Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees

Tuesday, 23 February 2021

Joint Oireachtas Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, and Taoiseach

Banking Matters: Discussion

Photo of Pearse DohertyPearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I welcome Ms Howard to the committee. We are meeting under very difficult and disappointing circumstances. I echo the sentiments of my colleague and I think the committee speaks as one. What NatWest and Ulster Bank did to its staff was deplorable and unacceptable, and it should not have happened. Can Ms Howard give the committee an assurance that Ulster Bank is not in negotiations or discussions with any so-called vulture fund on the sale of any of the loan book in the Ulster Bank portfolio?

Can she give us a commitment that will continue? Will the bank management also outline to us the composition of the Ulster Bank loan book and in particular what portion of it is tracker mortgages? The figures we are trying to put together indicate that the loan book is in the region of €21 billion with €14.5 billion of that being mortgages, of which €6.5 billion are tracker mortgages. I see some of the witnesses are nodding. If those are the figures, are there any discussions on the tracker mortgage book, which may not be the most sought-after book in the market? Can the management give us any breakdown, perhaps subsequently in written form, on the composition of the loan book both in terms of mortgages but also the business loan book and what portions of it are performing and non-performing?

I understand that the memorandum of understanding the bank has entered into with AIB concerns €4 billion of the loan book. I would like to hear some detail about the composition of that. From the figures we have, the business book breaks down into just over €6 billion with €3.4 billion being corporate, €1.3 billion specialised and €1.6 billion in SME lending. Is AIB just looking at the cream, the corporate and specialised business, or does this involve some of the SME lending as well? I would appreciate getting some of the figures on that, where the memorandum of understanding is concerned.

Ulster Bank's decision to withdraw is a terrible one for staff, for customers and for the regions dependent on its branches, but it is also a terrible one for banking in this State. It is a great decision for the investors in NatWest because they will now reap €4 billion of freed-up capital, which is going to see dividends to shareholders increase at the expense of the banking system in this State, and at the expense of the people who fattened up this bank for over 160 years and who made millions and billions of euro in profit during the period for its shareholders, investors, senior staff and all the rest. It is going to be a very difficult time. Has there been any initial assessment within the bank of the competition issues which may arise, particularly from the memorandum of understanding with AIB? I ask because AIB and Bank of Ireland will now have over 90% of SME lending in the State and challenges could arise from there.

On the staff, has an assessment been done within the bank of the portion of staff who can be assigned to each of the loan books? I refer, in other words, to the portion of staff who would be assigned to the €4 billion which is under consideration by AIB and the portion who would be assigned in relation to the tracker mortgage book and other books. Has the bank given an undertaking that it will sell those loan books in accordance with the current transfer of undertakings legislation, under which staff follow the loan books? I ask the management to outline to the committee what will happen to the 600 staff in the North who are servicing the workings of the bank in the South.

Finally, Ulster Bank had significant problems. We dealt with the bank as part of the tracker mortgage scandal. It was probably the worst in the class when it came to putting money back into people's accounts, making the payments and so on. That has now been dealt with. There were also huge technical glitches with the bank. The bank had a larger risk-weighted assets ratio than any other bank in the State and therefore it was obliged to carry a huge amount of capital. Is that not the core reason the bank is withdrawing from the State? If we had capital ratios which were close to the European norm or indeed to what is happening in Britain, would NatWest's decision on Ulster Bank have been any different?

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.