments, so I will invite my colleague Mr. Brendan O'Connor to comment.

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

Specifically, when there is legacy debt in a voluntary or assisted sale we agree on the treatment of the residual debt before the sale to give people some certainty. Therefore, prior to selling the property, they understand exactly what is the legacy. If there is affordability, for that unsecured piece we will seek to recover that amount; if there is not, we will compromise on the debt, but we will reach an agreement before the property is sold. To the extent that there is partial affordability, we will agree deals for a lesser timeframe than the Insolvency Service of Ireland - typically five to six years - and perhaps with a nominal sum paid towards it, but we will seek it based on maximum affordability.

Just to move to a more macro figure, before I move on to something else, does Allied Irish Banks have to hand - if not, it can be provided to the committee at a later time - a value for its distressed loan book, for both negative and positive equity?

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

I do not have it to hand but I can provide it to the committee. Approximately 70% of the loan book in arrears are also in negative equity.

One category of AIB customer was actually AIB staff. Am I correct in saying that members of the bank at different levels were provided with loans by the bank, whether business or mortgage loans? The witnesses may not have that figure to hand.

Mr. David Duffy

Correct.

Were those loans at a preferential interest rate or at some incentivised interest rate?

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

I do not know the history. For a mortgage, a certain amount was provided at a preferential rate. Off the top of my head, approximately €200,000 of a mortgage was at a preferential rate and the rest was at commercial rates.

Mr. Bernard Byrne

The effect of the tracker mortgage issue ultimately meant that the preferential rate became irrelevant.

So they were all-----

Mr. Bernard Byrne

In effect, the tracker rate became so attractive that there was not really a difference.

Were they business loans or other types of loan?

Mr. Bernard Byrne

Mainly mortgage lending.

Do the witnesses have a value for these loans that are now in arrears?

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

I do not have that figure to hand.

Do the witnesses have the number of staff loans and the number of staff loans in arrears?

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

I have a number but I do not have it with me. I apologise. I will provide it to the committee.

Will he also provide the value of those loans?

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

Yes.

Mr. David Duffy

We will provide the exact numbers. To make a brief point, we have been explicit in our governance and in how we have managed this and staff loans will receive no differential or preferential treatment in any phase of this process, up to and including a negative outcome, by virtue of being staff. We have made this an absolute principle in the bank.

To date, how many personal insolvency arrangements have been put in place with borrowers of AIB?

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

We have none. To date, we have voted on two PIA agreements. We voted for both of them, but we were not in control of the process. We were reasonably minor, unsecured creditors. We have approximately 15 in the process that are subject to a protective certificate. In four of those cases, we will be the controlling creditor. It is likely, but the creditors' meeting has not taken place yet, that we will vote positively for the arrangement in three of the four cases and not in one, as we had already offered the customer a mortgage arrangement prior to that.

Is dealing with unsecured creditors a barrier to reaching solutions in this area?

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

Yes, very significantly so.

Without citing institutions, could Mr. O'Connor give us some examples of the modelling of that problem?

Mr. David Duffy

May I just mention that when we talk about unsecured creditors, the banks make up two thirds of this unsecured number. Therefore, we are addressing a chunk of it on our own account and that is why it is important-----

Yes, and I am coming to that in my next question.

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

It becomes an issue to the extent that when we calculate net disposable income, we are looking for the maximum affordability for the mortgage, to prioritise keeping the people in their homes. Quite an amount of income comes out of customers' net income that goes to unsecured creditors. It is difficult, when we are prepared to compromise on the unsecured debt - the nature of the debt itself - when other unsecured creditors do not. Therefore, it is often hard to get a holistic agreement across somebody's totality of debt. In quite a few cases, people do not have a mortgage debt problem, but a personal debt problem. It is the confluence of the two that makes the issue difficult to deal with.

Mr. Duffy said a high percentage of these unsecured loans are between banks and not with credit unions or other institutions. They are held by the banks. Do we have a situation therefore where a bank at one side of the table tries to put a PIA in place, but a bank on the other side does not assist in that because of the unsecured aspect of the debt? And does the same happen at times where a bank has secure debt, but AIB does not co-operate in regard to the unsecured debt?

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

No, we-----

Mr. David Duffy

I want to make a point here in regard to what we discussed earlier. A protocol has been established between the banks. Therefore, intrabank we do not have an issue in regard to unsecured debt. It can be credit card debt, leases, credit union debt or with other third parties. As such a large part of the total debt, two thirds of it, is intrabank debt, we resolved that issue a year ago and the protocol has been working satisfactorily.

One of the things that needs to be said is that AIB has been very innovative and has acted commendably since we met with it last. It has introduced some very helpful measures for its distressed customers. One of the issues I broached previously, and it arises in discussion this afternoon, concerns the sustainability level being 20% above the insolvency guidelines.

Bearing in mind everything must be done on a case-by-case basis, a percentage of those people who have come into difficulty would now be in their late 50s or early 60s and while they might be in a sustainable position now, that sustainability may not be met within their working life and certainly not within the terms of the mortgage. I am aware the Central Bank has been a bit more rigid in regard to allowing people work out sustainable solutions that may allow them to remain in their homes through retirement and ensuring the arrangements did not require to be wrapped up by then. Has AIB made any progress with the Central Bank on that area?

Mr. David Duffy

There are two elements to that. I will answer on the first and will ask Mr. O'Connor to respond on the second. First, one of the big discussions was around the issue raised by Deputy Donnelly regarding split loans. If a split loan was there, we were not charging interest on the parked portion. In addition, based on feedback from this committee, we included in split loan arrangements a right to make up-front payments. Then, where somebody improved his or her environment through the duration of the mortgage on an income basis, we had been taking a share of that improvement in finances, but we decided not to. Therefore, if a person doubled his or her income or a second job came into play, that is to the benefit of the consumer and the principle of clarity around the whole mortgage was very much improved. There was a write-off up front, customers were not paying interest on the parked portion of the loan and had the ability to improve their situation to their benefit during the duration of the mortgage under the split loan.

I will ask Mr. O'Connor to deal with the issue of particular cases regarding retirement.

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

In the case of the split mortgages, where a customer has not cleared down the mortgage by retirement, we have written a right of tenure into our new split mortgage arrangements.

Looking to the future, when I hear people talk about recovery in the property market, it frightens the life out of me. What we all want to see is a normalisation of the market. What I mean by this is that we want to see prudential lending practices that ensure we do not see a property bubble, massive house price inflation and that we see a realistic level of affordability in the property market. This requires new lending to take place and this must be on prudential grounds, a practice that went out the window in recent years. Will AIB give us a brief account of where this new lending is taking place? I saw a tweet earlier from AIB and see it is quite active in providing information on the ten steps to getting a mortgage and providing other similar advice. What is the position on new lending currently? Following that, I will just have two or three more questions.

Mr. David Duffy

I will ask my colleague, Mr. Fergus Murphy, who is responsible for our mortgage product area, to speak about the market and our activity in it.

Mr. Fergus Murphy

AIB is the largest provider of mortgages in the country. Over the past number of years, we have built into our processes and behaviour what we believe is a prudential way of lending and supporting first-time buyers, movers and switchers in the marketplace as it grows again. We will lend a maximum of 92% loan to value, LTV. For one-bedroomed apartments, which are a more risky proposition, we will lend a maximum of 75% LTV and for properties greater than €400,000, where a mortgage greater than €400,000 is required, the maximum LTV we will provide is 85%.

We are looking at the market internationally and looking at those economies where the banking system, particularly the mortgage markets, performed better through the crisis over the past five or six years. Among these are Canada and Australia. We are trying to set our stall up more akin to them. At the same time, the most important factor is affordability. We stress each mortgage application at a 2% stress rate over the rate at which the mortgage is being drawn down. Therefore, we approach credit application in terms of loan to value and affordability.

One final issue, the standard LTV applied is 92%. Now that we are seeing reactivation of the residential property market, have AIB staff in the sales division targets to achieve each year?

Mr. David Duffy

The target in that regard is set by the Government. It is important to say that we are not going to drive sales volumes in that manner. We look at the market today. Last year it was approximately €2.2 billion and this year it is possible it will be €2.7 billion. A normalised market is somewhere between €8 billion and €10 billion and the peak was €40 billion. We are not in danger of trying to pile up too much concentration and are not motivating the market the wrong way in terms of sales staff. We are being very careful about the potential risk in issuing loans.

One concern that has been brought to my attention relates to the difficulty for people in coming up with a deposit at this time. There is massive price inflation in the rental sector and that is probably distorting the market. Rents are so far in excess of property values currently. This is creating a difficulty for people who wish to purchase and there is pent up demand in the area. Therefore, for somebody to come up with a deposit so as to meet the requirements for a 92% LTV can be difficult. Let us say, for example, a property is for sale for €200,000 and somebody needs to borrow the full amount to buy that property, but cannot do so because of the LTV requirements and the Central Bank guidelines issued in 2009. Is there a practice within AIB whereby the property is revalued at €220,000, thereby meeting the 92% LTV? Does that sort of activity take place in AIB?

Mr. Fergus Murphy

No, absolutely not. Interestingly, the weighted average loan to value of the total portfolio of new business we are doing currently is 72%. We are not coming across this small gap between 92% and 100% or activity like that. It would not be possible for that type of activity to take place with a 72% average LTV.

Is it possible to re-evaluate on a 92% LTV?

Mr. David Duffy

No. I think the Chairman's point refers to integrity. If a case such as that was observed in the bank, the employee would no longer have a job.

I thank Mr. Duffy for being so categorical on that.

I wish to welcome Mr. Duffy and his colleagues. I would like to clarify a couple of points. Are the figures we have here both for AIB and EBS combined? AIB is required to meet targets by the Central Bank under the mortgage arrears resolution process, or MARP. Is the target to the end of December 50% of both home loans and buy-to-lets, or is it an average?

Mr. David Duffy

It is the total amount.

It is the total amount for both. I am looking at page 9 in one of the documents the witnesses gave us, which is the overview. Am I correct that the total number of home loans greater than 90 days is 24,990 and for buy-to-lets it is 11,650, which is a total of 36,640?

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

Correct.

Am I correct that with home loans AIB has reached a 58% target and a 39% target individually in the buy-to-lets?

Mr. David Duffy

Yes.

The overall target AIB made is around 54%. Is that correct?

Mr. David Duffy

Correct.

It strikes me as strange that within the home loans, without the legal and other proceedings, AIB would be meeting a target of 31% which would be 7,753. Some 6,702 of the sustainable solutions are effectively legal and other proceedings. In the buy-to-lets, AIB is making only 17% of the target, while it is making 22% of the target on the legal side. In home loans, it is 31% outside the legal proceedings, and legal makes up 26% which comes to around 57%. In the buy-to-lets it is effectively 17% without the legal and 22% with the legal. If one takes the average it is boiling down at 50-50. Nearly 50% of the sustainable solutions AIB is putting in involve proposals, legal and other proceedings. Is it fair to say that AIB would not come within an ass's roar of satisfying the targets without initiating legal proceedings, which are at nearly 50% of the sustainable solutions being put forward?

Mr. David Duffy

I will comment on that.

Before Mr. Duffy replies, I am getting reports that there is a lot of background noise coming up, including phone noise in particular. I must ask members to turn off their phones. If they are using iPads, they should take them off a cellular signal because it is creating a lot of noise.

Will I have to repeat my question, Chairman?

No, you will not because I got the distortion as well. I call Mr. Duffy.

Mr. David Duffy

Maybe it was the words chosen that were distorted. Just to be clear, the observation is statistically and mathematically correct. Mr. O'Connor will speak about the total portfolio. What we see as legals will be a much smaller number as we have resolved all cases in total. The key issue to remember is that meeting the mortgage arrears resolution targets requires the customer to have engaged. In our case, therefore, legal letters are merely a default - an outcome of non-engagement. What is in one's gift? If one is given a target in life that cannot be executed unless the person engages, then one cannot deliver that target. That is why under the regulatory regime legal letters are sent.

