Kieran O'Donnell (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I am just looking at it this way. The researchers undertook 1,400 hours of desktop reviews, ran more than 500 surveys and conducted 75 interviews. If none of those was with consumers, I as a public representative have to ask the question. Before we came in here today, I got a phone call from a customer of one of the banks who knew the witnesses would be appearing before the committee and asked that I put one question to them. This is a consumer who has been dealing with various banks and wanted me to ask if the witnesses conducted interviews with consumers and if they considered that the banks were engaging in a form of moral hazard themselves. If they felt their loans were going to be bought by funds now known as vulture funds, they effectively did non-engagement with customers by stealth because they knew the loans were going to go to the vulture fund, a bit like the bank guarantee being a backstop when it happened. There was a view taken by many that the banks knew the State would bail them out. They engaged in reckless lending, as everyone now agrees. I am disappointed and I believe the report is lacking because customers are not in it.

Will the witnesses address that point about moral hazard within the banks themselves? If they were of the view that their loans were going to be sold to vulture funds, the banks deliberately engaged in constructive non-engagement with consumers. On the tracker issue, do the witnesses believe that the banks allowed it to continue because it was adding to their bottom line in terms of profits at a time when their balance sheets were very vulnerable? They decided to ride on and rip off the tracker mortgage and, if they were caught, they would pay up. They decided to do first and explain later rather than explaining first. Will Professor Lane deal with those points?

Ultimately, ours is a questioning role. I acknowledge the work the Central Bank does but we have to provide probity. Will Professor Lane address the issue of my disappointment and concern around the lack of direct engagement with customers of banks regarding a cultural issue? How can he form an impression? If the researchers are doing 1,400 hours of desktop reviews, 600 surveys and 75 interviews and none of them is with bank customers, how is there not a gap in the due diligence and veracity of the report?