Mr. Padraic Kissane:

They are two separate issues. If it were argued that the securitisation within the entities of Bank of Ireland or PTSB required a change from, say, one Bank of Ireland designation to another, that could be implied post sale because the intention is to treat the customer fairly. I come back to this all the time. When it comes to homes, our legislation is lacking, not in repossessions, protections and so forth but at the outset. It should almost be a loss leader for banks that the creation of homeownership would be an ultimate desire of the entire country through the purchasing of homes, given it brings so much benefit to the wider follow-on regarding children in education and so on.

My point is that if the same rates do not apply, I want to know why they do not apply. If I were reading those terms and conditions as a layperson or natural bystander, I would think Mr. Burgess's solution applied. If the originating bank that owned the property has fixed rates and variable rates, the same should apply for the customer. That it was not included in the sale conditions is not the fault of the misfortunate customer. A mortgage can be sold, as a committee member suggested, where the fund can charge the customer 25% tomorrow morning and there is nobody to prevent it doing that. At what point does it become crazy, which is how the 25% rate might be deemed? Why does 7% not elicit the same reaction? Who says that is correct? I reiterate that if, on a €500,000 loan, the fund pays €250,000, the real interest return for the fund will now be 14% on a 7% loan.