Mr. David Hall:

On the Deputy's last point, what members have been doing collectively and individually throughout this crisis has put the focus on the vulture funds and their behaviour. Some will say vulture funds write off debt. They do, but they also make people homeless. If a person wants to rid himself or herself of assets and have his or her debt written off, vulture funds is the place to go. We are not in that business. We are in the business of housing people, keeping people in their homes and allowing them time to recover. In regard to the Deputy's point about a win-win, one of the biggest win-wins is that there is no cost from this to the State. Mortgage-to-rent costs the State, but it was always going to cost the State anyway.

In regard to radically restructuring loans, Mary and Joe pay the €650 on their €300,000 loan that they cannot service. There is no State intervention. What is proposed would be a phenomenal win for the State not only in terms of mental health costs, but in terms of people being able to remain in their homes and dealing with issues. One of the most important features of this is that there is no State subsidy required. In regard to the size of the batches, they are frightfully high. There are a number of rule changes coming into effect in the first quarter of next year under which the European Central Bank, ECB, is requiring the banks to make provision for greater amounts of money against non-performing loans. Non-performing loans are the issue. Many of the large firms in Dublin are now changing their entire structure to advising banks on how to deal with non-performing loans, such is the risk to them.

In regard to products like split-mortgages, serious questions are now being raised around the parked amount of money, where it falls in a non-performing loan and the capital allocation component of it. The landscape is changing. It is becoming more aggressive. I am concerned about the synchronisation that is going on. Banks synchronise things. They will synchronise the press statements today after the sheriff gives them the go ahead. Another issue is the banks' synchronisation of the sale of loans. They are powerful if they sell loans together. If all of the banks in quick succession release loans to the vulture funds collectively, they give themselves phenomenal political cover. This is a campaign. It is hand combat with vulture funds. There is no polite way of saying it: this is war on vulture funds to protect a significant number of family homes. This is not pie in the sky stuff, and it is doable, but it requires an orchestrated campaign on the negatives of vulture funds, which is continuing, and actual solutions. What we need is a body to take on these loans and manage them sympathetically. We are not asking anybody to roll over. Anybody who thinks they can game the system will find themselves at the end of repossession proceedings. This is about helping the majority of people who are in trouble.

As I said, this is possible. The number of loans involved is enormous. We are speaking not only about loan sales, but tens of thousands of people, men, women, children and grandparents. Many qualified and educated people, and others, assume that these people are well able to deal with debt. Debt cripples and crushes them and so there needs to be a direct radical intervention to assist them. This legislation in conjunction with other legislation will send out a clear message and, hopefully, move loans and families away from vulture funds into arms that might provide them with some chance of remaining in their homes.