Mick Barry
Ceist:10. Deputy Mick Barry asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on Government co-ordination will next meet. [11398/23]
Amharc ar fhreagraWednesday, 22 March 2023
Ceisteanna (10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17)
Cian O'Callaghan
Ceist:11. Deputy Cian O'Callaghan asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on Government co-ordination will next meet. [12945/23]
Amharc ar fhreagra
Ivana Bacik
Ceist:12. Deputy Ivana Bacik asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on Government co-ordination will next meet. [13428/23]
Amharc ar fhreagra
Gary Gannon
Ceist:13. Deputy Gary Gannon asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on Government co-ordination will next meet. [12656/23]
Amharc ar fhreagra
Richard Boyd Barrett
Ceist:14. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on Government co-ordination will next meet. [12863/23]
Amharc ar fhreagra
Bríd Smith
Ceist:15. Deputy Bríd Smith asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on Government co-ordination will next meet. [12866/23]
Amharc ar fhreagra
Gino Kenny
Ceist:16. Deputy Gino Kenny asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on Government co-ordination will next meet. [12868/23]
Amharc ar fhreagra
Mary Lou McDonald
Ceist:17. Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on Government co-ordination will next meet. [12973/23]
Amharc ar fhreagraFreagraí ó Béal (19 píosaí cainte)
Tógfaidh mé Ceisteanna Uimh. 10 go 17, go huile, le chéile.
The Cabinet committee on Government co-ordination generally meets in advance of Government meetings and is scheduled to meet again on Monday, 27 March. The committee reviews the agenda for Government meetings the next day, looks forward to Government meetings to come, discusses political priorities and reviews the activity of Cabinet committees. I am a member of the committee alongside the Tánaiste and the leader of the Green Party. The committee is also attended by the Secretary General of the Government, my chief of staff and the chiefs of staff of the Tánaiste and the Leader of the Green Party.
Twenty-four people died in a 51-bed nursing home at Ballynoe in Cork in the third wave of Covid-19 at the start of 2021. "Prime Time" recently revealed that the HSE was notified of the outbreak on 8 January but did not visit the home until 16 February. A HIQA visit, after 22 people were already dead, found nine unreported deaths, multiple violations of infection control regulations and no Covid-19 risk management plan. I believe the privatisation of the nursing home sector and the for-profit ethos were major factors in tragedies such as that at Ballynoe. There is a clear need for an inquiry into what happened at Ballynoe and in the nursing home sector generally during the pandemic. Does the Taoiseach agree and, if so, when will such an inquiry take place?
On Government co-ordination on the decision not to extend the eviction ban, I ask the Taoiseach again if he has been presented with any analysis or reasoning by the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage as to the effect that the lifting of the ban will have, not only on rising homeless figures but also on the numbers of landlords and private rental properties available. I am conscious that in response to a question from my colleague, Deputy Duncan Smith, ten days ago, the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage said no modelling had been done prior to the decision to lift the ban. Has the Taoiseach obtained any modelling since the Government took the decision to lift the ban? In particular, can he stand over the assertion made by the Minister in last night's debate that if the ban had been extended, it would have shrunk the numbers of private landlords who are offering rental accommodation to tenants? I challenged the Minister on that assertion because we have been told that no modelling or research was done on the likely impact of either lifting or extending the ban prior to the decision made by the Government not to extend it further. I am asking about further research and Government co-ordination on the basis of research and evidence.
Has consideration been given to the legislation I sent to the Taoiseach? This draft legislation would provide for a results-based mechanism for determining the duration of an eviction ban in the future?
I found the Taoiseach's answer to my previous question rather evasive. I will frame the question again. It is not just about the individual case; it is about how that case epitomises the failure of the Government to understand what is going on or its wilful denial of what is going on. What is not particularly specific to this case is that there is somebody trapped in homeless accommodation. Somebody who gets up every day to work has been in homeless accommodation for four years. Does that not in and of itself make the Taoiseach think there is something wrong here? How could somebody be in homeless accommodation for four years? This is a person who gets up to work every morning. It is not due to a lack of energy or drive on their part. There is something wrong with the policy that allows that to happen. I heard the Taoiseach say the majority of people who are evicted will probably not end up homeless. I do not know how he can make that assertion when, in the biggest residential development in the State where the Government could help solve the housing crisis in south Dublin, the new apartments are being advertised at monthly rents of €2,600. How is any average worker on an average income supposed to afford that? If the woman I mentioned is eligible for the housing assistance payment, HAP, which for a while she was not, she would not be allowed to rent one of those apartments and if she is not eligible for HAP, she has no chance of being able to rent one. She is in a trap. Does the Taoiseach understand the point?
