Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 22 Feb 2023

Vol. 1034 No. 1

Eviction Ban Bill 2022: Second Stage [Private Members]

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The rationale for the Eviction Ban Bill 2022 is as simple as it is urgent. If we do not strengthen and extend the ban on evictions, we are going to see an absolute avalanche of families, individuals and children going into homelessness over the next number of months. That is an unacceptable situation when we already have 11,600 individuals, including children, in emergency accommodation. We have no more emergency accommodation left and there are no alternatives for people who are facing eviction where there was no fault on the part of the tenant. This Bill is saying that where there is no fault on the part of the tenant, where they pay their rent and where they have not breached the terms of their lease, there is absolutely no justification for putting those families, individuals or children into a situation of being homeless because there are no alternatives available for them at the moment. Whatever one may say about the progress of Housing for All, at the moment it has not delivered public and affordable housing, security of tenure or affordable rents necessary to provide people with alternatives. On the contrary, we have record numbers of people homeless.

We have the highest rents and the highest house prices we ever seen in the State. We have about 100,000 families and individuals on housing waiting lists, waiting up to ten to 20 years. We have many people who are not even entitled to social housing because they are over the income thresholds. The delivery of affordable or cost-rental housing is a trickle and is nowhere near what is necessary to provide people with alternatives.

Against that background, it would be simply shameful to allow, as will happen, thousands more families, individuals and children to end up in emergency accommodation or, even worse, homeless without emergency accommodation, when the Government has the power to prevent this from happening.

I have heard the Minister as well as successive Ministers and taoisigh say that we have a policy of preventing people going into homelessness. I do not see that policy. I see absolutely no sign of that policy. It was only under very significant public pressure and the shocking rise in the numbers of people homeless and in emergency accommodation, that forced the Government to introduce a partial ban on evictions in October. It was not a comprehensive ban on no-fault evictions, but one that only covered those situations where the notice-to-quit termination date fell within the defined emergency period.

What is pretty shocking about all of this is that it is clear. It was absolutely clear when I raised it with the Tánaiste the other day. He does not even understand what the moratorium does and does not do. I pointed out to him that I was in the District Court on Friday with a family who had done nothing wrong and who were being evicted. The landlord, an owner of multiple properties, was evicting them on a no-fault eviction. They have paid the rent for the home they have lived in all their lives since the 1950s, with their two teenage children. This is a single income family. The husband has worked for a semi-State company all his life and they were facing eviction proceedings in the District Court. The Tánaiste said that could not be the case, because we have an eviction ban. He simply did not understand what the ban did or did not do, although we pointed it out repeatedly at the time it was introduced. Anybody whose termination date fell before the introduction of the moratorium can and is being evicted, even on no-fault grounds.

Our ban is proposing that for the duration of the emergency period, with a review when the emergency situation is over, there should be a comprehensive ban on all no-fault evictions. It should not just be on notices to quit where termination dates fall within the periods, but on any evictions on a no-fault basis into homelessness, while the emergency persists and while there are no alternatives.

Let me be clear in spelling out why there are no alternatives. Despite the Government crowing all the time about how progress has been made in Housing for All in the delivery of public housing, it is very telling that the Housing for All quarter 4 progress report has no figures on the construction of new council houses, for example.

The Minister is shaking his head, so he can give them to the House. What we do know is that in the first two quarters of last year, zero new council houses were built in Dublin. The Minister will say the Government delivered social housing, by which he means housing assistance payments, HAPs, or that the approved housing bodies, AHBs, bought some properties and so on, but it is not building council houses.

The Minister goes on about the Land Development Agency, LDA. The LDA has not delivered one new public or affordable house. The first development where it will deliver is in my constituency and, my God, that tells a story about the failure of successive Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael governments. We in People Before Profit have been campaigning for that site to be developed for public and affordable housing for 15 years, since it was handed over, as the old Shanganagh open prison, to the local authority. The first sod was turned this year and the first house will be delivered sometime probably towards the end of 2024. That will be the first LDA house. That is the level of progress from the LDA.

On affordable housing, Housing for All promised 4,100 affordable and cost rental houses in 2022. At the end of quarter 2 of 2022, the Government had delivered 235 affordable houses and 234 cost rental houses. It is absolutely pathetic. In the entire country, by the end of the second quarter of 2022, only 1,500 new local authority builds had been delivered.

What is the human cost of all this, of the Government's failure to take emergency measures? A couple who had a HAP tenancy are paying €2,700 in rent, a massive top-up such as that which many people are resorting to because they cannot get anywhere else. When the husband was working, the couple could manage that top-up, but then he developed early-onset Alzheimer's disease, so he is not working anymore and they do not have the means to pay the top-up on this extraordinary rent. Now, therefore, they are €2,700 in arrears. If those arrears persist, the couple will face eviction. Imagine that. This is somebody with Alzheimer's disease whose wife is his carer. What is the Minister going to do about it?

Likewise, there is the family I mentioned who are over the threshold and, with their two kids, face the imminent prospect of eviction. I have raised this case many times and we have talked to the local authority. We asked whether the State can acquire properties to prevent people going into homelessness where they face the imminent threat of eviction, even if they are over the threshold, and we have been told by the local authorities that we cannot do that. We are told that because of cost rental equity loan, CREL, funding, it cannot be done. Why would we not step in to prevent somebody being made homeless in those circumstances? Another young woman has lived for four years with her teenage child in one bedroom in emergency accommodation. She works for a semi-State body looking after vulnerable children and she is still homeless four years on.

The Minister cannot let more people end up in that position. He has to take action. There are many more things he has to do, and while extending the eviction ban is not the solution to everything, it is an urgent stopgap to prevent a dire situation getting even worse in the coming months.

Deputy Bríd Smith

Yesterday, the Minister told us he had not yet decided what to do regarding extending the partial eviction ban. He said it was complicated, that the Attorney General will have to be consulted, that legal opinions will have to be sought and that a balance must be struck between the rights of landlords and of tenants. The real solution, he again told us, is supply. I will help him. My clinic, like that of every Deputy in this House, including the Minister's Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael colleagues, is out the door with housing issues raised by people living in inadequate spaces, on sofas, in places infested with mould and damp or in rented rooms costing €1,500 to €2,000 a month or more. Even so, the anger, desperation and fear of these regular and now perfectly normal housing cases is nothing compared with the terror of those facing eviction.

The Minister has to extend the eviction ban. To simplify the matter for him, we are talking about preventing children from being made homeless. Focus Ireland has stated the ban is stemming, but not stopping, the tide of families into homelessness, and that the bans, earlier during Covid in particular, have contributed to significant falls in homelessness figures. The Minister has failed to deal with this crisis of supply, as he calls it, and failed, like his predecessors, to provide the houses that are needed. If he fails to announce an extension soon of this wholly inadequate ban, he will be saying to those facing eviction that it is okay for this State to oversee terror inflicted on the most vulnerable and to put thousands of families and single people out of their homes. They will face eviction into utter chaos, with no homes to rent, not least if they are reliant on HAP or other supports. This House cannot stand over such callous disregard.

We are often lectured about the unintended consequences of badly drawn-up legislation, but the intended consequence of not accepting the Bill, or of the Government not producing its own legislation, is to inflict terror and homelessness on thousands of people. The eviction ban is not a solution to the crisis - we all know that - but it is not intended to be. It is intended only to buy time in the hope real measures to provide homes for everyone can be implemented, a point I will return to.

I expect that, like yesterday, we are going to hear a litany of the great plans and schemes the Minister is busy devising and implementing. I will save him time, therefore, and list the various plans whose praises he intends to sing. There are the first home affordable purchase scheme, the shared equity scheme, the help-to-buy initiative, the cost rental housing scheme, the vacant homes action plan, the vacant properties refurbishment grant, the urban regeneration and development fund, the buy-and-renew scheme, the repair-and-lease scheme and, of course, Croí Cónaithe. That is the list of schemes, plans and actions all wrapped up in the Government's latest housing plan, Housing for All. The Minister likes to tell us this is the first real plan. Of course, it is nothing of the kind. Housing for All joins previous great plans that Ministers such as Deputy Coveney and former Deputy Eoghan Murphy had in Rebuilding Ireland. In case the Minister has forgotten, Rebuilding Ireland was a "comprehensive plan [intended] to address all aspects of the housing system and to address homelessness, accelerate social housing, build more homes [and] improve the rental sector". Before that, there was Deputy Kelly's Labour Party plan, Social Housing Strategy 2020, a plan that was to end waiting lists by 2020 and deliver 35,000 social housing units. They all failed utterly and that is why we see the catastrophe today, the sheer scale of which continues to astound us all, the sheer stupidity of which is breathtaking.

A crisis in which things have never been better for landlords, estate agents, real estate investment trusts and funds of various types has never been worse in the State's history for ordinary people looking for a basic human right to shelter and accommodation. That failure is not for want of plans or strategies such as those I listed or action blueprints, nor for want of photo opportunities, which we see on our TVs every night with the Minister, press releases or glossy brochures. Those plans failed, as this one is failing because of its utter dependence on the private market to deliver homes and on the investment decisions of funds and developers. All the plans and strategies depend on awakening private developers and builders to start building, to make it worth their while to provide homes and breathe life into the housing market by throwing various incentives at landlords and funds to build or rent out homes.

We have thrown access to credit at development funds. We have reduced their taxes, changed laws to lure in foreign investment and held car boot sales of State-owned land and properties, all in the belief we must entice and breathe life into the housing market through the private market. The State has moved heaven and earth to grant any wish to developers and private interests in the housing market. The problem is not that the housing market is not working but that it is working exactly as any market does, perfectly well for those who are amassing profit from it. It is a consequence that will cause untold misery for thousands of people. It is not working well for the people of this State.

