Damien English (Meath West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I suspect that a man in the Senator's position would not ask the question if he did not know the answer. There is no law to prevent it happening. There is a mistake being made here in that people think a receiver can walk in and turf the tenants out. They cannot. The tenants' rights, obligations and security of tenure do not change if a receiver takes over their homes. There are other issues regarding deposits, etc. That is a different story. A perception has been given here and on Committee Stage that if a receiver takes over, the tenant's security is diminished. It is not. There is an obligation, and it does not change. It is based on the length of time a tenant has been renting and occupying a property. This does not mean a receiver will not try to evict tenants. However, legally the receiver cannot. Tenants are entitled to their security of tenure, be it four, six or, in some cases, nine months. It is the law and I have seen it in practice.

We are examining the other issues, including deposits, in the rental strategy. While I do not want to disappoint Senator Alice-Mary Higgins, some of the changes she wants are premature, given that the rental strategy is due to be published within a couple of weeks. The legislation will not be finished before the rental strategy is published, that much I can promise. If any changes need to be reflected in the legislation to speed up the protection, we will do it. Many of the issues the Senator has raised here will be addressed in the rental strategy.

Security of tenure is not affected. A receiver does not have any more rights to make people sell their properties or evict them. Tenants have rights under the Residential Tenancies Act, and that is the bottom line. There is an issue to find solutions to encumbered buy-to-let properties. It is an important focus of the strategy and we are examining the possibility of four amendments to the Residential Tenancies Act which could help bring greater clarity to the area and benefit tenants and receivers alike. I accept that appointing a receiver can cause people concern. There are interpretations and confusion, and it causes distress. However, the statutory or contractual rights of tenants under the Residential Tenancies Act do not change. It is affecting people's decisions regarding how they will vote in this debate.

The reason we are reluctant to make other changes before the rental strategy is published, although Senators may raise relevant issues, is that the interplay between the receivership laws and the Residential Tenancies Act is very complex and it is imperative we do not make any amendments that make matters worse or lead to legal uncertainty. It would not help anybody, tenants, receivers or landlords. I am not just being awkward. There is a concern and it is a very complex area of law. We are developing the rental strategy and everything is being examined. We will make relevant changes, if need be. Although Senator Alice-Mary Higgins does not say it, others speaking on her amendment keep saying people can be turfed out at a day's notice. It is not the case. Tenants have rights, and in some cases they may need to be given nine months notice. A receiver cannot change this.