Conor Sheehan (Limerick City, Labour) | Oireachtas source

Gabhaim buíochas leis an gCathaoirleach Gníomhach. Ba mhaith liom mo bhuíochas, ar dtús báire, a ghabháil le Páirtí Shinn Féin as an rún seo a thabhairt faoi bhráid na Dála. Molaim agus molann Páirtí an Lucht Oibre an rún seo.

The Government's announcement on the tenant in situ scheme leaves more questions than answers. This is a vital scheme to stop even more people ending up in homelessness. The cynical move to put a de facto end to this scheme, by restricting it so much as to make it effectively unworkable, is an absolute disgrace and is not fooling anybody. The fact is that people who are facing no-fault evictions are simply not high on the priority list of this Government. This has been confirmed in a circular issued to local authorities, which states that the purchase price and associated fees, such as valuation, legal etc., will only be recouped to local authorities and approved housing bodies, AHBs, and must be within acquisition cost guidelines. This means that no refurbishment costs can be claimed on the scheme and that only legal and valuation fees can. This excludes large swathes of people in the private rental market who live in poor quality housing due to no fault of their own. AHBs and homelessness organisations have written to the Minister on this and said clearly that access to funding for refurbishments was a barrier, in fact, to the success of this scheme, which was reasonably successful and was one of the few wins the previous Government had when it lifted the no-fault eviction ban.

It is now the third week in March. We are effectively one quarter of the way through the year and local authorities still do not have a unit allocation for the tenant in situ scheme. It has been in purgatory since the general election, with my local authority having more than 100 applications hanging at the end of last year. It has told me that under this revised scheme, it will be lucky if it is able to complete 20 this year.

On the changes to the scheme, I do not for the life of me understand why the Minister is excluding single people. What have they done to deserve this? Single people are the biggest group on the social housing list who are not really moving. There is a chronic shortage of one-bedroom units and this will make the situation even worse. Neither do I understand why the sins of the landlord are being put on the heads of tenants by making landlords who are not registered with the Residential Tendencies Board, RTB, ineligible for this scheme. The position of tenants in the private rental sector is one of the most precarious in the context of housing in this country. Many of them are terrified of their landlords and of getting a notice to quit, and the idea they could make their landlord register with the RTB is farcical. In fact, there is nothing to be gained by any landlord from selling their property to the local authority as opposed to putting it on the private market, given the shortage of housing and how much house prices have risen in recent years. I cannot understand why the Government is making it even harder for landlords to do what is right for the common good by making this scheme even harder to access. Instead of discouraging the tenant in situ scheme, we should be encouraging it by offering landlords some form of tax relief to sell their properties to the council with tenants in situ.

Since these changes were announced, I have been inundated with contact from several concerned approved housing bodies and housing initiatives. They tell me the tenant in situ scheme has proved very effective in preventing homelessness among hundreds of households since its introduction. They say it has been a safety net for people who have been issued with a no-fault eviction notice by their landlord and has successfully prevented homelessness, keeping families in their homes and adding social housing stock to local authorities and approved housing bodies. NOVAS in my city of Limerick has been very active in procuring properties in collaboration with local authorities through this scheme and is very anxious to continue to prevent homelessness in this manner. It is concerned the newly proposed restrictions will severely limit the impact of the scheme, forcing more households into homelessness for protracted periods with few exit pathways.

We know now that more families than ever are living in commercial hotels and hubs for far longer than the recommended six-month period. This type of provision is extremely expensive for the State and can have detrimental impacts on the physical, social and emotional well-being of family members. During his tenure, the Minister's predecessor, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, said targets were considered the minimum attainment for each local authority so that if opportunities arose to prevent homelessness through the scheme, local authorities and approved housing bodies could do so. Now, the Minister has effectively blown a massive, gaping hole in that.

We urge the Minister to reconsider these restrictions on tenant in situ, which we believe will have unintended adverse consequences for vulnerable households throughout the country, increasing homelessness at a time when the system is creaking at the seams. Rather than imposing restrictions, this scheme should be extended. It would be easier for all of us if the Government were honest with people instead of trying to spin this by stating it will still protect the most vulnerable. That is simply untrue. It is very clear that the Department of public expenditure does not like this scheme - it is expensive - and the Department of housing has been told to take a scissors to it. It would be better for all of us if the Government were honest about that.

In the time available to me, I will tell the House about one of the many people I am dealing with who do not know what they are going to do or where they are going to go after their notice to quit expires. I am dealing with a woman called Ciara who has given me permission to tell her story. In January 2024, she was initially told that her landlord wanted to sell the home she was living in. She was going through the tenant in situ process for almost the entirety of last year. However, the application was closed out on 18 December because there was no allocation for 2025. We now know the allocation that is coming for 2025 will not even cover the necessary refurbishment work that needs to be done in the home Ciara has lived in for over a decade. This home is now going on the open market. She and her partner have been on the housing list for a decade now. She told me they are now coming up to the last three months they will spend in a home that their seven-year-old son only knows as his home. They have begged the council to buy it. They are desperate and willing to try anything. I do not know what to tell Ciara and others like her whom I am dealing with at the moment. I do not know what answers or what hope they have.

There is no advantage for landlords to sell to the local authorities. If we are honest, people will get much more if they put a home on the private market. It is almost as if the Government thinks landlords are trying to sell to the State in order to cash in; that is simply untrue. The changes have turned this scheme from a safety net to stop people going into homelessness to a scheme of last resort. Government policy has now changed in that it actively wants and favours vacant possession and sale on the open market. This is a distinct policy shift away from preventing homelessness. It is absolutely shameful, at a time when homelessness has never been so high, private rents have never been so high and people have never been in such a precarious situation, to do this now.

This scheme should have been extended and expanded. Instead, it is being completely filleted. It is unworkable. Local authorities will be lucky this year if they are able to do a fraction of the small number of tenant in situ purchases they completed last year. For the Minister to claim he is protecting vulnerable people in the private rented market is fundamentally dishonest.

See this speech in context