Paul Murphy urges 12-month rent freeze and eviction ban

Deputy Murphy, you taking it for Deputy Barry, yes? Yeah, may I move amendments 6 and amendments 7, which effectively have the same purpose, which is to say that instead of the emergency period going on for a period of 3 months, that it will go on for 12 months. So what we're arguing is that the upward freeze on rents would not just be for 3 months, would be for 12 months, and the ban on evictions would not just be for 3 months, but it would be for 12 months. Look, it's clear, we've argued in the past that this should be a permanent measure, we've put forward an anti-evictions bill to do precisely this, we've argued in favour of an upward rent freeze in the past, we're in favour of these things being permanent, because we think it's what renters need in terms of having a break from the crisis that is currently going on, that has been going on. But even if it's not going to be permanent, we think there's a very strong argument to make it for at least 12 months. From one point of view, I mean, the restrictions that were agreed with are very severe and so on in the crisis at last week's stall sitting, they go until November, they go beyond 3 months. There's no reason that you have, you know, significant power has been given to the state for a period up until November, and yet a small bit of a break for renters only exists for 3 months. But also because the reality is, we all know that this emergency for renters is going to continue beyond 3 months, even in kind of a best-case scenario, that things are relatively back to normal by 3 months' time in terms of people being able to return to work, an end to very widespread social distancing, etc., etc., but the economic crisis that flows from this is going to continue. There'll be people without income for an extended period of time, and these renters deserve a break. They deserve a break from the threat of eviction standing over them. They deserve a break from potential increases in rents. So we think the government should accept that at the very least, if they're not willing to make these measures permanent, which I think they should, at the very least they should accept that these should exist for 12 months. First of all, both amendments 6 and 7 seek to have the 3-month emergency period extended to 12 months. We think this is unnecessary. Section 4 makes adequate provision that, should the need arise, the government can extend the emergency period beyond 3 months, as is necessary to take into consideration the development factors at the time on the device of the Minister for Health. And again, we're bringing in these emergency powers based on the emergency public health issue. In fairness, I know you have other policy considerations there on economic issues, which go longer than 12 months, and we'll be on that as a different conversation. These emergency powers, we believe, are based on advice, it's quite okay to do these for the public health reasons and the public health emergency. To go beyond that, we think Michael is going a bit too far with the legislation. We don't think it's necessary. There is a provision up to November to extend this, if need be, as well. In relation to amendments 8 and 13, again, the Minister for Housing Planning and Local Government must request a government order to be made, but can only do so having consulted with the Minister for Health and with the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. The aforementioned Ministers must be satisfied that it is appropriate to extend the emergency period having regard to the threat to public health. The reason we're here having this conversation is this threat to public health, the highly contagious nature of COVID-19 and the need to restrict the movement of persons to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Under Section 4.2 of the Bill, a government order made under this section shall be laid before the House of the Orchids, and if a resolution annulling the order is passed by either House within the next 21 days, so basically the House can annul it. If you don't, they're not happy with it, it can't be annulled. The danger here, the Deputy Prime Minister... No, we can't go into a long rigmarole about it. I'll tell you what I want to... One, does the Minister actually believe there's any circumstances in which this won't be needed in three months plus? Are there any circumstances in which in four months' time it'll be completely okay to allow landlords just to evict tenants, or it'll be okay just to allow landlords to increase the rent on their tenants? Is it not absolutely clear, even at this point in time, that in three months plus that we'll still be dealing with the aftermath of this crisis? That's in a best-case scenario that we're in an aftermath phase that will have a huge impact in terms of renters, and renters will still need some relief from that situation. And the second point is, how can the Government justify extending on the one hand the very substantial powers, restrictions of civil liberties, etc., that were discussed in the last week's Dáil, until November, and yet this one goes until only three months? I appreciate both of them can be extended, but why the discrepancy for November on that three months for this? Ryan. We all agree, it's not ideal circumstances in terms of does the House election have to make all decisions, but you have the opportunity to annul it. We think it's unnecessary to have to come back in here to seek an extension because of the complications. We don't know what the situation is going to be, A, with the virus, but also in the formation of Government, the Shanat and so on. It might be an unnecessary complication, and it might cause us difficulty down the road when you want to help people, which I know you want to do. So we're asking you just on this one to accept that we think it's unnecessary. If you're unhappy with a decision that's not made by one Minister, it's the Minister of Housing, Minister of Health, Minister of Public Expenditure, then this House can annul it straight away, the next day, if need be, or in the next 21 days as well. We believe that's enough of a precautionary, and I would ask you to please consider that too on that one. And I know it's the extension we're talking to, but we don't know what's going to happen in the next 90 days, to be fair on that one as well. In relation to Deputy Murphy's amendment, again, you were asking us to go 12 months. All this income support, all the changes we're making are being made roughly on a three-month period. That's why this is aligned with that. All right, thank you, Minister. And I'm right to get them as well. Thank you, Minister. Amendment 6, then, and the name of Deputy Barrett. Thank you, Minister.