Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

My understanding in respect of the Deputy's final question is that there is a legal view that interference with someone's property rights, in other words, the right to sell a property unencumbered, must be both proportionate and justified, irrespective of whether it applies to an individual or a fund which owns large numbers of properties. In other words, if the owner of 30 properties in one development chooses to sell all his or her properties, the question is whether it would be proportionate and justified to allow the landlord to kick everybody out to sell the properties. The reason we are introducing the Tyrrelstown amendment is that we do not believe it would be proportionate or justified for the landlord to do so. The scenario is different, however, in the case of someone who owns one property, which may be a family home or similar, and wants to sell the property. As a result of selling the property with a tenant in residence, the value of the property will be significantly less. In such circumstances, the question is whether it is proportionate and justified to prevent the landlord from selling his or her asset unencumbered. That is a genuine issue. This is not a bluff by us to try to have a figure of five or ten properties. A genuine legal issue arises where somebody is essentially told that, as a result of a change in the law, a property cannot be sold vacant and, therefore, the owner must accept a lesser value for the property because a tenancy will continue through the sales process. Is this proportionate and justified in respect of the constitutional rights of a person as regards his or her assets or property?

There is a grey area there and we had to make a judgment call in the case of Tyrrelstown as to whether that was justified and proportionate to ensure it could not happen again. In my view it is and I would defend that in court any day. How low should we go with the number before moving into that grey area of property rights versus the obligation on the State to reasonably protect tenants in situ? That is where the figure of five or ten is under discussion. That is my understanding of the judgment.

I cannot give an exact timeline on the indefinite duration issue. We looked at going straight to indefinite duration. I tested it with many stakeholders and got considerable negative feedback that people were not quite ready for it. So we are going from four to six and we will discuss in the future when we can take the next step. However, I do not want to give an exact date for it now, as that would create more uncertainty.

Tenants of approved housing bodies, AHBs, have more rights now than they previously had. I think the Deputy acknowledges that. There certainly is no diminution of rights as far as I know. I can check that again.