Almost every day my office is contacted by families who are at their wits' end and fearful of losing their homes. Some are hardworking families who, due to unemployment or illness, have fallen behind in their mortgage repayments. Others are private tenants who are meeting their monthly payments but whose homes are subject to repossession proceedings. These families are willing to engage, to make alternative arrangements and to do whatever it takes to keep their family homes. Unfortunately, the Government is failing these families. When the Government passed the Personal Insolvency Act in 2012, we warned the Government that giving the banks a veto was a big mistake. We were right. When the Government passed the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act in 2013, we told the Government that this would lead to an explosion of repossession cases. We were right on this too. The number of family homes and buy-to-let homes in long-term mortgage arrears is rising. There are now more than 100,000 homes at imminent risk of repossession. That is 100,000 individuals and families under threat of homelessness. In light of this evidence, does the Tánaiste now accept that the Government's response to the mortgage crisis has failed? Will the Tánaiste tell these struggling and stressed-out families what the Government proposes to do to help them keep their family homes and the roof over their heads?

The Deputy will be aware that the number of people in negative equity and mortgage difficulties is falling. It is not falling as far or as fast as I would like, but it is decreasing. The Taoiseach and I recently met with the Insolvency Service of Ireland and with personal insolvency practitioners, PIPs, who arrange deals with the banks and other mortgage suppliers where there are difficulties with mortgages. There is a problem at the moment in respect of the banks; it is not simply the case that some of the debtors are not engaging. I listened to the stories of personal insolvency practitioners from the four corners of the country. They indicated that in many cases a great deal of work had been done on an arrangement for a family or an individual with mortgage difficulties, but at the last minute, or during the process, the banks failed to engage. This is a problem; there is no doubt about it.

I have previously stated that the bankruptcy period ought to be reviewed. We reduced the bankruptcy period to three years in the legislation establishing the Insolvency Service of Ireland. There may be merit in examining the case for reducing it even further. This would help bring both parties together where workable solutions are available, because the situation is extremely stressful and worrying for the families described by Deputy McDonald.

Mortgage difficulties are particularly acute in the upper Shannon basin. During the previous Government's tenure, this region was the subject of a significant amount of tax allowance schemes for building and development. A number of reports show that this region remains an area of particular concern, with many families in difficulty.

My Department has established tenancy protocols in Dublin and across the country. We are working in conjunction with voluntary organisations such as Threshold, Focus Ireland and Simon to assist tenants who are at risk of losing their homes. They will get advice from my Department and the various organisations mentioned. It is intended that they would be able to negotiate staying in their family home. This has worked out very successfully in a significant number of cases.

My question and my remarks referred specifically to the fact that more than 100,000 homes are at risk of imminent repossession. This is the level of distress among residential mortgages and mortgages in the buy-to-let sector. Let us remember that buy-to-let properties are homes for many thousands of families across the State.

In 2012, we argued for a public insolvency service which would have the authority to make binding settlements in cases of mortgage distress. This system would be similar to those in other European jurisdictions.

The Government refused to listen to that argument at the time. Instead, with its eyes wide open, it gave the banks the power to dictate terms to distressed mortgage holders.

The eviction Bill.

That was a disgraceful decision and a huge mistake. We are now seeing the consequences of that mistake. The Government made it easier for banks to repossess family homes than in 2013. A combination of these factors explains why the banks now behave in an ever more aggressive manner with struggling homeowners, as the Tánaiste has acknowledged. It also explains why the number of repossession cases lodged with the courts has increased tenfold since 2013.

The Government's response to the mortgage crisis has obviously and patently failed. The Tánaiste acknowledged this morning that there are some difficulties. What she has not told us in concrete terms is what she proposes to do. Does she propose to remove the banks' veto? Does she propose to return to the 2012 legislation and correct the huge error that has affected very many distressed families, who I am sure have been in touch with the Tánaiste just as they have made contact with me? They are paying the price for the Government's mistake.

Does the Tánaiste accept that the approach to date has failed? Will she remove the banks' veto? Will we return to the 2012 legislation? Let us return to it, remove the veto and give people a fighting chance of holding on to their homes.

With regard to the Deputy's proposal on the banks, the important point from the perspective of everybody in the country, including people suffering from mortgage distress, is that we have banks that function properly as banks, give credit and also lend mortgages for new homes. There has to be balance, however. In developing a balanced policy, I assume Sinn Féin would want functioning banks that can lend credit to businesses.

They are not giving credit.

We inherited a banking system that had collapsed and we had to address it. Figures from the Department of Finance show that, with regard to the six main banks, the number of people in arrears for more than 90 days has actually fallen very significantly, by over 15,500 accounts, by comparison with the figure for the start of 2014. This is a process that has to be worked through.

Creative accounting.

There are several difficulties. First, to get any settlement, there has to be engagement between the debtor and lender. There was a significant number of debtors who, to their detriment, were not engaging at all. It is vital that anybody with this kind of difficulty engage with his bank.

The banks have a veto.

Open the gates. The Government will not try to close them.

Please. We cannot hear.

We established the Insolvency Service of Ireland. The bankruptcy period and the settlements that were available for people-----

Ring Ivan Yates.

-----in debt or arrears were extremely confined in Ireland. We now have a range of measures in this regard. My Department runs, sponsors and finances the Money Advice and Budgeting Service, which deals with quite a number of difficult cases.

It tries.

What is needed is for both sides to come together and an agreement to be reached in which there is some payment and some attempt to address the debt. That can be done. As I stated, I met personal insolvency practitioners at some length, together with representatives of the Insolvency Service of Ireland. There is more that we can do. One step we can take is to re-examine the period of bankruptcy in the State. The periods in other countries are lower and that seems to be more successful in facilitating negotiations between the two parties to reach an agreement.

I asked a very specific question on the legislation of 2012, the banks' veto and the need to revisit the legislation to remove the veto. Could the Tánaiste state whether the Government intends to remove it?

I cannot hear all the answers. Has the Tánaiste anything else to add to what she has said?

There is no proposal to review that legislation.

That is fine.

Keep the veto; that is great.