Mr. David Hall:

I will not labour the point but we are dealing with speculation around people's circumstances and their not being able to pay versus the evidence.

Returning to the Abhaile scheme, it had 4,277 engagements of individual mortgages, which related to 7,246 people. That is only in the last 18 months. That is a very big number of people willing and wanting to engage with the Abhaile scheme. That is the number of vouchers that were given out. I will outline where the problem lies. Speaking on the insolvency statistics for the first quarter of 2018, Mr. Burgess gave the impression that this process is some sort of àla carte, automatic thing where someone walks in, grabs a PIA and walks out the door again. That is not what happens. There were 870 applications, 409 protective certificates and 219 PIAs. If everyone was to go through an insolvency arrangement, it would take 38 years. If the committee asked the personal insolvency practitioners who are engaging in the Abhaile scheme, I guarantee they would say it is a massive number of people to engage belatedly in the process, to re-engage with the scheme. The personal insolvency practitioners can see that no one has money. Money is the problem. It is not questions of intent or will or that it is a moral issue, and that they do not want to pay or they want to screw their neighbour or get a freebie. No one wants to be in this situation. It is delusional to think for a minute that a couple who had lost their job, livelihood and health is sitting at home wanting to take advantage of the system, they just have no money. The evidence is very clear. If one looks at the insolvency figures: 870 applied, 409 progressed to a protective certificate but only 219 went on to a personal insolvency arrangement and 40% were rejected by banks, the alleged engagers that are now accusing debtors of not engaging. That is 40% in a prescribed legal process that was introduced by this House, where the banks turned around and said "No". The evidence is abundantly clear. The problem is that we are making a serious, dangerous mistake if we think that people sitting at home who cannot pay simply do not want to pay. It is a very serious and dangerous assumption to make and one on which we will perish if we do not engage with this now.