Recognising the Deputy's exact point, we have said that if they will not engage, and we therefore default into this higher number of legals, we will take all of the innovations we can, like IMHO, to get beyond those legal definitions and bring people back to the table to engage. I am not disagreeing with the Deputy's point; I am saying that I cannot do anything about it. In our exact position, we have done everything possible in all of our products. We have done everything possible in terms of innovation. We have gone to our worst critics and even asked consumers to talk to them. Beyond that, legal letters for AIB are a by-product of customer behaviour, not of our actions.

The point I am making is that, for someone observing it, 50% of sustainable solutions being provided at the moment have involved legal proceedings. One would have to question whether the process is working.

Mr. David Duffy

I understand.

Why is the process not working? Why is it down to meeting targets? Mr. Duffy is telling me that the only way he can meet the target - that is, 50% of them overall, between the home loans and the buy-to-lets - is by instigating legal proceedings. How has it come to that point?

Mr. David Duffy

It is a fair challenge and this is a legacy issue. There was a period when one could not have a legal position. There was no consequence of not paying. There was a consumer code whereby we found it difficult to properly engage with customers. They were all the legacy issues, many years since the crisis, that led to not having products. There was a lot of complexity. I am not making excuses but all those things happened. We are in the position where that may be the current outcome of a process as defined. We are not actually looking at the mortgage arrears resolution targets. We have to comply with those but we are looking at solutions. Our commitment is to deliver the majority of mortgage restructuring by the end of 2014 using regular solutions under the regulator, and using our innovations. We intend to get the majority of this work completed during 2014, notwithstanding the history.

I accept the Deputy's point but we are trying to do something about the solutions rather than the targets.

What has been the level of repossessions to date? How many repossessions are in the pipeline as we speak? I mean the total number of repossessions.

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

There were 58 repossessions in 2013, up from 20 repossessions in 2012.

How many repossessions are in the pipeline?

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

There are 2,500 cases where a civil bill has been issued, which is when it enters the court system for the first time as it relates to primary dwelling homes or PDHs.

When did AIB initiate those? What timescale or period are we looking at?

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

Typically, it can take from six to 12 weeks to get to the civil bill stage.

When did AIB start instigating those 2,500 cases?

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

In the last six months.

So there are 2,500 cases waiting. Does Mr. O'Connor anticipate that they will end up in repossessions?

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

No, I do not. Just for clarity, there are cases within those 2,500 that will change, and have changed, to other sustainable solutions because we are engaged with them post the civil bill.

Of those 2,500 cases, what is the breakdown between home loans and buy-to-lets?

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

It is 2,500 for home loans and 200 for buy-to-lets. Most typically, buy-to-lets are dealt with by way of receivership, so it is not quite comparable.

How many receivers has AIB appointed in the buy-to-let cases?

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

Close to 1,000.

In essence, therefore, Mr. O'Connor is saying that there are 1,200 cases. He is talking roughly about 30% of all the cases he has. In 20% of all buy-to-lets, AIB has appointed receivers.

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

We have 11,600.

No. Of the buy-to-lets, are the 1,000 receivers included in the proposed legal and other proceedings?

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

Yes. They will be there under "receiver demanded" and "receiver appointment". Some will come by way of judgment enforced.

I am looking at the percentages and there are currently 2,569 buy-to-lets in legal proceedings. How many of those are receivers?

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

There are approximately 800 in there.

With due respect, that is over 30%. It seems very high.

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

It is 30% of those which are in legal.

Correct. I will take the buy-to-lets first, which are straightforward enough. There are 2,569, some 800 of which are in receiverships. How many of those will end up being repossessed and how many will be sustainable solutions?

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

All of the 800 will be repossessed and we will become mortgagees in possession.

Where will the balance of 1,769 cases end up?

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

I would expect that 70% to 80% of them will end up being taken into possession by a receivership.

By a receivership?

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

Yes.

So virtually all of the 2,569 will be receiverships.

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

Yes.

How many properties could they involve? Could they be single properties?

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

No. This is an account, so the amount of properties is typically lower.

This issue is coming up with us. Of the 800 receiverships, could they typically involve one property?

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

Yes. Each receivership I have down here refers to a single property.

Why would AIB go ahead and appoint a receiver in respect of a single property?

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

If the customer is not paying the rent over to us and is being given an opportunity to do so, we will appoint a receiver to take the rent.

So AIB is taking a very aggressive attitude on the buy-to-lets. Would that be a fair point?

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

If we lent the money on the basis of a commercial investment that was to be funded from the receipt of rent but if we are not in receipt of rent we give the customer an opportunity. If he or she does not pay the rent over then, yes, we are going to the receiver.

How many of those receiverships would be in positive equity?

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

I do not know.

This issue has arisen and spread across to home loans.

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

Yes.

People in positive equity have raised the issue with us. Typically, when they fall into arrears it would appear, on the face of it, to be an advantage to the bank to effectively move to repossess by way of repossession through the courts in terms of a home loan or receivership in terms of a commercial property such a buy-to-let. In that instance, from the bank's viewpoint, because the property has been sold funds have been realised, the loan is cleared and one's balance sheet capital ratio is improved. A risk asset, in some ways, will have been taken off one's balance sheet in terms of sum weighting. Is it a fair comment to make that if one sells loans in positive equity that are heavily in arrears, it will boost the capital ratio of the bank's balance sheet?

Mr. David Duffy

Not materially. I would say one thing that we should be very careful about. If the implication is does the bank target positive equity loans then the answer is "No." We look at the same principle of affordability and repayment. Let me explain what happens if someone takes an income from a situation, particularly a buy-to-let situation which is a commercial investment and is like buying a share in the marketplace. Typically, to get to a legal position it takes us two years internally with the person, as I mentioned earlier. If for two years they have streamed that income elsewhere we appoint a receiver. That is the position regardless of whether the property is in positive or negative equity. In some cases, we do not know whether it is until we carry out that work.

Banks operate very sophisticated financial systems. Twenty per cent of the buy-to-let loans that are 90 days or more in arrears have ended up in receivership, which strikes me as pretty high, and over 30% of the proposals that are involved in legal proceedings are in the buy-to-let category. The proof is in the eating or the pudding or whatever. I apologise; my word choices are not quite as smooth as I would like them to be today.

Has the Deputy had a lot of pudding in the past few days?

How many of the 1,106 split mortgage home loans were in positive equity?

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

I do not know. We do not look at positive equity and the work is based purely on affordability. We do not offer a split mortgage to somebody in positive equity because, from a fiduciary perspective, we do not write down debt that is recoverable. Therefore, one does not get a split if one is in positive equity.

What happens if someone arrives into the bank when they are in this particular situation? Is Mr. O'Connor saying that his bank does not differentiate between somebody in positive and negative equity when seeking a loan?

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

No; it is done purely on affordability. We do not offer splits to people in positive equity. Sorry - we do not offer debt compromise to people in positive equity.

Someone in positive equity has two routes open to them.

The Deputy has two minutes left.

What solutions does the bank offer to people who have positive equity but are in arrears?

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

It will depend on the extent that we believe that they can get themselves out of the situation. Today the Deputy can see that we have reduced payments and customer treatment strategies in terms of being able to deal with them. What he has not seen here is that, in a lot of cases, there is shorter-term forbearance - for example, where a customer in the next year or two could be involved in a college situation or training for a second job, etc. There will be solutions available. We offer trade-downs. Some people want to take out positive equity and trade their houses down. We offer arrears capitalisation and term extensions.

There is a view among the public that there is a paradox regarding positive equity. Is one worse off if one is in positive equity rather than negative equity in terms of the banks? I shall outline what I mean and the delegation can answer both questions together. The code for mortgage arrears mentions that the banks have the option of providing a bonus as an incentive to people to deal with their mortgage arrears. How many bank staff are involved in that area at present? Is there a bonus or incentive scheme in place?

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

Specifically in mortgage arrears, in the arrears support unit, we have 300 people and we have no incentive schemes in any part of the business that deals with customers, either mortgages or SMEs in difficulty. In fact we do not have any incentive scheme in the bank at all.

Mr. David Duffy

We have no incentive or bonus schemes in the bank full stop so it does not matter which category the Deputy talks about.

With regard to being disadvantaged over positive equity, that is not the case. One is not disadvantaged in terms of any solution offered and all that solutions can offer. Usually, it is an advantage because the person, ultimately in resolving his or her debt position, then trade down, for example, will benefit from positive equity. I am not sure what drives that view but it is not an influence in our bank in terms of decisions made. The Deputy might be overestimating the quality and complexity of our financial systems.

My first question is on the split mortgage product. We had Permanent TSB in here before this group. It told us, following my questioning, that interest is not accumulated on the warehouse portion of its split mortgage on domestic homes, family homes or principal dwelling homes or on buy-to-lets. Its statement was blatantly false and I have the documentation that proves that it charges in this circumstance. It shows that 4.1% of interest was charged on the warehouse portion that accumulates and is deferred until maturity is reached. Can the delegation present clarify that no interest is charged on buy-to-let split mortgages? Can anyone confirm that it is not deferred until maturity like Permanent TSB?

Mr. David Duffy

I shall ask Mr. O'Connor to respond to the Deputy's questions because, as the Deputy will know, we have just put our new product together.

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

To be clear, we do not offer split mortgages on buy-to-lets but we have 16 only because, for the individuals in question, they are now their primary residence under MARP. We do not offer split mortgages on buy-to-lets.

Does the same apply to principal dwelling homes?

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

There is none. There is a zero per cent coupon.

For somebody who is in financial difficulty and in arrears, who goes to the bank there is a tiered structure to deal with them and it can advise what type of product or solution is the best option for them. The bank inputs their data and at that stage it can become clear that a split mortgage is the most desirable outcome for them. When the bank is at that stage and then looks at the value of the house it can then decide, if the house is in positive equity, to withdraw its offer. How can the bank square that circle? If the house is in negative equity a split mortgage would be determined as the best outcome for the people but when it is in positive equity it is simply withdrawn.

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

Sorry, Deputy, but I think that I corrected myself the last time. We do not do debt compromise when a property is in positive equity. Did you ask if we will do a split mortgage when it is in positive equity?

Will the bank provide a split mortgage when a property is in positive equity?

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

Yes. We do not do debt compromise.

Mr. David Duffy

Mr. O'Connor misquoted earlier but then corrected himself. We meant debt compromise.

That is fine. I wish to comment on the overall progress in dealing with the mortgage crisis but first I shall correct my earlier intervention. The delegation is correct that the figures were for quarter 4. I had looked at the previous quarter 2 figures and comparable figures so I extend my apologies.

With regard to overall picture, the number of people who have been in mortgage arrears for 90 days or more has increased quite substantially since the delegation was last before the committee. For PDHs it has increased by 1,423 and for the buy-to-lets it has increased by 2,906. The bank told us six months ago in September that it was making the effort yet we have seen quite a substantial increase - over 4,000 - going into mortgage arrears of 90 days or more. Why the increase? Let us look at PDHs. There are still 10,000 of the bank's customers to whom it has not offered a long-term solution.

Mr. David Duffy

I wish to make two comments. First, we need to have them engaged for us to offer. That is one of the big pushes and hence with the input of the Irish Mortgage Holders Organisation and others I fully accept the Deputy's point. We would love to have offered 100% by now and if we could we would. We are engaging in other innovations on the offer side. My colleague will deal with the other point made by the Deputy.

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

I would stress that it is not a static number per se. The make-up of that number is not directly comparable with the figures in quarter 3. We have had new people go into the category of being 90 days plus in arrears and we have had people who have exited the category. One of the reasons, as the Deputy will have seen, is that we had people who would have entered arrears for the first time in the past number of months. Then one tries to stop those people escalating beyond 90 days in arrears.