For the developers, banks, investment funds, REITs and financial and corporate landlords it is working very well. It is only when we stop making a market out of the basic right and need that is housing that we will address the crisis.

We are told that 2030 will be a magical year and apparently we will end homelessness by then because we signed a declaration in Lisbon. It is in the Housing for All document so it must be true. Coincidentally, that is the same year by which we will have reduced our CO2 emissions by 51% - I have to throw that in.

In reality, neither of these things will happen and certainly not under the current Government given the parties that are in government. A political and philosophical change is required to bring about the desperately needed housing policies we need. In the meantime, the eviction ban extension is the absolute minimum the Government must do in order to end this cruel and inhumane situation.

I want to give a shout out to a number of catastrophic cases that come to my clinic frequently. One woman, Heather, is in the Gallery and is very keen to see how all of this works. At 63 years of age, she is being evicted from a home in Ballyfermot she has rented for 15 years. She and her partner have kept the home up and have never failed to pay the rent. She has no chance of finding an alternative place to live, apart from a room in a hostel. Given the health conditions of her and her partner, that is not feasible or viable. What will happen to her and the many older people like her who are facing eviction into homelessness?

What will happen to the two autistic children of a woman who has received notice to quit from a HAP landlord and cannot find a HAP alternative? As the current eviction ban allowed her some breathing space, she has been searching for nearly a year to find a HAP alternative but cannot find one. What will happen to her and her children, apart from being pushed into homeless accommodation?

I am dealing with a family of four children and a couple who have been living in one small enough room for two years. The children are aged from nine years to 11 months. The mother has to climb four flights of stairs every day with two small babies in prams while her husband is out working. She cannot manage to keep doing this. The children have no space to play. These are small issues in the bigger scheme of things, but are huge for families. The environmental, psychological and social consequences are untold. They are long-term and people will be deeply affected by this. That is why the eviction ban must continue. Come 1 April – interestingly, April fools' day – there will be a tsunami of evictions, or at least tens of thousands of people facing eviction across the State. I mean that. Does the Minister have any idea what will happen? If he does, perhaps he can tell us in his response how many people are likely to be evicted if the ban is lifted.

Does the Minister know the figures I see every day in my clinic, other Deputies see in theirs and which he must see in his? Does he know exactly how many cases involve families with children, older people with illnesses and single people who cannot afford astronomical rents throughout the State? If the Minister can get those statistics together, put them in a package and examine them honestly, God forgive him if he does not extend the eviction ban because I know they will tell a tale of misery, fright and despair.

If the Minister does not extend the eviction ban past 1 April until he has provided the housing that is needed, insists that rents are reduced to affordable levels and ensures people can access HAP then shame on him. He is no Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage to hold his head up.

Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage (Deputy Darragh O'Brien)

I thank Deputy Boyd Barrett and his colleagues for bringing forward the Bill. I do not question their motives or bona fides in this matter. We have debated and discussed it. I will go through the matters in the Bill.

It was clear yesterday that we are considering the legal and policy issues right now. We have not just started doing that. Any extension of the eviction ban period is complex. We have to consider the context. Since 2016, 10% of private tenancies have been lost, comprising 44,000 units in total. That is a very serious issue and we have to examine why it is happening.

We are in the process of carrying out a full review of the rental sector by doing a deep dive in that space. I am a firm believer in the provision of social housing, something which I will turn to momentarily. However, we also need a functioning private rental sector. We must genuinely ensure that the measures that are taken do not lead to further flight and a reduction in stock and housing capacity as we are building up the stock on the other side. That is important. I will deal with supply in a moment.

No decision has been made. The Cabinet will discuss the issues involved and reach a final decision in the coming weeks. We will do that in a very responsible way, based on legal advice. I am a Deputy representing Dublin Fingal. I constantly meet people in my constituency, and right across the country, who are struggling in the private rental market. This is not a new phenomenon. It is a very difficult issue with which to grapple. I welcome Heather to the Gallery, and know the difficulties faced by Heather and other people. The fundamental solution to this is to increase the supply and delivery of social, private and affordable homes. We do not do that in one year of a plan.

We are making progress. While Deputy Smith may not want to hear that, that is okay, but I will outline some of the progress that has been made. It is not enough and we need to scale it up and make sure we continue the protections for tenants that are in place. We are now engaged in detailed discussions with the Office of the Attorney General on the legal considerations of such an extension. As I said, these discussions will inform any Cabinet decision that will be made on the matter.

It is also important to note that there is no cliff edge in the eviction moratorium period. The current law does not end on 31 March. It has been deliberately designed to avoid a sudden removal of emergency protections. The ban, as currently constructed, will be lifted on a phased basis until about 18 June. There is no cliff edge in that space.

I have looked through the Bill. I want to highlight a couple of matters. As currently drafted, there are some significant difficulties with the Bill. This is not a criticism; rather, it is based on my reading and our consideration of the Bill. Unlike the current winter eviction ban, there is no graduated time for notices to quit already served to fall effective, which could mean a significant number would fall due on the same date whenever the proposed emergency period ends, which is after 12 months, should the Bill pass. This would ultimately create a significant cliff edge which could potentially overwhelm services. It is not designed in the same way as the current law. The Bill has a significant cliff edge.

It does not allow for termination in cases of overcrowding of rental property. This is a very difficult issue. Deputies have raised this issue in the House. Following local authority inspections, properties have been deemed unfit and have been closed, resulting in tenants having to move out as a safety measure. Fundamentally, that process is to protect the tenant. The Bill does not allow for termination in cases of overcrowding. Landlords must comply with local authority directions where overcrowding may pose a fire hazard or a health and safety risk. Unfortunately, we have seen some cases of that in the media. It is difficult to make a decision, but fundamentally people's safety and health are critically important.

The current eviction ban has been carefully calibrated to limit interference with constitutional property rights. That is not taking one side or the other; rather, it is about making sure that any law we bring forward is not subject to a challenge or, more importantly, would not lose a challenge. Anything we pass here could potentially be subject to a challenge, but we want to make sure that the legislation we bring forward and pass is robust enough to stand up to such a challenge.

Unlike the current legislation, the proposed protections in the Bill do not extend to former tenants who are over holding and remain in occupancy of a property despite their former tenancy being lawfully terminated with a termination date prior to the winter emergency period. I understand what Deputies have said, but that is a legal weakness in the Bill they have put forward which could be subject to a successful challenge.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

Thus, it is the same as the Covid one.

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

In contrast to the proposed Bill, the issuing of notices to quit is allowed to continue under the current winter eviction ban. This allows for a flow of tenancy terminations to continue after the relevant deferred termination date. There is no obstacle to tenants choosing to leave their tenancy during the winter months if they are in a position to re-accommodate their households.

I will cover a couple of things specifically that relate to the Deputy's Bill. In general terms, it is important to note that supply is up significantly. I want to talk about social housing. In the coming weeks, when we have the final returns on 2022, we will have delivered more new-build social homes - through approved housing bodies, AHBs, and local authorities, because they are all social homes and I do not make a distinction between them - than we have probably done since 1975. We will have built 10,000 more homes overall in 2022 than we did in 2021. Affordable homes will have been built for the first time in approximately 15 years, that is, affordable homes for purchase and cost-rental homes.

The LDA delivered homes last year. I remind the Deputy that the LDA is the agency to deliver homes on State-owned land. The Deputy, which is his right, opposed that.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

Where?

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

The Deputy opposed the LDA legislation. He voted against it. He voted against its capitalisation-----

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

I did not.

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

-----and he voted against the standing up of the agency. We have a national cost rental scheme now in place, which was underpinned by the Affordable Housing Act. The Deputy voted against the Affordable Housing Act that does not just give cost rental housing and a national cost rental scheme, which we wish to scale up even further, and we will do. We will have more cost rental tenancies this year than we had last year. It also includes things that Deputy Bríd Smith mentioned, such as the first home scheme. That is more than 1,000 approvals issued to real families and people, many of whom are caught in a rental trap, who are now able to buy their new home, a safe and secure home for them at an affordable rate, not a second mortgage, as some have said. This is equity by the State, that is, real help and assistance underpinned by the Affordable Housing Act that the Deputy opposed and voted against. That is fine. It is his right to do so, but when he complains about lack of affordability where we are making progress, he should also state he has opposed the measures that have been brought forward.

We have brought forward the Croí Cónaithe vacancy grants. There have been more than 1,000 applications so far to help people buy properties and bring them into use. There has been incredible interest in the scheme. Many of those taking those vacant homes back into use throughout towns, villages, cities and rural areas are people who have been renting and now have a safe and secure home.

With regard to public housing stock, since 2022, we have brought more than 8,500 vacant social homes back into use. We have brought in a proper management system to manage our local authority stock better and specifically focus on our seniors, which is very important because there had been a lack of appropriate housing delivery for seniors, especially in social housing, and on those who are above the social housing thresholds. As the Deputy will know, I significantly increased the social housing thresholds just this year. That was the first significant change in social housing income limits since 2011. We have also done that.

With regard to emergency planning and being able to deliver new social and affordable homes on State-owned or council-owned land that is already zoned to deliver it and speed up that process, we have removed the debt on those sites and brought in emergency planning powers. We brought a Bill into this House. Deputies Boyd Barrett, Smith and their colleagues will know how they voted on it. They opposed that as well. On the one side, the Deputies say they want extra supply and when we bring forward measures to do it, they vote against them. They want affordable housing, but they vote against it.

