Mr. Patrick Sweetman:

In the context of resolving a housing issue, the option of buying the house rather than having someone put out on the street is probably a much more cost-efficient way of going about it, absolutely. I would agree with Deputy Coppinger on the question of home ownership. In fact, I think she is making my point in a different way. It is the great equaliser and an opportunity for people. Instead of having people with two or three houses - or because they have one house can then afford to buy another house whether it be for their family or otherwise - if the family have bought their house, whether it be through a local authority or privately in the past, it gives them the resource to enable a family member to buy a house in the future because they have an asset which they can put towards doing that.

I stand over the comment that it is a great equaliser in allowing people to improve their financial circumstances dramatically. Earlier on, I mentioned the Dublin City Council tenant-purchase scheme being re-introduced. That is very much to be welcomed because it plays to that exact point.

Deputy Coppinger took issue with my question concerning vulture funds through private equity funds. That is just where I have come from. Yes, Deputy Coppinger is right, I was a partner with Matheson. I am not a partner now and am not practising as a solicitor now. However, I think the use of the phrase "vulture fund" is disparaging and I simply prefer to use "private equity fund".