Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I have some questions but I assume the witnesses will not have some of the answers so perhaps they could provide a response to them for the committee. I am seeking information on the loans in Project Glas. In how many of them did the bank vote against a personal insolvency arrangement, PIA, and in how many did it vote for one? If there is any perhaps the witnesses can provide a breakdown. With regard to the question asked by the Chairman about the ratio of splits, can the witnesses also inform the committee about the different grades, for example, the number of accounts above 50%, 60%, 70% and 80% in increments of 10%? That would be helpful. Can they also inform us of how much debt was written off where an individual was allowed to stay in the home and the number of instances where that occurred?

With regard to their arguments on moral hazard, this works for AIB. AIB is doing this but Permanent TSB is not. There is a big difference between AIB and Permanent TSB. Permanent TSB is in serious trouble. It needs to get off the high principles and start dealing with reality.

The witnesses referred to the buy-to-let write-offs. There are write-offs for investors. They said that 66% of the 1,300 houses have tenants. Are the other 400 houses lying empty, without tenants, in the middle of a housing crisis?

I have a question for Mr. Masding on the provisions, and I will talk hypothetically. If there were provisions of 48% against this portfolio and the bank sold for 40%, does that mean there is a profit in the bank because the provisions are obviously more than what the reduction was? Can he explain that?

My last question relates to the splits because there is now more confusion following Senator Kieran O'Donnell's questions. How many splits are in Project Glas? What is the full amount between performing, non-performing and the buy-to-lets? I am so frustrated with this. I am listening to extremely well paid bankers, no doubt with good intentions, saying they cannot get answers for the regulator for over a year. AIB is doing this. It has given its answer to us. It has 3,190 split loans. Subject to the new repayment terms being fully met during a probationary period, typically one year, AIB split loans are eligible to return to performing status under EBA non-performing definitions. This is one bank and the witnesses have no idea how AIB is able to do this. That is just crazy; it is madness. Despite the suites of legal and accountancy advisers the witnesses have, they cannot understand how AIB is doing this. I find that mind boggling. It is unacceptable that the SSM has not responded to the bank but it is also unacceptable for the bank to say that it has engaged with the SSM since the start of last year and has received no answers so it is going to sell these loans. I am sure this committee would be better able than Permanent TSB to find out how AIB is able to do this. Reporters have been writing about how AIB is doing it. I do not understand how Mr. Masding is overseeing a bank that simply does not know how its competitors are able to achieve what he is not able to achieve. There are serious questions about that. It appears that there are approximately 6,000 loans, split mortgages, about to be sold which could be deemed as performing if the bank understood what its competitor bank was doing. How can he justify that?

I would like to have an answer to that question and answers to the other questions, if the witnesses have them. If not, they could provide the information to the committee. It is deeply frustrating. It also must be frustrating for the customers who, unfortunately, went to Permanent TSB instead of AIB and got a split mortgage and, as a result of Permanent TSB being unable to figure out how it meets the criteria, they are being thrown to the wolves. It is not good enough.