Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, line 20, to delete “2023” and substitute “2024”.

The eviction ban, or the deferment of termination dates for certain tenancies, to be more accurate, is a belated concession on the part of the Government to the long-standing demand of many of us here in the Opposition that it should ban no-fault evictions at least for the duration of the housing emergency. It should be noted that the Dáil declared an emergency in housing, again, in response to pressure, most notably the Raise the Roof demonstration that happened in 2018. A housing emergency was declared. That housing emergency is very much still with us. In fact, it has very considerably worsened, and the number of people being evicted into homelessness has increased. It is our view, therefore, that a ban on people being evicted into homelessness when they have done nothing wrong should last at least until the housing emergency is over. We think that is constitutionally sound. It is the fact of an emergency that deals with any concerns that there might be about the constitutionality of such an eviction ban. Just in the same way as unprecedented measures could be taken during the Covid emergency, the housing emergency is something all of us have accepted exists. Therefore, extraordinary measures are justified, in my view. I think any fair-minded person would say that the Constitution allows, in those circumstances, for action to be taken in the interests of the common good.

This amendment is proposing that as an absolute minimum, the ban on evictions should be for at least a year. Indeed, we would say that beyond that it should be for the duration of any emergency, but for at least a year. Otherwise, we are going to be back to where we were before the ban in the summer, starting at the end of March 2023, at the end of the emergency period in this legislation. By June, any protections that it affords will be gone and evictions will restart. The Government has helpfully identified the numbers that might be homeless just during this emergency period, which is well over 2,000 people. That gives us an indication of the scale of the problem. We think the ban should be longer. We also think it should be more comprehensive. I do not even know whether we will get to most of the amendments in the time that is available to us. In fact, we will not get to most of them.

When this legislation was published last week, we and others immediately pointed out that it does not afford the protection from the possibility of eviction to all those who deserve that protection. If you have already passed the date for the termination of your tenancy and you are overholding, this Bill will not protect you. To cite one example, and I am sure others will cite their examples, there is a working couple in my area with two children, who passed the date for the termination of their tenancy on grounds of sale last Friday week. They have nowhere to go from a house that the family has lived in since the 1950s. They were born in the house, yet they are being evicted by a landlord who has multiple properties and they have nowhere to go. They are trying everything. They are over the income threshold so the council is humming and hawing about the possibility of buying the tenancy. That is something that also needs to be addressed. Just because you are over the threshold does not mean you do not face the prospect of being homeless. The council should step in and secure this family's tenancy by buying that property. At the very least, families like that, who are overholding - and there are many of them - should be protected by this ban and they are not. I would like the Minister to respond to that and explain why that is the case.

Before anybody whispers to the Minister that we cannot have retrospective legislation or something of that sort, I remind him that he did just that during the Covid eviction ban. Nobody could be evicted from their home, full stop. It was not a matter of a deferment of termination dates. Rather, nobody could be evicted. There is absolutely no fairness or reason not to protect people who are overholding. Most of the people who are overholding are doing so on the advice of the local housing department in any event. Those people go to the local housing department and say they are being evicted on grounds of sale having done nothing wrong. They ask for help and ask if there is social housing available, the answer to which is "No". They are told they are over the threshold or will be waiting 20 years. There is no emergency accommodation available. There is nowhere for such people to go. What does the council say? It advises tenants to overhold their tenancy. It happens informally but the Minister knows that is true. It is happening in every local authority housing department. Housing officials suggest that tenants overhold because something might become available in a few weeks or months. That is what happens. Those people should not be put in that position and the Bill should protect them. That protection should last the full duration of the housing emergency. The Government should use the intervening months to take the sort of measures that will mean we will not be hit with an avalanche of evictions next year.

We have proposed many solutions to the Minister this evening. We have encouraged the Government to buy up developer property on a bigger scale than we are doing now. It should buy up properties where people are threatened with eviction. I know others want to come in so I will finish on the following point. People who are over the thresholds but are faced with the possibility of homelessness should also be protected. Local authorities should be willing to step in and buy the properties in question. They do not have to be eligible for social housing. Someone who is over the threshold should be eligible for cost rental or affordable housing and, therefore, public funds should be available to purchase those houses as well. That should be done to prevent more people ending up in homelessness or emergency situations. I hope the Minister will accept the amendment. Beyond that, I hope he will take up and respond to the points I have made about those who are not protected by this legislation.

See this speech in context