Michael Noonan (Limerick City, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

The information I am giving the House has been provided by the particular institutions. So far this year, AIB has been the controlling voter in 78 cases of personal insolvency process proposals. It voted in favour of the proposal in 51 of the 62 personal insolvency arrangement cases and against it in the other 11. AIB voted in favour of the proposal in all 16 debt settlement arrangement cases. When representatives of AIB appeared before the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform in October, they noted that the bank exercised its veto only if too much of a dividend was going out to unsecured debt.

When representatives of Bank of Ireland appeared before the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform in October, they confirmed that the bank had voted in favour of personal insolvency arrangements in 45 cases, or 76% of all such cases, in which it was a participant in the 12 months since the launch of the insolvency service. When representatives of the bank appeared before the joint committee in April, they confirmed that the bank's policy was to veto proposals where secured debt was to be written down.

Permanent tsb has informed me that since inception of the insolvency service, seven personal insolvency proposals have been vetoed in cases in which it was the majority creditor. It has voted in favour of the proposal in 13 instances in which it was the majority creditor.  With regards to debt settlement arrangements in which permanent tsb held the majority vote, it voted in favour of three and against one.  Permanent tsb has noted that each case is assessed on the basis of its individual merit. I have been informed that the bank generally decides to use its veto because it can offer the customer a long-term sustainable and affordable treatment without the need for a personal insolvency arrangement, or because of financial reasons such as proposed fees or dividends.

See this speech in context