Mr. Paul Joyce:

No. Rule 43, if I can have a few seconds to read it, states:

A lender must review an alternative repayment arrangement at intervals that are appropriate to the type and duration of the arrangement, including at least 30 calendar days in advance of an alternative repayment arrangement coming to an end. As part of the review, the lender must check with the borrowerwhether there has been any change in his/her circumstances in the period since the alternative repayment arrangement was put in place, or since the last review was conducted. Where there has been a change in that borrower’s circumstances, the lender must request an updated standard financial statementfrom the borrowerand must consider the appropriateness of that arrangement for the borrower.

In answer to the Deputy's question directly, there is no specific provision that says that where the borrower's financial circumstances have not changed at the point of review, there is a legal obligation on the existing lender or the purchaser of the loan to honour that arrangement. The Central Bank is strongly of the view that the funds will honour those arrangements but we do not believe there is anything legally enforceable there. There is a view, and it has been heard in this committee from Permanent TSB that, for example, a split mortgage or other long-term arrangement is a variation of the original mortgage. There is a legal question there as to whether putting a long-term arrangement in place over time changes the underlying mortgage in the first place.