We expect that the bank has an early intervention policy as well. The figures are directly comparable. While they may not be the same people, we have seen a dramatic increase in the mortgage arrears crisis experienced by the bank's customers in the past six months.

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

One of the principal reasons is that we do not do short-term forbearance. We had quite a volume of cases existing on interest only, which was not a long-term sustainable solution, that we have taken off interest only. We have not renewed it because it is not a sustainable solution. We have reduced our interest-only book by a very significant portion and by more than anyone else in the market over that time. It was not a long-term solution.

When we have taken people off that, we have found that approximately two thirds can revert to capital and interest and one third cannot. Then we have to go through the process of engagement and working through it with them.

Mr. David Duffy

The outcome is that as we evolve, we see we have to do the full reconciliation but that is coming down.

In response to the Deputy’s other point, early arrears and pre-arrears are down very significantly. We have a very highly specialised capability where it has dropped between 30% and 60% in each category in the past six months.

Are the witnesses suggesting that the 10,000 of their customers in family homes, who have not been offered a solution, need to engage? Are those customers not engaging with the bank?

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

No, there is quite a bit within that category. A significant portion of those accounts will take some time to resolve because they are associated with cases of separation or divorce. That is a significant cohort and issue. It is very difficult to put a resolution in place for people who bought houses together. They can be on some short-term forbearance. We need two signatures for legal reasons, etc. There is a stock and flow issue in respect of working through, and dealing with, the more complex cases. Of the 10,000 or so that have yet to be resolved, we do not have a standard financial statement, SFS, for approximately 3,500.

Mr. Duffy has spoken to the committee about the lack of trust in financial institutions because of the wreckage they caused, and the need to have a third party, the Irish Mortgage Holders Organisation, IMHO, assist the bank in encouraging people to engage. It has been suggested to the committee that the engagement is nothing more than handing the paperwork to the bank. Can Mr. Duffy elaborate on the engagement? Is there real negotiation that can benefit the bank and the customer?

Mr. David Duffy

Mr. O’Connor will comment but in all of these situations, the frustration is that people often look for the most negative outcome. This involved people in distress, plain and simple. There are many cases, well-documented and much talked about on radio that have been resolved, which were in legal stress. There are write-offs and other considerations in those compromise situations. The fact of that engagement is with one of our virulent critics, which remains a virulent critic but at the same time is of great benefit to customers. I say that to correct any negative perceptions. In specific terms, Mr. O’Connor has had very detailed experience of negotiation and he should comment on this.

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

It is not just negotiation; it is heart-breaking and relentless negotiation on the part of the IMHO. The IMHO has taken 70 cases out of the legal system that were there, beyond legal letters. I give it every credit for having a very professional and committed team which negotiates with our team and faces off against it daily. We do not agree on everything. I do not suppose we ever will. No one should suggest that it is anything other than a negotiation, and a fierce one at that.

The witnesses have shown us figures to the effect that 54% of their customers in arrears for 90 days or more have received proposals. The majority are either voluntary surrender or involved in a legal process. I welcome the witnesses’ frankness in giving us estimates of percentages and so on. Of those proposals, what percentage has been accepted?

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

As at the end of December, approximately 6,500 of those, 17% or 18%.

The bank has a major challenge to reach the accepted targets of the Central Bank.

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

I believe we will meet the targets for concluded proposals. In the past six months of last year, there was a focus on getting the offers out; one then has to work on concluding them. Since the start of the year we have deployed regional teams throughout the country to talk to people individually to help these conclusions over the line. I do not foresee any difficulty.

Six months ago 326 individuals surrendered their family homes to AIB. Assisted voluntary sale is a great phrase but when one talks to people they are scared stiff because they know the only option is for the bank to take them to the High Court. Rather than appear before a judge and have the bank take their house, they go into the assisted voluntary sale in the hope that they will get a bit more. Many tell me it is not voluntary.

The number is now 15,073. There has been a huge ramping up of pressure on people to give up their family homes. I welcome the fact that the bank deals with the residual debt at that point. That is very important but it is a massive increase in people surrendering their family homes. The bank puts pressure on individuals who I presume are engaging, although it calls it voluntary. Repossession and eviction have a negative connotation but some of the ways in which the bank has managed assisted voluntary sale are no different from repossession. For many people it is a matter of saving face, that they do not appear before a judge and jury and be told they must surrender their house to the bank.

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

I do not disagree with some of the Deputy’s comments. There is a cohort of people who welcome assisted voluntary sale. They want to walk away from their homes and to do it with dignity. In agreeing on the residual they can walk away and have an idea of what it is they are walking away from.

Typically, we offer assisted voluntary sale where there is zero affordability, where there is no capacity to service any debt. That is the case in 50% of cases - the family cannot afford to service the mortgage or the house. We try to make it easy but there is no solution beyond that. There is no affordability around which to craft another solution to service the mortgage.

Mr. O’Connor said debt is written off for approximately 60% of these people, which would be approximately 900. He also said debt has been written off for between approximately 600 and 700 of the people with split mortgage proposals. I know he does not have the quantum of debt that is written off but if I were to avail of a split mortgage, on average, what type of percentage would that be, 5%, 10% or 15%?

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

I do not have the average number but I can say that in respect of the split mortgage the cases that received a lot of publicity are significant outliers. In many cases of split mortgage, it can be de minimis debt write-down or none. Without wishing to be evasive, the assisted voluntary sale depends on where the property is situated, etc.

AIB has a longer legal queue than the other banks. As I understand it, to get out of the legal queue someone in arrears has to pay a percentage of those arrears. Is that the case? Could it be up to 25% or 50% of the arrears if the person wants to come out of the legal position the bank has put them in?

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

It can be in some cases. It is not a rule by any stretch of the imagination but it can happen where we know that funds are available. The only way to come out of a legal queue is to go into another sustainable solution.

Does Mr. O’Connor not see that as a disincentive to come out of the legal queue? If someone has €10,000 in arrears and the bank asks the person to pay 50%, it is basically charging the person to come out and do another deal with it.

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

We also recognise that if a person does not have any money, they cannot pay us that amount. Obviously, they cannot pay 50% of the arrears if they do not have it. We exit many people from the legal queue without having to pay arrears. We ask for it in some cases where we know there are funds available. Our job is to maximise or optimise the return.

My final point is a positive one. The number in respect of the mortgage to rent scheme has gone up from 26 six months ago to 300. Banks are telling us that is a cumbersome process but obviously the representatives' bank is overcoming the challenges. They might comment on the figure of 300, although I may be wrong about that.

Is Mr. Duffy aware of there having been a custom in the bank where money was lent to members of the legal profession on the basis of funds that were held in client accounts? Has that been brought to his attention or to the attention of previous management, or is it a practice that existed in the bank?

Mr. David Duffy

I will deal with the Deputy's questions in reverse order. The answer is to his second question is "No". No such example has ever been brought to my attention. I am not qualified to comment on what happened before my time-----

I fully understand that.

Mr. David Duffy

On the mortgage to rent scheme, the key issue is that it is difficult but we are engaged with the parties who are overseeing those cases to try to make it simpler and bring them to successful execution. I think it was said that 40 to 50 of those 300 are close to execution.

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

Yes. To clarify the point as the Deputy may have been out of the room at the time this was mentioned, we have offered 300 but we have not closed a mortgage to rent deal yet.

The bank has not closed one yet?

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

No. We have offered 300 and we are in the late stages of the process with three dozen or so, but the Deputy is correct that it is an extremely complex process. We met the housing agencies to try to figure out if there is some way to make the process simpler. It is a good product and a good option for people.

In that case I will have to withdraw the only positive comment I had to make.

I call Deputy Humphreys who is sharing his time with Senator Hayden.

I thank the delegates for their presentations and for the large volume of information they provided prior to the meeting which avoided the need for many questions.

I know this issue is dealt with as a matter of priority in the banking sector. As was touched on earlier, it is an issue that has arisen with the increase in the number of partnership break-ups and divorces. The bank has what it would deem as performing loans in that mortgage repayments in these cases are being met. However, when one of the parties asks for their name to be taken off the property deeds or the loan, that party is refused even though the mortgage is performing. I know of examples of cases where people have been separated two or three years and one of the parties has not been contributing towards the mortgage repayment, but the person who has remained in the home is paying the mortgage and it is performing. As far as the bank is concerned, the mortgage is doing well. However, when an application is made for one of the parties to come off the mortgage, that party is refused on affordabilty grounds. Those people's lives are on pause. They may have already entered a new partnership and have a second family but they cannot move on with their lives because they are tied to that deed. It is a small aspect of the issue but an important one for people who cannot move on in their lives and have had their lives on pause for the last three or four years. Has the bank considered that element?

Mr. David Duffy

We have looked at it to try to create a solution but the important principle here is that the bank cannot override a contractual arrangement between two parties without the expressed permission of both parties. It is not a legal option. If one party wants to come off-----

I may not have explained myself correctly. I am referring to where both parties have agreed to this. The examples I have are of cases where both parties have separated, the partnership has broken down, one partner is still living in the home, the loan is performing in that the mortgage repayments are being made, one of the parties has entered another relationship and wants to move on, but they cannot come off the deed because the bank on assessing the mortgage will not allow it on the basis of affordabilty.

Mr. David Duffy

I would typically only see mortgages when they are in arrears. However, to the extent that a mortgage is performing and someone wants to come off it, that would be effectively a new contract to one person rather than the former two and we have to stress in that case the basis of affordability. We cannot issue a mortgage if it is not affordable. One can try to play around with the term to bring the payment down, but it is not within our gift to issue a mortgage to somebody unless that individual, with his or her sole name on the mortgage, can afford to service the mortgage.

There have been instances where a partner has tried to transfer the ownership of the property on to the other partner as part of a separation legally and that has been completed, but the residual effect is that the partner still has ownership of the mortgage, even though that partner no longer owns the property.

That is correct. I ask the delegates to examine that mechanism because quite a large number of people are tied in that limbo such that they cannot progress on with their lives, even though the mortgage has been performing well.

Reference was made to two thirds of unsecured loans and that there is an agreement in the banking sector on how to deal with those loans. I cite the example of a family that has a mortgage of €250,000 and an additional €50,000 in accumulated loans to cover the purchase of a car and holidays. They are all with the same bank and they are in arrears. They can afford to pay the mortgage but not the additional €50,000 in accumulated loans. Their mortgage is secure so how does AIB treat the €50,000 in accumulated loans in such a case? Does it write that off and just deal with the mortgage, given that the family can only deal with the mortgage element?

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

We will restructure the mortgage and the unsecured debt and then whatever is not sustainable, which likely is the unsecured loans because they would be at higher interest rates, etc., we will compromise on.

Will Mr. O'Connor explain what he means by "compromise"?

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

To the extent that it would be no more different from if it was just the mortgage debt, that debt can practically never be paid. We use the word "compromise" but we will forgive or write-down the debt.

Is that the agreement inter-bank? If the €50,000 in unsecured loans was with Bank of Ireland and the mortgage was with AIB, or if the mortgage was with Bank of Ireland and AIB had the €50,000 in unsecured loans, is it the same arrangement?

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

Yes. Typically, the mortgage will need to be restructured.

Yes, because the family are in arrears.

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

We would restructure entire cashflows, and there will be an element of those cashflows, irrespective of what one does in that respect, that will not support the loans. In that case, if Bank of Ireland came to us with such a deal where it had the mortgage or if we went to it, yes, we can come to an agreement.

There is an agreement that an unsecured mortgage is written off in a case where it is unaffordable?

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

Yes.

Has Mr. O'Connor an idea of the number of buy-to-let properties that are in arrears that are generating an income?

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

I would say the vast majority are generating an income. There is a strong rental market. Obviously, the quantum of income depends on where the property is located but the vast majority are generating an income, certainly in the larger urban areas and provincial towns. It is a little different when one moves out to more rural areas.