What I will say is there certainly is an issue, which I have discussed with Deputy Boyd Barrett directly, with regard to people who are above the social housing limits whose landlords are selling. I am looking at measures, working through that and looking at what could be brought forward. The State cannot buy every property either. There have to be criteria within it. I think the Deputy understands that.

Deputy Mick Barry

I will start by asking a simple question. Do eviction bans work? We have some evidence from this State in the past couple of years which might help us to answer that question. Bear with me while I give a couple of statistics. The first eviction ban we had came in at the start of Covid. In March 2020, the number of people who were forced to live in emergency accommodation in this State, often described, completely incorrectly, as the number of homeless in the State - it is a small fraction of the numbers who are homeless in this State - was 9,907 people. By the time that ban was lifted in April 2021, the number living in emergency accommodation was 8,060. In other words, the numbers living in emergency accommodation were still high but they had been reduced by nearly 2,000 people. I would go so far as to say it was probably the most successful housing policy introduced by any Government in this State since this housing crisis began. It was forced upon the Government by a public health emergency and pressures from these benches, as well, I would add. That was the first eviction ban.

The second ban has not been in place for so long that we are able to look at it in an overview in the same way as the first, but nevertheless it offers up some information and evidence. In November of last year, the numbers forced to live in emergency accommodation were 11,397, and in December, that had increased to 11,632. I listened with interest to the Taoiseach in the Dáil the other day. He made the same point as the Minister, that the Government is weighing up the situation, and he outlined the pros and cons of keeping the eviction ban in place. If I heard him correctly, he seemed to indicate that one of the cons was that this may not be working. The eviction ban is in place and the numbers continue to rise. The Taoiseach, if that was his line of argument, is looking at it in a rather skewed way. The question is that if the numbers in emergency accommodation are continuing to rise while an eviction ban is in place, what the hell will happen when the eviction ban is lifted at the end of March? Will we see a tsunami of evictions? It clearly points in that direction. Rather than scrapping an eviction ban, that is an argument for strengthening it. People who are served notice to quit in advance of the dates being covered by the legislation would be one way to do it. The way we are specifically proposing today is by strengthening and extending the legislation. That is the point at the heart of this Bill. Threshold or any of the agencies that deal with tenants' rights, housing and homelessness will say that survey after survey show that the number one cause of homelessness in this State for men, women and children is eviction from the private rental sector. We have an emergency here and we have to stem that flow by extending and strengthening.

I will deal with some of the points that were raised by the Minister. I do not have time to deal with them all, but I will deal with some of the key points that were raised. It was said the Bill does not include a graduated time for notices to quit and that there will be a cliff edge.

That is precisely why we inserted into the Bill that there has to be a review by the Minister. It allows for that to be included.

The Minister said that the Bill does not take account of premises that are deemed unfit, where there are fire or health and safety issues and so on. I would make the point that people are continuing to be evicted, even during this ban. Where are they being evicted to? They are being evicted into emergency accommodation which, in many cases, is itself overcrowded. We do not have an issue with changes being made which allow for genuine cases where there are health and safety concerns.

The Minister says that we are not going to sort the problem out in one year but his partners in government, Fine Gael, have been in office for 12 years. Fianna Fáil are not the new boys on the block either. Fianna Fáil has been in office for three years now and it used its votes to prop up a Fine Gael-led Government for a further four years. That is seven years in total and in fact, I could make a strong argument which I do not have time to go into now that the housing crisis does not just date back to Fine Gael's assumption of power but goes right back to the crazy housing boom of the Celtic tiger era when massive profits were being made by the banks, developers and those who hung out in the Galway tent. We need only to ask one of Fianna Fáil's latest recruits, the man who joined for €20 and who is looking at a certain election in 2026. He might be able to tell us a little bit about that.

The Minister said that the Bill would include overholding but the Covid eviction ban also included overholding. Reference was made to the legal framework so let us talk about the legal framework for a moment. We have been hearing for some time that the Housing Commission is going to bring a proposed wording to the Government for a constitutional referendum on the right to housing. We thought we might get that late last year but we did not. We thought we might get it in January but we did not and we are now near the end of February. I would like the Minister to inform the House as to when we are likely to see that. Are there any indications as to when we will see that report or proposal from the Housing Commission?

We want to see a constitutional referendum on the right to housing but we are clear that it is not a substitute for a mass water-charges style campaign on the streets to light a fire under, and put pressure on, the Government for change on this issue. It is not something that will solve the crisis itself by any means but if it strengthens the constitutional provision that consideration and weight must be given to the public good as opposed to the prioritisation of the rights of private property, that can only be a good thing. It is something that we would campaign for and would hope to mobilise people in communities and workplaces to campaign for as well.

There were lots of other points that I intended to make but I do not have the time. I will make one final point because it is a topical issue these days. I urge people who are at the sharp end of the housing crisis and who are getting leaflets in their door from the far right to check out where it stands on the issue of a constitutional right to housing. Those on the far right are opposed to it. They see it as a left wing proposal and are opposed to it, going forward. Their position would be well supported by the big developers, vulture funds and those who have their fingerprints all over this housing crisis. Those on the far right are no friends of ordinary working people.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I thank People Before Profit-Solidarity for introducing this Bill, which we are supporting, and for providing us with the opportunity for this debate. The Government has been in office for over two and a half years and the facts of the Minister's record in housing do not lie. During that period the private rental sector has continued to shrink at a more accelerated pace than under his predecessor, former Deputy Eoghan Murphy. The social and affordable housing targets, which are too low in the first place, have been missed for three years in a row and homelessness is at the highest level since these records began.

One of the most startling facts is that homelessness has continued to rise despite the introduction of the emergency ban on evictions last November. One of the reasons is that it does not have the same strengths as its predecessor, the ban introduced by former Deputy Eoghan Murphy during Covid. In fact, in the first three to four months of that eviction ban the number of men, women and children in emergency accommodation fell by almost 60%. When the current Minister is comparing so poorly with former Deputy Eoghan Murphy, one of the worst housing Ministers in the history of the State, that really is a record being broken that is nothing of which to be proud. When members of the Opposition come into this House and make very genuine and reasonable propositions, both about extending the ban and taking additional emergency measures, the Minister's responses do not add up. I want to go through some comments he made last night and again today.

The primary reason we need to extend the ban is that the Minister has not done the kinds of things that front-line homeless service providers, homeless policy experts and the Opposition urged him to do at the end of last year. With respect to tenants in situ, the Minister did give the local authorities an instruction last year to use their delegated authority to reconsider purchases of properties with housing assistance payment, HAP, or rental accommodation scheme, RAS, tenants in situ who had been given notice to quit. However, what he did not do was instruct the local authorities to suspend the scheme of allocations and have a presumption to buy, subject to price and condition of property. As a consequence of that, the response of the local authorities has been confused, piecemeal and inconsistent. I wrote to the Minister not long after he gave the local authorities delegated authority and set out very clearly what I thought was a more effective way of getting the local authorities to accelerate the purchase of properties but he ignored that. As a consequence, what is a very good scheme has not been utilised to the extent it could and should have been and I urge the Minister to reconsider the propositions I made to him last year.

Since last year we have also been asking the Minister to extend the tenant in situ scheme to affordable cost rental. In his response yesterday he seemed to suggest that somehow we were proposing that he give a carte blanche to local authorities to buy homes for €500,000 but we were proposing nothing of the kind. We want the Minister to apply exactly the same criteria as apply for the cost-rental equity loan, which is the scheme for approved housing bodies, AHBs, to purchase such properties and within the rules of that scheme allow local authorities and AHBs to explore and where appropriate purchase properties such as Tathony House, for example. That could be done en bloc or it could even be done on a case by case basis.

We also asked the Minister to use the emergency powers at his disposal and he threw back at us that he introduced the Part 8 derogation last year. We did not oppose that but we were not enthusiastic about it either because it will not deliver a single extra home this year. In fact, of all of the things the Minister could have done to accelerate the delivery of social housing, that was the one thing that will make either no or very little difference. The local authority managers are telling him that, as are local elected representatives and members of the Opposition. It might save four or six weeks on a social housing project but in fact any of the homes being delivered through that provision will not actually be on site until next year and will not be delivered until the year after that. As a consequence of the Minister's ham-fisted actions, he will generate huge tensions with local communities, elected members and the management. If that is his idea of an emergency intervention, it clearly shows the extent to which he does not understand the crisis.

The Minister has also said that there is no cliff edge but that is not true. It is the case that there is a staggered extension of the notice to quit but a very large number of notices will fall due on 1 April, either for people who were able to benefit from the ban on evictions over the winter or people who get no benefit from it whatsoever. The suggestion that there will not be a cliff edge again speaks to the fact that the Minister just does not understand the problems we are talking about. I am pleading with the Minister, in his engagement with the Attorney General and Cabinet colleagues, in as quick a time as he can, to make a decision and extend the ban and crucially to introduce the kinds of emergency measures we are all proposing here today so that the breathing space he gets from an extended ban can be used properly to ensure we are not here again in December.

Deputy Denise Mitchell

In the current rental climate, where houses and apartments are completely unaffordable for the average worker and family and where the houses that these people need do no not exist, the Government must extend the eviction ban beyond 31 March in order to prevent thousands more people becoming homeless. It is the compassionate and humane thing to do. Renters need security. A ban on evictions is, as we all know, a temporary solution, but it is a necessary reaction to the housing crisis that the people of this State have been facing for the past decade. There are 11,632 people, including 3,442 children, who are homeless. Without an extension of the eviction ban, the figures will continue to increase. The Government's failure to get a handle on record house prices, record rents and record levels of homelessness has left us with no choice but to keep the ban in place. People with valid notices to quit will end up homeless, whether it is on 1 April or in May or June, because they have nowhere to go.

