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

I thank the Chair. The origin of the Bill arose from my experience, which is probably similar to that of other committee members, of working with people who were at risk of homelessness. They might have received a notice of termination or there might have been some other circumstance relating to their accommodation that led them to face a moment where they knew they would have to leave that accommodation. While some supports were in place, which I will refer to shortly, there was no obligation or responsibility on the part of the local authority to do anything until the point at which their due date, for example, fell. Typically, somebody would get an eviction notice and then notify his or her local authority. At that point, the local authority would ask that person to come to it on the day his or her due date was up, if he or she had nowhere else to go, and it would provide emergency accommodation. Back then, the homeless housing assistance payment, HAP, as it was, was originally only available for people who were in emergency accommodation and not for those who were at risk of homelessness. Some of the other supports that have since been put in place were not there.

Around that time, in England and Wales, legislation with the same title as this Bill was introduced. That legislation placed a very clear statutory obligation on a local authority to meet, discuss and put in place a homeless prevention plan at a set time before the date upon which somebody would become homeless. One of the weaknesses of our system is that Opposition Members cannot table legislation that places a financial charge on the State. While the intention behind this Bill is to very much to place an obligation on the local authority to work with an individual or family to put a homeless prevention plan in place in advance of the date on which they are to become homeless, I am precluded from doing that so the language is somewhat weaker. The intention of the Bill, which is in three subsections, is to, first, in real terms, provide a legal definition of what "at risk of homelessness" means. No such definition is currently on our Statute Book. Second, section 1(2) creates the option - I would much prefer it to be an obligation but it is option for the reasons stated - for the local authority to put that plan in place. The subsequent subsections set out the types of person to which the Bill would be applicable. The most obvious is where there is a notice of termination but there are many other categories, which are listed.

It is important to state that the Bill was tabled in 2020 and things have changed since then. For example, in Dublin, homeless HAP, which is 50% above the base rate, has changed. At one point, it was available four weeks before notice of termination, then eight weeks, and it is now available 12 weeks in advance of such a notice. That is materially relevant to the 60-day timeline proposed in the Bill. Homeless HAP, although it is not called that, also exists outside Dublin but at a lower rate of 30%, and there are some differences in when it becomes available. At the time the Bill was published, the tenantin situscheme had been closed by the then Minister, Eoghan Murphy, and remained closed. It has been reopened since then. As I said to the Minister the other day, while I would have liked to see it opened much earlier, certainly social housing tenantin situis working very well in quite a number of local authorities. That is also materially relevant to this Bill, although cost-rental tenantin situis still functioning much more poorly.

Any consideration of this Bill, and if we were to get to Committee Stage to consider amendments, would have to take those issues into account. The core principle, however, remains the same. Today, if somebody is at risk of homelessness, there is no obligation on the local authority to do anything. People can go to a local authority and a good local authority official will ask whether they know that tenantin situ is available, and tell them to talk to their landlord to ask that landlord to contact the relevant section of the local authority. Likewise, there is no obligation on the council to make people aware of homeless HAP, although, again, a good official will do that.

I certainly have a lot of experience, as do my colleagues, of people when they get their notice, for example, and, if they are HAP tenants, inform the HAP section of their local authority, but nobody communicates anything with them. The practice, therefore, is very patchy. Whether a soft option or a hard obligation is placed on the local authority to have a formalised process, once people are at risk of homelessness, they should be brought in, sat down, and there should be a discussion whereby they are supported. Getting a notice of termination is incredibly stressful and traumatic for people, particularly those who might have been through it before, as is having to run around to speak to people like us, or Threshold, to get advice. While our support services are available and very important, it would be much better if there was something centralised and streamlined. Therefore, I still think the Bill, in its intention if not in all the detail of its wording, is as valid today as it was previously. In fact, given that we have homeless HAP and tenantin situ, it is even more valuable.

During the Second Stage debate, the Minister raised one issue that I want to let the committee know about because people may not have been there or were not Dáil Members. The Minister outlined some language issues. The one he mentioned in particular was the use of the phrase "armed forces" instead of "Defence Forces". That is because we took the original text of the Bill from the English and Welsh legislation. Again, there are some relatively minor technical issues that would need to be dealt with by way of amendment.

Given the fact there has been an increase in the number of notices of termination, that there is still an increase month on month in the number of people entering emergency accommodation, and that only 5% of the homeless budget, which is now more than €300 million, that comes from the Department to our local authorities goes on prevention, anything that strengthens the preventative arm of homeless services in the work of local authorities is worthy of support. I would be very happy, if we get to Committee Stage, to accept friendly amendments and amendments that improve the Bill. This is an issue that members who are present have all raised regularly and are strongly engaged with. Prevention is better than cure, however. On that basis, I hope to get support from other members.