Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

I support the legislation. Evictions and court orders are not covered by the Private Security Services Act 2004 as it stands and therefore do not fall within the remit of the Private Security Authority. There was probably an expectation that these would be covered but it is only when something occurs that one sees gaps in legislation. The legislation was originally introduced in 2004, at the height of the Celtic tiger era. We tend to try to future-proof legislation but very often we are captured by a particular sentiment at a given time. Who would have predicted there would be a crash of the magnitude that we had, or the subsequent housing crisis.

Evictions and court orders can be carried out by anyone once the court orders issue and no licence is needed. Force is permitted if deemed to be required and there is a complete absence of oversight and accountability. That is a clear gap, which leaves the Garda very exposed and brings it into disrepute. That has been commented on in the context of certain events in recent years. An obvious example is the eviction of the McGann family near Strokestown, County Roscommon, in 2018. The eviction was ordered by the High Court as there was an unpaid debt to KBC Bank. KBC hired GS Agencies limited to enforce the eviction. GS Agencies is run by a debt collector and an ex-British soldier who served in the Royal Irish Regiment and Ulster Defence Regiment. He contacted former colleagues in one part of the eviction, requesting that they travel to County Roscommon and name their price. In the aftermath of the eviction, the scene turned violent with several people left injured, vehicles burned and a dog killed. A former colleague of the owner of GS Agencies said: "He seems to gets the jobs no other security firm wants so he’s subcontracted and he then subcontracts further to get people to do the dirty work."

Those direct experiences inform some of the measures in the legislation. The security firm involved in the Strokestown case was found guilty of six breaches of the Private Security Services Act due to its occupation of the house after the eviction. As I say, it is the examples that give us an insight. It was reported in the media at the time that a Garda superintendent ordered the entrances of the house to be closed off during the eviction. We have no way of knowing if that was the case as I do not know if the report was substantiated. However, there was a Garda presence outside the boundaries of the property observing the eviction taking place. Given that it was a unregulated entity that carried this out eviction and acted in the way it did, it brought the Garda into disrepute.

The case of the North Frederick Street eviction occurred in the same year. Housing activists were removed from a vacant building they were occupying in defiance of a court order. The occupation was part of the Take Back the City movement. There was a substantial Garda presence but physical force was used against a number of the attendees and five activists were arrested. It drew criticism from the Opposition, Amnesty International and the ICCL, and very understandably so. Then, in Phibsborough in 2020, nine tenants were evicted from a property on Berkeley Road. The tenants had not received a legal eviction notice but had received a message on Facebook. I come across cases such as this all the time. This area is regulated but does not fall within the Minister of State's remit. It is set out in law what the regime should be. I am sure the Minister of State hears about people who have been given notice to quit by way of a text message, Facebook message or email.

Such a notice often does not pay any attention to the timeframe that people have or an expectation of protections under the law with respect to notice of an eviction. It is not part of this legislation but it is interesting that it throws up the requirement for a much more solid piece of public information around the question. It causes unnecessary anxiety in the case of challenge and if notice has not been properly served, the eviction cannot take place. That is very much part of the eviction process under discussion and the main reason it was deemed invalid, with the tenants returned to the property. A significant amount of damage was done, as indicated by photographs we saw online. Doors were pulled down and the toilet was smashed. That was to ensure people would not come back in and the house would not be habitable.

Evictions will take place and court orders should be complied with. This must be done in a humane way and those kinds of examples cause understandable outrage, bringing parties like the Garda into disrepute as well. We should be concerned by the number of evictions that could potentially happen. Last month, Threshold flagged a backlog of 1,000 cases of people who received paused eviction notices last year alone. Most would have been paused in the context of Covid-19. There were 467 cases of people living in Dublin and there are only 654 properties available to rent in Dublin for less than €1,500. Most of the eviction notices I see, or where people draw my attention to them while seeking advice, arise where people simply cannot pay the rent. It is not about antisocial behaviour, although I have come across cases involving such behaviour.

If we look around the country, the number of vacant premises under the housing assistance payment limits gives an indication of the reasons some of these eviction notices are served. There may be a more humane approach to evictions and there is a substantial concern underneath relating to the affordability of housing both for rental and to buy. We cannot discuss this legislation without highlighting that question. It may be why it might be prudent to extend the ban on evictions, perhaps for another 12 months. There is a substantial problem, with no obvious remedy for people who are really struggling currently.

Higher standards are required from private security firms and gardaí when it comes to enforcement of court-ordered evictions. We must ensure the security services hired to enforce legal orders work humanely and professionally, being held accountable for their actions. Bringing these private security firms under the remit of this legislation means anybody involved with enforcing court orders would be subject to high standards, oversight, licensing and a complaints procedure. They would be required to carry identification as well, and this would all be a very substantial improvement on what we have currently.

This Bill would not solve all the problems because some of them are not really part of the legislation at all but a wider concern. That wider matter is that a substantial number of people are the subject of eviction notices who would not be in a properly functioning housing market.

See this speech in context