I represent a Dublin constituency and the biggest problem is affordability because rents are increasing at quite a pace. The delegates gave figures to Deputy Pearse Doherty earlier in this respect. In respect of the number of buy-to-let properties that the bank is putting into receivership to regain funds, has the bank put in place a code of practice on how the tenant in the buy-to-let property will be dealt with in that case, or in the case of a voluntary or forced sale? Is there a code of practice on how the tenant who has been paying his or her rent will be treated?

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

When a receiver is appointed, they take over the property and they have statutory duties. The receiver makes the decisions. It is obviously more attractive from a property perspective to have a tenant in the property, so having a sitting tenant is not an issue. We would comply with all the rules around landlords, etc. Typically, if the tenant has a deposit, they get it back if they want to move on, but in many cases where a buy-to-let property goes into receivership and is eventually sold, it is sold to another investor. Selling it with a tenant in situ is more attractive than not having a tenant in situ. I am pretty happy from our governance perspective. I do not believe there is a code of conduct per se or best practice among the banks but the idea of a rent receiver has been around for quite some time and it is quite developed.

Mr. O'Connor believes that what he is saying is true but the practice on the ground is very different, especially in areas where rents have increased quite substantially in that there is an effort to push the current tenant out of the property because the new tenant will pay a higher rent.

Mr. David Duffy

We will certainly take that on board.

That is what I am hearing on the ground. A protection is very much being built in for people who have mortgages and buy-to-let properties.

However, for those on the coalface who are renting buy-to-let properties, I am finding their experience to be very different and especially those who are tenants in receipt of rent allowance. In the vast majority of such cases, when a property changes hands like this, someone in receipt of rent allowance is almost automatically forced out of the property.

Mr. David Duffy

We will give some consideration to this issue and will respond back to the joint committee because there is some work for us to do this regard.

I concur with Deputy Kevin Humphreys's comments regarding the treatment of tenants when receivers are appointed. The law is very clear on this matter and for the record, I am aware that AIB's track record is better than some. In addition, I believe the appointment of the Irish Mortgage Holders Organisation, IMHO, to act as an independent broker between AIB and its clients has been a positive development. I wish to check that no ceiling has been placed on resources for the IMHO in respect of its work.

Mr. David Duffy

As I told Mr. David Hall, we will provide the resource for as much as the IMHO can deliver.

Would AIB be prepared to engage in and fund a national free confidential and expert service? Obviously, AIB's customers clearly can avail of this initiative but is the bank prepared to engage in international service?

Mr. David Duffy

I will ask Mr. Brendan O'Connor to comment, as we have been discussing this.

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

At the last meeting at which we appeared before the joint committee, I believe referred to a national consumer advocates group, like in the United Kingdom. Like a step change or a pay plan, that is a critical piece in respect of moving on for the holistic treatment of both mortgage and personal debt. Until recently, we have been involved in a pilot programme that was sponsored by the Central Bank but it now appears this will not get off the ground. There are talks under way among a number of banks in the industry precisely along the lines mentioned by the Senator. I believe AIB would have to be part of the solution because I cannot see how it could be economic for someone to take on the set-up costs and so on. Ultimately, however, it would benefit both AIB and the consumer and I believe it is the key to unlocking the personal debt issue.

For the record, it is important to state that when the Money Advice & Budgeting Service, MABS, appeared before the joint committee last week, its representatives made it clear that they found the current situation to be entirely unacceptable. They mentioned how every time borrowers who were engaging rang, they were obliged to deal with a completely different person. Under the current system, borrowers definitely are not operating on a level playing field and from their perspective, that places them at severe risk of making arrangements with banks that are not sustainable. On that point, I was pleased to see that AIB is abiding by the living rates recommended by the Insolvency Service of Ireland and indeed is going above them and for the record, I consider that to be positive.

However, I wish to make two points. The first pertains to mortgages that are in positive equity. As the witnesses are aware, considerable concern has been expressed in this regard. I certainly have been dealing with people who are in mortgage arrears but are in positive equity. In the engagements I personally have had with some lending institutions, I have become deeply suspicious about the manner in which such mortgages are being approached. I am uncertain whether the witnesses have provided members with information - I do not appear to have it - but under each of the categories that are set out-----

This issue was dealt with by Deputy O'Donnell earlier.

Very well. It is very important to have information on all the proposed solutions as to how they break down between mortgages that are in negative equity and those that are in positive equity. It also is important to state that unfortunately, the figures do not look as rosy as they might appear. I am aware that Deputy Pearse Doherty has alluded to this point but for the sake of argument, I did a tot on the buy-to-let market. I noticed that when one takes into account the assisted voluntary sales, again I am deeply suspicious in that regard, there actually are 3,000 cases in which legal proceedings are being initiated and 1,400 in which there are sustainable solutions. As 20% of the people of Ireland live in rented accommodation, that is not a particularly good outcome for many of those who rent their homes.

I must echo the comments made by Deputy Kevin Humphreys on the current position regarding separated couples. There is a very serious problem in respect of such couples. I have encountered two cases in which court orders have been made ordering the transfer of the family home from one spouse to the other and ordering the mortgage to be placed in the sole name of one of the couple. The lending institutions concerned, one of which is AIB, have given effect to neither of those orders. Given the proportion of people in Ireland who are separated, divorced or in partnerships but not married, it certainly appears to me that a real solution to this problem will not be found unless some change can be made to the code of conduct on mortgage arrears, CCMA. Incidentally, under chapter 1 of the aforementioned code of conduct as it applies to joint borrowers who notify their lender in writing that they have separated or divorced, the code provides that the lenders should treat each borrower as a single borrower. However, that is not happening and something must change to permit it to happen. Again, while I do not wish to be prescriptive in this regard, I have encountered cases in which borrowers have come after one of the signatories on the mortgage deed because that person was a good mark. I cannot understand how, when the situation is reversed and one party is willing to pay the mortgage and to go forward, that for whatever reason, a legal outcome cannot be found to permit them to so do.

I also wish to ascertain how AIB is treating a certain category of people. I refer to those who have bought properties they now are forced to rent because the properties in question no longer are suited to their needs. They are in a category that I would call rent to rent, whereby they are renting out their own property in one location and are renting another property somewhere else because they clearly are stuck. First, has AIB encountered this situation, which certainly exists in reality? Second, how is AIB treating these people? Does the bank regard them as being in breach of their mortgage deed if, for the sake of argument, they bought a principal private residence on a tracker? Does AIB consider that mortgage as having been breached? Would the bank revoke a tracker mortgage in that situation? How is AIB dealing with this category of borrower?

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

We do not revoke the tracker in such a situation. If the Senator examines our submission, she will see that under buy-to-lets, there are 14 split mortgages. While we do not provide split mortgages in respect of buy-to-lets, they are people who have moved out of the home and have rented it out. We treat them in the same way as we treat any other customer. Under the CCMA, it is now their sole property in the State and, consequently, we treat them the same as we would under the mortgage arrears resolution targets, MART, process or the CCMA. Moving them off a tracker is not a solution for people who are in difficulty, because it will only make the arrears worse. Consequently, we do not treat them any differently.

As for the other questions the Senator asked, I wish to talk to her about one case she mentioned in particular, because as I understand it, I believe the Senator stated we are defying a court order and I would like to know about that. I am not aware of that and have never been made aware of it but I do not believe we would defy a court order to transfer a mortgage. While I am not sure whether the Senator was present when we had this discussion earlier, when someone wishes to come off a mortgage and if there is to be just a single name on that mortgage, we are required, under Central Bank rules, to stress-test the affordability of the person to keep that mortgage. While the person may wish to go onto the mortgage, he or she may not be able to afford it under stressed circumstances and in that case, we cannot give a mortgage because the person concerned does not pass their stress test for it. We have many cases in which people voluntarily, that is, not from a court perspective, transfer their value in the home and also would like to come off the mortgage but that is not possible. We also have many cases in which, given the nature of the situation, we cannot get both sides to agree or cannot get signatures for release or for release of security. It is extremely difficult issue but in particular, if there is a case extant in which there is a court order that we are defying, I would like to know about it and am happy to talk to the Senator afterwards.

In this particular case, the mortgage is sustainable with the remaining borrower. However, I will engage with Mr. O'Connor separately on that case. Does Mr. O'Connor agree there is some necessity to amend the code of conduct on mortgage arrears to deal with situations in which people are separated?

One minute remains.

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

I would have no issue with that. It is one of the most intractable issues we have. I would go so far as to state we should look at the entire legal construct around it because otherwise, people will be stuck in limbo where they are not talking and one cannot move on.

A change in the law.

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

I would be hugely supportive of it.

Mr. David Duffy

We will go back and do some work on that in the same way as we looked at matters that had been brought to our attention the last time. Hopefully, we will feed back to the joint committee on that.

The issue of debt write-down is taking place inside AIB. Does the Irish Banking Federation, IBF, support that position or has have been discussions between AIB and the Irish Banking Federation in that regard?

Mr. David Duffy

I must be thoughtful about my response as I am in two capacities. In an Irish Banking Federation capacity, I would say that we have not engaged in a cross-party discussion around that. We have left the solutions, which are a commercial matter of each bank, to its own discretion. Consequently, there has been no conflict in that regard.

Before Deputy Boyd Barrett comes in, with the committee's permission I must step out for a few minutes. Deputy Regina Doherty will cover for me for 15 minutes.

Deputy Regina Doherty took the Chair.

I apologise for being in and out of the meeting but I had to go elsewhere to talk about something else.

In the first instance, I wish to ask the witnesses about the buy-to-let sector and Mr. O'Connor's comments on the majority of buy-to-lets in arrears.

I think if I heard Mr. O'Connor correctly, he said that 90% of buy-to-let properties could ultimately end up repossessed, or is it just those that have gone down the legal road?

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

I said that I think it is possible for 90% of those that are in the legal process, which is approximately 20% of all buy-to-let properties, so perhaps 10% to 15% of all buy-to-let properties will end up being repossessed.

So that is 10% to 15% of all buy-to-let properties, but 90% of the 2,500.

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

I am estimating, but I would imagine it is 80% to 90%.

Based on experience to date, what does Mr. O'Connor think will be the breakdown of the rest of the buy-to-let properties when the bank decides whether they can be restructured or whether it can go the legal repossession road?

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

In AIB, we have quite a unique buy-to-let book. Many of these properties are what I would call commercial investment. They are not with individuals who perhaps were on PAYE salaries and who may have bought buy-to-let property. MARP, etc., deals with all properties greater than 90 days in arrears. Within our buy-to-let portfolio, we would have people with ten, 20 or 30 buy-to-let properties and who are professional investors. We have buy-to-lets that are tied into SMEs and so on. We have quite a unique book on that and we have quite a lot of buy-to-let properties with these people. Those properties will get resolved as we deal with the uncoupling of non-core debt from SMEs and so on. I suspect over time that quite a few of them will be disposed of, but not via the legal process; they will consensually be disposed of as investments. I do not foresee that number going by a huge amount, but many of these are not individual buy-to-let properties, and I hope I am getting that across.

They are not the individual buy-to-let investments.

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

They really are not. Much of the buy-to-let book consists of significant commercial investments. In some cases they are held by people with dozens of them. In other cases, SMEs made investments and we will deal with those as we restructure the entirety of an SME investment. The buy-to-let properties are just one piece. There could also be a pension mortgage, or an SME loan, and we will deal with that in its entirety. I imagine that most will be sold over time, but that will be over a prolonged period of time.

The reason I ask this is because something has come to my attention in the last few weeks when I was contacted by several people who are tenants and who are the innocent bystanders in all this. Their landlord has gone bust and is insolvent, and then they get a letter from the receiver saying that the receiver will be selling the property and the tenants have 30 days or 110 days to leave, depending on how long they have been there. Many of those people are finding themselves in difficult or dire circumstances, because they have nowhere to go. What is happening with AIB on this front? What consideration has been given to the innocent tenants who may have been paying their rent faithfully all along and then find themselves in this situation? How is AIB dealing with them?

