Marie Sherlock (Labour) | Oireachtas source

I echo the calls made earlier in respect of the profile of the 1,900 and whether they are for the most part people with multiple assets or whether they are just ordinary mortgage holders. The public very much needs to understand that profile, and we look forward to the detail the witnesses will furnish to the committee.

Mr. O'Keeffe has spoken about policies being consistently applied. I want to understand a little more about the banks' policy on the write-down process, particularly AIB's own write-down process, and then the personal insolvency process. Some people feel they are forced to go down the personal insolvency route and then others are offered a write-down by the bank. We can see the benefits for both the bank and the individual if the bank just writes down the debt itself. Then it becomes public, it is not on a register, there is no judicial oversight and, of course, there is a lack of transparency for shareholders because it does not appear on the register and the bank can effectively hide the type of write-down it has engaged in with the individual. Of course, for the individuals, there is a greater privacy for them than if they go down the personal insolvency route. Why, then, when the personal insolvency route and regime are in place, does the bank persist in having that informal debt write-down process?

How actively does AIB encourage debtors to go through the personal insolvency process? Are there some people to whom it just offers debt write-downs?