Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

The Social Democrats will be supporting this Bill. I have tabled a number of amendments to improve it. It is unfortunate that there will only be 60 minutes for dealing with amendments today. We will likely only be able to discuss one or two of the amendments rather than all those that have been submitted, which does not do the legislative process justice. This Bill is needed fast and quick but we should have had at least a few hours to discuss the proposed amendments.

The reason this Bill is in front of us is because the Government's housing plan is failing. It is as simple as that. Homelessness is at record levels. Rents are at record levels. House prices are at record levels. The number of people living in emergency accommodation for homeless people has increased by 30% in the last 12 months while the number of children in emergency accommodation has increased by 47%. That is not to mention people living in direct provision, people fleeing domestic violence and living in refuges, people who are sleeping rough on the streets or in tents or people sleeping on couches and floors. That is not to mention the hundreds of thousands of people who are still living in their parents' homes even in their late 20s and 30s, when they do not want to be there. They want to be able to have some form of independence and get on with their lives.

I was struck by the comments the Minister made towards the end of his speech. He said "The Government will ensure that we have a rental market that is fit for purpose". With housing, the Government is always saying "We will do this" or "This will happen in the future". Halfway through its term, it is still telling us things will happen in the future. Fit for purpose for whom? I have not heard anything from the Government to indicate that it intends to make renting fit for purpose by giving renters proper security so they are not always looking over their shoulders and worried in the pit of their stomachs about what will happen if they receive a notice to quit. In many senses, it is that insecurity that really gnaws at people when they are renting, even if they have not received a notice to quit or have been in the place for years. It is that worry. Things might be going well in their lives and in their kids' lives. Their child's development might be going well, they might be settling into school and overcoming different challenges or learning difficulties they have. There is still that absolute worry of what will happen if they get the notice to quit. When they do get the notice to quit, all of that kicks in and they can see the years of struggle and the progress they have been making in getting through those challenges in life unravelling in front of them. I do not think there is a proper awareness of that in the Government. If there was, we would not be seeing these kinds of piecemeal, emergency, reactive measures. We would be seeing reforms brought in to make renting secure for renters, as is the case in most other European countries.

The Government is failing to meet its own targets on housing. The big promise of this Government on housing was that we would be building additional supply and new supply. The number of social homes in the housing delivery targets for this year and last year were nearly all meant to be additional homes. That was the big promise. We were promised 9,500 new-build additional social homes last year. Instead we got about half of that number. We were promised a couple of thousand affordable homes from the Government last year but we got zero affordable purchase homes. We were promised 350 cost-rental homes but only got 65 of those were tenanted. For new build social housing delivery this year, less than 2,000 homes were delivered in the first half of the year when there were 9,000 additional new build social homes promised. For affordable purchase and cost-rental accommodation, in both categories we only have a few hundred delivered so far this year, when we need thousands of those to meet the Government targets. Indeed, we need a lot more than that to meet demand. Not only that, but somehow the Government is not even spending its full capital allocation on housing. That is scandalous given the situation we are in. It is 30% behind its own targets at this time of the year. If that is made up towards the end of the year, rather than the shortfall being made up through building a sufficient number of new builds and additional supply, it will be made up the way Governments have always done it, by buying up existing supply towards the end of the year to try to meet its targets. It is certainly better than not doing that but it is the additional supply that really is needed.

The Government has spoken about needing these emergency measures for breathing space but there is no sign of what its plan is for that breathing space. Regarding the tenant in situ scheme, I am very concerned about the ad hocand haphazard way it has been implemented across the country. It varies from local authority to local authority and even within local authorities we are getting mixed messages about how it is being implemented. I appreciate that it is a new scheme but the Government could give more direction to local authorities on that. That would be useful and is something the Minister might look at urgently. I agree with the points made by previous Deputies about local authorities being notified of notices to quit. That would be useful, especially in terms of local authorities being proactive about potential purchases.

There is no question that the social housing limits must be raised. All of us are aware of situations where people who have been on housing waiting lists, who are on low incomes and cannot afford to meet their housing needs themselves are being knocked off housing waiting lists because they have gone slightly above the thresholds. I know of people in my constituency who did overtime during Covid when others were out sick just to keep production going, in food production and so forth.

They got knocked off the housing waiting list because their earnings went above the threshold because they were covering for people through once-off overtime and once-off sickness leave due to Covid. Others, who have got small pay increases from their employers to meet the cost-of-living crisis are also getting knocked off the social housing waiting lists. This is a brutal thing that is happening to people, including those who had been on the waiting list for a long time and who were close to having homes allocated to them. They will never be able to meet their own housing needs because the Government has not moved those thresholds up, at least along with the cost of living and inflation.

What happens to people when they do get a notice to quit? It causes absolute devastation, stress, anxiety, and disruption in their lives. Their very first thoughts are about the rest of their family. They are thinking about their children who may already have been suffering with anxiety and mental health issues. Having a notice to quit, where they will be evicted from their home and uprooted from their friends, their family, their GAA clubs and anything else they are involved in with the local community, has a devastating impact.

