Mr. Brendan O'Connor:

I understand the analogy around the 76% effective tax rate. We try to keep people in their homes. That is the principle of the MARP targets. If people can afford to stay in their home, we ask whether there is an affordability level at which they can remain. To do that we have to examine their net income and we need a consistent and reasonable living standard to work from because we do not have the ability to make a call in every circumstance. I take the Deputy's point.

On capitalisations and term extensions, they are sustainable solutions. I do not take the Deputy's point in that regard to the extent that we model them over the life of the mortgage and the mortgage is sustainable to its original term or a term extension of a number of years. The mortgage itself is sustainable and the capital and interest will be paid down to zero over its lifetime.

On the legal cases that we put in, we are not required to offer sustainable restructuring to everybody under MARP. We are required to offer sustainable solutions. To the extent that we cannot engage with someone or 50% of people will not provide an SFS, the solution will be a legal one. It is not a sustainable solution anybody wants but it is ultimately what the solution will involve.