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

I thank Deputy Ó Broin for tabling this motion. The Social Democrats will be supporting it. At this stage, I want to appeal to Government backbenchers. It is not too late for them to change their mind on this, do the right thing and vote in favour of this motion. In particular, the Green Deputies should show some backbone on this matter. I know there are no Green Deputies in the Chamber at present but they have a role in this. I do not believe that when any of them stood for election they were running on the basis of supporting measures that would increase homelessness even further when it is at record levels. Indeed, the Minister has said that lifting the eviction ban is likely to increase homelessness even further. That is quite an exceptional situation for a Minister responsible for housing to be in by supporting a measure that will increase homelessness at a time of record homelessness.

In terms of homelessness itself, we have a situation where there is severe overcrowding in homeless emergency accommodation. We have dehumanising conditions in several of the providers of emergency accommodation, a matter I have raised with the Minister several times. Emergency accommodation can have a huge impact on a child's development. If a toddler does not have enough room in emergency accommodation to get around, it can affect the toddler's ability to learn how to crawl. It has massive impacts on people and on children in particular. The Government does not have credibility on this in terms of its plans and the proposals put forward. The Government has not given a cohesive answer to the question of where people are going to go.

When the decision had been made, the Taoiseach, when he was defending it in the Dáil, actually said it may not be the right decision. There seems to be a complete lack of conviction in his comments on this. It is almost a shrug-the-shoulders attitude to what will people do, that they will find something or somewhere and will not all end up homeless. This seems to be the Government defence; that they will not all end up homeless. Is that where we are at in terms of this Government making decisions and their impacts on people's lives? Not everyone will end up in homeless emergency accommodation; some people will end up shoved into overcrowded boxrooms with their families and that is somehow going to be okay. All that is really being looked for here is simply for us to have conditions for renters that are similar to most other European countries. We are in the unique position now, after the Government made its decision on the eviction ban, of having some of the highest rents in Europe and the lowest levels of security for renters. Why is it in most other European countries that if you pay your rent, you cannot be evicted? What is so wrong with that? What would be wrong with that? Why will the Government not do that? It is not a radical thing; it is what is done in most European countries. In fact that is the situation in countries with much larger rental sectors than ours. If renters pay their rent, they cannot be evicted. It is considered their home. People do their end of the bargain and in return, they cannot be evicted from their homes. What is wrong with that? Why is the Government opposed to that? What will it not bring this in?

I asked the Taoiseach earlier today if he had read the comments on uplift.iefrom renters all across Ireland who are absolutely sick with worry as to how this decision will affect them. These are people who are facing eviction. He did not answer my question. Has the Minister read those comments on uplift.ie? If not, will he read them? I will read a few of them. Áine from Dublin writes:

We're an older couple and will be evicted in 2024 due to our home being sold. We've been on the housing list for 14 years.

Rebecca from Cork writes:

My husband and I were just months away from finally having our 10% deposit after 8 years [of saving]. Our landlord is selling up and we earn too much for emergency accommodation so we are going to end up using our deposit to pay for hotels.

Ana from Dublin says she has been living in her home for over 13 years and is at high risk of eviction. The rent she has paid over this time would have bought her a house. She says she cannot believe she will be homeless and that she has been working fulltime since she was a teenager. Sharon from Donegal says that on 1 May, "my rent here in Letterkenny goes up 54%." She says:

"That's not a typo. I honestly don't know how I'm going to make up the difference... Very scary rental times [to be renting] here in Donegal.. [It is] not just a city problem.

Lucy from Kilkenny says:

My boyfriend and I are being evicted after renting for a year and a half... [Working from home] is not available for me so [my boyfriend will have to] go back to his hometown while I crash in a friend's [house] I'm angry someone can upend my life like this... I've worked so hard and have ended up back at square one... no one seems to care beyond a shrug and "well it's their property to sell".

Gerard from Dublin says they are at constant risk of eviction:

You cannot plan beyond the lease length. You cannot start a family. That is Ireland.

Jenny from Galway writes:

I am 20 years renting, turned down for mortgages, children reared in a house that never felt our home, constant nagging fear of losing it. Nowhere else to go.

Stephen from Dublin is a 36-year-old who faces eviction in three months after five years at the same address. As a result, his mental health, relationship and future are all in jeopardy and he has nowhere to go. He writes that the Government is not even applying a short-term band-aid over the gaping wound but is pouring salt in it, and that it will be a stain on its legacy forever. Shame on them, he says.

I could go on and on.

Regarding the tenant in situscheme, before the decision to lift this eviction ban was announced the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage told us in the Joint Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage that there would be 1,500 tenant in situpurchases this year. That was not a new announcement that came with the scheme. The Minister had already made that announcement in the housing committee. Then, because there did not seem to be a plan around this, it seemed to be dressed up as some sort of a new announcement. However, it had already been announced. Why at this stage, having had the eviction ban and the tenant in situscheme in place for most of last year, is the scheme still not properly bedded in? Why is it not running on a firm basis? Why do we have a situation where landlords and tenants who want the tenant in situscheme to be availed of, still do not know where to go or who to contact? Why is the Department saying only now that there will be people for them to contact in local authorities and that this will be put in place? Why are we all being contacted by landlords who need and want to sell, do not want to evict their tenants and are finding it very hard to get in contact with people and get buy-in from local authorities on the tenant in situscheme? Why is that still happening?

Why was the Local Government Management Agency, the County and City Management Association, CCMA, before the housing committee today telling us that the tenant in situscheme is being operated in a different way in different parts of the country? That is exactly what it said. Different standards apply in different local authorities. This is exactly what the local authorities' managers association is saying is happening. There is a massive gap between what the Minister maybe thinks is happening and what is happening on the ground. Is he saying the CCMA was giving inaccurate information to the housing committee? I do not think the Minister is saying that about the chief executives of local authorities around this country. That is what they said. Their representative association said it will not apply the tenant in situscheme to some tenants who qualify because of moral hazard, this idea that it would be unfair to lift one family out of homelessness simply because someone higher up on a list is not in that same situation of getting evicted from a private rental tenancy. They are still talking about that. Why has the Minister not given them very strong, clear direction on this about applying consistent standards across the country?

Why, after the announcement today about this expanded tenant in situscheme, are we still just talking about a minimum of 15,000 purchases? Where are the bigger targets in this? Why have the higher targets broken down by local authority area not been issued? When will the Minister do this? How is it that in all this time the tenant in situscheme, the very flagship scheme the Department has in place, is still not properly bedded in or worked out?

Finally, when we look at the history of this country, massive resources were put in during the 20th century through the Irish Land Commission and also through social housing and affordable purchase homes. Massive State resources were put in to ensure that Irish people would not have to face eviction and be thrown out of their homes. Huge resources were put into doing that by us as a collective society and State and yet we find ourselves back in a situation of massive insecurity and where eviction is effectively being endorsed as Government policy through this decision.

See this speech in context