Mr. Stephen Curtis:

In respect of legislation which may be required for a not-for-profit to buy loans, no changes are needed. It could happen tomorrow. An entity with the right ethos would simply need to be set up. The difference between a vulture fund and a not-for-profit is that a vulture fund purchases loans with the intention of realising the value of the security, that is, the houses, whereas a not-for-profit would purchase with a longer-term view. As we all know, vulture funds look to a time horizon of two to five years. A not-for-profit would probably be looking at 30 years, similar to an approved housing body. It would be interested in keeping people in their homes for a very long period and, over that time, giving those people a route back to ownership. That is something vulture funds do not do and that does not require any legislative change.

In respect of the proposals we are making here today and the Bill that is before the committee, they are very much complementary. The size, quantum and scale of this problem means that there will not be a one-shoe-fits-everybody solution. It requires multiple solutions for the different types of people involved. One of the challenges is that this whole crisis is now seven, eight or nine years old and the problems which have arisen have been left to fester for that long. It is very much a complementary proposal and suggestion. We are very supportive of the Bill before the committee at the moment. It is certainly needed. There is a group of people out there who have mortgages and who can pay some money back, although not enough. The likes of a mortgage resolution office and a mortgage resolution order would be of great help for such people.