Mr. Ed Sibley:

Yes. First and foremost, as we have said earlier, where there are specific examples that cause members concern, please send them to us, with the accompanying examples referred to, and we will look at them. It would be helpful maybe to engage in that way on the list of concerns and issues raised.

We have worked intensively on the issue of distressed debt for the past decade or so. I agree with Deputies that some of the practices and lending that was done pre-crisis, that is, pre-2008, were not prudent or well done and left a legacy of debt after the bubble burst. Post crisis, those lessons have been learned and have been enforced effectively through the macroprudential measures that we put in place in 2015 to make sure that lending was much more prudent.

There was a change as a result of actions taken by the Central Bank, say from 2010 and after 2013. We were able to ensure that those borrowers who were in distress were able to get restructures and support that addressed the vast majority of borrowers in distress. As I said earlier, there were more than 200,000 restructures in the system out of a total number of more than 700,000 mortgages, so that was a huge number of restructures. Unfortunately, there are still too many borrowers who are still in distress a long time after the financial crisis. We are still committed to working to make sure that as many as possible of those borrowers are put on a more sustainable path.

I completely agree with the advice given by the Deputy in terms of the importance of engagement and people paying what they can.

That is the best basis for resolving the distress and keeping borrowers in their homes and that is what has happened for the majority. I recognise that there have been circumstances where the outcomes have not been as positive as that but for the vast majority-----