Peter Mathews (Dublin South, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I have one supplementary question. Mr. McDonagh alluded to the point that the banks were really bad about how they disbursed their money and the loan offer documentation, that is, the security on which they advanced money, was extremely fragile, as well as being highly vulnerable to challenge. I believe that cases are arising in which NAMA received loans and is sanitising a situation on behalf of the banks to improve and strengthen something that, had it remained within the banks, would have been highly vulnerable. In cases in which there are personal guarantees and exposures, it is important that if this is being done, there be a sense of fairness. I have been asked by people to examine examples in which I consider the banks advanced money on the security of secured assets, adding in personal guarantees, where cover on the valuation of the secured assets was three and four times the secured property value. They are now relying on guarantees on foot of what was very poor disbursement and very poor conduct where they did not actually care whether there were net liabilities or net assets at the time of disbursement. There is an absolute requirement that everything people may have had reasonably must come into the pot for collection. One must guard against a hijacking mentality on the back of sanitised security because NAMA has taken the loans. Does Mr. McDonagh see my point? It is important because it is easy to go on a witch-hunt trail.