In response to Senator David Norris, it is important to highlight the case dealt with by the Court of Appeal. The matter was referred in a case stated in the High Court. The Senator is right that it was in relation to the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act. It was decided that such cases could not be brought before the Circuit Court but could be brought before the High Court. One case involved a landlord who owned six properties on which repayments were not being made to the financial institution. If they are not being made to the financial institution, the taxpayer is paying. While I am very concerned when a family home is repossessed, I am not concerned in the same way about cases in which landlords are collecting rents but not making repayments to financial institutions, which is happening.

Neither am I.

That is important. In my experience of dealing with county registrars, in any case in which the property owner is not consenting, the matter is referred to court for decision, as Senator Michelle Mulherin said. The county registrar does not take the decision. County registrars do not receive a premium of 7.5% when they give a decision. The issue does not arise in the scenario in which they make a decision on such a matter. They are not entitled to a premium of 7.5% if the bank repossesses the property by consent. The figure of 7.5% arises only when the county registrar acts as a sheriff. It is important to clarify the matter. I have produced a detailed reply which I have already given to Senator David Norris. I have replied to the queries raised.