Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Teachta as a chuid ceiste. Rinne an Rialtas socrú deacair inniu. Tá buntáistí agus míbhuntáistí ag baint leis ach creidim gurb é an cinneadh ceart ar son leas an phobail. The Government today decided that the temporary eviction moratorium would end on a phased basis, as planned and previously announced, from the end of March. It was a finely balanced decision. There are pros and cons, but we made the decision which we believe is in the overall public interest. Why? It is for three reasons. First, the moratorium was not effective in reducing homelessness. The number of homeless people being provided with emergency accommodation by the State increased every month for which the moratorium was in place. Second, it was beginning to create a new form of homelessness, with people being unable to move back into a property they owned or to move a son or daughter into an apartment they had bought for the purpose. Some 20,000 to 30,000 Irish citizens return home every year. Most do not own their own house or apartment, but many do, and extending this moratorium for another six months or a year would not have been right or fair to those people. Third, we also did not extend it, and this is a crucial point, because we believe that leaving it in place would have reduced the availability of places to rent and driven up rents further. Why? It would have discouraged new landlords from coming into the market, who we need. We have lost 40,000 in the past five years and it may have caused, once extended, more and more landlords to leave. It would, therefore, have been bad for renters, in our assessment, to extend this eviction ban, especially in the cases of those moving or seeking to rent for the first time.

Let me explain this point in a bit more detail. We know from reports from Daft.ie and the Residential Tenancies Board, RTB, for example, that for the vast majority of renters, that is, people who have tenancies and are sitting tenants, rents increased by about 3.5% last year. This was because of the rent pressure zones, RPZs, and other measures. When it comes to new tenancies, however, and new rental properties becoming available for the first time, rents are skyrocketing and this is because there are not enough properties available. Too few new properties are coming on the market to meet demand and we believe that extending the eviction ban and this moratorium would have meant even fewer properties coming on the market. Why? People who have a property to rent would be afraid they would never be able to get hold of or control of it again. We believe, therefore, on balance, that it is in the public interest to do this for three reasons. First, this measure was not bringing down homelessness. Second, it was creating a whole new form of homelessness, with people not able to move back into their own homes and properties they owned. Third, it would also make fewer properties available in future, thus making rental property less available and pushing up rents further. This might not be correct and it might not even be the right decision, but it is one we believe is correct based on all the factors in front of us. It is the decision we believe is in the public interest.

Homelessness and the number of people in emergency accommodation provided by the State has been rising now every month for quite some time. We accept that it may well continue to rise in the months ahead. We think, however, that the decision we made today increases the chances that we can get homelessness down in the medium to long term, whereas extending it would do the reverse. It might have given us some respite for a short period ahead, but it would have made things much worse in the medium to long term.

To correct the Deputy on one crucial point, we made several important decisions today to alleviate the situation. First, we decided that local authorities would be funded to purchase up to 1,500 homes from landlords who are selling up so those people can avoid homelessness. There are roughly 1,600 homeless families in the State. The fact we have decided to buy 1,500 homes from landlords selling up so that people do not become homeless is a significant decision. We also decided that private tenants would be given the first right of refusal if their landlord is selling up, as is the case in France, and we will help them to buy when they cannot afford to do so. We also decided to lease an additional 1,000 social housing units, particularly targeted at those who are homeless.

See this speech in context