Mr. Conor McNally:

Mine is not the worst scenario. I represent an average story that thousands of mortgage customers and families have gone through and are still going through in this country. I have heard the word relevant a lot today. I hope my family and my money are relevant. My mortgage rose quickly for no other reason than that the lender ran its business badly, to put it mildly. Now I am going to help fix it. The lender's attitude is that it is my tough luck if I do not like the arrangement because it has the deeds to the house where I and my family live. The interest rate went from 3.8% in January 2010 to a colossal 6.25% in August 2011. At that stage, from memory, AIB and Bank of Ireland were charging 3% and 3.25%. That rate increase on my mortgage made a 20% increase in my monthly payment. As if things were not tight enough, my lender certainly saw to it that it would make things worse. A steady rise to 6.25% saw things getting very tight. To add insult to injury, repossession proceedings were issued because of the arrears despite the arrears being small and decreasing. The final smack in the face was the court charge of €1,200 imposed on my mortgage account despite the registrar's throwing out the case against the bank and not awarding costs to either party. I did not receive a letter stating that the account was being charged. The €1,200 is on the loan principal, which amounts to €1,800 over the term of the loan.

Having the ability to increase the cost of a product with little justification other than we can and we will is a truly unique business to be in. If any other business did that the customers would shop around and leave swiftly. Why not move? Many mortgage customers in this country do not have the clean slate that new business or better offers demand. This leaves a very large portion of the mortgage market at the mercy of the existing lender to extort when it sees fit. If I walk up to someone in the street and demand €50 from that person criminal charges could follow. When a bank writes to a customer and extorts an increase in the lending rate nothing happens. The word extort is accurate, it means the practice of obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats. Apart from physical harm, there are few threats greater than losing one's home or one's home being at risk.

The basic nature of a consumer is to shop around. Few people buy from the person who is too expensive. These rules do not apply to a mortgage. Moving a mortgage costs the customer money if he or she can move at all. Depending who one asks, the figures are fluid but one thing is for sure: tens of thousands of mortgage customers are stuck where they are. Being stuck with a mortgage lender who squeezes one is like wearing concrete shoes. Recently I have moved three of my five utility bills because it was free, easy, saved me money and I could. The emphasis is on "I could". Other banks offer better deals than the one I have but I am firmly stuck.

The proposition of competition to deter overcharging lenders might work if everyone had good credit records, better wages and met the now stringent criteria set down by the banks, all of which suit the demands of the lender, a far cry from their historical standards. Despite having 60% loan to value, LTV, I do not have a fitting credit record. I have called other lenders and when they hear I was in arrears they tell me there is no point in applying. The painful irony is that the main reason I was in arrears was the high mortgage rate. Even if the drop in my income caused me to go into arrears I would have cleared these arrears much earlier had Permanent TSB been charging me a fair rate. A recent phone call to a lender with better rates than my own proved that a lender can have the pick of people to lend to. That rules out a huge part of the mortgage customer base because of reduced income, credit history, increased living expenses and a list of other factors that tips the scales to the lender. If a customer like me with 60% LTV cannot move there are new levels of bias at work.

The Central Bank estimates that 21% of borrowers, that is approximately 144,000 mortgages, could save money by switching to a new lender. What it does not say is how many borrowers actually can switch. An article states that only 38 people switch every month, a tiny fraction of the mortgage market.

I am one of them. I could switch to five different lenders that are cheaper than my existing lender, saving me between €45 and €100 per month, but none will touch me. A letter from Permanent TSB in 2012 stated "I want to make it clear that I don't believe that permanent tsb has performed to an acceptable standard in recent years." It went on to state:

many of the bank's customers suffered financially because of the impact of decisions which should not have been taken. I apologise for the mistakes which were made and I am determined to do all in my power to rectify them.

This came from a company which gouged about 75,000 variable rate customers over the course of a year and a half. I rang the bank shortly after receiving this letter and asked whether I would get a refund on the over-charging since it was sorry. There was a graveyard silence on the phone.

I will now deal with help from the Government at the time. The mortgage interest supplement was a quick political injection to help struggling mortgages and was, of course, means tested. Not much came from banks. In fact, the only thing that came from banks was restructuring; some forbearance, by which I mean that it will bide its time; threatening letters; interest rate hikes; and a waiting game until increased house prices gave the banks back equity to threaten people with repossession.

The Minister claimed this Bill was unconstitutional and that there was no need for it. Is it in accordance with the Constitution to allow a small group of companies which have a huge impact on thousands of families and which repeatedly squeeze their customers to continue doing so? Why is the can constantly kicked to the customer to bear the brunt of the bill to fix things that were mostly not their doing? A headline in the Irish Independentasks "why banks have been so reluctant to reduce variable mortgage rates" and the simple answer is that banks charge high rates because they can and are allowed to. It is not complicated to understand that they will not reduce their rates because the banks make millions more with high rates. The Government does nothing about it and that is why there is a need for this Bill. Gas, electricity, bus fares, taxis, airport charges, pensions and insurance are regulated. In fact there are few financial products that are not regulated or have not been regulated in the past. Bank interest rates are not regulated. Banking operations were rumoured to be regulated in the day but this is a rumour. That is why legislation is needed.