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

We had spoken about it earlier. When we appoint a receiver, it is actually the receiver who acts. That is not to abdicate any responsibility on our part, but it is the decision of the receiver. Typically it is good to have a tenant in place if a property is being sold on. There is a cashflow attached to that, as opposed to a vacant property. However, I am not familiar with it being a big issue for tenants. It has not crossed our desk, but we spoke about it earlier and we said that we will look into it. There is not a code of practice in the industry on everything. We will look into it and we will come back to this committee, and we will examine the scale of the issue and what may be done to mitigate it. It is not a live issue that has crossed my desk.

I think it really needs to be examined. Can I take it that Mr. O'Connor does not really know how the receivers are dealing with-----

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

I know exactly how my receivers are dealing with it. I get a monthly basis on every single one of our properties. It is reasonably new for us, however, and we have increased the number of receivers in the last two to three months. We carefully vet our receivers from very reputable firms.

Mr. David Duffy

We had to do this because people were diverting their rents. We are trying to resolve the situation that way. That is practical and is just what we have to do. The receivers are under a code of practice which is a landlord statutory code of practice, so there is a behaviour that must be observed. The Deputy's point is a commercial derivative of that, where they may choose to sell the property or not. We said earlier that we have not really seen this issue in volume, but like other issues raised at the Oireachtas, it has been helpful for us to get feedback. We will take that away and have a chat with our receivers about what is going on, and make sure this is not the next big issue and take steps accordingly to the degree that we can. We will report back on that.

I would appreciate it. Yesterday I asked Ulster Bank representatives the same question and they gave me very positive reassurances, which were similar to those I have heard from the witnesses today, which is that if the person is paying the rent, it makes sense to leave the tenant in there even if the property is being sold on.

Mr. David Duffy

Not all buy-to-let properties are in Dublin 4. They are all around the country.

I know. The tenants I was dealing with were in Wicklow, Sligo-----

Mr. David Duffy

Having a tenant tends to be more the right answer than the variable. We will check it to be sure.

The Ulster Bank representatives gave me positive assurances. I did not know at the time that one of the cases with which I was dealing was with Ulster Bank. Therefore, there was a flat contradiction between that and the reassurances I got yesterday. Mr. Duffy obviously cannot be held accountable for what Ulster Bank representatives have to say, but they were very firm in saying-----

I am sure you appreciate that I am new to the Chair, but I cannot allow you to make accusations against Ulster Bank when its representatives are not here to defend themselves.

I am not making an accusation. It seems to be straight from the hip from them to say that this is the way we would sensibly deal with it, but then I dealt with somebody who received a letter from the receiver telling them to leave by a certain date and they told me that Ulster Bank was the bank involved. That leads me to believe that maybe Ulster Bank does not know what is going on with the receivers it appoints and the tactics it is deploying. I am just hoping that is not the situation.

Again, I must caution you Deputy. Ulster Bank's representatives are not here to respond to the points that you are raising, so I caution you not to raise issues when they are not here. It is not fair.

Mr. David Duffy

I do not think any answer can be absolute. This is an emerging part of the solution which involves 4,000 receivers. There will be circumstances which may fit this category. We will go ahead and take a close look at it. We are not trying to give the Deputy an absolute reassurance. It is not an observed volume issue for us, but we will go back and double check and feed back to this committee.

One way to deal with this is that the banks should have to follow a code of conduct similar to that used for mortgage arrears. Given what the witnesses have said, which is the reasonable approach whereby someone who is paying the rent should be kept and should not be told to get out, is there any way that AIB could adopt this approach voluntarily and tell its receivers to act accordingly?

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

Yes, but there is one issue. The receivers have a statutory duty, so intuitively we can have a code of conduct and talk to a receiver about it, but the receiver's statutory duty is to receive the best value. It is something I am certainly willing to talk about.

This is where the nub of the issue may be. In a situation where rents are rising and where property values are rising, a receiver seeking the best value for the bank may well decide that the person is only paying €1,100 and the receiver can get €1,500, so it is better value for the bank to kick the person out and get in new tenants who can pay more. The people who will be the victim of that are the people on the lower incomes. This is contributing in the wider context to quite a significant degree of homelessness. I would like to hear from the witnesses that this is not the sort of mercenary attitude that will be employed in situations involving AIB.

Mr. David Duffy

That is where we will go ahead and do some research with our receivers and then we will come back to this committee.

I will follow it closely. I appreciate the clarification.

Can I ask about the unemployed, people who have very low incomes or who are dependent on social welfare?

Is AIB offering them solutions that do not involve handing over the house, if that is what they want to do?

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

We offer solutions based solely on affordability. Therefore, to the extent that there is an affordable solution that allows people to keep their houses, we will offer that solution. However, it is never binary and every case is different. To some extent, we can look at the position of somebody who is unemployed and predict that he or she has a reasonable prospect of getting back into employment and then come up with various proposals but not for a long-term sustainable solution. We cannot build a long-term solution - ten, 15 or 20 years - if there is no affordability. However, to an extent, we can say forbearance is needed. We would have 2,000 or 3,000 people with forbearance or shorter term solutions because we can see that things will improve or have a reasonable chance of improving. It is all down to affordability; it is not a matter of unemployment and the ability to craft a sustainable solution.

That is fairly general. One could draw from that response that if somebody is out of work and solely dependent on social welfare, what he or she can afford is pretty limited.

Mr. David Duffy

The point Mr. O'Connor is making that we will not view it as a point in time issue but are going to look at it holistically. The people concerned may be in a position where it is unaffordable on a temporary basis, but as the economy improves, they can get back to work. We are flexible in looking at it and that is our approach.

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

We have developed sustainable solutions for people who are unemployed and reliant, currently, on social welfare payments. It is about whether we can make a solution out of the cash flow available.

On the mortgage to rent solution, AIB states it has offered 300 of them. Are people looking for a mortgage to rent solution, particularly those who are unemployed or on low incomes and so on? What is the level of interest in this solution? It seems it is the best last resort option for many of those on low incomes who do not know when they might get back into employment. Also, could AIB be a little more specific about the hold-up and what can be done about it? It seems to be stating the issue is very complicated and that this is what is slowing it up. What are the complications and what can we or the Government do to eliminate them in order that this becomes a more workable option?

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

I will speak briefly about this issue, but I am not an expert on the mortgage to rent solution I will, however, try to deal with the principal obstacles.

There is a set of rules around the type of house that is suitable for a mortgage to rent solution, including the number of bedrooms versus the number of people in the family and whether the house is over or under-occupied. These rules are arcane and it is difficult to look forward and say whether someone qualifies. Often, we can say customers look like they are suitable for a mortgage to rent solution, but two to three months down the road we find there is additional family income, apart from that of the mortgage holder, that will preclude them. Therefore, to eliminate the complications, we need to simplify the rules and make the product easier for people to understand.

There are also issues around the housing agencies. The issue is not with the agencies, but they must buy houses that fulfil all of the regulations in terms of council or social housing. Therefore, they will not buy the house as is but only with all of the modifications that need to be made, etc. From a bank perspective, the house could be sold on the open market and these costs would not have to be paid. There are valuation issues; many people are involved and various steps must be taken. It is not just one issue but a combination of them. We met Clúid a couple of weeks ago in this regard. As banks, we can get better in this area. It is a complex process, but there is nothing that could not be solved by getting eight or ten people who care around a table to figure out how to make the process smoother.

I thank Mr. Duffy and his team from AIB. My mood has swung wildly while I have been sitting here. On the one hand, I was very impressed by the presentation, but then, on the other, I keep going back to my constituency experience, with which the presentation jars significantly. There are two main issues, the first of which is the bank's definition of affordability. I appreciate it has taken on board the insolvency guidelines in that regard, but in my mind's eye I can picture individuals I know in my constituency whose cases jar with the bank's presentation. I would like to focus on the issue of affordability and flesh it out further. The second issue concerns the financial solutions group within the bank. I believe it operates on a regional basis and that various teams have been set up. Through the experience of constituents, I am familiar with the teams in Cork and Tralee.

It seems that the process is like a game of poker. The debtor rarely knows what it will take to achieve a solution and keeps having his or her proposals thrown back at him or her. There seems to be no real engagement. I could cite chapter and verse, but for reasons of confidentiality I will not do so, where it seems no real effort is made to come up with a workable solution. Solutions must work for both sides - the bank and the debtor. I am aware of cases in which there are write-downs on the table, but at the same time horrendous levels of debt are being imposed on people with modest incomes who have families to rear and whose reasonable living expenses can only be expected to rise because of the ages of those involved. They will be in hock for the rest of their lives, way beyond retirement age in the context of the proposals on the table. In general, they are middle aged and have significant debts.

I acknowledge the efforts being made and the progress made. However, behind all of the statistics are individuals and families. The presentation made was slick and impressive, but it jars with the real life experiences I come across in my constituency office, the experiences of people who desperately want to move on and deal in an honourable way with their problems. They need the banks to engage and write down some of their debt. I acknowledge that there is a write-down on the table in one case of which I am aware, but people are still being left with a horrendous level of debt. It comes back to affordability. The proposals on the table are, in one case I know of, a consequence of the extended family dipping their hands into their pockets to try to bail out a family member in difficulty.

Will the delegates flesh out the process and the issue of affordability a little more? I thank them for their impressive presentation, but this is a nasty business. This is a legacy issue with which the banks must deal and there is no point in pointing fingers or apportioning blame. Everybody shares a little of the culpability in this matter, borrowers and lenders alike, and we must find workable solutions that will let people get on with their lives. Those with honourable intentions cannot be saddled with unworkable solutions, but the impression I am getting is that they are. Regrettably, I have engaged with a lot of people on this issue. Some of them have come out the other side; some are stuck in the process, while others are afraid to go into it. These are probably the ones to whom the banks are sending legal letters.

This is, as I said, a nasty business, but the proposed solutions are not working for everybody. A greater effort is needed, as well as greater openness, to engage with people, particularly in cases like the one I mentioned in which the extended family is ready to pony up money to try to help. They could easily walk away. The nuclear option in one case of which I am aware is to take the insolvency or bankruptcy route, but because of the consequences for the family involved, this is not something they want to do. They want to try to deal with the issue.

However, it is an option that is coming closer to their horizon because of what they believe is the bank's intransigence and unwillingness to state they are nearly there and another €50,000 might solve the problem. They just do not know what it will take to solve it. There is a little mystique to this like in a poker game, but the debtor holds few of the aces. The bank needs to engage more. Without going into individual cases, will Mr. O'Connor outline how the process operates in the financial solutions group at a regional level and refer to the issue of affordability?

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

Most typically, it is around SME customers and non-mortgage debt. We have well over 1,200 staff spread throughout the country in various areas. The fundamental principle is the concept of affordability and consistency. We have a structure with which the Deputy is familiar under which we say, subject to this being paid, we will compromise on X amount. I do not know I would necessarily agree - although I am sure there are cases - that people do not know what is being asked of them. We issue heads of terms, an agreement that states this is what the deal looks like in outline before we progress it further. There will be a natural tension in such discussions. We will rarely give somebody everything he or she wants and he or she will rarely give us everything we want. That is the nature of compromise and we have very well trained staff, of whom I am very proud. They do a very good job in trying to put in place good solutions. Ours is the only bank, as far as I know, that has a crystal clear process in order that one knows up-front when one signs up exactly what will happen in the next few years. There is no concept of stuff hanging there forever. I can see where a customer or a business may state it is too much for them, but we figure it out on the basis of sustainability. We cannot afford to leave equity behind to the extent that this is taxpayer's money and if we are going to compromise on it, we have to make sure we have optimal recovery. It is a matter of trying to balance this. I take the Deputy's point about the imbalance but as much as possible we try to get this out because a deal cast in such an environment probably does not have much chance of sustaining beyond the first couple of years. It does not make sense for us to overload a deal because it is just going to fall down in a couple of years and we will have to start all over again. Therefore, we try to strike a balance.

