I share the sentiments expressed by the Taoiseach and the concerns expressed by him and An Teachta Micheál Martin. There is a particular need to provide prompt and effective multi-agency aftercare, particularly counselling for the victims of abuse. This applies also to their families and peer groups.

My question is about folks in mortgage distress. There are now almost 200,000 families in mortgage distress, double the amount when the Taoiseach entered government. Sin méadú scannrúil ar líon na ndaoine a bhfuil ag streachailt lena gcuid morgáistí. Tá eagla ar thuismitheoirí agus tá eagla ar theaghlaigh as they try to figure out whether to pay the mortgage or put food on the table. People are unable to sleep at night. The Taoiseach promised these families that there would be light at the end of the tunnel and that the personal insolvency service would be there to help them. Gheall sé é sin, ach cad a tharla? Grant Thornton analysed 1,057 real life cases of mortgage distress and found that 86% of the families in question were earning less than the reasonable living expenses set out by the Insolvency Service of Ireland. That means that these families have nothing left to pay down their mortgage debt. They have no excess income to pay upfront fees of more than €5,000. They are effectively excluded from the personal insolvency service. Does the Taoiseach accept that the personal insolvency strategy is flawed and will not work for many families? Accordingly, will he put in place a contingency measure if the analysis from Grant Thornton proves to be correct in order that no one is excluded?

Following analysis of the scale of mortgage distress, the Government has put in place a programme of actions and options for people who find themselves in mortgage distress or mortgage arrears. The rights of borrowers and lenders have been rebalanced, with the biggest shake-up of insolvency law in over 100 years. We have given additional mortgage interest relief to those who bought their houses during the so-called boom years of the bubble. The tools are in place for a range of options to be considered for people who find themselves in mortgage distress, of which there are many. At the end of June, there were 770,610 private residential mortgage accounts, of which 97,874, or 12.7%, were in arrears for greater than 90 days. The level of early mortgage arrears, for less than 90 days, continues to drop - it stood at 3.3% at the end of the first quarter. This is a welcome and positive trend and there are some signs of progress emerging. Some 80,000 mortgages have been restructured, while almost 24,000 new restructures have taken place in the past quarter. The Central Bank has indicated that almost 76.5% of the stock that was restructured are deemed to be meeting the terms of the restructured arrangements, in other words, that they can be a sustainable solution that works for the lender and the borrower.

That represents an improved position on what certainly was there previously. In addition, the banks have now 4,500 split mortgages, either in operation or being offered to customers, and those split mortgages will be listed on the Central Bank's statistics when they have operated successfully through a trial period for six months.

In regard to the other matters, the Grant Thornton report makes observations on the position. The personal insolvency arrangement was never deemed to be the be all and end all for all of these matters. It was another option to be considered where a practitioner would sit down with the person in mortgage distress and work out all of the options available in terms of the person's circumstances. Clearly, prior to getting into the personal insolvency agency, which only opened its doors quite recently, there is the requirement for banks and consumers to engage to see can a deal be cut in respect of what the customer's particular circumstances might be. From a Government point of view, I recognise that this is a fairly horrendous situation for many but, as I stated, 80,000 mortgages have been restructured, 24,000 of which have been in the past quarter. The Central Bank is the regulator here. It has set the targets for the bank. It has got the first reports in. It must audit these and verify that they meet sustainability criteria, in other words, that it works for the borrower and for the lender, for the time ahead. While Grant Thornton has made its observations, one needs to have the circumstances in every case laid bare before one can identify what is the best solution in respect of all of those so they can have a sustainable position worked out on both sides.

I thank the Taoiseach for his answer. Sinn Féin wants this project to work. We want borrowers to be taken out of mortgage distress but what Grant Thornton has come up with is not a view, but an analysis. The figure is quite revealing and telling. They found that 86% of the families they analysed have nothing left to use to pay down their mortgage debt. The problem with the scheme that the Government has put forward is if one allows the banks a veto over any insolvency arrangement, one also allows insolvency practitioners to charge up-front fees of between €5,000 and €7,000. Given that these facts perhaps indicate something of which the Government or those who planned this might not have thought, is it not important to get an independent element into the adjudication process so there would be a new category of agreement which would be an independent agreement on mortgage distress where the Government would set up a body where a mortgage restructuring panel would have the authority to impose whatever it thought was an appropriate way out of these difficulties? If these folk do not have the money to pay it, then what happens to them? Under the Government's scheme at present, they will end up homeless. I ask the Taoiseach to consider what I and my colleagues have suggested.

I remind him that two weeks ago during Leaders' Questions the Tánaiste gave an Teachta McDonald a clear commitment that no one would be barred from the insolvency service. The Taoiseach might not be able to respond to the detail that I outlined but surely he would repeat the Tánaiste's commitment that no one would be barred from the insolvency service. Under the current rules, that 86% would be barred.

The important aspect here is to be able to work out a solution for those who have a mortgage problem. The first issue is that there should be engagement between those who have borrowed and those who have lent. There is no point in having a situation where there is no engagement between them, which has been a feature of some of these cases. It will not go away. It is better to be dealt with. It has got to be dealt with by sitting down with the borrower to work out, based on the circumstances of each of them, what is the position. It is in the best interests of debtors and creditors to conclude an acceptable bilateral agreement, be it under the Personal Insolvency Act 2012, by debt settlement arrangement or by personal insolvency arrangement, and that can only be worked out when they sit down and talk to each other.

Clearly, the personal insolvency arrangement is of particular importance to those who are experiencing difficulties with repayment of their mortgages and will provide in the vast majority of cases a restructuring of their debt, although there are some cases that will emerge, the evidence of which we will see as the personal insolvency agency deals with increasing numbers of cases coming through, of clients who do not have any means, in which cases, obviously, one must find some solution. The creditor must consider carefully what the debtor's best options are and if the creditor uses refusal on that basis, it knows that it has no consideration if the person decides to go through to bankruptcy. Where this has applied in similar circumstances in other jurisdictions, the vast majority get worked out to a solution that is deemed to be, as they say, "sustainable". It would be in the interests of everybody, as the banks will be aware, to cut a deal to settle through the personal insolvency agency and avoid having to go the bankruptcy route where the banks lose heavily. That is why it is important that the other suite of measures that have been put in place by the Government should be explored by engagement between the borrower and the lender so that these matters can be worked out.

Will the Taoiseach commit that no one will be barred?

In that sense, I do not see where borrowers would be denied the right to have their particular circumstances explored and followed through, and a deal worked on.

I am asking the Taoiseach to commit that no one will be barred.