Yes.
Sentiment score: 0.40
Yes, there was a motion to instruct yesterday.
Sentiment score: 0.40
Theoretically, I have no issue with this Bill or with the basic principle of codifying circulars around access to emergency accommodation and social housing eligibility. I do, however, have a big issue with the Minister using the motion to instruct. This is the second time this has happened in a year. I am only in this House a short time. The Minister has effectively tacked a whole new Bill onto a tenuously related Bill that we discussed already on Second Stage and Committee Stage. Far-reaching and significant amendments to the Housing Act 1988 came to us yesterday and they came with a two-hour guillotine and with very little time to discuss the far-reaching consequences they will have for people trying to access emergency accommodation. I have a number of questions. One relates to the strict, arbitrary two-night limit. What is the rationale for codifying that, as opposed to the safety net discretion that exists at the moment? I have no issue with the statutory framework for how local authorities assess who qualifies for emergency accommodation and long-term housing support, but this is effectively stripping away a humanitarian safety net. There will be a loss of discretion. Under the previous policy guidelines, which were more flexible, local authorities could use discretion on humanitarian grounds to provide shelter to people. I am concerned by the rigidity of the Minister's amendments. These strict statutory definitions will remove a vital safety net. They will legally force councils to turn away people who are in unique and complicated situations and who do not fit into neat legal boxes. Will the Minister elaborate on what exemptions will be built into the legislation to counteract this? The local connection test is controversial, in many cases, and can be quite arbitrary. When it is being codified like this, these strict local links will prevent people, in some cases, from accessing emergency placement outside of their home district. I say that because I represent a constituency that is on the edge of another constituency and which has people flying over and back on a bridge between Counties Limerick and Clare. What statutory guarantees or emergency exemptions will be built into the Bill to make sure people in crisis who will not successfully complete these rigid paperwork checks are not legally forced onto the street? For many marginalised and excluded people - I am thinking of Roma people, people from a migrant background and Travellers - it will be impossible for each resident in a family unit, for example, to fulfil the legal and habitual residency test. This Bill and these amendments could justify forcing an individual or family in crisis to navigate a complex, document-heavy bureaucratic housing application to secure a crisis bed for the night. Why did the Minister not bring forward the amendments as a stand-alone Bill or when the Bill was initiated, so we could hear from the people who work in this sphere - the housing charities, the likes of Focus Ireland and FLAC, and the people who will have to deal with the real-world consequences of this? These are foundational changes to statutory housing rights and we have had no proper, full, transparent parliamentary debate and committee scrutiny. We had that on the Bill as initiated but not on what is in the Bill now. I feel the way the Bill has been brought in and heavily amended is being done purposefully in order to bring the figures down in terms of emergency accommodation. The knock-on effect of that will be an increase in rough sleeping. This seems a deliberate policy decision when you look at the demographic of people in emergency accommodation, including those coming from State accommodation, particularly from IPAS, into emergency accommodation. The Bill is being done in this way in order to remove what the Government feels is currently a pull factor. I do not think this is the way to do it. We will see a huge increase in rough sleeping. Going back to the legal and habitual residency condition, this alters the situation and the discretion of the local authority to provide emergency accommodation to anyone meeting the statutory definition of a homeless person. When I look at the amendment to withdraw emergency accommodation, theoretically I have no issue with it, but in the way the Minister has put it forward, the amendment is far too rigid. There are some cases where you have to withdraw emergency accommodation - I am in no doubt about that - such as when an individual is behaving dangerously or is disruptive to other people in emergency accommodation, but we cannot withdraw emergency accommodation from somebody just for refusing one offer. I deal with my own local authority, as every Deputy in this House does. I have had situations where a house that is virtually in the middle of nowhere with no public transport links has been offered to somebody living in emergency accommodation with no car. Let us be blunt, somebody from a migrant community or background might not be able to go and live in a certain area because of genuine concerns for their personal safety. That is fact and I have had situations like that. There needs to be a bit of discretion there. Removing the safety net of emergency accommodation for people most at risk of homelessness and creating these additional administrative barriers might help the Minister's figures, so to speak, at the end of the month but it is going to create a whole host of other problems. It is going to lead to an increase in rough sleeping. I will be supporting Deputy Ó Broin's amendment as well because at the very least, we need to have an appeals process. It cannot be done as rigidly as the Minister is proposing.
Sentiment score: -0.01
I thank the Minister for his response. I am none the wiser from his response either as to why the arbitrary eight to eight time was chosen. It seems sort of strange to have a situation where in winter, you could have empty emergency accommodation beds and people outside in the cold because of this arbitrary eight to eight rule. I do not understand why this is being codified in legislation in the way it has been done. The Minister will store up problems for himself. He made a very bold comment when he said this Bill will not increase the number of rough sleepers. Where is the Minister's regulatory impact assessment for that? Where is the data to show that definitively will not happen when every homeless organisation, NGO, etc., has told us it will? We did not need homeless NGOs or the likes of FLAC to tell us this would lead to an increase in rough sleeping. Common sense will tell you that this will lead to an increase in rough sleeping. In respect of the lack of an appeals process, the Minister said in one sense that you can apply and apply again but essentially that means that if somebody keeps being refused, the only recourse they have then is to try to seek a judicial review, which is absolute nonsense because anybody who needs emergency accommodation does not have the capacity to do that. I would appreciate if the Minister addressed those questions.
