John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I want to clarify that for Mr. Masding. He asked me a question. It is in the first paragraph of his opening statement. At no stage did any of the three organisations I have mentioned ever tell Mr. Masding directly what to do in his bank relative to the 3.5% or how he could achieve it. That is the first point.

The next point is that he complimented the 13,800 homes that have been restored to performing loans. Again, that is to give the impression that those that are left in his bank are the ones that responded the least to any kind of treatment or cure. He said that selling them to the vulture funds is a legitimate tool for banks to use to reduce NPLs. He is saying again that the European Commission, the SSM and the Central Bank of Ireland have all said that loan sales are a legitimate tool to sell. It may very well be a legitimate tool but they never told Mr. Masding to sell directly to vulture funds. They just recognise that it is a legitimate tool. That is all. There are many other options, so I find that misleading.

In terms of debt forgiveness and write-offs, Mr. Masding gave us his definition of moral hazard and all the rest of it. I find that hard to take coming from a bank that led these people into the debt they are now in. He went on to mention alternatives, including to provide and derecognise loans, and he said the bank did not pursue that particular method, but there is nothing wrong with that method. He could very easily have taken that as an option. The residential mortgage backed securitisation would have allowed the bank to derecognise the loans from its balance sheet, reducing the NPL ratio and avoiding a portfolio sale. That is what would have happened. It is an accounting procedure, and the loan holder is still on the hook, yet Mr. Masding will not consider that. I find the way he has presented this to be completely offensive. He said "customers have been poorly served by inflammatory and inaccurate commentary around the transaction". Can he drop us a line and let us know specifically what he means by that? Who are the people who put out these inflammatory and inaccurate statements? Surely, we will have to hold them to account, will we not? They cannot be saying bad things about Mr. Masding's bank. If he believes this, perhaps he might write and tell us where these statements were made. I doubt if he is referring to the committee members. Is he?