Mr. David Duffy

I will make a comment because we have dealt with each other on some cases before and they move in both directions. In the cases the Deputy is mentioning and the parameters he is defining, we offer, as we always do, an engagement on that area just to have a look. Perhaps we agree or disagree, but we could learn from a couple of those examples by sitting down together and understanding whether our process or analytics are the problem or whether it is just an expectation gap between the two parties. We are very happy to do this with the individuals concerned, the committee, Mr. O'Connor and me, as required, because the reason we put so many people in the regions was to try to bring the matter to closure and communicate what would happen and the process to be gone through because we were not adequately staffed or effective enough in that regard. That is our own criticism. We are happy to engage on that level in the particular examples the Deputy is using which I know reference a feeling in the broader church. We might perhaps engage and learn a little from this.

I thank the gentlemen present for their time. While we are discussing the mortgage arrears process, I acknowledge the improvement in the underlying performance generally in the bank, which was referenced in the presentation. On the previous occasion Mr. Duffy appeared before the committee, he signalled that the bank had made a provision for approximately €2.5 billion to deal with the arrears crisis. Is that still the case or has the number moved?

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

It is still in the order of that number.

Am I correct that this amount will be a combination of voluntary surrenders, debt write-downs, costs incurred through a 0% rate on split mortgages, etc.?

Mr. David Duffy

Yes.

I refer to an inconsistency within the bank that Mr. Duffy might examine. I have dealt with a case in Wicklow where a split mortgage was offered but the couple were told that they would probably have to surrender the house on retirement. I asked them, based on Mr. Duffy's presentation to the committee on the previous occasion, to go back and say to the officials that AIB had changed its policy and that it now had a debt for equity tool. The arrears unit came back and said, "No, this is the only offer in place." I then had to get involved and sent to the unit Mr. O'Connor's testimony saying I believed Mr. Duffy and Mr. O'Connor were telling the truth, that they were honourable men and that I hoped the unit would not make them out to be liars. It was only at that the point that an official came back and said "Okay." I sound a note of caution in this regard. The couple went back to say circumstances had changed. This was not just a one-off mistake. The arrears unit came back and said, "No, that is absolutely not on the table." It was only when the team received Mr. O'Connor's testimony that it stated it would offer this tool.

I had another case in which the bank, in a welcome move, withdrew at the last minute legal proceedings, which were unnecessary. In fairness to AIB, when other colleagues and I get involved in cases, it has been willing to move and do the right thing. However, I am concerned for those who do not have representation by committee members who know, for example, what Mr. O'Connor said to the committee six months ago. Will the representatives consider a review or training or a way of ensuring the staff dealing with our constituents know what they have agreed because, in some cases, they do not know?

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

I would like to get the individual details from the Deputy on the split in order that I can follow it through, but if the Deputy can remember, the split used to be funded on retirement and we had just changed. However, that is not what I think; it is a policy. That is why I am concerned. They could not have booked it in any other way because it is a policy; therefore, I would be concerned to see it.

I thank Mr. O'Connor. It is disappointing that in the figures that have been presented assisted voluntary sales and legal proceedings combined amount to 8,200 of the offers made by the end of last year, which means, therefore, that almost 60% of the offers the bank has made are either to leave the house with the homeowner's co-operation or to initiate legal proceedings of some description. Is Mr. Duffy surprised that the number is that high? Does he believe that is within the spirit of what the Central Bank targets were trying to achieve?

Mr. David Duffy

I am disappointed on one level because the process is dictating through lack of engagement a response under the regulatory regime. It is like a programme. If I sit down and three have engaged and three have not, I have to send a letter to the three that is legal. We are trying to innovate outside the box and come back through the IMHO and others to engage with that population to bring it back to the table. We are managing a system rather than solving the problem and that has been one of the frustrations. Within the same context, I have mentioned that of the legal proceedings, the average duration of non-engagement is two years and that when it goes beyond that early stage to civil proceedings, it is three years. The statistics are derivative of reality. There is lack of engagement for two or three years, not three or six months, which I absolutely agree is frustrating.

Second, we were too caught up in the giant complexity around so many products, CCMA changes, audits and MART targets when none of these executes a solution for the customer. We had to turn completely around, which is why we are committing that what the committee is looking at now will not be the shape of what we deliver by the end of the year. We will get the bulk of this done on a solutions basis, regardless of the definition of targets.

With regard to the 8,000 legal proceedings initiated, does the bank have an estimate of how many will end up in repossession?

Mr. David Duffy

On discussing it among ourselves, we believe it is in the hundreds, certainly fewer than 1,000. We do not see a very large volume, particularly as we are engaging in debt compromise and restructuring through third parties. All together, much of the legal activity is process driven, as opposed to constituting an outcome we believe we will achieve.

The number of letters indicating court proceedings in the residential category is approximately six times higher than that in the buy-to-let category, which is very small. Why is there such a great difference between the two portfolios?

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

As I was explaining a while ago, we have a very different buy-to-let book that is not within AIB. The MART does not discriminate. A person with a buy-to-let property might have a principal residence. It is largely a commercial buy-to-let book. There are instances of people with ten to 50 buy-to-let properties within the portfolio. We have buy-to-let properties listed that are connected to SME debt. Therefore, the nature of the book is entirely different. The solutions that will emerge are actually holistic debt solutions for SMEs and the matter will be dealt with in that context. I would expect most of the assets in that buy-to-let book to be disposed of over time as part of an agreed disposal strategy when restructuring the SME debt, corporate debt or the big connections debt. We do not really have a book of individual buy-to-let loans but a book of buy-to-let loans connected to multiple asset classes affected by debt. It is the concept of unwinding about which people talk.

Deputy Ciarán Lynch resumed the Chair.

I would like to move on to split mortgages and debt-for-equity procedures. Mr. O'Connor and Mr. Duffy have stated they offer split mortgages were there is equity in the home but do not offer any debt write-down. Where there is negative equity, however, it may be considered. Is that the position?

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

Correct.

Does the delegation have an estimate of the percentage of splits carried out for properties in negative equity as opposed to positive equity?

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

No, I do not. Perhaps that is reasonably instructive. We do not look at negative or positive equity in making our determination; we look only at affordability. It is not actually a number that we keep. As I stated, the book of debts in arrears for more than 90 days demonstrates a ratio of approximately 70% negative equity to 30% positive equity. That is an aggregate number.

I have heard allegations from reputable sources that AIB is not offering splits where there is positive equity. I take the delegates at their word but ask them to send to the committee the percentages in order that we can see how many of the splits offered relate to positive equity and negative equity.

Mr. David Duffy

We would have no hesitation in doing that because there is no bias in our system.

I was very happy to see the debt-for-equity arrangement. Am I correct in believing that when Mr. O'Connor stated "right of tenure," he essentially meant a debt-for-equity swap?

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

Yes; it is not in form but in substance I suppose it is. When determining the regular mortgage on its coming to the warehouse, we assess affordability at that stage based on the ability of somebody to service some debt. The rest effectively rolls up; therefore, one becomes an equity holder in the house when eventually it passes. However, it is not the actual taking of an equity warrant.

Consider the case of an individual at the point of retirement who still owes €100,000 on a house worth €200,000. If he or she has no ability to pay on retirement, the bank must deal with the full €100,000. Am I correct in believing it would park the €100,000 until the retiree's death, at which time it could be claimed from the house? Is this the process?

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

Where there is some affordability, we apply it to a mortgage. We assess the affordability not according to insolvency guidelines but as if the customer were coming in to obtain a mortgage. On balance, it rolls up with interest-----

That is what I want to check. How much interest?

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

It is at the standard variable rate.

AIB could make the assessment that the prospective retiree whose income is about to halve will have no income left to service interest or capital. On this basis, if €100,000 is owed, the bank would take a stake in the individual's estate to this value, subject to interest at 3% or 4% per year, or whatever the standard variable rate was. Thus, it would not return to the retiree while he or she was alive for the €100,000. Is that correct?

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

Yes. We have also said the debt will not roll up beyond the asset value.

What happens if it does?

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

We will cap it at the asset value. We have said this and it is in our contract. It will never be such that one will be leaving behind some debt on the house.

I would very much like AIB to consider the broader use of the debt-for-equity facility. While the facility is essentially the same as the split mortgage, it removes the fear and the borrower's disincentive to earn more money. It means that AIB will not knock on the borrower’s door after the Government has just taken 52% of his or her wages and take another one quarter on foot of the three year review.

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

The Deputy mentioned this on the last occasion and we took cognisance of it. There is no product in our stable now that allows us to go back to the borrower and demand more. The split product does not involve a review of income.

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

No.

Mr. David Duffy

In response to the Deputy's question on the last occasion in respect of the effective 75% tax rate — that is, 50% plus 50% of the residual 50% — we revised the product on foot of discussion. There is no interest on the warehouse proportion. Then we have a write-off based on affordability, subject to the analysis. Should a person have a second income or should his or her granny leave him or her money, for example, that is for his or her benefit as a functioning citizen in the economy without a reclaim by us. We made that decision.

Can I pursue this issue?

Mr. David Duffy

That is part of the product we have issued for the split loan.

That is good to hear. Let us assume ten years remain on a mortgage. Is the split offered until the end of that period? Is it capped based on a three-year or a five-year offer? How does it work?

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

The split is offered to the end of the term. Under the arrangement and to the extent that a person's circumstances improve, we incentivise him or her within the split to pay off the warehouse loan. We have incentives built in; that makes sense on the basis of the net current value, but we do not visit the borrower every three or five years and take his or her income.

I thank the gentlemen present for their contributions thus far. I agree with Deputy Michael Creed that the presentation was very impressive, as was the ease with which the delegates could answer most of the questions asked. This is very welcome. However, as the devil is in the detail, I wish to ask a few quirky questions. What does "customer treatment strategy" mean? How is it a solution?

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

The customer treatment strategy refers to the portfolio. Customers in this group could be SMEs. Typically in Ireland, SMEs did not borrow in limited company names but in their own. Therefore, there could be a customer with a mortgage, two buy-to-let properties, commercial real estate, a business, etc. In the context of the customer treatment strategy, we examine the debt in its entirety. We protect the PDHs first, the SMEs second and then the rest. It is actually a case of dealing with multiple debts. The only way we could fit them into a solution that did not-----

That is fine. I just did not know what it was, as it was not obvious. Why does AIB not do split mortgages for the buy-to-let market?

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

Because buy-to-let properties are purchased as commercial investments. We would not contemplate giving a split mortgage because there is no prerogative to keep somebody in his or her home. The investor is a commercial investor and we treat him or her in the same way as any other commercial investor.

Given that AIB states it does not engage with borrowers legally until they really ignore the bank for a very long time — Mr. Duffy suggested a period of two years — can I assume that since the individuals subject to assisted voluntary sales and enforced judgments on principal residences last year were not engaged with, they were not offered alternatives to the route eventually taken by the bank?

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

They might have been offered alternative solutions but declined them or did not engage at all. I cannot characterise those involved one way or another, but I can say we would have made every effort, up to the courthouse steps, to avoid proceedings because they make no sense for us.

They may have been offered solutions. I do not know. To get to this stage has taken quite some time. What happened two or three years ago was prior to the introduction of mortgage arrears resolution targets, MART.

