Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

It should not have to go to the courts. Does the witness not understand that these 6,000 people have a contract which states that they are entitled to a tracker rate? Forget about the issue of the rate that was going to be applied at that time. Their entitlement to a tracker rate was unilaterally withdrawn by AIB. It is a breach of contract. In simple terms, let us say I sold the witness a carpet for her house and she paid me a couple of grand for it. I was due to lay it in six months' time but when she came to me for that I told her I was not doing carpets any more and only putting down tiles. That would be a breach of contract. That is what AIB did. People had an entitlement to go on a tracker rate but AIB withdrew a product which it contractually had an obligation to provide to those 6,000 customers. Why not just call a spade a spade and not mince words? Just say, "Yes, we broke the contract", instead of coming up with clever words like a "service breach" and trying to be a little more cuddly. The bank broke the bloody contract. It is black and white.

Then there is the issue that there is a vague contract which case law says must not be interpreted to the detriment of the customer. The bank cannot retrospectively engineer a rate. It must go to the point where the bank entered into the contract. It will be played out in court. I have seen some very serious legal opinion, although lawyers will differ and so forth, but the idea is to allow this to play out in court. Dr. Hunt is a new CEO and this is an opportunity to resolve some of the legacy issues. He should take that opportunity. He should at least take the opportunity to bring fresh eyes to this. In particular, will he give a commitment to the committee with respect to any individual who is taking court proceedings against AIB whereby if AIB settles that case, he will ensure that it will also settle with all 6,000 other individuals affected by the same situation? Too often we have seen instances where somebody has a very strong legal challenge and is willing to take on an institution such as AIB, but the institution knows the person has a case and it settles. With a confidentiality clause it manages the settlement and pays the one or two individuals concerned, but the other 6,000 are left high and dry.

Can Dr. Hunt also speak to us about the Statute of Limitations and whether that will apply to the other 6,000, many of whom have not initiated legal proceedings at this point?