Ivana Bacik (Dublin Bay South, Labour) | Oireachtas source

On behalf of Labour, I support the motion and commend Deputy Ó Broin and his colleagues for bringing it forward. It represents a sensible and compassionate approach to the growing crisis and the impending cliff edge that so many families and renters are facing. I cannot support, nor can my Labour colleagues, the Government amendment. I urge Government and the Minister to recognise the reasonable nature of the Sinn Féin motion and to support an extension of the eviction ban. I have read the Government amendment and on careful reading I am even more puzzled as to why we are here. The following sentence jumps out at me from the Government's amendment:

— To reduce the number of households at risk of homelessness Government plans to rapidly:

— give tenants the ‘First Right of Refusal’...

— expand the “First Home scheme”...

Why did the Government not plan this rapidly five or six months ago?

Why did the Government not put these measures in place while the existing ban was in effect? Why did it not use the breathing space that was provided? All of us, Government and Opposition, acknowledged there were two purposes to be served by this temporary no-fault eviction ban when it was first introduced. The first purpose was to give breathing space to families and renters to ensure they would not face eviction over the winter period. The second was to give the Government breathing space to put in place necessary measures to create an additional supply of homes, to ensure families who would be evicted once the ban was lifted would have somewhere to go and an alternative place to call home. What has not happened in the last five or six months is the implementation of those rapid plans the Government is now proposing.

Families facing a cliff edge from 1 April have no safety net in place. They only have these proposals; I do not even think we can call them assurances. They have the plans the Government tells us it is going to put in place rapidly but there will be nothing there from 1 April. We are all hearing this from families and individuals in our constituencies. I know the Minister is hearing it. The homelessness agencies are hearing it and local authorities are hearing it. There is no emergency accommodation available. People facing eviction from 1 April do not know where they are going to go. That is a serious crisis. We are all hearing about the distress and devastation. People have told devastating stories but behind each story is an individual or a family. I am thinking of the young mother in my constituency who is distraught at the prospect of moving her children out of school because she cannot find an affordable place to rent in her own community once her eviction notice takes effect. I am thinking of the man in his mid-60s who asked me where he was going to get a mortgage. He is facing eviction. I am thinking of the elderly brothers who have been renting the same place for decades and their landlord now wishes to sell. They have nowhere to go.

In my constituency of Dublin Bay South, 44% of households are in private rental accommodation. It is the highest rate in the whole State. There is nowhere to rent that is affordable. There is nowhere to rent. Out on the street earlier, I met somebody who told me they have been desperately looking for somewhere to rent that is in any way affordable in their own community. They cannot do it. They would have to change jobs or move out of Dublin. This is having a knock-on effect, as Deputy Ó Ríordáin pointed out, on schools. They cannot keep teachers or pupils as families are being forced to move out of Dublin because of unaffordable rents. It is not just Dublin. We are hearing about towns and villages around the country where there is no supply of accommodation available.

It is against this backdrop that the Government took what appears to have been an unplanned decision to lift the eviction ban a number of weeks ago. I say "unplanned" because all the indications that I and other Opposition Members were given by the Taoiseach over recent months were that the Government was taking legal advice and seriously considering the extension of the eviction ban. We put down a parliamentary question about why the eviction ban was initially planned to end on 31 March. I was told by the Department that "regard was had to the meteorological winter period". The evidence for the duration of the plan in the first place referred to weather conditions, to the winter, and reference was made to the French winter eviction ban.

My colleague, Deputy Duncan Smith, asked the Minister just ten days ago if any modelling had been done by the Government towards the end of the eviction ban period on the impact lifting the ban would have. Apparently there was no modelling done on the impact on those renting or, indeed, on landlords. I listened carefully to the Minister's speech. He said that one of the reasons he took the decision to lift the ban was that if it were extended, he believed it would lead to a reduction in the supply of private rental accommodation. There is no evidence for that. We have heard anecdotally from landlords who wish to leave but what measures is the Government putting in place to incentivise landlords to stay, if that is indeed a key concern? Again, there is a lack of evidence and planning and a lack of contingency and devastation and distress is being caused as a result. An extension could have bought further precious time for the Government to take up those rapid plans and put them into effect so those facing eviction would at least have some comfort in seeing that measures had been put in place.

One of the measures that I have been raising with the Minister for many months now is the tenant in situscheme. It is welcome that the Government plans to ramp that up but we are entitled to be a little sceptical about it, given how little effect the scheme has had to date despite the Minister's assurances that he has been requiring local authorities to implement it. He mentioned the figure of seven being cited. I have the response here from 6 March to our Labour Party councillor Jane Horgan-Jones, who asked the chief executive of Dublin City Council how many acquisitions had been made and was told that the total number of tenants in situhomes closed in January and February of this year was seven.

See this speech in context