It is deeply disappointing that the Minister has rushed through this legislation. I have been working in the area of homelessness for over a decade as an academic and researcher, but also campaigning with people directly in homelessness and working with homeless organisations. The homeless providers have never once asked for this legislation. It was never put forward as a solution to homelessness. The question is why the Minister is doing it. I have not yet been given a rationale that justifies rushing this through. The only conclusion I can draw is that it is part of a trend in this Government of what I would describe as performative cruelty. Let us show that we are being hard on migrants and immigrants and make some minor changes so we can say we are clamping down on access to things like social housing and now emergency accommodation. The circular existed. The Minister did not need to do this. It is also very surprising to me, as somebody who has worked in this area for a long time, to read statements from the Simon Communities, Focus Ireland and Depaul - the front-line homeless providers - outlining their concern and making very clear that the Minister is not listening to them and has not listened to them. He has not listened in the sense of acting upon what they have put forward. The other aspect of this, along with the dog whistle to anti-immigrant sentiment, is that it is about reducing homeless numbers. I believe that is what this is about. It is very disappointing. We know that rough sleepers are not captured or counted in monthly homeless figures. This feels to me, in my reading, like a cynical move to somehow reduce homeless numbers. I highlight in particular the lack of time given to debate this. It is being rushed through. We got the amendments this week and there has been a failure to genuinely engage with the homeless organisations. Maybe they will feel a response to their criticism in their funding - I hope not. The homeless organisations have been as critical of any Minister for housing introducing legislation as I have seen. The Simon Communities set out that there are very real risks associated with this legislation. The Dublin Simon Community stated: "This bill has the potential to see more people turned away with nowhere left to go other than the streets." It says access to emergency accommodation "should always be led by need not entitlement." Of particular concern for it are the amendments which require individuals who do not meet the residency criteria to re-present nightly for emergency accommodation, inserting the 8 p.m. to 8 a.m. window for emergency accommodation placement. Mike Allen of Focus Ireland was very critical of that move. He stated that the Bill "is the first change in homelessness legislation since 1988, but instead of using the opportunity to bring the homeless system up to date [for which I am sure Focus Ireland has had lots of suggestions], the Government is slipping through a range of measures which bring it back to the Victorian past." It is really shocking. With this 8 p.m to 8 a.m. provision, what happens to children? Are they going to be kicked out at eight in the morning? Are they only going to be let in at 8 p.m. in the winter? Has the Minister thought through what this actually means and is going to mean? This winter, on the streets of our towns, villages and cities, we will have families, including children, and probably migrant families who are here, turned away to sleep rough. There is an irony in including a reference to the best interests of the child when it is not the best interests of the child in terms of eligibility and access to emergency accommodation. The most vulnerable people in our society, to a certain extent, are being scapegoated. I do not understand why the Minister has rushed this through and why he did not give us and the organisations working on the front line time to go through it. Dublin Simon Community states that "inserting an 8 p.m. to 8 a.m. window for emergency accommodation placement into the legislation is particularly unworkable for person-led service providers like Dublin Simon." The Minister is introducing a measure that those who, right now, are providing emergency accommodation to thousands of people who are homeless say is making it unworkable. He is actually going to make the homelessness crisis worse with these measures. Dublin Simon Community states that "the lack of stability this would create would significantly impact these individuals' ability to meaningfully engage with support across housing, health and social care services." It further states: Additionally, the proposed requirement for all members of a household to meet residency requirements could result in families being refused emergency accommodation. This is especially worrying as we may see more children facing the prospect of sleeping rough. Focus Ireland has outlined that the habitual residence condition will require people to present detailed paperwork, which they are unlikely to have on them if they are fleeing domestic violence, have just been evicted or are going through a mental health crisis. We are saying this to the most vulnerable people. What is going to happen? Is someone of colour going to present to a local authority, with an accent from a different country, and the local authority is going to ask them to prove they are habitually resident? Are we going to see racism rise and are we going to see discrimination cases? How are local authorities going to judge and what is the time they are going to give? Are they going to ask people to bring back the paperwork? When are they to come back with the paperwork? There are serious issues here. This will put on local authorities a more complicated system and make their provision of emergency accommodation more complex, which is inevitably going to lead to more destitution and homelessness. Focus Ireland stated: What the Government is calling a 'safety net' is really a return to the sort of cruel approach favoured in the Workhouse and the County Home, where people are only provided shelter for a few hours and given no security for the following night. Any Government in the last 40 years would