Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

While I understand motives behind the amendment, I agree with the Minister on this. This will have a consequence for the market that could be even more detrimental and cause a further flight of landlords. I have problems with institutional landlords, particularly with some of the funds and banks that have entered the market. A Minister for Justice and Equality in the previous Government, Mr. Alan Shatter, passed the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2013 and made a commitment to examine the requirement for vacant possession, particularly in instances where investment properties were taken over by banks or lenders. That is a big issue for people.

The Central Bank, in its report for the final quarter of 2018, indicated that approximately 15,000 mortgages were in grave difficulty and could reach the point where banks and institutions would move on them. In some circumstances, these institutions serve notices to quit and then rent out the properties again to newer tenants. They put them back on the market. The suggestion of Deputies Ó Broin and Boyd Barrett, to simply ban any sale of a property unless it is sold with a tenant, would not work. Most people know it would not work, as was proven in the Committee Stage debates on the Anti-Evictions Bill 2018. Having said that, the Deputies have highlighted that this is a real issue, as has my party. Does the Minister envisage an alternative approach being taken, albeit not as part of this Bill? What is his view on that? Most people who fall into homelessness do so via the private rental sector. We moved an amendment to a previous Bill which would oblige a financial institution to take on the roles and responsibilities of a landlord once it takes over a residential investment property. That is a tack that could be taken.