I have listened to several colleagues speak about the sale of loans by Permanent TSB to an investor, a so-called vulture fund. I was particularly taken with what my colleague, Senator McDowell, had to say as he got to the heart of the matter when reflecting on his professional experience of cases of people losing their homes. He spoke to the heart of the moral problem in this area. We know what is happening here. Banks are bundling loans together into larger instruments and selling them to investors at a discount. Of course, the reason these are attractive products is that the investors know they can pursue the loans for greater value.

In a sense, I agree with the approach of Mr. Justice Kelly who does not permit the term "vulture fund" to be used in his court because, he says, it has no legal meaning or value. It is important to protect the rights of people or institutions to access the law, especially the rights of those with whom we do not sympathise. Their access to law is a very important thing. That was why I challenged Senator Ó Ríordáin last week when he was giving out about some developer threatening him with the possibility of legal proceedings. People should always feel that they can access law.

What is the solution? There is a manifest injustice if an investor fund - let us call it that - can make big money from buying properties when, had the distressed homeowner been offered a similar deal, he or she would have been able to avail of it. We sense the injustice in the ordinary individual not being able to access the same kind of deal, but it is our job, as legislators, to discuss whether there are solutions. We point to the moral problem, and what is going on is odious, but what is the solution? We need to have a debate on what can be done. Part of the reason this is happening is that banks are trying to protect their deposit capital retention ratios. They are doing this for a reason. Is this about tightening the code of conduct of the Central Bank in order that banks would be required to disclose the terms before entering such a deal-----

Exactly.

-----so that the homeowner could have one last shot at negotiation? Alternatively should we be thinking of something bigger? Should we be thinking about some kind of instrument or some kind of body that would be given access to privileged information about the deals on offer and which would then be able to intervene and to deal with individual homeowners? Those are the kinds of solutions we need to be thinking and talking about in these Houses.

Hear, hear.