Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

While I do not wish to prolong the debate, I have a number of specific questions. On Second Stage, I asked two questions on the amendments to section 42, which I welcomed. Approved housing body tenancies now come under the terms of the Residential Tenancies Act, which is a welcome change. In the case of a person who has been a long-term tenant of an approved housing body, one of the anomalies of including such tenancies within the scope of the Act is that a six-month probationary period will apply. Many tenants have asked whether this will result in a diminution of their rights. In the round, the rights of such tenants are greatly strengthened by the decision to include their tenancies within the scope of the Residential Tenants Act and Residential Tenancies Board. Nevertheless, this remains a genuine concern of many tenants. I asked in my Second Stage contribution that the Minister respond to this specific query either on Committee Stage or a subsequent Stage of the Bill.

Another issue arose in respect of the removal of six-month probationary periods from subsequent four-year tenancies under Part 4, which is obviously a positive step. Does this provision give rise to any loopholes? Did officials examine whether the removal of the second six-month probationary period at the start of a second four-year period under a Part 4 tenancy will cause difficulties in terms of a rent review? While this is a very good change, one of the questions that has been asked is whether it will have any unintended consequences for rent reviews. While I do not believe that will be the case, I raise the issue because it is important.

I acknowledged that the move from four-year to six-year tenancies is welcome. On the issue of moving to indefinite duration, is there a notional timescale for moving beyond six-year tenancies? Will new arrangements be phased in over a number of years?

My final point is a question rather than a rhetorical comment. On Article 43 and the possibility that constitutional issues could arise in respect of interference with constitutional property rights where a landlord was prevented from issuing a notice to quit on the ground that a property was to be sold, I have two specific questions. The Minister cannot or will not share the legal advice received from the Attorney General on this matter. If there is no constitutional difficulty in placing such a restriction on a landlord who has ten properties, on what basis would such a constitutional protection apply in the case of a landlord with five properties or one property on whom the Minister imposes a restriction given that landlords must all enjoy the same constitutional rights? Likewise, we do not require commercial landlords to evict tenants in the event of a property's sale. In fact, the norm in commercial practice is to sell on commercial properties with the tenant in situ. Why is this not constitutionally possible in the residential rental sector when it is constitutionally possible in the commercial rental sector? These are genuine questions.