Mr. David Hall:

Yes, the other alternative is a heavy stamp duty on such properties, which would be a much faster way of doing it. Yes, there would be a requirement on the State. The State has an interest in two of the larger lenders. It is unclear as to how the Department understands its ownership of those shares, because in most other companies an owner of 70% or more has a level of influence. I do not think the Department has read the textbook yet. There are ways by which this could be done. There are simple ways and complicated ways. A tax of that magnitude on those distressed properties in the current housing crisis and emergency would be wholly reasonable and would force the issue. We are talking about buying the loan for €100,000.

One of the biggest crimes in all of this is the lack of offering back to customers their own homes at a price at which the vulture fund would purchase. This would allow that mechanism to happen. The bank would get the same money. There is no disadvantage to the bank. It is the vulture fund that would be disadvantaged and we do not have pity for any vulture fund. The vulture fund would lose. Our job is to run interference on vulture funds. iCare Housing was established to ensure the most vulnerable were protected in this regard. We will look to phase 2, which will run direct interference on vulture funds as fast and aggressively as we humanly can. This legislation is essential because it is radical and would put on immense pressure. Something I did not mention is even if the vulture funds buy the loans I hope this legislation would capture it, so it would be a safety net. There is a mechanism to radically restructure those loans by buying them out. The ECB is not our friend. It may very well wake up one morning and decide to instruct banks to move much faster than any of us will ever know, and that is a clear and present danger.