Denis Naughten (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Independent) | Oireachtas source

The Minister might come back to me at some stage on the IBRC issue.

On amendment No. 4, the fundamental difference between a vulture fund and a bank or other credit institution operating in Ireland is that the latter is here for the long term, bearing in mind the need to maintain brand reputation. In the case of a vulture fund, as soon as house prices increase, as is the case, a bubble is created in the market, thereby providing a financial incentive for it to cash in and put people out on the street. The purpose of my amendments is to put in place an additional safety net to ensure that, as part of the repossession process, families would not be faced with homelessness or having to secure temporary accommodation. It is important it be stated in law that where a family home is to be repossessed, a court must give due consideration to whether the family has the financial resources required to find private rented accommodation in what is a very challenging market or an assurance from a local authority that it can provide them with accommodation.

This additional tool would be beneficial towards ensuring that vulture funds, in particular, do not put the squeeze on families, repossess their property, sell it off to an investor and cash in and get out of the country. It would ensure there would be consideration for the long-term impact they have on the particular family and the economy as a whole.

See this speech in context