Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Christopher O'Sullivan.

Mark Duffy (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I offer my condolences to the Minister of State on his sad loss. It is a testament to him that he is back here so soon after such a difficult loss. My sympathies are with him.

I raise an issue relating to the tenant in situ scheme, which is a very good scheme that helps people in the challenging circumstance of facing eviction. Currently, when people are in receipt of HAP or RAS, local authorities are enabled to purchase the property when the eviction notice is given to the tenant. Unfortunately, any rent supplement paid to the household renter is not taken into account and is not a factor for the tenant in situ scheme. This means the local authority cannot purchase the property because they have not been empowered by the Department of housing to do so, even though the renter is receiving rent supplement support from a social welfare office.

This issue was raised with me by Councillor Donna Sheridan in Castlebar. She is currently dealing with a situation where the local authority wants to purchase a house that meets all the scheme criteria. The person renting the house is in receipt of rent supplement from the social welfare office. Unfortunately, bureaucracy is denying the local authority the ability to purchase the property.

People who receive rent supplement are often victims of domestic violence and abuse and have been relocated. They are being penalised and are suffering a negative impact under this policy. Will the Minister of State consider expanding the scheme to include those in receipt of rent supplement? This is a pressing matter. Given the current housing challenges, many people are under pressure. In the instance I mentioned, the local authority wants to help but cannot do so because of the current criteria. I would really welcome the Minister of State's consideration of this issue. I look forward to his response.

Christopher O'Sullivan (Cork South-West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Deputy for his kind words. I welcome the schoolchildren in the Gallery. I am not sure where they are from but they are welcome to the Seanad Chamber. I hope they are enjoying the day.

I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the very serious matter Senator Duffy has raised. The tenant in situ scheme has benefited people in Mayo and the Senator has represented many constituents in that regard. It has been a very good solution in terms of people avoiding homelessness. We are continuing the scheme but, obviously, the real solution to avoid homelessness and ensure secure tenure is increasing housing supply. That is the number one goal one of the Government. However, the tenant in situ scheme is a very effective scheme and it is continuing. It is important to make that point. Unfortunately, it does not apply to short-term rent supplements. That will continue to be the case but there is another scheme, the cost-rental tenant in situ scheme, that applies for those in tenancies who have received an eviction notice but are not within the parameters or the income limits for social housing or the housing assistance payment. That is important to say. I will outline that here.

The Department is providing €325 million in 2025 for local authorities to buy second-hand properties, with a particular focus on the tenant in situ, where tenants in receipt of social housing support, such as the housing assistance payment or the rental accommodation scheme, had received a notice of termination. While the clear focus of the Government must remain on increasing the supply of new-build social and affordable homes, a targeted social housing acquisition programme has been, and will continue to be, an important policy response to priority needs.

The social housing acquisitions circular that recently issued to local authorities sets out the revised arrangements for second-hand social housing acquisitions in 2025. Under the revised arrangements for second-hand acquisitions in 2025, local authorities will receive a capital funding allocation for the acquisition of homes for the following priority categories: tenant in situ; elderly and disabled persons; exits from homelessness; and buy-and-renew acquisitions that tackle vacancy. Despite some coverage to the contrary, the eligibility criteria for tenant in situ acquisitions in 2025 is not overly restrictive. It is largely the same as the guidance issued in June 2024 and not substantially different from what was required in 2023.

We have asked local authorities, as we did in previous years, to ensure that they are responding to a valid notice of termination where there is a real risk of homelessness, and to examine all options for the ongoing accommodation of the household before progressing, as a last resort, with an acquisition. We have also asked that local authorities give priority to families with children, older persons or people with a disability who are at serious risk of homelessness. However, prioritising households should not be interpreted as excluding any household and the final decision regarding each individual acquisition rests, as it should, with the local authority.

The tenant in situ acquisitions programme was introduced by way of Government decision in 2023. The programme for Government commits to continuing to have tenant in situ acquisitions as an option for local authorities. The eligibility criteria do not extend to short-term or temporary income support measures such as rent supplement. Where an individual or a household has a long-term housing need, they can apply to the local authority for social housing support, which may include the housing assistance payment. This would, therefore, render them ineligible for the tenant in situ scheme.

The option of the cost-rental tenant in situ scheme, which I mentioned, should also be explored by any affected households. The scheme, which was also introduced in 2023, is targeted at tenants in private rental homes who are not in receipt of social housing supports but are at risk of homelessness because a landlord has served a valid notice of termination due to an intention to sell the property. The local authority conducts the initial assessment for eligibility of the tenant for this scheme and refers potential cases to the Housing Agency, which is responsible for administering and managing the scheme on behalf of the Department. That cost-rental tenant in situ option is there. I can elaborate a bit more in my response later.

Mark Duffy (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister of State for outlining the detailed feedback. The person affected in this example is in receipt of the rent supplement payment. She meets the criteria for HAP and RAS but she is not in receipt of them now. Will she be negatively impacted by, say, the minimum of two years that is required for her to avail of the tenant in situ scheme, or does the Minister of State think the cost-rental ability he outlined will give enough flexibility, considering that this is a difficult situation where the tenant is due to be evicted and that there are many examples of people being affected by domestic violence? Does the Minister of State see and believe that there is, generally, enough flexibility for the local authority? I know he cannot give case-specific replies but generally, is there enough flexibility to allow the local authority to purchase the house to keep a roof over the head of someone in a vulnerable situation like this?

Christopher O'Sullivan (Cork South-West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Senator Duffy. The Department obviously cannot get into the nitty-gritty of individual cases but from what he has described, the cost-rental tenant in situ scheme is the option in situations like these. Where someone is not in receipt of HAP or is not approved for social housing, the regular tenant in situ scheme does not allow for the local authority to purchase that house but the option is there for approved housing bodies. It is a less popular and less well-known scheme but where someone fits outside that income limit, that is the scheme for them, as long as the landlord is in a position to sell and is willing to sell, and as long as the approved housing body fitd all the criteria. For me, in those situations, that is the appropriate scheme. The income levels are different. There are limits under that scheme with regard to the level of income someone earns but certainly, that seems to me to be the appropriate scheme. I appreciate the frustration and the Senator's concern for that particular case, but that option is there and I would urge them to explore that.