Last week thousands of Irish Nationwide mortgages were sold to two US debt firms, Loanstar and Oaktree. We are told the firms bought mortgages that were in arrears. I presume that is because they believe they will get most of their profits from families whose mortgages are in arrears. We do not know the discount at which the loans were sold, but there are a lot of things we do know. We know that sales of this type around the world typically attract discounts of 70%. A mortgage of €250,000 would be sold for approximately €75,000. We know the special liquidator did not ask Oaktree or Loanstar for a binding commitment on adhering to the CCMA. We know there will not be oversight of their voluntary commitments. We know the families were not allowed to bid on their own mortgages. The Minister cited a PwC report on this but he refused to release the report to the Dáil. We have since received a copy of the report from the special liquidator. The Minister has stated that neither he nor any of his officials has had access to the report.

The end of the report is quite interesting in that it shows the criteria used to disallow the families from bidding for their own mortgages. What we know from those criteria is that the welfare of these tens of thousands of men, women and children was explicitly excluded from any consideration. Worse than that, we know that when I asked the Government if it would pause the sales process to see if we could find a process that allowed the families to bid and return the same or more money to the State, the answer from the Government was, "No." In short, the Government has sold these men, women and children down the river.

I have met some of the families whose mortgages have just been sold to Lone Star and Oaktree. These are people who could have refinanced their mortgages at whatever discount has been given to these US debt firms but now will not, and many of whom will end up being evicted. What does the Minister say to these tens of thousands of men, women and children? What does he say to a family whose mortgage of €250,000 has just been sold to a US debt specialist for €75,000? How does the Minister explain to them that their interests were in no way considered in deciding not to let them bid on their own mortgages?

IBRC was liquidated by a special liquidator who was empowered to do so by special legislation that was brought through the Houses of the Oireachtas and the liquidator acted in accordance with that legislation. His primary mandate was to realise the best possible price for the assets he was disposing in the interests of the State and of the Irish taxpayer.

In that context, he made a decision to sell loan books rather than individual loans. That is the advice he got, I understand, from the document that Deputy Donnelly has referred to, and in doing so he succeeded in having a successful sale from the liquidator's perspective. He did not infringe on the rights of any mortgage holder. They have not been disadvantaged in any way by the transfer of their loans to a different owner. He also got assurances from both Lone Star and Oaktree that the protocols that have been put in place by the Central Bank for relationships between lenders and mortgage holders would be honoured.

I stated yesterday here in the House that we are preparing legislation to give a legislative base to that. I have sent the heads of the Bill to the Central Bank. I was not in a position to discuss the heads yesterday here in the House because they have not yet been legally proofed by the Attorney General's office, but I intend to have an ongoing dialogue in the finance committee and I will report progress on putting the statutory base under the formal commitments that have been given by the loan book purchasers.

The problem with all that is the Minister wrote the legislation that has determined all of this. He wrote and forced through here late at night the legislation that stated the Government would not consider the interest of the citizens. The Minister stated in reply to Deputy Pearse Doherty that he does not want to send out a signal to the international markets, to which the Government appears to be in thrall, that there is anything wrong here, yet he has no issue with not sending out a signal to the Irish citizens who elected him and whom he is meant to be looking after.

The Minister's position seems to be that we should hope everything works out and they voluntarily comply, but the policy is all about choice. These are the choices the Minister has made: do not consider the interest of the mortgage holders; do not provide the PwC report to the Dáil; do not ask the debt firms for binding commitments; do not provide oversight for how they behave; do not legislation to ensure they behave; do not let families bid on their own mortgages; and shroud everything in secrecy.

I am holding up what we got from the special liquidator. We managed to get a few pages with words on them, but most pages, I am sad to say, look like big black squares.

We are not entitled to display documents in the Chamber.

I am sorry, a Cheann Comhairle.

Outrageous. Democratic revolution.

What they did not redact was the criteria that were used based on the Minister's legislation. The criteria used were size of the loans, timing constraints, likely credible interest, risks associated with execution of the model, level of interest at the sectoral sector, estimated equity value and performance of the underlying business. In all those wide criteria, nowhere has crept in the interests of the tens of thousands of men, women and children involved. Why, as Minister for Finance, does Deputy Noonan stand over a process that was able to consider many different criteria but somehow was not able to consider the interests of Irish citizens?

Bankers' pals.

Deputy Donnelly's strong advocacy illustrates one of the main problems with the approach taken by the generality of the Opposition to all these and related matters. Nobody stands up for the taxpayer anymore. Everybody stands up for the individual who has a difficulty. The proposition always being put is that the individual who has a difficulty must be relieved by taking funds from the generality of taxpayers to relieve it. That is the position.

It is not.

It has been the position widely advocated on mortgage relief as well. The job of the liquidator is to ensure that he gets the best possible price for assets so that the taxpayer is not asked to contribute more to fill some kind of black hole-----

The State has already taken the cut.

-----if the liquidation does not produce full value. That is the position. It is much easier to present the individual case, but there is a general case as well which I am obliged under law to protect, that is, the protection of the generality of taxpayers so they do not get another bill.

What about the citizens?

That is the nub of the position----

-----and all the advocacy in the world will not remove that.

The liquidator was independent in the exercise of his functions. Those who participated in the debate when we brought in the legislation were very anxious that there would be no political interference with the liquidator, and rightly so. The liquidator is carrying out his mandate in accordance with law.

It is also true to say no single mortgage holder is worse off because Lone Star or Oaktree has his mortgage than he was when his mortgage was inside in IBRC. He is no worse off, but Deputy Donnelly is making a case that he should be better off and that the taxpayer should pay for it. That is the case Deputy Donnelly is making.