Last week in the Irish Examiner, it was reported that approximately 400 homes have been listed for repossession since 1 January. Across Munster, the figure is just under 700 since the beginning of the year. I was looking at Kilkenny, for example, where there are 93, and Carlow, where there are 65 repossessions before the Circuit Court. That is just a typical list of any one day. There are 93 on this particular list on 11 February last. It looks like 2015 is going to be the year of repossession, given the scale and volume of repossession cases now coming before our courts. The Taoiseach will know that the finance committee of the House was given information that up to 30,000 families were given letters threatening repossession from the banks. We know there are more than 38,000 in arrears over 30 days and two thirds of those in arrears, interestingly, are in employment. It seems that many of those in arrears are actually in a position to do sustainable deals with banks, but deals are not being done. Two thirds are in employment - that is a very striking figure.

I had a case during the week of a young couple with young children, both in State employment with reasonable incomes.

They had formerly been with IBRC. The Taoiseach sold all those people down the river when he sold those loan books to vulture funds. The result is there is absolutely no protection for them and no proper engagement, despite their very best efforts to engage.

A number of years ago when all of this was going through, the Taoiseach refused our proposition for an independent debt resolution settlement office. He recently met personal insolvency practitioners because we know the personal solvency system has not worked.

A question, please.

There have only been approximately 1,000 cases versus 15,000 cases, which the then Minister said would happen in year one. We do not even know the proportion of those 1,000 cases which were mortgage cases. Essentially, the Taoiseach has given the banks a free rein. What is happening is that property prices are rising. The banks are going after the cases where there is no longer negative equity, knowing they can get their money back but leaving families in limbo without a home, a roof over their heads and shelter. It is having a devastating impact on many families across the country.

As late as last September, we proposed the Family Home Mortgage Settlement Arrangement Bill 2014, which went through Second Stage. It would provide a mechanism to deal with family home repossessions and to protect families. It is a realistic mechanism, using the personal insolvency practitioner service. We are trying to be constructive and reasonable but all along the way with the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2013 and so on, the Taoiseach has ignored any suggestion from this side of the House to protect families and he has given the banks a completely free rein. Will the Taoiseach consider that Bill?

I disagree with the allegations made by Deputy Martin. When he mentioned selling people down the river, I assume he is referring to his own selling of our country down the river a number of years ago.

Look forward.

A consequence of that was a complete collapse of the construction sector, the loss of 100,000 jobs directly in the construction sector and negative equity inflicted on the vast majority of people in the country. The consequences of that crisis are still with us.

The Taoiseach said they were not spending nearly half enough at the time.

The Government put together a whole suite of opportunities for borrowers to engage with lenders, to cut deals and come to a conclusion, so that they would not lose their primary home. It is fair to say that significant numbers of letters have issued to people all over the country.

Some 30,000.

That is true. In quite a number of those cases, there has been no engagement whatsoever between the person who borrowed and the lender, which will never resolve the situation. In cases where the borrowers responded to the lenders, I am not happy with the situation where some banks appear to ignore the recommendations made by personal insolvency practitioners in the interests of cutting a deal and coming to a sustainable agreement for many house borrowers. A number of personal solvency people were before a Cabinet sub-committee recently and they gave some clear evidence of this. It is our intention to call in the banks very shortly to discuss the nature of the arrangements they make with people.

Nobody wants to see a primary dwelling go or to see a family out on the road in that sense. However, this will not be solved by leaving things untouched, by not negotiating or by not engaging. Banks and others are making money. We cannot have a situation where with confidence returning to the economy, borrowers are afraid to read letters, dump them and do not engage at all with the lender. That is not a solution. We have MABS, personal insolvency practitioners and others who negotiate with banks on behalf of borrowers for solutions which mean they can retain their family homes in the first instance. Nobody wants to see them lose their family homes. However, it takes the borrowers to engage, either directly or through any of the agencies that operate on their behalf, with the banks to come to a sustainable conclusion so they can hold onto their homes and at least have clarity about the future arrangements they will make, whether one of the whole range of options now available or otherwise.

I do not know what land the Taoiseach is living in at times.

Ireland.

Even his response suggested that it is the borrower's fault. His whole mind-set is through the prism of what the banks are telling him. Most Deputies and I are raising cases where there has been constant engagement by the borrower with the banks but the banks have worn them down and have not engaged in many cases. That is the point I am making.

When I talk about selling people down the river, I am talking about the IBRC liquidation in those cases. When the mortgage books were sold - we raised this in the House - absolutely no protection was provided, in any shape or form, for the borrowers and families in those situations.

The family I mentioned has engaged, chapter and verse, for three years with the IBRC and it has all been initiated by the borrower. The Taoiseach should please stop the patronising claptrap he is going on with that somehow it is the borrowers who are at fault, that they are not engaging or that they are ignoring letters. They are not. What is now happening is that the property prices are rising and the banks know they can get the full amount back and they are going after families in those situations and are not engaging in meaningful deals with them.

The Taoiseach is saying he is not happy and that he called in the personal insolvency practitioners. Why did he call them in? I warned the Taoiseach in July 2013 that this would happen. In an exchange on Leaders' Questions, he denied that there would be wholesale repossessions of family homes. It is now happening before his very eyes and in a public relations exercise last week, he brought in the personal solvency practitioners to find out what is going on on the ground. Everybody knows what is going on on the ground and it is time the Taoiseach intervened.

We have been constructive and have put forward legislation which would allow the utilisation of existing mechanisms to ensure there would be restructuring of family mortgages, in particular for families who own their homes, on a reasonable and a sustainable basis. That is not too much to ask for. It is too late for the Taoiseach to say he is calling in the banks yet again to have a chat with them about this. It is time for action and for mechanisms to be put in place.

I live in the same country as Deputy Martin which he destroyed economically and left no protection to any person in this country. It cost €64 billion.

It is beyond me how he can come into the House week after week with his patronising claptrap when he sold this country down the Swanee and took no responsibility for it.

Deputy Martin is wrong when he said that I blame the borrower. I said that in many cases, there is no engagement at all while in other cases, there has been. I made the point that the reason we called in the personal insolvency practitioners was to get from them first-hand evidence of where the banks are failing to cut deals after the personal insolvency practitioner has put forward a sustainable solution. I am not happy about that and that is why we will call in the banks to address that very matter. That is why it took a long time to put in place all of the options now on the table so that those hard-pressed borrowers and those distressed mortgagees can negotiate with lenders and arrive at one of a number of sustainable solutions. That is what the personal insolvency practitioners are for and where MABS and a number of other organisations have helped out.

It is true to say that thousands of letters have been sent out and that banks are back making money but it is not a case of waiting until property prices rise. Many of these mortgages have been restructured already but not enough and not quickly enough. I hope that following our engagement with the banks, we can come to a far more-----

Compel the banks.

-----realistic appraisal. When personal insolvency practitioners make an arrangement, I do not want to hear banks telephone the client to say they will not accept that deal but will accept it if the client gets rid of the personal insolvency practitioner in the first place and waives his or her fee. That is not good enough and I do not, nor will I, accept that from banks in the borrowers' interest.