Ms Rosalind Carroll:

To summarise, we have lost 12,000 units in stock overall since 2016, which in the current framework is a difficult space. We had 319,000 units in 2016 on the private rental side and we are now down to 307,000, which is a concern for us. While we would support further security of tenure measures, we would like to see them coupled with some reforms on the supply side to ensure that we do not lose that diversity that I just spoke about.

Security of tenure is not an issue for institutional investors. They will have no problem with sale, and they will sell with tenants in situ. There is the risk that this would impact on the more vulnerable. In terms of security of tenure, one of the concerns I have is that landlords may then start to pick what they think would be short-term tenants, for example, students or people without family - people landlords think are more transient in the market. I would be concerned landlords might discriminate against certain elements of the market to give themselves room to be able to sell openly on the market. At the moment, there is a significant valuation issue. We have had cases come before us involving the Tyrrelstown amendment that came in during the time of the last legislation. In respect of that, evidence was provided of a 28% fall in the value of a home when sold with a tenant in situ. We have also liaised with some of the financial institutions to get an idea of where we are with valuations within that framework. It ranges from between 20% and 30% in terms of the impact of selling with a tenant in situ. We would like to normalise that so that we can get to a point where we can have that security of tenure with a sale with a tenant in situ.

I know everybody is pressurised for time. I will deal with Deputy Ellis's questions about receivers and banks. Yes, there are more and more receivers in the market. We probably have more clarity than we would have had a few years ago in terms of this. Officials from the RTB have been on interdepartmental working groups to work on this issue. A receiver has an obligation to ensure the maintenance of the dwelling is kept up during the receivership period. It is not explicitly stated in the legislation. What is explicit in the legislation is that the tenant has a right of offset if the maintenance is not carried out.