My Topical Issue relates to the tenant in situ scheme and the resulting impact on homelessness in Dublin Fingal West. I submitted this Topical Issue because I gave a commitment to two families in my constituency that if the opportunity presented itself, I would advise somebody in the Government of it. As I said to them, I could not guarantee who it would be given the nature of Topical Issue debates but I would advise somebody in the Government of what is happening. They genuinely feel that perhaps if the Government knew or was aware of the impacts of the policies it decides in this House and puts through with its majority, things would change and it would have some compassion because they are in quite desperate situations. One case involves a family of four - mam, dad and two children - who were living in Rush. They received a notice to quit and their landlord was amenable to selling that property to the council. They contacted the council and got a response, which I have here on my phone. Obviously, I made a representation for them. The response stated that the council responded to the landlord explaining that it is not in a position to accept new expressions of interest in the tenant in situ scheme due to lack of funding and would notify the tenant accordingly. Of course, the tenant knew already. Their notice to quit expired and they are now living in emergency accommodation. Mam, dad and two children are all living in one room, in this heat, with no air conditioning. As the Minister of State can imagine, they are in quite a desperate situation. The second case concerns a family whose notice to quit expires in September. I wrote to the council again on their behalf. The landlord contacted the council. This was a sale that was being done as a result of a bankruptcy, so they were dealing with an agent. The agent was very happy to sell to Fingal County Council. They got the same reply. Their house has now been sold. It has been sold to another landlord and that landlord would like them out quicker than their notice to quit will allow, but they are going to stick where they are. To date, they have sent out nearly 300 requests following advertisements they have seen and, indeed, places where they thought they might get somewhere to live. They, too, fear that they will be heading to emergency accommodation. I am not sure if the Minister of State is aware of what emergency accommodation is like. I am, and I would not like to live in it. I certainly would not like my daughter or grandson to live in it. I do not think the Minister of State would like to live in it and I do not think he would like his family to live in it either. However, unless there is investment in the tenant in situ scheme, that is where that family are heading. The mam works in north County Dublin. She has she has a good job and she works hard. The dad is receiving chemotherapy at the moment and he is absolutely frantic about what going into emergency accommodation will mean for his treatment. This landlord was willing to sell to the council under the tenant in situ scheme. We contacted the council and we were told it did not have the funds to be able to purchase it. This family will now join that other family in emergency accommodation. I am sure I do not need to tell the Minister of State this because he is probably aware of it. Emergency accommodation is very expensive as well as being grim. It is somewhere that he would not want to live and I certainly would not want to live in it either. It is also very expensive. Investing in somewhere permanent for this family to live actually makes sense and there is a good value for money argument to be made in that regard.

Sentiment score: 0.01

I sometimes wonder if the Minister of State must be embarrassed reading such a script. He said that tenant in situ will never be the sole or even the primary option. I have outlined to him how it was not. When this family got their notice to quit, they sent out hundreds of emails. They replied to hundreds. They registered with estate agents. They tramped the roads. They did everything they possibly could. Their very last resort was to contact a local politician which, as we all know, people do not do easily or lightly, but they do because they have to. So, it was not the only resort. The council was willing to buy the property but it lacked the funding. It had exactly what the Minister of State outlined in his script. No extensive refurbishments were required - happy days; tick that box. What it did not have was money. However, the Government has money to keep them in emergency accommodation, which as the Minister of State and I both know is grim. It is not where he would want to raise his family, certainly not where I would want to raise mine and definitely not where they want to be. I fully appreciate that the Minister of State read out the script on behalf of the senior Minister and, in many ways, I do not envy him having to do that. The family have done everything and they still ended up in emergency accommodation. I ask the Minister of State to please bring this message back to the senior Minister. They ended up in emergency accommodation, which will have to be paid for. Grim and all as it is, it is expensive. The reason they ended up there is that there is not sufficient funding for the acquisition programme. That is what they need. People in my constituency wait on the housing list for over 14 years. These people have been on the list for ten years, meaning they are half a decade away from being housed. They have to go to private rented accommodation, and when they cannot do that, they have to go to emergency accommodation which is both grim and expensive.

Sentiment score: -0.05