Mr. Maurice Crowley:

I will be allowed to refute part of what was said hopefully. Their interest, as Ms Murphy has explained, is in curing the loan. It is not about forcing people out and repossessing their homes. It is absolutely not that. It is very much that if they can cure the loan and make it more cash-flow positive, they can then sell that portfolio of assets to another investor. It is the world we live in and I am not saying it is a particularly nice process, but these people are not buying these loans to go through a repossession process to force people out of their homes. There is no question about that. There is also no question of them coming in here with a view to using the contracts that are in place to force up variable rates. There is no evidence of that.

The other thing I would say at the risk of repeating myself as it keeps coming around is that the existing contract between the borrower and the lender and the rights it confers on both parties are transferred, in the phrase someone used, lock, stock and barrel to the purchaser. It does not put the purchaser in a position to vary the underlying terms of that contract. It gives them a right to exercise the existing terms and conditions of those contracts. It does not give them the right to renegotiate or vary the terms. I am not a lawyer but I am comfortable on that one.