My office, like those of all Deputies, has been inundated with people who are worried sick making contact. They are worried sick about where their children are going to sleep because they know they are facing homelessness before the summer is out. Mothers and fathers are ringing and crying down the phone. I know the Minister gets it too. It is absolutely soul-destroying. It is time for the Minister to hit pause. He should use the time that the ban is in place to stem the flow of people going into homelessness, and not remove the one thing that is preventing them from becoming homeless.

Deputy Mark Ward

I thank People Before Profit-Solidarity for bringing this Bill before the House. This is the second time in two days that this issue has been debated in the Chamber. It just goes to show how the Government has lost control of the housing crisis. Levels of homelessness continue to rise, despite the winter ban on evictions. It is an extremely important issue that needs to be raised time and again. Like Deputy Mitchell, people are coming to my office on a daily basis extremely worried about what the future will bring.

The Minister will be gracing us with his presence in south Dublin on Monday in order to turn the sod on a new development of 8,500 houses in Clonburris. There is an element of him talking out of both sides of his mouth on this matter. This is a development of 8,500 houses. It is a phased development that will bring other infrastructure, such as schools, businesses and amenities, into the area. I was a member of the council in 2018 when the Minister's party colleagues voted against this development. He will be standing there wearing his hard hat and high-visibility jacket, carrying his shovel for the photo opportunity and saying how great he is, when his party originally voted against the development. Not only did his party vote against it, his Government colleagues in Fine Gael also voted against it. They went one step further and appealed the original decision to An Bord Pleanála. As stated, I was a member of South Dublin County Council when this happened in 2018. It is now 2023 and are only now turning the sod on a development that is much needed and that will supply homes, businesses and amenities for up to 22,500 people in south Dublin and beyond. The Minister's party opposed that. I am just reminding him to think of that when he is on site with his shovel at the weekend. One of the reasons that his party opposed this development related to the insertion of a clause to provide up to 2,500 public, social and affordable homes in that development. There is, as already stated, an element of the Minister talking out of both sides of his mouth.

I do not have time to go into the details now, but I ask the Minister what advice I should give to a family who, through no fault of their own, are facing eviction. There are very few houses out there and most are unaffordable. The other day, one of my constituents finally got a house on the South Dublin County Council list after 18 years. I can send the Minister the correspondence. They were waiting for a house for 18 years. If this eviction ban comes to an end, we will be putting people back into homelessness when there are not enough places in homeless accommodation. Homeless hubs are becoming a hierarchy in homeless accommodation. They are meant to be temporary but they are becoming permanent under the Minister's watch.

Deputy Paul Donnelly

I welcome this Bill and thank the Deputies who brought it forward. Given that Sinn Féin tabled a motion on the matter to which it relates last night, it is a sign of the really deep concern that we all have about the ending of this eviction ban and the cliff edge that people will face. There is no doubt that the Government has lost control of the homelessness crisis. That is obvious as levels of homelessness continue to rise, despite the winter ban on evictions. In Dublin 15, it went from 40 in September to 90 in the space of four months. I expect that it is much worse now. While the Fingal County Council housing team has done huge work in trying to access accommodation for those near the top of the list, many of the families who are not near the top are in absolute fear as to what to expect in April and the deadline that looms over them. One mother who visited me at my constituency office recently is facing her third time in homelessness. She is absolutely exhausted and terrified because she knows what she is facing.

The Minister said that the aim of the emergency winter eviction ban is to afford time for the housing supply to increase and to reduce the burden on homelessness service and pressure on tenants and the residential tenancies market. Yet, nothing has changed for the vast majority of those people who are facing eviction. They have been given no hope that it will be resolved before this ban comes to an end. The reality is that homeless services are still overburdened, housing supply has not increased and the cliff edge faced by many tenants is adding huge pressure. That is why Sinn Féin tabled its motion yesterday and why we are again debating this issue today. The Labour Party also raised the issue yesterday. So many people on this side of the Chamber and on the opposite side have been talking about the eviction ban and the cliff edge that people are facing. We need to pass the kind of emergency legislation for which I have been calling for the past three or four months, to help us to get in on land that is not going to be used for social or affordable housing. There is other land that is available. We must use emergency legislation and get in modular housing for people who are facing eviction now.

Deputy Pat Buckley

First, I thank People Before Profit-Solidarity for bringing this Bill forward. I listened to what previous speakers had to say. The one thing we must realise is that this is an emergency. In times of emergency, you think outside the box. It was mentioned previously that this is for the public good. It is for the public good. We all have people coming into our offices every day who are absolutely distraught. The knock-on effect of the crisis is that it is destroying families. It is also destroying marriages because people cannot cope with the stress. We cannot give them answers when they come into our offices, because there is nowhere to point them to. The mental health issues that are associated with the fear of being left homeless are skyrocketing. A tsunami was mentioned previously. We are going to be facing a tsunami if we do not extend the eviction ban. As many speakers have said, this gives the Minister a window of opportunity to try to address the issue and see where we can go from here. There is no point in setting a date and a cliff edge and saying that it is it, and we are going back to normal, and incidentally, some people will be homeless. It just will not work.

Another issue is that young families are just leaving the country. Yesterday, I spoke on apprenticeships and I said that of the 28 people in my son's class, he said goodbye to the last four two weeks ago. There does not seem to be any vision in this country. I have often said, in this House, that we should have one of the best countries in the world. We are the fifth richest country per capita in the world, and yet we have a chronic situation where people cannot rent a property even if they can find one. If they get one, they cannot afford it. There is no security of tenure when it comes to owning a home anymore. It feels like there is no vision. When we were growing up, we were a family that did not have a lot, like many others. One person in the family went to work and the mother stayed at home and reared the family and it could be done. Now, families have two parents and two kids going to work and there is no possibility of them owning a home or renting a place because it is too expensive. I urge the Minister and the Government to support this side of the House and look at the issue collectively. It is an emergency and we have to extend the ban. We must find alternative solutions or else we will be facing a tsunami of evictions in this country.

Deputy Martin Browne

I thank People Before Profit-Solidarity for bringing the Bill before the House. I welcome the Minister. It makes a change for him to be around for the debate-----

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

I am always here.

Deputy Martin Browne

-----and not to have gone off someplace else.

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

I am always here. The Deputy only catches the tail end of debates.

Deputy Martin Browne

When the Minister finally listened to us and introduced the eviction ban, he said its aim was "to afford time for housing supply to increase and to reduce the burden on homeless services and the pressure on tenants and the residential tenancies market". The Minister wasted that time. Yesterday, he failed the many in need by introducing nothing to reduce rents, to help with the rising cost of mortgages or to tackle soaring energy bills. It is renters who will pay for the wasted opportunity during the eviction ban under the Minister's watch.

When there is a housing crisis, the Minister is supposed to act with urgency to implement an emergency response. The eviction ban gave him that opportunity but he failed. He was in Tipperary this week. I thank and acknowledge Tipperary County Council and Clúid Housing for their work. The new housing schemes that were announced are good news. However, when the Minister is finished sticking to selected projects, I suggest he gets a feel for what some people in Tipperary and around the country are putting up with because they have nowhere else to go. Perhaps he will get his photograph taken in a flat with condensation running down the walls or mould growing in the corners and where the tenant has no option but to leave. He should visit those people and tell them how his plan is working for them. It is not. He cannot tell those in emergency accommodation across the country that during the eviction ban he worked to give them a better chance to find somewhere to go. He has not given people who are expecting to be evicted in April, May or June any assurance that he tried to help them stand a better chance of securing alternative accommodation quickly.

For the people who are counting down the days nervously, not knowing what the future holds, I urge the Minister to extend the eviction ban. If he does, I ask him to tell us what additional measures he intends to take to provide additional homes to those in emergency accommodation and at risk of homelessness. We told him to expand the tenant in situ scheme and to use emergency planning and procurement powers. We told him to plan to make better use of new building technologies in vacant homes. He wasted a chance during the eviction ban. He missed an opportunity yesterday to reduce rents and to support people with rising mortgage costs and protect them from soaring energy bills. I ask him not to fail these families and individuals again.

Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú

At this point, it has all been said. The position is very obvious. There have been considerable conversations about the absolute need for a ban on evictions. It is not foreseeable that this cannot be put in place. We must accept the situation in which we find ourselves. We can call it what we want but it is difficult not to call it an emergency and a crisis. We are dealing with a dysfunctional housing system and market. Once we accept that and see that people are under severe pressure, we must act accordingly. That means we need emergency action. This eviction ban for no-fault tenancies is an absolute requirement.

The figures for December showed that 11,632 people, including 3,442 children, were in emergency accommodation. Experts would say that if other cohorts were included, the figure would be close to 18,000. That does not even take into account all the people who are sofa surfing or homeless on the streets. We need to deal with this issue. That is a given. It needs to happen and there can be no excuses. I cannot see that any other argument can be made in that regard. Whatever about getting the Attorney General to check the lawfulness of an extension of the eviction ban, we need to ensure that we get secondary and even tertiary legal advice. This State has had no difficulty in going to bat against the people. It would do no harm for this State to go to bat for the people on this occasion.

My office is like every other office. We are inundated with calls from people for whom we cannot deliver. Councillor Kevin Meenan has been a councillor since 1999. He now spends most of his time dealing with Louth County Council's homeless services or rental agencies. I deal with them myself. At times, it is possible to get people through the gap but we are not realistically going to deal with these issues. We need to look at delivery. We are talking about new technologies, including 3D concrete printing and modular builds. We need those things to happen. Deputy Ó Broin and others spoke about the difficulties we face. We need to free up local authorities to allow them to purchase more homes. We need to professionalise the operation of the market altogether. That is before I talk about disability housing, assisted living and all those other requirements.

