Dr. Aideen Hayden:

I will hand some of these questions over to my colleague, Mr. Diarmaid O'Sullivan. On the question of 20 as a number, we do not believe in it. Our view on it is that where institutional investors are involved we do not care whether the number is 20, 19, 18 or 17 or 1. The bottom line is they are institutional investors and we want to see those properties sold with the tenancy intact. On receiverships and the point that was made about banks having their property scattered in an area, the question arises of what is defined as a geographic area.

In my opinion, it can be a portfolio held by a bank. To my mind, they are institutional investors and should qualify as such.

Our point on receiverships is simple. The property should be sold and, in an ideal world, with the tenancy intact. The issue of buy-to-let receiverships is significant. One issue of concern is that local authorities and voluntary housing bodies have a mandate from the Government to purchase properties on the open market. They are restricted to only buying properties where there is vacant possession. Obviously, this excludes them from buying properties in receivership where a tenancy is in situbecause the purchased property is supposed to be made available to the local authority housing waiting list. Accordingly, if it is bought with a tenancy intact, then in some way that subverts that process. We need to find a vehicle or some manner in which local authorities and voluntary housing associations can buy properties where receivers have been appointed and where tenants are in situ. A significant number of these tenants are already on the local authority housing waiting list and in receipt of rent supplement. A significant number of them are also vulnerable and liable to end up in homeless services. Will this be considered by the Department an important measure to take? We are limiting our capacity to purchase properties by insisting they are left vacant.