A total of 3,594 people have received legal letters from AIB, which are nearly a final demand, saying that if they do not this, the bank will take the next step. Would AIB have issued those legal letters if the Central Bank's targets had not been there? This does not just concern AIB. The Central Bank's processes encouraged people to find sustainable solutions. Sending me a letter telling me that I have been ignoring the bank for the past two years and if I do not engage with it right now it will take me to court or send my case off to a receiver is not a sustainable solution. I do not see how the Central Bank can call it a sustainable solution and I genuinely do not see how AIB can call it a sustainable solution. In the spirit of it, is that the reason such a large number of people have been sent those letters? Is it just to comply with the Central Bank's targets, or would that have been the norm in previous years before the targets were introduced?

Mr. David Duffy

To be fair, some of those legal letters would have been sent anyway due to lack of engagement, given that the average is the two- to three-year range. The warning letter that goes out under the code says that if a person does not engage, the bank might enter that process. When we sent those letters out, 50% of the people re-engaged. That is before we got to the legal letters, and when we got to them, the real non-engagement category was much more sticky. I do not deny that legal letters would have been issued anyway but probably not the full complement that have been issued to date.

I am looking for direction in practice. It does not specifically relate to these 384 families. Mr. Duffy mentioned earlier that 60% of them have had whatever the value of the home was when it was sold versus what was left on the loan written off and 40% of them have not. How would the bank have determined who got the bit that was left over written off and who did not? I am not asking this to be smart or nosy. Mr. Duffy has mentioned the word "affordability" 25 times since he sat down this afternoon on the basis that the question of whether a house is in positive or negative equity is irrelevant to AIB. If the person can afford to pay the mortgage in some shape or form, AIB is very much in favour of keeping them in their home. If I am handing over the keys because there is no other solution and the bank is not writing off my debt, I must still provide a home for my family through a rental process. The people who have come to my office are really on their knees. They are not in a position to tell the bank to park €50,000 and that they will pay it later. How does the bank determine that?

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

To be clear, when a house is surrendered, we include rent under reasonable living expenses and then calculate whether there is anything left to service the debt afterwards. We do not service it ad infinitum. Typically, it is for a shorter period than a personal insolvency agreement. Why else would one participate in the first instance? The payments can be quite nominal. However, there are some people who just wish to get out of their house and who have the ability to service the debt and pay rent. It is not always about an inability to service debt. In some cases, it is about the willingness of people to exit the property. We take rent into account. In many cases, there is no affordability or very minimal affordability.

The anecdotal evidence from everybody, including the media, is that people want to stay in their family homes. Why would I want to leave the home and bring €50,000 worth of debt with me knowing that I have to rent somebody else's three-bedroomed semi-detached house?

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

I appreciate that it is anecdotal evidence. Equally, I hear anecdotal evidence of people who just want to be away from their homes. They are a burden and they have moved on.

But they are bringing the burden with them given that 40% of them are not getting a write-down.

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

No. We agree the residual debt with them. In many cases, there is a significant residual debt write-down because they clearly cannot afford it. In some cases, there is no write-down because there is the capability to afford it. People wish to move and sell their houses. They do carry the debt with them in some cases but they only carry it if they can afford it. We include rent under reasonable expenses at that stage.

Mr. David Duffy

It can get complex. In the majority of cases where the home owners cannot afford it, we write off the residual debt and they can go and rent somewhere and live a much happier life. This is a small cohort of a small percentage. The other smaller minority who can afford it but cannot afford the full amount get a write-off, pay what is affordable and can move on and pay their rent within that. We are trying to be flexible with them on every possible level, and many of them choose to move.

How many of the 2,524 people who are in the legal route with the bank are expected to end up obtaining a judgment? The witnesses mentioned in the past that 50% of the people who get these legal letters engage with the bank. How long is it since these 2,524 people have received legal letters? I assume that if the bank has already engaged, they have not just received their letters. Therefore, they did not engage with the bank.

Mr. David Duffy

It is a bit difficult for us to judge for two reasons. The first is that it takes approximately two years for the court proceedings to happen and three years to get through the process, so there is still a big issue in that regard. We are not sure where it will end up, and changes happen along the way. As Mr. O'Connor has said, we are happy to re-engage with anybody halfway through that process and come to a solution. In respect of the Irish Mortgage Holders' Organisation, 70 cases that were at full court proceedings level have been recovered and resolved. A total of 10% of the people who received legal letters have come back and paid full capital and interest, so there are many different behaviours in that mix. If somebody has not paid the bank for two years plus and is now paying full capital and interest because he or she got a legal letter, that is a different issue. What we are saying is that we do not know the answer to that, but our mission is to take all those legal letters, which we see as a process drive, and engage through any means possible to try and prevent these cases from having real legal output, which would be a repossession.

I know Mr. Duffy cannot be specific, but what would the bank expect?

Mr. David Duffy

Roughly, hundreds, and less than 1,000 could be repossessions. The fact that we are doing some restructuring, including the debt write-downs, will mitigate against repossessions at a higher level because it keeps people in their homes.

Although it is 1,000 too many - I do not mean to be smart - given that we heard in the past couple of days here and in the media that we are looking at 50,000 repossessions across the country, does Mr. Duffy think those figures have any bearing?

Mr. David Duffy

To be honest, I cannot comment on other banks' behaviour. These things change every year as unemployment changes, house prices change, the value of the asset changes and people's incomes recover or there are two jobs. There are many variables here, so perhaps at a point in time the numbers look bigger but, hopefully, upon execution, they are smaller.

I am not in a position to put comprehensive questions to the representatives of AIB for the simple reason that I was in the Dáil Chamber for the past hour and a half. I had the chief executive's opening statement in written form. It has been arranged for a very long time that the banks would come in this week. I ask the Chairman to protest to the Government Whip's office about the clash of scheduling caused by its organisation whereby many people on the Oireachtas Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform have to be in the Dáil. There will be a vote at some stage. A similar situation pertains tomorrow morning, when the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform is up for questioning, and I must be in the Dáil for Priority Questions while representatives from Bank of Ireland appear before the committee. It is highly unsatisfactory. Could the Chairman protest so that this does not happen again?

I have two very short questions that have not been answered. Do the witnesses have an estimate of the total value of negative equity in respect of owner-occupiers or principal dwellings, not just the 24,990 accounts that are 90 days or more in arrears?

Mr. David Duffy

My colleague, Mr. Fergus Murphy, may have some estimate of that.

Mr. Fergus Murphy

A total of 50.8% - just under 51% - of the overall AIB book at the end of 2013 was in negative equity. I do not have a breakout in terms of owner-occupier versus buy-to-let but I do have a breakout in terms of those that were in arrears and those that were performing. A total of 44% of the performing book is in negative equity.

Does Mr. Murphy have absolute values as opposed to percentages?

Mr. Fergus Murphy

The buy-to-let book is approximately €7 billion, 70% of which is in negative equity.

In terms of the €30 billion owner-occupier book, 40% is in negative equity, amounting to about €12 billion.

I thank Mr. Murphy. May I ask Mr. Duffy the arrangement with the Irish Mortgager Holders Organisation, to which he referred? Will he explain in detail how it works? Can each one of the 24,990 account holders potentially contact the Irish Mortgage Holders Organisation to make representations on their behalf, or how does it work?

Mr. David Duffy

I will make a couple of introductory comments, but Mr. Brendan O'Connor will explain the mechanics of how it is executed. In very simple terms, the reason we addressed some of this, as a pilot to start with, was because of the feedback we got here in which Deputy Arthur Spring asked if a fear factor could be a reason we had such a high level of non-engagement. The process was very simple. We said that if the IMHO is a consumer advocate and people find it more trustworthy than their perception of a bank, and want to engage with it, we will provide resources at whatever level. With those resources the IMHO could go away and successfully negotiate solutions with those customers. That was the genesis of it - to provide another avenue for a consumer or customer to approach a non-bank institution, somebody who is well known to be an advocate. Perhaps Mr. Brendan O'Connor would explain how the mechanics work.

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

Practically speaking, we do not have any involvement. Mr. David Hall publicises the IMHO and makes available the various telephone numbers. We say on our website that it is available to people if they wish to call, but I think it has had quite an amount of exposure. Customers contact the IMHO directly. David Hall and his team send out a standard financial statement and follow it up with telephone calls. They collect all the data and forward it to us with a proposed solution as to the art of the possible. At that stage negotiations begin. We have a specific team within AIB that talks to the IMHO so that we can manage that flow. There are case managers who speak directly to case managers in IMHO. That is the extent of it.

In respect of the thousands of people with whom AIB has commenced a legal process, is the IMHO mediation available to them?

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

Yes. There are 70 cases that were past the civil bill stage in the judicial system, rather than in the demand stage, that have exited from the judicial system through the IMHO programme.

Of the 24,990 people who are 90 days or more in arrears, what would happen if 15,000 contacted the IMHO to make representations on their behalf?

Mr. Brendan O'Connor

I would gladly write the cheque to put more people in the IMHO and would probably have to find it a larger building. I would gladly do so because it would mean that 15,000 people were engaging.

Mr. David Duffy

We have been very explicit. We have said to the organisation that whatever consumer demand is driven through IMHO's advertising, etc., we will fund the resources. We put no cap on it.

This is a torturous situation for those people who are trapped in negative equity and with unsustainable mortgages. I have just rehearsed in the Dáil Chamber the recklessness and the profit-seeking by banks, developers and various elements that brought that about, so I will not repeat it here. It is a huge constraint on our austerity-damaged economy that so much is going into banks to pay for unsustainable debts among householders instead of going into local economies. Has Allied Irish Banks considered the idea of a general write-down of owner-occupied mortgages in negative value to today's value, with a clawback procedure in the event that the craziness starts again, and a recalibration downwards of the monthly payment with a view to a universal solution that would take this horrific millstone off our people and assist the economy to function better and reboot itself? Has AIB ever considered that?

Mr. David Duffy

We have. The last time we spoke about this issue it was simply beyond a multiple of AIB's capacity to try to address it. What we have tried to do is become extremely realistic. As AIB is the only bank that is committing to people in this situation, we cannot solve the negative equity but we can create a dissolution whereby people can live in their homes if we write off some of the debt which, clearly, will never be repayable. That is the best compromise we can offer, and we have done it both for homes and for businesses. We are realistic regardless of how long the process, whereas somebody else might look at it and say they will do it later. We are up-front and realistic about making the business or the customer viable in terms of living in a home and running their business and functioning in the economy again. That is the best compromise we can offer.

I welcome all the representatives to the meeting. I wish to explain how and why I am here and why I am speaking now. I was ejected from the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform as a result of a vote last July. It was a pity because I was one of the best attenders of the committee and I made many contributions. I want everyone to know this. The reason I am speaking now for only five minutes is that I am not a member of the committee. I am a second-class citizen; I am what one would call a parliamentarian leper. That is a pity.

It is against Standing Orders to make a make a derogatory comment about any Member of the House, even if it is one's self. Will the Deputy proceed?

I have a paper here that I will leave with the committee. I preface my remarks by saying I take my hat off to these four gentlemen because they were not part of the bank boards, across the whole banking sector, that were not decent. I can say this safely because the figures and balance sheets show it. In the case of AIB, which was not part of its watch, its loan-to-deposit ratios for a series of years ended up at 155%, which is 72% above the norm of 90%, which means that the creation of the asset bubble, which could only occur with a credit bubble, is 72% to the account of the bank. No matter where the capital comes from, it is for the account of the bank. In the case of Bank of Ireland, which will be here tomorrow, it is 75%. The customers who, in good faith, have to live and provide accommodation for their families in owner-occupied houses borrowed into that asset bubble, and when it bursts we have a financial Nagasaki. That is where we are in Ireland today. It is not the fault of the witnesses. This is the truth and every time I try to say it, including this morning in the Chamber, I am muzzled and derided by the Minister for Finance. I am not asking for any praise but I am asking for acknowledgment of the truth. Around 180,000 families are in distress, despair and in some cases death. Last week, David Courtney died due to stress. As the committee is aware, he was a shareholder in a large NAMA customer. He was a very worthy developer. The developers are not at the core of this; it is the bank boards - not the witnesses - and I am not afraid to say that. Greg Pytel shows in mathematical exposition that if the banking sector keeps to fractional reserve banking-----

Deputy Mathews, the five minutes has expired. There is a vote in the Chamber. Sometimes one has to listen. I want to keep the meeting going, and Deputy Billy Timmins also wishes to speak.