Deputy Ged Nash

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in favour of the legislation that is being presented by People Before Profit-Solidarity. I extend my gratitude to that party for taking the time to develop legislation in a meaningful way in an effort to address this long-running challenge.

The Opposition's concern about the cliff edge we will experience at the end of March - and that is what it is, however it is dressed up - is clearly illustrated by the fact that not only is People Before Profit-Solidarity presenting this legislation but also that yesterday's Private Members' business involved a Sinn Féin motion on extending the eviction prohibition. It is not uncommon that the Opposition is united on a particular issue but it is common that we disagree in terms of emphasis and detail, but on this occasion, we agree entirely about what needs to be done. The Opposition is speaking with one voice and I believe, as other speakers said earlier, that there are backbench Government Deputies, at the very least, and Senators, who wish to see the extension of the eviction ban.

If this legislation were to be passed, it would make a contribution to the debate although it would take time for it to go through the process and be enacted. Nobody is over-claiming in respect of the efficacy of this legislation. It will not build a single house. However, it is an effort to put a finger in the dam. We need to look at housing on a holistic basis because if we do not continue to put a finger, or indeed a number of fingers, in this particular dam and extend the ban, there will be a veritable tsunami of evictions later this year.

Many references have been made by colleagues to the Minister's appearances at photo calls, wearing hard hats and so on, relating to various announcements. He will be in Drogheda tomorrow, and he will be very welcome. The Taoiseach will participate in the formal launch of the northern port access route scheme. I remind the Minister that his Department on successive occasions failed to fund that scheme. It is being funded by developers, with the support of Ireland Strategic Investment Fund, which is, ironically, backed by the taxpayer. One way or another, the taxpayer is getting to-----

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

The Deputy has left out one element of the scheme.

Deputy Ged Nash

-----assist with the funding of the scheme.

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

He left out the infrastructure piece.

Deputy Ged Nash

The infrastructure is being funded by the Ireland Strategic Investment Fund, which is funded by the taxpayer. That is an important point to note. The development, although late, is, of course, welcome. The point I am making about the northern port access route is that it will lead to the development of 5,000 additional homes on the north side of Drogheda. Those homes are desperately needed. We all talk about our own direct experience, which is important. My experience is fundamentally about housing. My clinics on a Monday and Friday are dominated by the question of housing. While I am not there from Tuesday to Thursday, my office manager deals with housing all the time. The issue of housing comes up consistently, as all Deputies in Louth and across this Chamber will know.

The situation in my home town is quite revealing. Ireland's largest town, Drogheda, saw one social home allocated in January. Only one social home was allocated for a town of 50,000 people and with a hinterland of 30,000 to 40,000 people. That is an area equivalent to the size of Waterford or Galway, and only one social home was allocated to the town in January. That is a reflection of where we are at. The waiting time for people to access a social home in Drogheda is 12 to 13 years. The waiting time is slightly shorter outside that area because the Drogheda area is where the real pressure is being experienced. That is not to downplay the experiences of people in areas such as Ardee and Dundalk but the problem of waiting times in my own immediate area is much more acute.

I looked at the residences available to rent on daft.ie before I came into the Chamber. Seven properties are available to rent in the town of Drogheda. One, for example, is a former council home on the south side of the town. It is a three-bedroom house with one bathroom and is going for €1,700 per month. That is an extraordinary amount of money. I am sure it is a perfectly fine property, but that price reflects the state of the market at the moment.

We know that an eviction ban is not a silver bullet. We are very clear on that but it absolutely needs to happen as a matter of urgency for the reasons I have pointed out. There are only seven properties available to rent in my own hometown. We can imagine the situation people who are evicted on the grounds of sale would find themselves in if they have not been on the council housing waiting list long enough. The supply simply is not there so they would be unable to find anything and would be left in a desperate situation. They would then arrive at the door of the local authority to access expensive emergency housing.

The reality is that the conditions that drove the belated decision to introduce the winter eviction ban in the first place still remain. I believe in introducing evidence-based policy. All of the evidence as to why we needed an eviction ban for winter and early spring was there and those conditions remain the same. Inflation still remains high. The cost of rent also remains high in many areas of the country, including my own, where it has increased by 10% to 15% over the last 12 months. There is a need to put the need to extend this ban into context. The properties simply are not there and those that are there are unaffordable.

Yesterday, the Taoiseach told my colleague, the Labour Party leader, Deputy Bacik, that a review is under way. That review has to inform Government's next steps. I will repeat my party's calls for that review to include the continued evolution of the tenant in situ scheme. As an emergency measure, this scheme has been quite successful but it has been applied inconsistently across the country. To refer to my experience with my own local authority, I have been organising opportunities for individual property owners who are doing their best to support their tenants to engage with the local authority and to get a deal done on tenant in situ arrangements. The process is very slow, however. That scheme needs to be applied more consistently. There is absolutely no doubt about that. It is a successful scheme that can continue to work well but it needs to be improved.

I again congratulate and express my gratitude to my colleagues in People Before Profit for developing not only a motion, but legislation that will provide a robust legal framework. Rather than piecemeal interventions, they have provided legislation that would provide a framework and legal guidance as to the introduction of eviction bans in the future, if required. That makes the approach to this whole issue much more constitutionally robust because we know there is debate as to the constitutionality of ongoing eviction bans. We believe the current ban is valid and robust and that it should be permissible for it to be extended because of the emergency we are in and because the conditions still exist.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

I thank People Before Profit for bringing forward this Bill and for the work it has done on it. The Social Democrats will certainly be supporting it. It is notable that, when the Minister was speaking, he gave a long list of what has been done, while admitting that it is not sufficient, and a long list of criticisms of the Opposition but that a list of exactly what he and his Government are going to do now to address this emergency was missing. We did not hear a list of solutions the Government is going to implement now from him. You would think we would have. There is no question but that we need to extend this temporary ban on evictions. To do so will only bring us in line with most other European countries, where there are permanent bans on no-fault evictions, for another number of months. Therefore, it is potentially one of the least radical measures that could be put forward.

We have the highest number of people living in emergency homeless accommodation in the history of the State, not to mention the situation of people who are not counted in those official figures such as those sleeping on floors and couches and in tents and doorways and the tens of thousands of hidden homeless. Homelessness has a devastating impact on every aspect of their lives. You simply cannot progress in any other aspect of your life if you are homeless and lack that security and base. Given that situation that we are in, it is quite difficult to understand why the Government is not telling us now that it is definitely going to extend this ban. Given that we have some of the highest rents in Europe and some of the lowest levels of security for renters, why is the Government not telling us that it is going to deal with this once and for all and provide proper security of tenure for renters? If people are paying their rent and not breaching their leases such as by engaging in antisocial behaviour, where they are living should be their home and, if their landlord is going to sell, they should be able to sell with those tenants in place, which is the situation in most European countries. Extending the tenant in situ scheme, making its application much more consistent and ensuring that most local authorities use it properly would address some of the concerns of landlords in that regard while also protecting renters.

There is no shortage of solutions that need to be implemented now although we are not hearing any from the Government. I will outline a few small solutions that would be relatively easy to implement. The first is that the Government should spend the money it allocates for housing on building much-needed new homes and increasing the supply of affordable, cost-rental and social homes. Some €340 million of the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage's budget was not spent and was carried over into this year. That is in addition to approximately €240 million that was returned to the Exchequer that should have been spent on housing last year. Together with the loans that are drawn down for building new housing, those figures are enough to finance in the region of 9,000 social, affordable and cost-rental homes. If the Government had spent that money last year and built those homes, it would have made a massive difference to people's access to housing.

The second solution is to take vacancy seriously. I talked about local authority vacancy last night. There is the issue of the slow delivery of Part V homes, which are completed but left vacant for months when families could be moved in, but vacancy more generally should also be taken seriously. We should not proceed with a simple 0.3% vacant homes tax. Rather we should bring in a tax at a serious level, which would bring a great many of those tens of thousands of vacant homes back into use.

Third, the Government should end the slow and bureaucratic four-stage approval process for social housing. This really ties the hands of local authorities. It can take months and even years to get through that process. Some local authorities and approved bodies rely only on acquisitions from the private sector because the process to get approval to build themselves can be so slow. With regard to the fourth solution, we need to move to an active planning process such as those that successfully operate in countries like the Netherlands and which operated successfully here in the past in places like Marino rather than simply waiting for the market to deliver housing, which is a bit like waiting for Godot.

In the time I have left, I will briefly address another matter. Last evening, during a discussion on this same topic, the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage ridiculed people in the Opposition for raising questions about the way in which housing numbers are counted. I will quote from an article by Mel Reynolds, a housing policy analyst, and Dr. Lorcan Sirr, senior lecturer in housing at Technological University Dublin, published in today's The Irish Times. It reads:

Ireland is a small country so counting houses should be a straightforward process, but again there are question marks where there should not be any. The [Building Control Management System] is the most valuable tool the State has that offers reliable, credible and legally required information on what is being built, and it should be used as the main measure.

It would be very useful, and I do not believe it is too much to ask, for the Government to give us a detailed rational explanation as to why it does not accept the data recorded on the Building Control Management System, the provision of which is a legal requirement, as a measure of the number of new homes delivered in 2022 rather than ridiculing these questions and hiding behind bluster.

He should explain to us why the Department does not accept the legal way of counting new homes. Why is it absolutely tied to new ESB connections with which there are many issues? Why does it not accept the legally required way of counting new homes through the Building Control Management System? If there are problems with that, the Minister of State should tell us what they are and tell us how the Department will correct them. That is a national system for which the Government has responsibility.

