Kieran O'Donnell (Limerick City, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

The Government opposes the motion regarding suspension of scrutiny requirement for the Eviction Ban Bill 2022, as tabled by People Before Profit Solidarity for debate this morning.

I will begin by saying that Standing Order 180, which was mentioned, on Private Members’ Bills: Order for Committee Stage, sets out that Committee Stage consideration of a Private Member’s Bill "may only be ordered following scrutiny of the Bill by the relevant committee, save where the requirement for scrutiny has been waived by the Business Committee." The motion tabled for debate seeks a suspension of the requirement under Standing Order 180(2) that such Committee Stage consideration may only be ordered following scrutiny of the Bill by the relevant committee. Respectfully, this matter is more appropriate for the Business Committee to consider, via a request from People Before Profit Solidarity, the Bill’s sponsor, for a waiver from prelegislative scrutiny.

Standing Order 178, on scrutiny by committees of Private Members’ Bills which have passed their second reading, provides that "the Bill shall be subject to scrutiny by the relevant committee: provided that the Business Committee may waive, in accordance with Standing Order 30, the requirement for scrutiny, following a request from the member in charge of the Bill, or the relevant committee."

The Government decided on 7 March that the winter eviction ban would end as planned on 31 March with notices of termination taking effect on a phased basis out to 18 June, and that a focus on additional new supply is the best way forward. The eviction ban was brought in as a short term, emergency measure but it did not have the desired impact in reducing homelessness numbers, as the Deputies referenced themselves.

The Government's decision in early March to honour the House of the Oireachtas legal provisions for the winter eviction ban passed less than five months earlier in October was not one that we took lightly but we remain of the belief that it was the correct decision. I accept Deputy Boyd Barrett’s point that no level of homelessness is acceptable. We know there are people who are facing significant challenges, including renters who are in receipt of State assistance while waiting for a transfer to a more secure social home, renters in tenancies where their landlord is considering leaving the market and renters who want, more than anything, to buy their own home. This Government is doing and will continue to do everything it can to help these people. At the crux of everything we do is the need to increase the supply of housing. Introducing an eviction ban would not do that.

If we were to do as People Before Profit Solidarity asks in this Bill, namely, to introduce an eviction ban, we would only serve to shrink the number of homes available to rent. That is of no help to renters in short term, medium term or long term. I noted commentary here this morning to that effect.

Under Housing for All, the Government is committed to increasing housing supply, including rental accommodation, and to protecting renters while trying to keep small landlords in the system. Deputy Murphy made a comment earlier; I represent everyone. I am a Deputy in a constituency where I represent tenants-----

See this speech in context