Paul McAuliffe (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I will concentrate on the new amendments to the Bill that relate to the tenancy protections.

On the dates, it refers to tenants who at any stage between 1 August and 12 April 2021 were on pandemic unemployment payment, PUP, and so on. Why was 1 August chosen rather than 1 April? People might have been in receipt of the PUP between April and August and built up arrears but are not now covered by the Bill.

The question of why landlords and tenants were covered by the same penalty for false declarations has been covered.

The five-day period in which the tenant must respond to a notice to quit is far too short. Then they are expected to notify the RTB and pass on the data to MABS. I imagine there are general data protection regulation, GDPR, issues on this and I query that measure. Has there been consultation with MABS about the additional work it would be required to undertake? MABS is already very oversubscribed.

There is an attempt to balance landlord and tenant rights. I would accept that if there was more work around tenants' rights, but the Bill's purpose is about preventing people from having to move during periods of restriction. I cannot visit my mother in her home today. That is the environment we are in. It is not a project about balancing landlord and tenant rights. We really have not thought out the details of some of the requirements. Take the expected enactment of legislation on 19 December. The RTB will write to all those impacted to alert them of their need to lodge an application with the RTB and then MABS, which they must do in five days. This would mean the RTB sending letters to tenants between 19 December and Christmas Eve. That is bizarre timing, if nothing else.

Actions are to be taken within five days of the commencement of the Bill on 11 January, that is 16 January, is a short period. Most places reopen on 2 or 3 January. It gives a very short time for people who have previously applied for an exemption and who might get a letter from the RTB before Christmas telling them to contact the RTB and apply to MABS by 16 January. The timing has not been thought out.

I am very concerned by the answers given to Senator Cummins about the measures being disapplied. The Bill is about giving tenants certainty that they will not have to move around during periods of restriction. It appears that certainty can be extinguished simply by a landlord making an application. If a landlord makes a submission to the effect that the rent is his or her sole income, then the tenant no longer has the certainty that he or she cannot be evicted. I accept that other recourse is given under the normal notice period, but the main provision there is time. There are no additional rights.

I have no issue with the balancing landlord and tenant rights but that is a longer term project and what is needed here is certainty for tenants. The five-day period is too short, as are the timelines for the Christmas period, which do not take account of the holiday season. Data transparency is an issue. Where a tenant fails to provide the RTB and MABS with the required information and the landlord submits that is the case, then the new protections disapplies. How does the landlord know? This Bill is trying to do things that are part of a bigger project. It will have to be amended. I am the third Government representative to express concern about the Bill and I expect other committee members will be louder.