Again, the Minister attacked people in the Opposition for voting against the LDA legislation. We in the Social Democrats voted against it because the Government voted against our amendments to give the Land Development Agency proper compulsory purchase order powers so that it could buy up land, including agricultural land, which is needed for housing, rezone it and put in the infrastructure to deliver housing as is needed and as has been done very successfully in other countries.

Deputy Seán Canney

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill. At the outset, I declare my own interest in that I am a landlord.

We talk about evictions and we demonise landlords because we are trying to portray landlords as the cause of all our housing problems. The opposite is borne out by the fact that landlords are actually selling any properties they have because they cannot continue to work in a system where they are being accused of everything and not being supported in anything. I have seen cases where tenants have been in houses where they have not paid their rent. I have seen places where houses have been wrecked. I received an email this morning about a local authority house in a private estate where windows were broken probably for the tenth time and they still remain in the estate.

Many things are going on which are not being spoken about because it may not be politically correct to talk about them. If we are challenging landlords on anything, it should be how we keep them in the system and keep them letting houses. They want to get out because the system is totally against anybody who has a house for rent. Yesterday evening I received an email from a man who has two houses and he wants to sell them straight away because the stress is too much. That is not talked about often enough and it needs to be said.

However, the real problem is with the supply of houses. I mentioned it yesterday evening in the previous debate. We are now building houses and we are building momentum in social housing across the country. However, we are missing having a correct housing management system. These houses cost hundreds of thousands of euro to build, are state-of-the art, have the most modern heating and electrical facilities within them and have the highest building energy rating, BER. Unless local authorities are funded to manage these estates, they will fall into disrepair in a very short time.

In my county we built houses in the 1980s and 1990s, which is not long ago, and we demolished them three years ago to build new houses. We let them go to rack and ruin. We need to ensure whatever we do is right for the long term. If I build my house, I build it for the long term and not for the short term. As I want to hand it on to my family, I keep the house in the best condition I can. I pay for it myself. Likewise, the local authorities need to maintain their housing stock and make sure that management systems are in place and that antisocial behaviour or anything like that is dealt with and nipped in the bud straightaway. Approved housing bodies also need to ensure that they are managing their housing stock. It is not just a question of creating ever-increasing numbers; we need to do more than that.

We have a major issue with voids and how long it takes to get a local authority house back into the system again if the tenants leave it. It can take six, eight or 12 months. Some houses could be up to two years vacant before coming back into use. This kind approach is not helping in any way. There is a lot to be done to address the housing situation.

Deputy Verona Murphy

Unfortunately, the Minister of State can probably pre-empt what I will say on the matter. I thank People Before Profit for bringing the motion before the House. It is a very important talking point and very concerning to most people. The real question is why we need an eviction ban. We need an eviction ban because the Government has failed to provide adequate housing. It has failed to acknowledge and deal with the root cause of the failure, which is poor planning policy.

Before I move on I want to reiterate what my colleague Deputy Canney said about landlords and the same goes for developers. On the subject of landlords, the RTB in its current form has been described to me by constituents as being as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike. Even though we live in an IT world, the RTB is informing members that it will not or cannot accept their email address. The RTB refers them back to a paper application and a money postal order. I ask the Minister of State to address that situation. If he needs to call the head of the RTB in and sit down to have that conversation, I ask him to do it now. Ultimately the RTB should be a mediator between the landlord and tenant, but it is only working for the tenant at this point in time.

I move on to planning policy. Does the Minister of State know it takes 20 weeks to build a three-bedroom semi-detached house? How could we have a problem with housing, if it only takes 20 weeks to build a three-bedroom house? We have a problem with planning policy because to be granted planning permission for any sizeable development it takes 104 weeks, two years, to go through the process. That is if it is straightforward and there are no objections. If it goes to An Bord Pleanála, it takes 182 weeks and that can be further tempered by judicial review proceedings. However, in the ten years that Fine Gael has been in government, nobody has attempted to change the planning policy at root level. It is the high-density measure that I talk about all the time that does not fit rural areas. I spoke to the Minister of State about that only last week. I have been hearing about new guidelines and ministerial orders, but I have not received anything nor have any of the local authorities.

Given the timelines, some developers who applied for planning permission three years ago are being granted permission today. The problem today is with viability. How can they possibly build affordable housing given that since they applied we have had a pandemic, Brexit and the war in Ukraine? We are talking about housing, not about affordable housing. All the commencements are within social housing or for those who can afford to buy an exorbitantly priced lovely family home with front and back gardens and probably four to five bedrooms. The people falling between two stools are those who are working hard but will never own their own home.

We have 11,632 people homeless, and this figure is very debatable given that we have 4,500 people within the direct provision system who are now citizens of this country. Even though they no longer belong in direct provision, these people cannot find accommodation and so they are stuck in the system. This is not rocket science. It takes 20 weeks to build a three-bedroom house. The Government knows what the problem is, but it is reluctant to do something about it.

Deputy Danny Healy-Rae

I thank the proposers of the motion and I support their concern but I do not support their argument in its entirety. There is pressure on now and it has extended for a while, which is fine.

However, we need to solve the problem. I welcome the Minister of State to his new position. I support People Before Profit's concerns, but we must do something permanent about them. I have been raising the matter for years in the House. The cost of rent is an issue, but we must realise that 52% of the rent is paid straight to the State. If the Government wanted to do something about the cost of rent, it would reduce the amount of tax it charged on a certain number of houses, particularly smaller ones, or whatever the case may be. Everyone who owns and rents out a house had to put work and money into it and is probably paying a mortgage. People need to have room to do that.

House owners' rights need to be protected, too. I feel for the tenants. Getting rid of bedsits in a single blow was a desperate mistake, as they helped many people who just wanted a place to lie down for two, three or four years. It was a fine setup.

The only people who can get planning permission in Kerry now are landowners' children. While I welcome that they can, no one else can in the countryside. There are 171 voids in Kerry. If the Government was serious about housing people, it would put those back into use. That cannot be done without Government funding.

Deputy Carol Nolan

Before I begin, I wish to declare an interest. My husband and I jointly own a property and are landlords.

For a policy to be deemed a success, it must be the case that the solutions it proposes do not bring about a worse state of affairs. This is common sense. However, I fear that we are in real danger of creating such a toxic environment for landlords that we may be indirectly making the situation significantly worse for renters. I have submitted a number of parliamentary questions to the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage on the protections that can be afforded to decent, socially conscientious and fair landlords who feel they are powerless when it comes to antisocial tenants. They feel trapped by the current eviction ban and can get no satisfaction from the RTB. I am dealing with a landlord who has a tenant who will not vacate the property despite being offered two other social housing units. My understanding is that they are nice houses. I also understand that the tenant actually has the keys to one of them but is refusing to leave the current property, which the landlord has to sell. This is not fair or right and is not treating all concerned fairly.

I accept that the Residential Tenancies (Deferment of Termination Dates of Certain Tenancies) Act 2022 was meant "to mitigate the risk that persons whose tenancies would otherwise be terminated during that period would be unable to obtain alternative accommodation", but the fact of the matter is that landlords, many of whom are accidental landlords, are exiting the market as quickly as they can. How can this be short-, medium- or even long-term help for renters? I am not convinced that the Bill, as honourable as its intentions are, would help renters. It would actually drive landlords out.

Deputy Michael Healy-Rae

I wish to declare an interest in this matter, as I provide housing solutions and accommodation to many sectors of our society.

I want to tell the truth about what is happening. Deputy Boyd Barrett knows I have nothing but the utmost respect and time for him on a personal basis, but it is crazy to hear people like him continuously speaking about housing and attacking people who provide housing solutions. For one thing, I have never heard him or anyone like him acknowledging that people who provide accommodation pay 56% in tax. The State takes way more than half of the rent. It should be acknowledged that the Government takes most of the rent.

People who provide accommodation have to pay mortgages. Do not get me wrong, as it is not that different from any other business or are a pity, but if it is such a good business to be engaged in, why is everyone selling up and leaving it? It is because they will not put up with it anymore. Something that is driving them mental is what is happening in this Chamber. Everyone who is providing rental accommodation is either considering selling or is selling. The statistics back that up. If we are attacking the supply and do not have a vibrant rental market, how are we going to solve the problem? The State will not be able to take care of renters. I want the State to build more local authority houses in Kerry. I want it to build single rural cottages and to repair the 171 houses that are idle. I want it to do everything it can. However, we must have a rental market. It is being destroyed by Deputies shouting and mouthing all the time and vilifying people who own properties.

Deputy Richard O'Donoghue

The existing eviction ban ensures that the tenant who wilfully withholds rent or engages in antisocial or criminal behaviour will not be given an exemption from termination. However, People Before Profit's Bill aims to prevent landlords from evicting tenants who do not pay rent, leaving the landlords with no mechanism to reclaim their properties or tenancies.

We have some fantastic landlords and tenants and only a minority of bad landlords and tenants. Now, landlords are leaving the market. They do not want to be landlords anymore because they are being victimised by a minority of tenants who are engaging in antisocial behaviour or do not want to pay rent.

The Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, was in Limerick recently. We went to Patrickswell, where 110 houses were announced. An upgrade of the sewerage system is required, though. We went to Hospital where there were 20 new houses, five of which had on-site sewerage systems. I told the Minister that we could provide houses in Limerick but that there was no infrastructure to do so. Previous Governments failed to invest in infrastructure in County Limerick. If there was sufficient infrastructure, upgraded sewerage systems and extra capacity, I would be able to build houses tomorrow morning. At every site that we called to in Limerick, local authority and private builders told us that they were at maximum capacity and could not build any more.

