The problem for the Government is that the bankers are being included as part of the solution. They should no longer be regarded as such, as stated by Ms Muldoon yesterday. She said the bankers are in denial such that they deny there is any problem at all. Like Mr. Micawber in David Copperfield, they are looking for something to turn up. Ms Muldoon was saying the banks are waiting and postponing. They are waiting for the economy and housing market to improve. They are waiting for anything to come to their rescue, including the insolvency Bill. However, this will not sort out the problem, which has the potential to make the night of the bank guarantee look like a picnic. This is because the banks involved are not just in denial, they are, according to Ms Muldoon, involved in a policy of "extend and pretend". That means denial but it also means delay and deceit. The Government is trying to involve people, who are well practised in this area, in what it regards and what may well be a logical process of insolvency. The process the Taoiseach has outlined will not succeed if those people and their institutions carry so much influence.

We know the bankers have been involved in deceit not just in this matter but in respect of the amount of money they claim is being given to small businesses. They have lied to the Government, the Central Bank and the people. They are pretending that what they had as old loans, including those associated with Anglo Irish Bank and Bank of Scotland (Ireland), represents new lending. It is not new lending. The banks are lying about these figures and other matters. These bankers cannot be treated as normal human beings, nor can their practices be treated as normal. This is what Ms Muldoon was saying yesterday. The banks are frustrating Government and Central Bank policy and they are delaying and obscuring. This was echoed by Mr. John Moran when he said the banks would have to recognise that some debts would not be paid. Is the Taoiseach satisfied that State-owned bodies, which are ultimately under his control, are patently frustrating the wishes and designs of his regulator?

I am most certainly not satisfied with the pace of resolution. As I stated, the Government, when appointed, examined the mess in the Irish banking system, from which capital was haemorrhaging. Some 250,000 jobs were lost and there was hopelessness, despair and disillusionment in many business circles. This is why the Government acted as it did to restructure, recapitalise and reorganise the banks. The Government consulted the Governor of the Central Bank on the regulatory authority and the requirements to regulate banks and have a code of conduct. As a consequence, the banks were asked to submit, before a given deadline, their proposals to deal with mortgage distress, arrears and debt.

The Government said that we stood ready to give extra authority and powers if necessary.

Only this morning the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation signed off on the partial loan credit guarantee scheme following on from the micro-finance agency, which the Government introduced recently so that small and medium-sized enterprises and those involved in business could get credit. The Government has also promoted very strongly the Credit Review Office, which in a small number of cases has overturned decisions of banks not to give credit to businesses in the first instance.

I am not satisfied that the level of engagement for resolution is at the pace that it should be. We have met the banks on a number of occasions at the Economic Management Council. They have been told in very plain English what is the requirement. Banks have responded by saying that they are recruiting individuals who have a competency in dealing with people who are in distress, anxiety and concern. I want to see that happen.

In parallel to what can be done today, tomorrow and the day after, legislation will proceed through the House regarding insolvency arrangements, including debt forgiveness and debt write-downs. The banks know that if they do not deal on a bilateral basis with their clients, those people are going to have the opportunity to have a different structure available to them to bring about a resolution to what is causing them so much stress and concern every day.

I thank the Taoiseach for his reply and I am glad to hear that his level of satisfaction is rising by the day and that he was encouraged by the two civil servants yesterday. The Government is unwilling to take sufficiently strong action on this matter. The words used by Ministers and the Taoiseach are to the effect that the banks are "being advised," "being encouraged", "being pressurised" and have been given various advices "in plain English". Bankers do not take advice. They do not listen to encouragement.

The Deputy advised them for a long time.

The Central Bank has stated that under the guise of a commercial mandate, the two pillar banks and other banks are still practising as though they were independent bodies irrespective of the wishes of the Government and the Central Bank. The Government should put the boot on the necks of the banks and give them specific instructions. If this means, as Deputy Adams suggested, that legislation must be introduced to ensure Government control over areas where the banks are abusing mortgages and interest rates, it should be done. Will the Taoiseach outline the specific measures the Government will introduce to enable it to force the banks to behave on a day-to-day basis in a manner that is acceptable to it and in the national interest?

The Deputy advised banks himself for a good while over the years. I am not sure that they listened to him in his professional capacity. He talked about putting the boot on the necks of the banks. We rely on external investment into the banks to keep the system moving. This is important as the economy begins to turn around. Banks are regulated, as the Deputy is well aware, by the regulator. We have had interaction with the regulator, who is exceptionally competent in the work that he does. He has required banks to submit to him their proposals on implementing a range of measures to deal with mortgage distress and persons who are in arrears or who have debts. They have outlined these to him, some in a very complex form. The regulator has reported on this matter regularly at EMC meetings.

In plain English, banks have been made aware of their requirements and of what the Government wants them to do. In reality, this means that the family that is distressed today because it cannot meet its mortgage repayments for whatever reason will not have its situation sorted out unless the banks sit down with the client - the family, the husband and wife - and set out the range of issues, solutions and options that they want to talk to the family about. Arising out of those discussions can come a solution to the particular problem. If that does not happen, the insolvency Bill will require the banks to deal with the family's particular problem.

I would like to think that following these genuine interactions, banks will respond and prove that their activity levels are being seriously upgraded to deal with the number of people who are waiting to have resolutions brought about in their cases. This is in respect of those who are not in a position to pay as distinct from those who can. From this point of view, if the Government receives a request from the regulator that further powers are required, further powers will be given.