Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Some of the issues I had wanted to speak on have been touched on especially in respect of the Home for Life. I believe there is general acknowledgement now that the 25-year leasing model of social housing is not a positive model for the State. It has been identified as poor value for money for the State. Effectively, it is the paying of mortgage and profit. When we talk about social housing we need to be clear that it is very much a for-profit enterprise and one where the homes are not for life but become an asset after 25 years. Again, it has been identified as something that is poor value for the State. I wonder whether the model is being reflected on or changed in terms of the engagement or investment approach of the bank.

It would be useful to get information on the properties made available to the Housing Agency. Are they permanently made available to the Housing Agency or leased? What are the arrangements for the vacant properties made available to the Housing Agency? How permanent is the arrangement? That is one part.

The key point I wanted to touch on is the question of the agents, which has been discussed. I have no wish to reiterate the point but I note that when we talk about stakeholders, it is hard to see. EBS tied agents are clearly stakeholders. In many cases customers are key stakeholders. If we are talking about shareholders as stakeholders, the State is the majority shareholder. I am curious about who the stakeholders are. Whose interests are being balanced against EBS tied agents in this case? Who are they?

I realise am asking the questions in reverse order but this is the question I would like answered first. It is in respect of another judgment made by the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman. Last year the ombudsman upheld a complaint against AIB relating to failure of the bank to offer a tracker mortgage to a customer in line with the mortgage contract. The judgment was that the difference between the amount of interest paid from 10 April to date and the amount of interest that would have been paid at the reduced capital balance would be repaid to the complainant. That arrangement is now being rolled out to 6,000 customers who had the same contract. This is one of the largest refund programmes under the tracker mortgage scandal.

I would like one question specifically answered. Is it correct that AIB paid simple interest instead of compound interest in making those returns to those 6,000 borrowers? Was calculating the interest refund based on simple interest or compound interest? In that sense, is it consistent with the approach taken in the charging of interest to customers in the first place? I call on the bank representatives to answer that specific question first and then come to the other questions.