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, to his current position. I am delighted about it. He is a Limerick man. Please, help us to get infrastructure for County Limerick. I will work with him.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Verona Murphy)

Next are Deputies Joan Collins and McNamara, who are sharing time.

Deputy Joan Collins

I thank People Before Profit for introducing this Bill, which I support. If the Government does not extend the eviction ban, it will once again prove its lack of political will to take the action needed on the housing crisis. Homelessness is at a record high of 11,632 people. This figure does not count those sleeping rough or housed by non-Government-funded hostels or by Departments other than the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage.

I could give several examples. A man came to my constituency office recently. He had spent so long being unable to find somewhere to rent that he had spent the money he had saved for the rental deposit on a car in which to sleep. He is not counted in the homeless figures, but there are many like him – people who are working but sleeping in cars or hostels or on sofas. I call this a housing emergency. I call thousands of people going under because their rents keep increasing while their wages stay the same a housing emergency. I call thousands fearing that they will end up homeless because landlords might evict them through no fault of their own a housing emergency.

Successive Governments have proven time and again that they lack the political will to take real action on this housing disaster. Last month, a report from Threshold stated that more than 1,800 renters had contacted it between October and December and said that they were at risk of homelessness. The RTB was notified of 4,643 eviction notices in 2022. For many people, the ban on evictions is a thin line between having a home and not. Threshold's report found that, in the cases it had advised on, 60% of evictions for rent arrears were invalid and 50% of evictions for reasons of landlord or family occupancy were invalid.

I have been dealing with several people in Part 4 tenancies who are facing eviction because their tenancies date from before June 2022 and the new laws do not cover them. A couple who had been in an apartment for ten years were given a notice to quit. They are paying €1,250 in rent. The landlord offered them another apartment for €2,200.

This is now effectively being used to increase rents, contrary to what the Taoiseach said yesterday. We need to strengthen the rights of tenants to give them proper security of tenure and we need proper funding for the services that protect them from evictions that are invalid or done under false pretences. The rights of someone who owns a house should in no way outweigh the right of someone to have a home and not face homelessness. Threshold also found that most evictions now take place because the landlord has decided to sell the house. I and others in the House have called for legislation to allow residential tenancies to continue, even if a property is sold, just like with commercial tenancies. If it is good enough for businesses, it is good enough for people's homes. The reality is this Government needs to find the political will to solve this crisis, build public housing, take power back off a failing housing market and strengthen tenants' rights to make sure no-one is evicted into homelessness through no fault of their own. It is not good enough that the Opposition has to come up with Bills to stop people from being turned out onto the streets or for this Government to take away one of the last protections people have from losing their homes. The Minister raised three or four issues with the Bill. If he was serious about dealing with this matter, he would take the Bill on board and tease those out on Committee Stage.

Deputy Michael McNamara

I agree with People Before Profit to the extent that we do not want there to be an avalanche of evictions at any particular time and certainly not now. Some continuation of the eviction ban the Government brought in in the Residential Tenancies (Deferment of Termination Dates of Certain Tenancies) Act 2022 may be required. However, I cannot support this Bill for several reasons. The Bill, as drafted, basically says the Government may extend the emergency period for such a period as it considers appropriate. If it is trying to tie the hands of the Government on one hand and then giving it complete power to determine the length of the emergency period on the other, it is counterproductive. The other problem is that it seeks to add licences to tenancies and treat them similarly. Those are two very different things. Licences are established so as not to give people legal rights, in particular the rent a room scheme. We need to be careful that in prescribing what a landlord or licensor may do, we do not disincentivise people from availing of the rent a room scheme. If you take somebody into your home, which is what the rent a room scheme is about, and there is a fundamental breakdown in the relationship with that person in your home, not in a tenancy in a separate property, and you cannot do anything about it, people are not going to avail of the scheme. I fear that would be counterproductive.

As I said, I agree that we need to extend some type of protection, but with regard to the type of protection we have at the moment, there are issues I wish to raise about the grounds on which a termination is currently permitted. Ground 1, 1A and 2 are grounds that a tenancy can continue to be terminated notwithstanding the eviction ban. I proposed an amendment to ground 4, which, notwithstanding the importance of this issue, was not reached at the time because not enough time was allowed by the Government - while it may not be individual Ministers, it is the Government that ultimately determines whether to impose a guillotine - and a guillotine was imposed on this important Act. The amendment would have included the wording "the landlord requires the dwelling or the property containing the dwelling for his or own occupation or for occupation by a member of his or her family" It is not a carte blanche because it is necessary to swear a statutory declaration about the intended occupant's identity, the expected duration of occupation and that the landlord is required to offer a tenancy to the tenant if the person supposed to take occupation of the dwelling does not do so or if he or she does not take it for the period of time envisaged.

Of course, we must make sure that provision is not abused, but I am glad to note the Taoiseach said that this is imposing a hardship. If people come back from abroad or they are accidental landlords and they need to take up a house they own, they should be able to do so, or if they purchased it initially for a family member and that family member is now effectively homeless, they should be able to move into that house. I know the argument against that is it is making one person homeless to provide a home to the owner of the property or their family members, but private property has to mean something. There has to be some advantage to owning a property. There is a narrative out there that private property and ownership of private property are somehow immoral. I do not agree with that. While I agree largely with the Opposition that we need to extend the duration of protection for tenants, we need to do so in a way that is not counterproductive. As it stands, accidental landlords will not rent out their properties.

Minister of State at the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage (Deputy Kieran O'Donnell)

I wish to deal with the points raised and the response from Government. I thank the Deputies for their contributions. I am grateful for the opportunity to close the debate for the Government. As the Minister, Deputy O'Brien, outlined earlier, the Government opposes People Before Profit's Eviction Ban Bill for a number of reasons. The Minister also outlined that the Government is currently considering the legal policy issues involved in the extension of the eviction ban. No decisions have yet been made. Cabinet will discuss the issues involved and reach a final decision in the coming weeks. The Department is engaging in detailed discussions with the Office of the Attorney General on the legal considerations of such an extension. Discussions will form the basis of any Cabinet decision. Some Members raised issues such as that this Bill would create a cliff edge whereas the current Act does not. However, a final decision is yet to be made by Government.

The Government is keenly aware of the challenges tenants face. We know supply is key to improving our housing system and it is increasing. Almost 30,000 new homes were built last year. When verified and published in the coming months, figures will show more social houses, new houses and new builds. We delivered more in 2022 than any other year in recent decades or in the past half century. The Residential Tenancies (Deferment of Termination Dates of Certain Tenancies) Act 2022 was signed into law on 29 October last. It makes an emergency provision to defer the termination dates of certain residential tenancies that would fall in the winter emergency period beginning on 29 October and ending on 31 March. The aim of the Act is "to mitigate the risk that persons whose tenancies would otherwise be terminated during that period would be unable to obtain alternative accommodation". There is no absolute or any cliff edge. It is staggered, with dates up to 18 June, and gives protections up to that date.

Supply is the key. It is increasing. Some 30,000 homes were built last year, an increase of 45% on the previous year. Affordability is at the heart of Government policy. We wish to build an average of 6,000 affordable homes per annum, consisting of 4,000 affordable purchase homes and 2,000 cost rentals, both of which are under way. We are also looking at the first home scheme and wish to support up 2,000 homes for eligible buyers in 2023, for which €50 million has been provided. I have also spoken about cost rentals. We want there to be 18,000 cost rentals by 2030, an average of 2,000 per year.

Dealing with the Bill and the recent and future changes to Residential Tenancies (Deferment of Termination Dates of Certain Tenancies) Act 2022, it is important for any rental reforms to be justified and necessary as a matter of priority to avoid the risk of weakness, instability and lack of confidence in the rental sector. Many Members made reference to landlords. We need a functioning system and balance.

Deputy Michael Healy-Rae referred to 44,000 landlords leaving the system between 2016 and December 2021. There are still 276,000 landlords. It is not correct of the Deputy to say every landlord pays 56% tax. This depends on the income of the landlord. Some might be paying at the standard rate. It is not a blanket 56% across the board. We need to keep landlords in the system. Many of them are accidental. We also want to have rules in place to provide protection for tenants. It is all about providing balance.

With regard to the Bill presented by Deputy Boyd Barrett and his colleagues in People Before Profit, including Deputy Bríd Smith, I want to point out that section 3 as presented differs significantly from current policy in the rental market. This has been raised in previous debates. If progressed, the provision would legalise the overholding of rental properties by tenants. This is where tenants have been served with notice, the notice period has expired and they continue to pay rent. This may have the unintended consequence that it would be lawful for them to remain. At present where a lawful notice has been served and the notice period expires before the emergency period, the landlord has a legitimate expectation the tenant will leave the property in compliance with the law.

We must recognise constitutional protections and rights. We are striking a balance between the constitutional rights of tenants and landlords. In my experience day to day, I find most tenants and landlords have a good relationship. Deputy O'Donoghue referred to this. There are poor landlords and poor tenants but the great majority of them are trying to get on. This is being missed in the system. We want something that works.

The Government recognises the need to scale up housing delivery substantially and urgently, which we are doing, in emergency accommodation, affordable housing and cost rental. We need to consider carefully the next step to assist those in the rental sector. As set out in the Housing for All action plan, which was updated last November, the Department has commenced a comprehensive review of the private rental sector. This review will take into account the significant change over recent years and will report on how our housing system will provide an affordable, viable, safe and secure framework for landlords and tenants. The cost rental model must also feed into this. Improving standards, security and affordability for renters is a priority for me, and the Government has made significant changes in recognition of the fact that each tenant continues to face persistent pressures in the rental and housing markets. Our approach to change must continue to be carefully balanced. We need landlords to provide a steady supply of rental accommodation for the sector to have a sound footing for tenants and landlords.

