John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Yes. I also discussed with the witnesses previously about the accountancy profession, how the banks account for losses, and the advice given. There is a difference of opinion between the IFRS 9 and how banks account for losses. In other words, they do not have to account for losses completely in their accounts and the information and advice that they are getting is contrary to the European advice. There is a directive on how to do it, and then big companies come along and I presume they advise the bank on how to dodge the bullet. I have mentioned this before. There are articles in The Irish Times about it, and other such matters. It is important because the outcome of the understanding of that issue can decide whether a bank is in trouble or not. If the proper figures are put out there, it can also explain to us as a finance committee just how much a bank has in bad debt, and what it is doing with it. It is as if we do not get a full disclosure on bank debt from the bank because it would then result in perhaps negative commentary on the bank itself and its standing depending on how much it is carrying in bad debt.

I did send the witnesses the articles and there was a response but I really think, given the number of complaints that I have received in relation to that aspect of banking and the interpretation of the law and accounting regulations and so on, I am unhappy given what we know about the banks.

That leads me to my question in relation to Ed Honohan's appearance before the committee. The witnesses will be happy to hear that I am not going to go through it all, but I would like to have a full session and to go through all of these matters. Mr. Honohan tabled 20 questions to us relative to the Central Bank. I am going to give the witnesses those questions to take away. They might have a look at the ones that come within their remit, and give us an answer on what they believe is the case, relative to each. It was a very long meeting that day and he was serious and passionate about his position and these questions emerged. I want to get answers and then we can pursue the questions again at another stage.

I will go back to what Deputy Doherty was talking about, from today's Irish Independent. He has covered everything and I am not going to go through it again, except to say that I agree with all of the questions he has posed. I see the loopholes and how things can be manipulated by the banks, the vulture funds, and so on. I do not want to lose sight of Elizabeth McAuley because, in her story, she raises all of the issues that were dealt with by Deputy Doherty, but she subsequently voluntarily sold her home in 2019 after coming under pressure to do so. That pressure can come in all sorts of forms, but I want to tell the witnesses that the banks continue to apply the pressure. They continue to do all sorts of things with customers that I find reprehensible. I just cannot believe that they continue to do it after all they have been through. This lady, Ms McAuley, is a case in hand, who was made homeless for a couple of months. She was in severe mental anxiety and had depression. She was 58 years of age. That alone would drive me to investigate all of what has been said to the nth degree and to defend Ms McAuley because I believe that what she describes in this article in her words should not be happening today after all of what we have been through here.

I am just adding to Deputy Doherty's comments. Mr. Makhlouf said he would reply to this article. There may be a need for us to talk directly to him at that stage about what has been raised here, or there may be no role for him. We do not know what the outcome will be. Certainly for me, as Chair of the committee, and working with the members, in particular Deputy Doherty, I am very anxious to get to the bottom of what happened to Ms McAuley and how she was treated. We will come back to it.

I want to ask a question about when a bank is found to have done something very wrong, like with the tracker mortgages. We have read reports in the newspaper about fines. We might get a general understanding of a bank being fined for some sort of wrongdoing. Where they have been wrong in their actions with customers and they get those customers to sign a confidentiality clause, is that something that will then restrict the Central Bank from penalising that bank for its wrongdoing? I give the example of Belfry, which is still unresolved. I can give another example of the EBS, which is also still unresolved. In spite of all of what the banks tell us, there are still customers that come to me, even today, to tell me about the fact that the EBS situation is not completely resolved, and Belfry is in that category as well. Has the Central Bank investigated both Belfry investments and the EBS? Do they remain under scrutiny and will there be fines?