I am going to take advantage of this and speak to the gentlemen who are here. The Chairman can go and vote.

Will the Deputy please allow me to finish? God gave the Deputy two ears and one mouth. Will he please use them proportionately? I am preparing to keep the meeting going. Please allow me to continue.

What I propose to do is to keep the meeting going and let the Deputy continue. I will not go to vote but will remain here and we can conclude the meeting without further interruption. Those members who want to go to vote, may go now and Deputy Mathews can continue.

I hope I will be forgiven for my frustration, but it is distressing when people and families of good faith, whose incomes have been smashed and reduced as a result of the Nagasaki type disaster I have described, are hit on both fronts. They are hit on the asset price collapse and the negative equity, which clouds the issue. AIB Bank is accountable and responsible for that 72% collapse in price. In some cases that will coincide with negative equity, but in others the negative equity will be different. It could be greater or less. However, in the context of a fair business transaction and a reasonable exposition of where we are now, that is the truth of it.

If we are to get to the right, true and fair results in each case, we must look at each case as a bespoke case. After an event like that in Nagasaki, not everyone is sprayed with an anti-radioactive ingredient. Doctors and nurses must examine each case. This is what AIB is doing with its staff. I will ask a question now before I continue. How many staff has AIB involved in this work?

Mr. David Duffy

Approximately 2,000.

Are all of them based in Ireland or are there some abroad?

Mr. David Duffy

They are all here, based throughout the country.

Another unfortunate legacy issue for AIB is the call centre experience. I know about this myself as I have tried to sort out cases for constituents, with AIB and other banks, and have experienced the problem. This is an opportunity for our leaders. They are going around with their heads in the clouds and do not understand the situation. This is why they do not argue the case for debt write-down in Europe through the euro system. This write-down should be in two parts. First, there should be a €25 billion cancellation of the promissory notes, of the money borrowed on the creation of those notes to pay off senior bondholders, people who should be contributing to clearing up this mess. Second, the banks need more capital. This is not a joke, but if the banks had enough capital, there would be a more rapid restructuring down, thereby recognising my first point, that the banks created the asset price collapse.

However, our leaders want to deny this. I see customers coming in distressed and in debt. They are diseased. I have been involved with a case, not in connection with AIB, where the person's life expectancy has reduced. The irony is that the life assurance policy will get the bank out of the difficulty. Therefore, the bank has a vested interest in increasing the pressure on that person so that he will die within the next 15 years, within the life of the policy, and the bank will get all its money. This is wrong. There are too many things that are wrong in this situation.

I am asking the witnesses here, whom I know and respect, to tell our leaders, the Minister for Finance and the Taoiseach, the truth. I am asking them to tell them to go to Europe and not be afraid to say the country needs a kick-start of approximately €50 billion. Patrick Honohan should be told to tear up the €25 billion of promissory notes on his desk and cancel them. Creditors will always tell people they are surviving, even as they are stretched on the rack. They always do this.

We must move towards a conclusion. If the Deputy has a final question, we will take it now.

I am concerned in regard to valuations. All of the witnesses know as professionals that if a person has a four-bedroomed semi-detached house in the south Dublin suburbs and its rental value is €2,000 a month, the market value of that house, unless it comes from a Crombie wearing, clipboard holding loo-lah estate agent, is €360,000. How do we arrive at that? Well, €2,000 a month is €24,000 a year, multiplied by 15 - a 7% yield - is €360,000. We could look at it another way. If it is an owner-occupier, the likely income of that family will be approximately €75,000. Three times that income is approximately €220,000. If we add in another half of an income it comes to €250,000. Therefore, it is nonsense for any banker to listen to estate agents or Member of the Irish Auctioneers and Valuers Institute, MIAVI, who say they believe the house is now worth €600,000.

The Deputy should conclude. I have given him a lot of time, but he has gone way over time.

Please, I ask the Chair to allow me continue, out of decency and respect. Before I became a Member of the Oireachtas, I put a lot of work into this. The Chairman got a copy of that and it would help him understand this if he read it.

I do not claim to be the smartest person in the room, but I understand time, and the Deputy is running out of it.

I am only looking for five minutes. How many minutes were given to other people?

They were members of the committee. The Deputy can waste his time arguing with me or he can speak to the witnesses.

When we were dealing with the IBRC legislation, I did not vote for it because I believed it was wrong to introduce it in that way, after midnight, without being understood by the 166 Members. The Chief Whip would not allow me a pair, which is a way of not voting. I texted the Taoiseach and told him I needed a pair, because that was not a time to be ejected from the party.

The Deputy should please conclude. I wish to allow the witnesses to respond, because the evidence we seek comes from the response, not the question. If the Deputy persists in talking, I will move on to Deputy Timmins. However, if the Deputy can conclude with a question, I will allow the witnesses respond.

I have two questions. First, is it not true that mathematically and financially, some 72% of the asset price collapse can be attributed to AIB up to 2008?

Mr. David Duffy

I would have to look at the analysis of that with the Deputy. Based on his representation-----

I will give the analysis to Mr. Duffy. The funny thing is the banking inquiry is not yet on track and the balance sheets relevant to deciding what went wrong will have been lost or shredded in the mists of time.

Deputy, I will allow the witness to respond and will then move on.

The Chairman makes it tough.

It is Lent, and the Deputy makes it tough for me too.

Mr. David Duffy

I will read the Deputy's paper and respond on it.

I will be brief. I wish to raise three issues which I hope are in order. I, Deputy Mathews and a number of other Oireachtas Members have made a submission to the Minister for Finance calling on him to ensure a fair valuation of properties when adjudication is being made on the issuing of a mortgage. A mortgage should be based on the historical ratio of income to average house price. I understand the bank spoke earlier about a 72% loan to value as an average, that it rises to 85% if the value is in excess of €400,000, and that there is a certain limit in regard to one-bedroomed apartments. The concept we propose is not based on the market value, which can increase where there are people with funding who can compete with one another and drive prices up.

What we suggest is that we have what might be termed a "fair value" on a property, based on a historical data multiplier - a link between average income relative to average house price. I understand that historically average house prices were five or six times the average income. Loans should only be issued for houses on this basis and this should not be let get out of kilter. For example, if a house in Portlaoise is valued at €400,000 and the multiplier is four times the average income, the fair value would be €320,000. The grant for the mortgage should be based on that. I sent this proposal to the Irish Banking Federation and it said there was merit in the proposal but they felt it was not a necessary tool.

I suggest that if this policy had been in place prior to the crash, we would not be in the current difficulty, because it would ensure we had sustainable and responsible lending. What is the view of AIB on this? The proposal might seem draconian, but it would stop banks lending money on a basis that is unsustainable for the future. Notwithstanding the fact that on the day the money is lent, the individual is in a position to make repayments, this can change if employment takes a hit.

Who would ever have thought that public sector wages would decrease to the extent that they did?

The second issue is in respect of the demand for housing. Perhaps it does not come under the witnesses' remit, but what do they think of the demand for housing? The Taoiseach stated that if 30,000 houses were built in Dublin tomorrow morning they would sell. Other conservative estimates put the need at 5,000 houses, while other projections outlined the number and type of houses needed nationally between now and 2015. I realise that there is a geographic variation in the demand. One could say that there are two and a half Irelands, consisting of Cork, Galway, Dublin and the rest of the country.

Morgan Kelly made a point about the SME mortgage time bomb. I do not know whether the witnesses referred to it earlier, but do they have views on it? He gave a stark lecture. Many people put him down as the guru who forecast the difficulties that arose. Apparently his forecast about the banks was not correct, because he said they were in good order in 2006 and 2007, but it is my understanding-----

Have the witnesses any view on the warning given by Professor Kelly? Will they be back here in two years seeking to address this problem as they are addressing the mortgage difficulties now?

Mr. David Duffy

Professor Kelly gave an assessment of the situation in respect of SMEs. I have no issue with the observation that there would be an impact if we were to do what he said and that we would end up damaging SMEs. As I sit in the committee with the ECB, the reality is that its primary objective in carrying out stress tests is to guarantee the transition mechanism to support SMEs, as this is central to the growth of Europe. It may look different from the outside, but the comments made by Mario Draghi and his committee colleagues consistently relate to what they need to do to get lending going into SMEs, both domestically and across borders. As an academic exercise it may be construed one way, but on the practical level on the ground, I am more comfortable that the SME universe will not be negatively affected as articulated.

We have been working with Government members and other institutions and bodies to map housing demand across the country for the right type of house in the right place, and to look at issues such as NAMA land supply, the appropriate volume of planning permissions or whether they are relevant to their location. We have worked with the Construction Industry Federation to look at the labour supply and the relevant skills. We also have given our own commitment to support construction and the mortgages associated with it. That is coming to a conclusion now, and all the parties will be able to make sure that we build into the demand cycle at an appropriate level and cost for the next few years. Things will level out and demand will not create too many bubbles, as supply will be coming on stream over the next few years.

How does the term "map housing demand" for the future make its way down to the developer who will purchase land and develop it? Does Mr. Duffy believe the Government will or should bring out a strategy on the need or lack of need for houses in Dublin, the greater Cork area, Laois or Wexford? Will be it that prescriptive?

Mr. David Duffy

It is a mixture of both. The Government cannot do it by itself. What is NAMA going to do? What are the planning permission people going to do? What about the Construction Industry Federation's skill sets or ability to do it? Are there equity investors in this? At a minimum, one has to take a best guess at evolving demographics and do that around the country. It is an imperfect science. All of the houses will not be built over six months. They are built over five years, so we keep mapping to that. The efforts required to work in concert with the different constituents to make that happen has begun, and I think we will be successful. It will be iterated constantly to data validating the original assumptions.

I have seen the new model and it is relatively similar to when I was teenager, when the multiple of a salary allowed for a mortgage was capped at 2.5, perhaps with another 1 added for a partner. The principle is very sound and we will take a look at it. I am not familiar with the details as the Deputy described them, but we will look at them and give them due consideration.

And use rental yield for the value.

Mr. David Duffy

Yes.

That brings matters to a conclusion. I would like to thank Mr. Duffy, Mr. Murphy, Mr. O'Connor and Mr. Byrne for coming here this afternoon and assisting the committee in its ongoing process of looking at the many challenges ahead in resolving a very significant crisis for a lot of homeowners in this country. I particularly would like to acknowledge the follow-up since our last engagement and the actions that have been taken by them in acknowledging some of the comments from myself, Deputy Spring, Deputy Donnelly and other committee members. That acknowledgement has been reflected in action or a tweaking of the system by AIB. I note that as the process rolls out, the prescriptive measures in the Keane report represented a starting point. They were never seen to be the definitive list. We welcome any type of innovation that assists homeowners who are doing their best to meet their obligations and remain in their homes. That is the type of thinking we want to see.

In fairness, what he said at the top captures it. That means more capital from Europe.

With that said, it is reflective of the three engagements we have had that there has been positive movement, albeit with some substantive issues that must still be dealt with. There are still challenges for the banks, but one has to be cognisant of trying to undo a ball of knots; sometimes one loosens a string only to tighten another one. There are sometimes consequences that we do not foresee. I look forward to meeting with the witnesses again as this process moves on and as the target figures are reached. I hope they are met fairly, so that those who are trying to meet their obligations are the people who receive fair responses.

I thank the witnesses and their support staff for their preparation for today's meeting.

Mr. David Duffy

Thank you.

The joint committee adjourned at 5 p.m. until 10 a.m. on Thursday, 10 April 2014.
Barr
Roinn