Mr. Shane O'Sullivan:

I will take that as two questions and will start with the one about the borrower. We have a responsibility as bankers to ensure that the capital that is effectively at risk, the amount that needs to be repaid at the end of a restructure, is payable. Across the system there is a legitimate treatment, interest only, in buy-to-let. It is our second most popular restructure at 30%. We offer it when we are satisfied that the capital at the end of the re-term can be repaid through the sale of that property. We are also mindful of risk. Our preference is that if landlords can repay the interest plus a portion of the capital, that is a better position for the landlord and the bank. There is less capital at risk and a stronger plan for the repayment of capital at the end of the term. That opens up options for the borrower who may not need to sell the property at the end of the term.

This is the thinking behind the restructures we put in place for buy-to-lets. We fully respect the issue raised with regard to tenants. For us, it is important there are tenants in the property at all times. We do not have a fixed asset agreement, term or condition in our contracts. We do not have the authority if we wanted it, which we do not as it turns out, to repossess properties swiftly, exit the tenants and sell the property. Our buy-to-lets are treated very much like our home loan contracts. It is in our interests that there are tenants in place. The only time we will appoint a rent receiver is where there are tenants in place and they are paying rent but the rent is not being paid to the bank to pay for the mortgage. In a situation like this we will appoint a rent receiver to look after the interests of the borrower and the tenants.