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.