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

First, I will speak to amendments Nos. 69 and 117. Increasing security for tenants and landlords is essential to the development of the rental sector as an attractive tenure choice and as a safe and feasible investment choice for a range of investors. The rental strategy includes a range of measures aimed at enabling a move towards secure long-term tenancies. This is where most people in the House want us to go. One of our measures, action 8 of the rental strategy, commits to amending Part 4 of the 2004 Act to provide that a Part 4 tenancy will last for six years rather than four. This is intended to be the first step in a transition to tenancies of indefinite duration. The idea was very much a part of the Fianna Fáil submission on the rental strategy as well as the strategies of the Labour Party, Sinn Féin and perhaps others. Certainly, that is the direction we need to go. I took the view that if we jumped there in one go, it might cause problems from a supply point of view. I referred to this matter earlier.

Amendments Nos. 69 and 117 provide for this change and the consequential amendments that arise. I have set out that these provisions will commence on the day following the passing of the Bill. Once a tenant has rented a dwelling for more than six months, the tenant will now be entitled to stay at that dwelling for six years. Amendments Nos. 86 and 87 provide for consequential drafting amendments to an Opposition amendment to section 35 on Report Stage in the Seanad.

Amendment No. 92 is known as the Tyrrelstown amendment. It provides for the increase in the number of dwellings to which section 35 applies from five to ten. The original figure was 20 dwellings and this was amended to five on Report Stage in the Seanad. The purpose of the Tyrrelstown amendment was to indicate to institutional investors buying large-scale developments that when these properties are sold, the existing tenancies in those properties will be protected.

The figure of 20 units was chosen because anything above it represented a medium-sized development. I want to ensure that when medium-sized and large-scale developments are bought and sold, tenants will be protected through the process in order that we will not have a repeat of what happened in Tyrrelstown. By and large, these developments are managed by professionally-managed funds, professional landlords and so-called vulture funds. In drafting the Tyrrelstown amendment, the Department was aware that restricting the use of the ground of sale to terminate a tenancy could be regarded as an interference with constitutionally-protected property rights. The number of dwellings was chosen to ensure that this interference was both proportionate and justified. I am told this is a requirement if we seek to proceed in this way.

Let us suppose a landlord has one property with a tenant and he is looking to sell that property. The rights of the landlord in terms of ownership and sale, and the potential reduction in value if he were to sell it with a tenant in it, interferes with a person's property rights. Let us suppose a landlord is an owner of 40 properties each with tenants. It is surely both proportionate and justified that the rights of those 40 would override the property rights of an individual in the Constitution. That is why when we have multiple numbers; it is both proportionate and justified to do what we are doing. However, if it is a question of the right of one person as a tenant versus the constitutional property rights of the owner as a landlord then there is an issue. This is what I have been told.

I have much sympathy for the spirit of what we are trying to do. I introduced the so-called Tyrrelstown amendment early. I did so not when the Bill was progressing but during the summer, because I took the view that it was the right thing to do. However, I cannot ignore legal advice either. I have taken legal advice from the Attorney General on this issue. While I am not seeking to return the number of dwellings to which the amendment applies to 20, I believe that, having taken the advice, ten is the appropriate number.

To be clear, I sought legal advice from the Office of the Attorney General after Report Stage in the Seanad because we were concerned about the matter at the time. In fact, I raised it with colleagues. While the number of units was reduced from 20 to five, the Attorney General advised that ten was the more appropriate number. Reducing it to five would have significantly-----

See this speech in context