I move: That Dáil Éireann: notes that: — under significant pressure from the Opposition, the Government reopened the Social Housing Tenant in-Situ Scheme in 2022, and, following further pressure from the Opposition, provided much needed flexibility in the operation of the scheme in 2023; — since April 2023, more than 2,500 households have been prevented from becoming homeless because of the scheme; — 16,546 notices of termination were issued to private rental tenants last year, with more than half of those on the grounds of landlords intending to sell the property; and — the number of people in Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage funded emergency homeless accommodation increased by 13 per cent in the last year to 15,286 people, including 4,603 children; expresses concern that: — the Social Housing Tenant in-Situ Scheme has been suspended since the end of last year, due to the failure of Government to agree the funding and targets for 2025, with hundreds of applications left pending without a decision due to lack of funding; — there is a concerted effort by the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage to reduce the funding for, and restrict the operation of, the scheme; — Approved Housing Bodies are effectively excluded from the scheme, arising from an inability to access Capital Advance Leasing Facility funding for acquisitions; and — the result of these factors is that greater numbers of people are being put at risk of homelessness, and landlords are disincentivised from engaging with the scheme; and agrees that the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage must: — ensure that local authorities have the maximum level of funding to be able to operate the Social Housing Tenant in-Situ Scheme at the same level as 2024, and that the funding levels allocated for 2025 will be reviewed mid-year; — provide local authorities with the maximum level of flexibility in the operation of the scheme, in line with its operation in 2023 and 2024; — reject the new restrictions being proposed by the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage to the scheme, including: — the strict requirement for a Notice of Termination and Residential Tenancies Board registration; — the exclusion of reasonable refurbishment costs; — the de-prioritisation of single people and couples without children; and — the two-year rule, whereby the owner of the property must be in receipt of a social housing support payment for a period of two years; and — provide local authorities with their capital allocations and targets for 2025 as a matter of urgency, to allow them to process all outstanding applications and reopen the scheme to new applications. I wish to share time with my colleagues.

Sentiment score: 0.60

As the Minister knows, last year, more than 16,000 eviction notices were issued by landlords to tenants in the private rental sector and more than half of those eviction notices were on grounds of sale. The sale of property is the single largest driver of homelessness for families, couples, singles and pensioners. As a consequence, in the past year alone, the number of people in emergency accommodation funded by the Department has increased by a significant 13%. We have never had as many adults and children, single people, couples, families and pensioners in emergency accommodation since these records began. In April 2023, under pressure from the Opposition and front-line homeless service providers, the tenant in situ scheme was properly reopened and local authorities, in particular, were given the flexibility they needed to ensure they could buy homes to prevent families and singles becoming homeless. While we do not have the final figures for last year, somewhere in the region of 2,500 households have been prevented from the problem of homelessness because of that scheme. This scheme is working very well. The parliamentary questions that the Minister signed off on today with respect to the scheme, which came from Deputies of all parties, Government and Opposition, show this. Unfortunately, the scheme has always had its opponents, both in the Government and the Civil Service. There are some who think the State should not be using any of its capital funding for acquisitions. I have heard people suggest that, somehow, local authorities are taking the easy option by buying these homes when other options are available for people at risk of homelessness. While there is no evidence to support any of that, there are two very significant problems right now, and the Minister knows what both of them are. The failure of the Government last year to set the capital ceilings and targets for this year means the scheme is paused and there are hundreds of applications pending a decision across the State. More worryingly, the memo that was sent by the Department to local authorities a number of weeks ago set out a series of new and significant restrictions to the scheme. If adequate funding is not provided alongside the new restrictions, then real people - families, children and pensioners, who would otherwise have got access to this scheme if the rules remained the same, will be denied access to it this year and will be at greater risk of homelessness. I appreciate that the Minister is new to the job. I appreciate that he has a huge learning curve to meet and that he is listening to many different views on this. However, I urge him not just to listen to his officials but to talk to the front-line homeless service providers in local authorities and read carefully the letters that, I understand, he has been sent by some of our leading homeless charities. They are telling him that if he does not, at a minimum, provide the same level of funding this year as last year, specifically for the tenant in situ scheme, local authorities will run out of funding before the year-end. If the Minister allows the specific restrictions that we have listed in our motion to make their way into the circular that he will sign, fewer homes will be bought and more people will be at risk of homelessness. This is one of the first big decisions that Deputy Browne is going to have to make as Minister and it is going to say a lot about the trajectory of travel in his tenure over the time ahead. There are occasions when we will have political rows across the Chamber but this is one where we are telling him that a decision of the Government two years ago was the right one. The scheme is working and we are urging the Minister, as are front-line service providers in local authorities and homeless charities, not to make the wrong decision. Here is the thing. If he makes the wrong decision, and if people who would otherwise have been prevented from going into homelessness end up in emergency accommodation because of his decision, that is on him. Everything else we talk about at this point is the responsibility of his predecessors. The Minister, and he alone, will ultimately make the decision. Despite the fact that the wording of his amendment is deeply disappointing, I urge him to take time to reflect before he signs off on that circular. He should listen to the people on the front line, who we trust to tackle the issue of homelessness, and listen to his own backbenchers, who know this scheme is working. He should ensure, hopefully as a matter of urgency, that when he makes the final decision on capital allocation and signs off on that final circular, our local authorities have the money and the flexibility to ensure no household, family, single person or couple without children will be forced into homelessness because of a bad decision by the Minister and his colleagues. He can do the right thing but it is not in his amendment. I urge him to reconsider.

Sentiment score: -0.00

The concern - and it is a genuine concern - that has motivated us in bringing forward this Private Members' motion is that the capital funding announced by the Minister's Department to date, and the new restrictive eligibility criteria, will result in fewer tenant in situ purchases this year than last year, even if the demand is the same. That is the central concern here. The total capital allocation of €325 million, as the Minister said, is across four acquisition streams. That funding, at current average acquisition prices, will deliver fewer homes this year than last year or the year before. That is simply a fact. The restrictive criteria the Government is introducing make no sense. Reasonable refurbishment costs are a vital element for this scheme to work, and without it, many properties will go unbought. Prioritising one group of vulnerable homeless people inevitably means deprioritising and ultimately excluding another group of very vulnerable homeless people. They are both equally as deserving of prioritisation. Currently, they receive that and that should not change. The two-year rule makes no sense. There seems to be a suggestion that somehow, somebody somewhere is gaming the system. I am not saying the Minister is saying that, but some of the people advising him may believe that despite the fact that there is no evidence. The very rigid adherence on a notice to quit rather than the slightly more flexible approach that has been in evidence over the past period is regrettable. The Minister says the scheme is not suspended. On the ground, that is not the truth. If I call a local authority today as a landlord, I will be told no new applications are being taken until the Minister has made his decision and the circular has issued. Hundreds of applications made last year are awaiting a final decision and cannot be processed. I do not know what definition of the word "suspended" the Government operates on, but for me, that is a suspension. All I am asking the Minister to do is, if he is not willing to listen to us, to talk to the people on the front line. Talk to the people preventing homelessness in the statutory and voluntary sector and ask them if they think this will make the scheme better or worse. They will tell him it will make it worse. I am urging him to reconsider. Please, between now and when he signs off on the circular, do not make these changes, do not make more people homeless who otherwise would not be so. Do the right thing and scrap these proposed changes.

Sentiment score: -0.06