I want to go through some of the individual contributions. Deputy Boyd Barrett referred generally to cliff edges. What is provided for at present means some tenants will be affected on 1 April but for many tenants it will be up until 18 June. Deputy Bríd Smith also referred to the cliff edge. I dispute this. She referred to the utter failure of policies. I dispute this. Over the past year we built the highest number of new social housing units. We have a raft of new schemes. I ask Deputy Smith to allow them to take place. We have lost 44,000 landlords and we cannot ignore this fact. We cannot ignore that we need landlords to stay in the system.

Deputy Ó Broin referred to the tenant in situ scheme. We have given delegated powers to the local authorities to purchase houses for tenants in situ. Deputy Collins also referred to this. The system is there for people who are on the housing assistance payment. It is working. The local authorities have major flexibility in this area. Deputy Ó Broin referred to the cost rental scheme and local authorities. Local authorities can apply for this under the affordable housing fund as it is. They do not need to apply for the equity loan scheme. That applies to approved housing bodies. Deputy Ó Broin also referred to the cliff edge. I dispute that. It is graduated until 18 June. We have made no final decision on the overall scheme as yet.

Deputy Nash referred to rentals. If we look at the Daft.ie report or any of the reports, we see that the rent pressure zones have worked for sitting tenants. Over the past ten years rents have increased for sitting tenants by approximately 3.7% on average per year. Outside of Dublin it is approximately 1.3%. I accept the point with regard to new tenancies but the point with regard to older tenancies is being lost.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan made various points. He spoke about vacant homes. The Croí Cónaithe scheme is in place. He should be telling his constituents to apply for it with regard to derelict sites, derelict houses and vacant homes. He spoke about the approval process. There is a one-stage process for local authorities if they wish to avail of it. It is not a four-stage process. Deputy O'Callaghan referred to Samuel Beckett and Waiting for Godot, I presume to put in a bit of theatre. He spoke about much-needed new homes. We delivered 30,000 homes in the past year.

I want to be fair to everyone. I dispute the point on the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage. The CSO came up with a model which all of the parties bought into and that should be recognised.

Deputy Gino Kenny

In an emergency we need emergency measures. I do not think anybody is disputing that we are in a deep crisis with housing. The State must do everything in its power to stop people going into homelessness. As we have stated many times, more than 10,000 people are in this situation. The housing crisis is now in its second decade. Fine Gael has been in power for 12 years today. It is no coincidence that it has been part of the political landscape of the ongoing crisis.

Lifting the eviction ban, whether in April or June, will start a process that will see thousands of people go into emergency accommodation. I will tell the Minister of State how bad the situation is with the local authorities at present. They are saying they do not have emergency accommodation for people becoming homeless. We could have a situation where hundreds and possibly thousands of families will have nowhere to go to shelter other than Garda stations. This is unacceptable.

We have seen over recent decades that the situation is only getting worse. It comes down to ideology. I am sick of saying this. Nobody should find themselves in homelessness but this situation has continued unabated for the past number of decades. Relying on the free market and the neoliberal model of housing people with private developers has completely failed. There has to be a radical approach. I do not believe that Fine Gael is the political entity to deal with this crisis. It has had 12 years in power and it continues to exacerbate the crisis. There needs to be a change of government and a completely radical approach to housing our citizens.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

I thank those who have contributed to the discussion on our Eviction Ban Bill. I will respond briefly to some of the points made, particularly by the Government, the Rural Independent Group and one or two other Members. They stated that we do not acknowledge there are reasons landlords are exiting the market.

The reason why landlords are exiting the market is because house prices are at an all-time high and they are cashing in on all-time high prices.

Is that just a general assertion? Let me give an example. I got an email today from a young woman who is a mother of two children and who has been renting for the last 16 years. Her landlord owns multiple properties and she has been given notice to quit because her landlord intends to sell all of those sites. A lot of people are going to be evicted because he owns a lot of properties and he wants to invest in building apartments, so they are all going to be sold because he can make more money from building apartments than leaving them where they are currently. That mother and her two children, and dozens of other people, are facing homelessness. They approached the council to ask if there is any chance the tenant in situ purchase could be applied to these cases, but the council says no, it was too expensive and it is not doing it.

They and many others will end up homeless and that landlord will then invest in building apartments, which in my area are currently being advertised at €2,700. That is totally unaffordable for all of the people affected by the housing crisis. In fact, what sort of income would you need to pay a rent of that sort? You would need after-tax income of about €30,000 just to pay the rent. That is not affordable for the people who are affected by the housing crisis but that is what the Government's housing policies are delivering. The Government’s reliance on private development in order to solve the housing crisis does not solve the housing crisis. It is precisely the reason why we have to do something to stop people who have done nothing wrong from going into homelessness at the moment.

I want to emphasise that our Bill specifically excludes antisocial behaviour from the protections that the Bill proposes. If people are being antisocial or if they are in breach of their licensing arrangements, that is fair enough, and also if there is wilful non-payment. However, that should not apply if people fall into arrears through no fault of their own. I will cite another example that I gave to the Taoiseach the other day. An elderly couple were working and paying rent of over €2,500 a month in a top-up arrangement on a HAP tenancy but the husband has early onset Alzheimer's, is no longer getting an income, his wife is now his carer and they cannot pay the rent. It is not their fault but they cannot pay the rent. The Government or the council will not allow a further increase in the HAP payment they get so they are now in arrears, and they are also in arrears for their heating bills. Are we going to throw out on the street an elderly man with early onset Alzheimer's and his caring wife? Are we?

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

Will the Deputy bring us the details of that case and the previous case?

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

I certainly will. By the way, we have written to the Ministers on these cases. There is also Jackie and her family who I have mentioned again and again. They were in court-----

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

I responded to that but the Deputy was not here when I responded.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Boyd Barrett, without interruption.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

Okay. We have written successively on these cases to the Ministers and all we get are acknowledgements. That is what we get - we get acknowledgements. Will the Government extend purchase in situ to people over the thresholds who cannot afford the rent? Jackie and her husband, who are working, with their kids always paid the rent and did nothing wrong. Since they got their first notice to quit, they are not covered by the existing ban, which speaks to the point made by the Minister of State, who said the ban would be for people who are validly evicted. Yes, they were validly evicted on grounds of sale but they have done nothing wrong. Does the Minister of State know how many houses and apartments they have looked at on Daft.ie and MyHome.ie over the last year? It is 700 - every single day, dozens of them, looking for places. The most recent one they looked at, just before they walked into the court on Friday to face a judge and a landlord who is the owner of multiple properties and is seeking to evict them, was €2,700 a month. That was the cheapest available but totally unaffordable. This is a man working for a semi-State company and his family. They could pay €1,000 and, at a push, they say they could pay €1,500. What are they supposed to do? They are not even entitled to HAP. Will the Government extend HAP to people in these situations? No. The computer says “No.”

That is what we get when it comes to people facing homelessness. What I want from this Government is a policy that says the default position is not to put people into homelessness. Yes, of course, we will take amendments on this and we will look at particular circumstances. I met that landlady who is herself homeless. Of course, we want to accommodate people like that but the default position should be that the State does everything in its power to stop people ending up homeless, particularly children. We passed a referendum on Children First, saying it is essentially a form of abuse and neglect for people not to have that sort of security and a roof over their heads, yet we have thousands of such children, and thousands more will end up in this traumatic, cruel, inhumane situation unless the default position is to stop people going into homelessness.

Of course, that is not the entire solution. It is a stopgap; it is a Band-Aid to prevent a disaster from turning into a catastrophe. What we need while that is being done, as we made absolutely clear, is to accelerate the delivery of public and affordable housing. We need to do something about the absolute scandal of property and land sitting vacant or derelict and not being used. Some people go on about planning permission here. I have just produced a report which shows 75,000 planning permissions over the last few years but only delivery of 5,000 per year because they are sitting on planning permissions, watching the value of their assets go up. Do something about that and we might get some movement on the housing crisis.

An Ceann Comhairle

Thank you for that contribution. We are way over time.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

No, we are not. My contribution was not way over time.

An Ceann Comhairle

We are way over time. The motion is: “That the Bill be now read a Second Time.” Is that agreed? Agreed. It is agreed that the Bill is read a Second Time.

Question put and agreed to.

An Ceann Comhairle

We now move to Leaders’ Questions.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

I am sorry, we are opposing the Bill.

An Ceann Comhairle

You did not oppose it.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

I am sorry, we are opposing the Bill.

An Ceann Comhairle

You cannot come in afterwards. We move now to Leaders’ Questions.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

You are too late.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

On a point of order-----

An Ceann Comhairle

There is no point of order.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

Twice he asked you.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

We are opposing the Bill.

An Ceann Comhairle

You did not oppose it.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

My apologies, we are opposing the Bill. I ask for the indulgence-----

Deputy Duncan Smith

You had your opportunity.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

Sorry, please, this is semantics. We are opposing the Bill. Please, a Cheann Comhairle.

An Ceann Comhairle

I called if the Bill-----

Deputy Mattie McGrath

He missed it. He is asleep at the wheel.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

The rules are the rules.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

My apologies. We will say it is a rookie error. My apologies. I would ask you to be some bit flexible, just on this occasion, a Cheann Comhairle.

An Ceann Comhairle

No. There is a well-established practice. You call for a decision. The decision was made and I am not prepared to have it unmade.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

Is there another format where I could bring this? We are opposing the Bill. We have said it. Both the Minister and I said it.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

You did not actually say it. Nobody said it.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Bill is read a Second Time. We move to Leaders’ Questions.