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

I have eight questions and might not get to all of them in the first round. Of the 26 heads of the Bill, only five relate to the title. That must be a new record. If I am correct, 80% of the heads of the Bill relate to other areas of reform of the Residential Tenancies Act. It is often the practice to throw in some non-consequential or semi-consequential amendments at the end of a Bill but 80% of a Bill not relating to the title is remarkable. I do not blame the officials for that. I know they act under the pleasure of the Minister.

An issue that caused significant confusion in the earlier session, to which the officials may have been paying attention, is what happens after the 90 days. The timeline provided by Ms Comer has answered some of the queries in that regard. There was confusion as to whether there is a second 90-day period, but she has made it clear there is no second 90-day period. What happens after the due date of the notice? Many landlords who issue a notice to quit on ground of sale want vacant possession because they believe they will get a higher price on the open market without a tenant in situ. If a tenant vacates on the due date and the landlord subsequently gets the same or lower price on the open market, does the landlord have to go back to the tenant who is no longer in situ and offer to purchase at the price originally offered by the tenant? If the answer to that question is "Yes", does a tenant who overholds and, strictly speaking, is in breach of the tenancy agreement not get that subsequent offer? What if a landlord does not want to put the property on the open market until it is vacant? The Bill seems silent on that point. Those are my first three questions.