Mr. David Hall:

They do for the solutions. They have. They have prescribed solutions that they have taken from the Central Bank, and the Central Bank has allowed them to do it. They do not do anything radical additionally. They do not do anything creative to reflect someone's set of circumstances. If a borrower cannot fit into their model, they simply repossess the house. However, they have now decided that it is less attractive to repossess individual houses than it is to sell to vulture funds. They have made the calculated gamble of selling to the funds. The funds provide zero solutions.

There are two different categories of people that are very important here. Firstly, there are people who have not engaged, for various reasons. I believe that most cannot pay, have sought advice and just do not go forward. However, the situation is worse than that. There are thousands of people who have engaged, and despite the bank lovers, banks and the Central Bank castigating them, they have actually provided the information. The data exists within the banks' records that proves they cannot pay. How many of them are there? That is the No. 1 question. Why are they in court if they cannot pay? The bank has verified they cannot pay and they do not meet any of its solutions. That is where our mini-NAMA comes in. They will lose their homes. There is absolutely nothing surer in the world, even if they stay with a bank. Forget the vulture funds. If all the vulture funds were banned in the morning, they will still lose their homes. That is the problem.