Dr. Aideen Hayden:

I take Ms Carroll's point. The system of landlord accreditation in Wales put a much heavier burden on landlords and a much greater onus on them than any ten NCT-type certificates. It requires them to receive training and education along the lines of continuing professional development.

I do not see members of the Irish Property Owners Association, IPOA, jumping up and down welcoming that one.

Through the NCT system, all we are doing is asking landlords to comply, not with additional burdens, but with what they are already required to do. There is no additionality. As Mr. McCafferty said, we are making it easier for the bulk of landlords who, as we are well aware, are compliant. Threshold is just as concerned about the loss of small-scale landlords in the system as anyone else. It is our tenants who are most at risk of small landlords leaving the private rented sector. Real estate investment trusts, REITs, and institutional investors do not want our tenants - low-income tenants on State supports like HAP. They are coming into the market at the top end and are not interested. I am not here to defend landlords but those trusts and investors are getting preferable tax treatment under the current system.

I am not suggesting we impose greater obligations on compliant landlords. I am simply saying there is a system with which people are supposed to be complying. All we are asking them to do is pay more or less the same money they are paying at the moment, which they can use to reduce their taxes, to get a certificate that says they are complying. This will maker it easier for local authorities, the RTB when it gets its enhanced powers, and the Department to identify those who are not complying, because that is the bottom line.