Mr. Shane O'Sullivan:

There are a number of things I would say. As context, I provided a supplemental pack that gives a sense of the performance of our bank in terms of arrears management versus the sector. If the Vice Chairman has time to look at it, it will show that our performance is fine. Essentially the key message is that our performance is better than that of the sector. By better, I mean we have a lower percentage of arrears in home loans and buy-to-let loans.

When one looks at the decisions we have made with regard to the accounts, we offer a solution or a restructure in a higher percentage of cases than those that take the court route. That is an important context to the first part of the Vice Chairman's question.

Second, we can look at the legal cases specifically. The Vice Chairman mentioned buy-to-let loans. She is correct that we have 1,100 cases relating to buy-to-let loans before the courts at the moment. The reality is that if we cannot find a restructure solution for customers - it must be remembered that we found more restructures and solutions for customers than other banks - unfortunately we have found it is necessary to commence the legal process to get further engagement. Our statistics show that when that legal process is commenced, something in excess of 20% of customers who would not speak to us, answer the phone or respond to the letter, actually will engage. For those customers, more often than not we will find solutions.

On the numbers the Vice Chairman mentioned, she should not extrapolate the numbers where a legal letter is issued through to repossessions. As I mentioned earlier, last year our bank across buy-to-let and home loans had just 37 court-led repossessions, which represents 0.02% of our mortgage book. That is quite extraordinary when that figure is compared with any other jurisdiction, considering the incredibly high levels of arrears Irish banks have.

We have no problem with bankruptcy and we have in fact supported hundreds of bankruptcies. Last year alone it was in the region of 300. If bankruptcy is the right answer, it is the right answer. However, a person cannot elect to be a bankrupt or insolvent without actually being insolvent or being a bankrupt.

By that I mean, some of the cases that we veto are because the applicant - the customer - actually is not insolvent. Insolvent is not being able to repay one's debts as they fall due and there is no likelihood of that situation changing over the next five years.

In a large proportion of the small number of cases that we have vetoed, we can find a mortgage assistance relief strategies, MARS, treatment. We can find a sustainable solution like a split mortgage or some of the other options that we have offered to 28,500 customers. That is why we will veto a case, typically, or it is due to fees. The average PIP fee has been €12,000 in the insolvencies that we have seen. Often, that is more than the bank and the other creditors are actually going to get. The sum of €12,000 is a very significant figure and it would make one question whether it is equitable to agree a scenario like that. Where there is insolvency, and the customer is insolvent, but there is not a MARS solution, then our door is open to say "Yes".