Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour) | Oireachtas source

Riddle me this case. The sum of €250,000 is the cost of an average house in my part of Cork, and the same applies to most parts of the country, with Dublin being the exception. Let us say someone buys a house for €250,000 but he or she has €50,000 in unsecured debt. Ulster Bank puts the house on the market and sells it for €150,000 - which is what it is probably worth now - but there is €50,000 in unsecured debt left and, lo and behold, now there is also €100,000 of unsecured debt which Ulster Bank will probably write off. This situation is where I see the bank's veto working very effectively. Would it not make more sense, given personal insolvency arrangements and the way the bank's veto works, if it wrote off the €100,000 rather than sell the house? If the bank turned it into unsecured debt, it would be left with 65% of €100,000. Let me reiterate that there is €150,000 in unsecured debt. Therefore, the person is in a performing mortgage because the bank is going to sell the house for €150,000 and there is €150,000 of unsecured debt. In that instance the bank is in the driving seat because it has the veto. It can wipe out all the unsecured debt and turn the customer into a functioning one who can pay a debt of €150,000. Why is the bank not doing this?