It must be said that such evictions are not normal practice. This is not what happens in most European countries. In most European countries, it is simply not legal to evict renters who are paying their rent simply because the landlord wishes to sell. They cannot do it in other European countries. It is totally against the law, be it one house or 100 apartments together. It cannot be done. One cannot do this in Austria, Belgium, or the Czech Republic - and we had a delegation from the Czech Republic visiting the Oireachtas today. One cannot do this in Denmark, Estonia, Germany, Hungary, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, or Romania. What is it that we think it is okay or that the Government thinks it is okay for it to happen here?

I welcome this Bill as a temporary measure, but if Ireland was in line with most other European countries, we could not even bring in such a temporary measure, because in those other countries it is permanently in place that one cannot evict people who are paying their rents from their homes simply because the landlord wants to sell. If the landlords in those countries want to sell, then they go ahead and sell, and there is not a problem.

We must also recognise that with increased property prices and the value of homes, properties, and landlord properties, a lot of that value is given from public investment and public infrastructure. Much of the value of housing and the value of homes is because of the roads that have been put in, the water infrastructure, the wastewater infrastructure, community facilities, public transport and so forth. That gives a lot of the values. It is not simply the case that this is a private asset that has gone up in value simply from the hard work of the person who owns the property. Much the value has gone in from public investment, not to mention the public subsidies through HAP and so on, which inflate rents and which also increase the values of homes, including the value of those homes from which people are being evicted.

I want to reference some of the amendments I have tabled for the Bill. Before I do this, however, I implore the Minister and the Government to look, in addition to this, at what immediate measures can happen to protect people for example like the tenants in Tathony House, where more than 35 households are being evicted. This is 100 people, an entire block, facing mass eviction. The Tyrrelstown amendment, which was brought in some years ago supposedly to prevent these mass evictions, is not working. There are too many get-out clauses in it and loopholes that can be exploited. If the Government is looking at emergency measures to stop people being evicted then it should be looking at that and closing down those loopholes. Ultimately, the Government needs to get out of emergency measures and bring in long-term reform.

I have some sympathy for landlords who complain about all of the constant legislative changes. This is not the way to reform the sector. We need one set of changes that bring in proper security for renters. We must stop messing around in the sector with incremental changes causing haphazard, piecemeal changes. We must bring in proper long-term reforms that give stability to the sector, and then there does not have to be multiple changes to legislation each time during the year.

Before I discuss the amendments I have tabled for Committee Stage, I must mention the concerns that have been articulated about the Bill by the Irish Traveller Movement. The measures will not protect Travellers from being evicted from temporary accommodation, which is something they had flagged previously. This is specifically relevant in the context of the Irish Traveller Movement noticing an increase in the number of queries and cases they are dealing with around evictions. It is particularly relevant because, as we are aware, Travellers were particularly over represented in homelessness in 2019. We do not have complete figures on this but we do have the figures for 2019, when 25% of children in emergency accommodation outside of Dublin were Travellers and 13% of homeless adults were Travellers. This is a complete over-representation for the Traveller community. Their particular concerns around this should be noted and taken onboard by the Government.

As previous speakers stated, there should be a requirement for the local authority to be notified of notices to quit at the same time the RTB is notified. This would potentially assist in the context of tenants in situand with the acquisitions by the local authority. This would provide some time and would potentially take some of the stress out from tenants who are caught in the middle on this. Tenants are incredibly vulnerable when they receive a notice to quit. They are being put in a position where they are not clear what their role is between themselves, the landlord, and the local authority. An acquisition is a very stressful situation for them to be placed in.

With regard to allowing evictions on the grounds that the property is no longer suitable, this should be withdrawn. Threshold has made the case that they have seen an increase in the use of this ground for evicting people. It makes no sense. Threshold argues, for example, that a family with a new child might be evicted into homelessness on these grounds. That does not help anyone. They have argued very strongly that the moratorium should at least be extended to include people being evicted on those grounds. I support that. Threshold has made the case that if this ground is to be retained with regard to overcrowding, for example, then there should be some basis for that such as confirmation from a fire authority that the dwelling is no longer suitable. Threshold also made the point that there needs to be enhanced support for those who are in rent arrears. I have also tabled an amendment on the undermining of tenancy rights that have accrued due to the length of tenancy.

I have tabled amendments in respect of the removal of sale as one of the grounds for eviction. As stated, this is simply not possible or legal in most European countries. I do not see why the Government will not support that. If the Government removed that ground, it could be a game changer for giving renters more security and giving stability into the sector, but also very importantly in reducing the number of people being evicted into homelessness. Even Boris Johnson, when he was UK Prime Minister, had promised to bring in a ban on no-fault evictions. It was not a temporary ban. It was to be a ban on no-fault evictions. Boris Johnson was, in my view, a terrible leader of the Conservative Party. I cannot think of much that he has done or promised to do that is commendable, but he was backing that as a measure. If the Conservative Party can talk about doing that, then one would think that this Government could at least do it as well.

See this speech in context