have been ashamed to introduce legislation which is so poorly drafted, unclear and punitive. Those are not my words; they are the words of Focus Ireland. I do believe that it is nasty, cruel legislation. It is unnecessary. No justification for it has been given. The CEO of Depaul has said that Depaul is alarmed and dismayed at the process, which has been rushed through. There is deep frustration over what he described as "a clear disregard by the Government to the concerns aired by those working at the front line of this homelessness crisis." Clarity and joined-up thinking are what we need, he said. He said, "This Bill creates a new range of uncertainties about access to emergency accommodation and how vulnerable people will be treated." It is "regressive" and "will have profound effects on the most vulnerable people in our society". Free Legal Advice Centres, FLAC, similarly outlined some very serious concerns with it. It states that removing "the safety-net of emergency accommodation for communities already most at risk of homelessness" is, in turn, likely to "lead to a rise in the number of people and families rough-sleeping". FLAC also described the meeting the Minister had with it. It said the one-hour briefing between Department officials and the NGOs on 17 June did not constitute meaningful consultation. The Government is in breach of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission's policies and ethics in relation to public sector bodies and their equality and human rights obligations. Community Law & Mediation set out that the unavoidable conclusion is that vulnerable people, including children and those with disabilities, will be at direct risk of on-street homelessness. The Minister never answered the question as to what will happen to victims of trafficking and domestic violence. That he has not made an exception for those groups is disappointing and disgraceful. He could have added in those exceptions to ensure that there were humanitarian grounds on which our most vulnerable people who are coming into this country or who are in this country already could be provided with emergency accommodation. It is deeply disappointing. I really hope what these organisations have outlined does not come to pass. If it does, it is the Minister's decision and his responsibility to take for that.
Sentiment score: -0.14
I raised all the issues earlier that I wanted to talk about but I just want to ask the Minister something again. I appeal to him at this late stage to change the 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. closure provision. I think it will lead to unintended, or intended, consequences that will be potentially severe this winter. I urge him to come up with some other form of wording, or just remove the provision. I just do not see why he does not remove it at this point. It is not necessary. I would ask him to do that on a humanitarian basis. Will the Minister also add an exception for victims of domestic violence and trafficking? I am just asking for those two concessions.
Sentiment score: -0.11
Are these new ones that were not on Committee Stage?
Sentiment score: 0.00
We have discussed this. We in the Social Democrats have serious concerns about the change being introduced. We are concerned in particular about the lack of rental rights that will apply to those residing in back garden sheds or structures. Why will the Minister not apply the Residential Tenancies Act to these dwellings? Obviously, I do not agree they should be rented, but what the Minister is doing is even worse in terms of allowing them to be licensees. Threshold, the renters' charity that does excellent work and which the Minister has engaged with, has expressed severe concern about the failure to protect people who will live in sheds at the back of people's dwellings. It is another piece of legislation that is being rushed through and the consequences are not being seriously considered. This will create modern day tenements in back gardens. It will be completely unregulated. People will be hidden. We know this is already happening. You can see on daft.ie sheds in back gardens available for rent. There is one in Walkinstown for €1,100 per month. Such dwellings will be completely unmonitored. Of course an exemption in respect of standards will have to be provided when they are built, but who is ensuring that there is hot water and tenants have access to decent facilities? Who will ensure that people who are renting these are living in proper, suitable standards? It will be a recipe for disaster. As the Taoiseach said, it is about incentivising people to provide this rental accommodation. The Bill will create another layer of accidental so-called landlords who are not professional landlords. Someone in their 50s or 60s may build a modular home in their back garden and have a family living in it. What happens when that person retires and decides they want to sell their home? The family would be evicted and have no protections whatsoever. This will lead to more homelessness and hidden exploitation. As Threshold highlighted, it will be students, elderly people and vulnerable groups who will be most exposed to this exploitation. On that basis, we will oppose the amendment.
Sentiment score: -0.00
I move amendment No. 17: In page 13, to delete lines 12 to 16 and substitute the following: “(6) A social housing appeal shall be made to an independent appeals office located within the Housing Agency within 28 days of the notification by the housing authority to the household concerned of the making of a determination in respect of the application or reassessment for social housing support concerned under section 20.”.
Sentiment score: 0.27
I move amendment No. 19: In page 13, line 25, to delete “a housing authority” and substitute “the appeals office”.
Sentiment score: -0.15
I move amendment No. 20: In page 13, to delete lines 30 to 35 and substitute the following: “(10) An appeals officer shall be a qualified and suitable person appointed by the Housing Agency to undertake appeals with an appropriate knowledge, in order to ensure quality and consistency of decisions made over time.”.
Sentiment score: 0.04