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

That is fair enough.

I am not a landlord but even if I were, as a Deputy I would be able to look at a Bill or proposal that comes forward on its merits. The idea that other colleagues cannot do so is somewhat unfortunate. It might grab a few headlines but it is an unfair charge. I am not a landlord. I was previously an accidental landlord, if Deputy Barry wishes to know, as many other people are. I was left with a property that I lived in, which my wife and I purchased at the height of the market and sold at a substantial loss and which I am still paying off. There are lots of people like me who are in that boat. If Deputies want to demonise the 90% of landlords who own one or two properties, many of whom were left in that position, that is fine.

I am interested in solutions. I read the Bill and I agree wholeheartedly, as we did previously, with how receivers and lenders who have taken possession of properties should be dealt with. They should be included in the definition of a landlord. Fianna Fáil tabled an amendment to the Planning and Development (Housing) and Residential Tenancies Bill 2016 to allow that to happen. We discussed it with Government at the time and we are still committed to doing it. I hope we will see this happen in the Government's proposed residential tenancies (amendment) Bill.

I want to pass legislation that makes a difference. We can be very simplistic about it if we wish and I believe Deputy Barry knows he is being simplistic with elements of the Bill. Every day unfortunately I deal with people who are homeless or under threat of homelessness. If I thought for one minute that passing this Bill and particularly the element of completely disallowing the reason of sale for the issuing of an eviction notice, I would vote for it. However, Deputy Barry and his colleagues need to convince us that it is constitutional and would stand up to challenge. Unfortunately, having looked at it we do not believe it would. There may be an unintended consequence. If this is something they really wanted to do and they did not to just want to grab headlines and try to sell a simplistic solution that they know will not work, they should point out how this could actually be done in law. I do not believe that could be done. Do they not accept that bringing in this blunt measure would result in a flight of many other individual landlords, many of whom are good people and have had tenants for years? I want to see increase in supply and stable housing. As the Minister knows, I have been highly critical of the overdependence on housing assistance payments. We need to work towards the implementation of cost-rental models.

I say this with all due respect to Deputy Boyd Barrett because many of us are dealing with cases such as that of Elaine, Seamus and Michael all over the country. If we pass this Bill now it will not stop future evictions or solve this crisis. Even on a temporary basis I do not see how it would. While elements of it are well meaning, it is simplistic in the extreme.

I absolutely agree with the receivership amendment. Where homes are handed over and sold, tenants should not be affected. I do not see the reason for it. When the Minister responds he should outline the status of that. We have said Fianna Fáil will introduce legislation in this regard if that is not done.

My party and I have been very disappointed with the delay in publishing the residential tenancies (amendment) Bill. I hope that when it is finally published that we can move on with the elements of it that we agree on. I have worked with Deputy Ó Broin and Sinn Féin, and have worked with the Minister in trying to strengthen tenants' rights, and look at purpose-built student accommodation and other elements. The legality around tenancies, licence to reside and this whole market is not simple. It is incumbent on the elected Members of this House to ensure that anything we pass is constitutional, stands up to legal challenge and can actually be done, as opposed to just publishing an anti-evictions Bill and claiming it is the panacea for all our ills. It is not and everyone knows it. The proposers of the Bill know it contains elements that are deeply flawed.

With all due respect to Deputy Coppinger I do not see much difference between this Bill and the one presented previously. I absolutely agree with the inclusion of receivers and lenders. The blanket prohibition of sale of property as grounds for terminating a tenancy may lead to more people leaving the market and actually exacerbating the problem and driving up rents. That is not what my party wants to do and we could not support legislation that does that. However, we would absolutely support the receivership element of the Bill.

See this speech in context