Sentiment score: -0.02
We in the Labour Party support the need for more flexibility when it comes to exempted developments. What I do not support is the whole idea of allowing landlords to rent out "Cummins cabins", effectively, without any protection for tenants. The fact of the matter is renters will have no Part 4 protection or rent controls. They could be subject to summary eviction. Due to the fact these dwellings will not come under the RTB Act and will not require planning, it will be hard to identify where they are and to make sure that they are of a decent standard. I have no issue with more flexibility when it comes to exempted development. In fact, it is necessary. A couple of months ago, I asked the Minister if he would at the very least conduct a full review of the licensing system to make sure that it is sound. We have had a number of issues with it, in that there are major loopholes and, unfortunately, people have been exploited as a result. There is no safety net or protection against rent hikes, spikes or eviction. I am afraid that this could end up disproportionately targeting vulnerable people. I am thinking in particular of students, including international students. We have had loads of issues in recent years with international students being stacked into accommodation. Now they will potentially end up being stacked into what are, in effect, beds in sheds. Local authorities already find it difficult enough to inspect private rentals. Removing the requirement for RTB registration means it will be very hard to know exactly where any of these structures will be. The rent-a-room scheme works reasonably well but this will have the effect of distorting the spirit of the scheme because there will be completely unregulated, stand-alone private rental businesses in residential back gardens. I again call on the Minister, if he is going to do this, to at least look at the licensee system and the loopholes therein.
Sentiment score: -0.05
I move amendment No. 14: In page 11, after line 38, to insert the following: “(13) Nothing in this section shall be construed as— (a) restricting or qualifying any right conferred on a person by the Treaties of the European Union or by the Regulations of 2015, or (b) requiring a housing authority to act in a manner incompatible with the State’s obligations under the Convention within the meaning of the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003.”.
Sentiment score: -0.31
I move amendment No. 16: In page 12, after line 39, to insert the following: “(i) the determination was otherwise unreasonable having regard to all the circumstances of the household’s application.”.
Sentiment score: 0.05
I move amendment No. 18: In page 13, to delete lines 25 to 35 and substitute the following: “(9) On receipt by a housing authority of a social housing appeal made in accordance with this section, the chief executive of the authority shall request the Minister to nominate a person to decide the appeal (in this section referred to as an ‘appeals officer’). (10) The Minister shall, for the purposes of subsection (9), establish and maintain a panel of persons eligible for nomination as appeals officers, being persons— (a) who are officers or employees of a housing authority other than the housing authority whose determination is the subject of the social housing appeal concerned, and (b) who, in the opinion of the Minister, have sufficient knowledge and experience of housing law and social housing assessment to discharge the functions of an appeals officer. (11) The Minister shall nominate a person from the panel referred to in subsection (10) to act as appeals officer in respect of a social housing appeal within 7 days of receiving a request under subsection (9). (12) A housing authority shall provide such administrative support to an appeals officer nominated under subsection (10A) as the appeals officer may reasonably require for the purposes of deciding a social housing appeal.”.
Sentiment score: 0.26
I move amendment No. 22: In page 14, between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following: “Equality impact assessment 10.(1) The Minister shall, before making an order under section 1(4) bringing section 8 into operation, cause to be carried out an equality impact assessment of the residency requirements imposed by section 20A of the Act of 2009 (as inserted by section 8). (2) An equality impact assessment under this section shall assess the likely effect of the residency requirements referred to in subsection (1) on persons sharing a protected characteristic within the meaning of the Equal Status Acts 2000 to 2018, having regard in particular to— (a) race, nationality and ethnic or national origins, (b) family status, and (c) membership of the Traveller community. (3) The Minister shall, as soon as practicable after the completion of an equality impact assessment under this section, cause a copy of the assessment to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas. (4) Nothing in this section shall be construed as precluding the Minister from commencing section 8 following the completion and laying of an equality impact assessment under this section, notwithstanding any findings contained in that assessment.”.
Sentiment score: 0.05
I move amendment No. 24: In page 15, between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following: “Social housing assessment: transfer and recognition 11.The Act of 2009 is amended by the insertion of the following section after section 20B (inserted by section 8): “Social housing passport 20C.(1) Where a housing authority (in this section referred to as the ‘assessing authority’) has determined under section 20 that a household is qualified for social housing support, and a member of that household subsequently establishes a connection with the functional area of another housing authority (in this section referred to as the ‘receiving authority’), the household may apply to the receiving authority to have the assessment of the assessing authority recognised for the purposes of social housing support in the functional area of the receiving authority. (2) On receipt of an application under subsection (1), the receiving authority shall— (a) recognise the assessment of the assessing authority as establishing that the household is qualified for social housing support in its functional area, without requiring the household to submit to a fresh assessment, unless— (i) the assessment of the assessing authority was made more than 3 years before the date of the application under subsection (1), or (ii) the receiving authority has reasonable grounds for believing that the circumstances of the household have materially changed since the date of the assessment, and (b) where paragraph (a)(i) or (ii) applies, carry out a fresh assessment of the household’s eligibility for social housing support in accordance with section 20, taking into account such information as was provided to the assessing authority as the receiving authority considers relevant. (3) Where the receiving authority recognises an assessment under subsection (2)(a), the household shall be placed on the housing list of the receiving authority with effect from the date on which the household was placed on the housing list of the assessing authority, subject to the application of any scheme of letting priorities made under section 22 by the receiving authority. (4) A household may appeal a decision of a receiving authority under subsection (2) in accordance with section 20B. (5) The Minister may by regulations make further provision for the purposes of this section, including provision for— (a) the form and manner of an application under subsection (1), (b) the information to be provided by a household in support of such an application, (c) the circumstances in which a material change in circumstances under subsection (2)(a)(ii) may be found to exist, and (d) the procedures to be followed by housing authorities in giving effect to this section.”.”.
Sentiment score: 0.35