I remind the Deputy that we have two more questioners.
I am finished.
Deputy Boyd Barrett has set out the case of being damned if you do and damned if you do not, and the horrible trap that people are caught in.
The Cabinet committee for Government co-ordination meets in advance of the Cabinet meeting. The Taoiseach took the decision to end the eviction ban on 7 March so the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste, the Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan, and the associated officials would have met on 6 March. At that stage, did the Taoiseach have the Residential Tenancies Board, RTB, figures? Was he aware that in the final quarter of last year, almost 5,000 eviction notices had been issued? Was that information available to him when the Cabinet committee met on 6 March?
There is widespread agreement, including a fair amount among Government backbenchers, that it is crazy to lift the eviction ban. The Government has made a number of proposals. It is bonkers that anyone would consider lifting the ban until those proposals were at least in place. Regarding the tenant in situ scheme, specifically in relation to HAP, are instructions given to local authorities regarding the criteria? We are all hearing that people need to be on the housing list for five years or more depending on the county council or that they cannot avail of the scheme if there is a room too many or too few in the property. The criteria also appear to differ across county lines, depending on where the HAP is paid and what county council area the property is located in. There has been no clarity provided on a number of these issues. When will we get clarity on the possibility of local authorities or approved housing bodies, AHBs, purchasing premises for those who cannot avail of HAP, do not make the thresholds and are also facing eviction?
The Deputies have raised a number of important questions but given the time allowed, I will prioritise answering the questions that relate to the Cabinet committee on Government co-ordination, which is the issue addressed in the group. Regarding the reasoning given to us by the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage for the lifting of the eviction moratorium, the Department's advice and the advice of the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage - line Ministers will attend these committees on occasion if it is relevant to their brief - was that there were three options. The first option was to end the moratorium as planned on 31 March, which is what we voted for in this House. The second option was to introduce a rolling winter ban like they have in France. The third option was a two-year extension because the view was not taken by the officials that an extension of four, six or five and a half months would be a credible option. I know the Opposition parties think differently in that regard. The strong advice from the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage and his officials was to go for option one and end the moratorium as planned on 31 March.
Was the Minister at the meeting?
We certainly met the Minister. I cannot remember exactly which meeting he attended or did not attend but we certainly met him. He almost certainly was there but there was more than one meeting on this, as the Deputy can imagine. The very strong assessment from the officials was to go for the option of ending the moratorium as planned on 31 March.
In terms of statistical modelling, the view is that it is impossible for anyone to do accurate statistical modelling on something like this. When the eviction ban was put in place, most of us expected to see a fall in the number of people in emergency accommodation because that is what happened when it was previously in place during the pandemic. We now understand better that there are many other factors at play. We always understood that there were entries and exits and that exits had to be taken into account as well as the entries. The entries into homelessness are manifold. The reason we have seen the numbers of people in emergency accommodation continue to rise even while the eviction ban has been in place is that there have not been enough exits but also that there have been continuing entries. The biggest reason for people becoming homeless in the last number of months is family breakdown. I am not sure what statistician can model how many families will break down in any particular period.
There is also the issue of rising numbers of non-citizens and non-citizen families who are becoming homeless. That has increased from 14% or 15% in 2014 to nearly 40% now. It is impossible to model accurately how many people from outside the State will seek emergency accommodation.
Did the Taoiseach have the RTB figures?
I do not think any modelling has been done by the Opposition. We had an indication of the RTB figures but not the exact figures. They indicated two things. One was an uptick in notices to quit driven by the eviction ban. Landlords got the message, in part as a consequence of the eviction ban, and it accelerated the number of landlords that were leaving. That bothered us and is one of the reasons why the option was recommended that the eviction ban and threat of further eviction bans or extensions would accelerate the exit of landlords, thus increasing homelessness and driving up rents. That was definitely part of the rationale. We were also advised, and Members should know this if they do not already, that comparisons between the numbers per quarter now and previous quarters are not valid because there was a change in the law and the way notices to quit are counted. Anyone making a comparison of the third quarter of last year, or the figures to come for quarter four of last year, with previous quarters is not being accurate, because that is very clear.
The Taoiseach just did that. He said there was accelerated-----
What about the Ballynoe inquiry?
That concludes Taoiseach's Questions.
What about nursing homes?
The Taoiseach outlined that. He was responding to questions.
I cannot respond to that. It is not a matter for the co-ordination committee. Perhaps I can come back to Deputy Barry at a different point.
Is féidir teacht ar Cheisteanna Scríofa ar
www.oireachtas.ie
.
Written Answers are published on the Oireachtas website.