Ms Derville Rowland:

I thank the Senator for her questions. I am sure my colleague, Mr. Sibley, might like to add something, so I will try to be succinct and on point.

I can absolutely confirm to the Senator that there is nothing soft or hands-off about expectations by the Central Bank of Ireland. We practise assertive risk-based supervision in this extremely important and high priority area, because we understand the devastating impact that problems with paying a mortgage are wreaking on people's lives, finances, mental health and families. It is a core priority for us and has been. Precisely because it has been a priority for us, we produced a statutory code governing the framework and engagement that lenders must have with borrowers when they are in arrears or at risk of arrears. That produced a very detailed framework of steps that must be gone through. We went to the limit of our powers in respect of that and have revised it on a number of occasions since because that is absolutely the right thing to do.

I can also confirm that we are very focused on how the framework can support borrowers in these new and different circumstances in which we find ourselves. Mr. Sibley has spoken about a high expectation that lenders are responsive at pace for borrowers who find themselves in these unforeseen Covid circumstances, and I am sure he would wish to add to this. I can tell the Senator that we keep the supervisory framework under review because that is also the correct option. We are scrutinising very carefully the operational capability responsiveness of all of the lenders and the appropriateness of the code, as framed.

My final remark is with respect to the menu of options that the Senator has been framed. We have taken the code to the limit of what the Central Bank can do within its regulatory framework. In that code is a prescription, a set of options. These are commercial decisions that lenders are entitled to make and must make with respect to their decision-making. We have been clear, however, that we expect them to offer sustainable solutions both from a borrower and a lender perspective. We are closely scrutinising the application of those options. We strengthened our approach to the code where borrowers are being told what options they are being offered. They can understand then why they are not being offered options too, which is of great benefit to them. That is an example of where we understood, listened and improved the code. It is something we are committed to, but I am sure Mr. Sibley may wish to add to that.