Council Briefs: Council okays legal action against the HSE over funding ambulances, and more

In a private briefing on Monday, councillors agreed to pursue legal action against the HSE and the Minister for Health over funding for 14 ambulances operated by the Dublin Fire Brigade.

The full council met offline for almost an hour, and three councillors said that Dublin City Council’s legal advice is that it can take action to recoup funding that officials believe it is owed.

Most councillors agreed that the council should do that, they said.

Dublin City Council and the HSE have been locked for years in a dispute over funding for the ambulance service.

The council says that the service cost around €28m in 2023, to which the HSE currently contributes €9m. That leaves a hole of €19m, which is covered by the four Dublin councils.

In September 2022,  the council’s position was that the HSE owed it €116.8 million, according to an official response to a councillor’s question.

Dublin Fire Brigade runs an emergency ambulance service, it also sends out fire tenders when no ambulance is available – which happened 3,066 times in 2021 – said the response.

The HSE says it has no contract with the council so it doesn’t owe the council anything.

“There is no Service Level Agreement in place between the HSE and DCC to vary the amount of the contribution made or accede to, agree with or accept any alternative costing model,” said the HSE spokesperson in 2022.

Funding for tenant-in-situ

Councillors at Monday’s meeting backed a Sinn Féin motion calling on the Minister for Housing to “reinstate” the tenant-in-situ scheme, under which the councils can buy homes from landlords who are selling up so that tenants can stay on.

The scheme, aimed at tenants who are eligible for social housing and are already in a way council tenants through rent subsidy schemes, was ramped up after the eviction ban was lifted.

The Department of Housing is still funding the scheme.

But on Monday, councillors from across the political spectrum said that new restricted criteria and the small print that governs the funding means they cannot currently offer it as a solution to constituents at risk of losing their homes.

“We can not afford to lose this battle,” says Sinn Féin Councillor Daithí Doolan, who proposed the emergency motion.

The Department of Housing issued guidance to councils at the end of March, saying it allocated €325m in funding this year to councils to buy second-hand homes – through schemes including tenant-in-situ – which is more than was laid out in Housing for All.

The circular lays down criteria for councils buying homes under tenant-in-situ, including that the property be rented through a council-administered rent subsidy scheme such as HAP or RAS for more than two years.

The council should prioritise families with children, older persons or people with a disability who are at serious risk of homelessness, says the circular. It also says that no households should be excluded from consideration.

But Labour Councillor Darragh Moriarty said at the meeting that around 3,000 single HAP tenants living in one-bedroom privately rented homes effectively no longer have a safety net if their landlord decides to sell.

Councillors at the meeting lamented the lack of funding to buy more homes. That is, on the face of it, confusing given that council’s housing manager Mick Mulhern said that the council had €95m in funding this year.

By phone on Tuesday, Moriarty, the Labour Party group leader said that Mulhern had provided more details at an earlier meeting of group leaders.

The department circular says that the council has to use this year’s funds to buy homes it agreed to purchase in 2024, if it hasn’t yet drawn down the money.

Moriarty said that the problem is that around half of the €95m is already committed to fund purchases agreed upon in 2024 – and the council has agreed to buy other homes this year too.

And, it is working on 102 applications that are at an earlier stage.

As such, all of this year’s funding is already accounted for, says Green Party Councillor Janet Horner, who was also at the group leaders’ meeting.

Council officials are finalising figures, she said, but “we can’t currently accept new applications for the tenant-in-situ scheme”.

Several councillors said at the meeting that they couldn’t understand the motivation to restrict a scheme that is helping to prevent homelessness.

The department’s circular said that: “In respect of acquisitions, it is necessary to avoid undue impact on the private housing market, including avoiding competition in second hand acquisitions with first time buyers or with other private individuals/families.”

“That is a political calculation,” said Moriarty by phone on Tuesday. Government parties are prioritising those people who are trying to buy homes over the social tenants who currently live in those homes, he says.

On Dublin City Council, councillors from all parties – including those from parties in government – said they favour greater funding for the scheme.

Fianna Fáil Councillor Racheal Batten said at the meeting that Dublin City needs a separate housing plan from the rest of the country. “We do have the highest population of homelessness, and as such, we need a unique, specific plan to tackle it.”

The council got 30 percent of the national funding for purchasing second-hand homes but has 70 percent of homeless households in Ireland, said Batten.

Fine Gael Councillor Gayle Ralph says she wrote to the Minister for Housing asking for him to meet the staff in the Dublin Region Homeless Executive to help him understand the importance of the tenant-in-situ scheme for homeless prevention.

Green Party Councillor Michael Pidgeon said at the meeting that senior staff at the Department of Housing are not in favour of the tenant-in-scheme because it is expensive and doesn’t add to the overall supply of housing.

He doesn’t agree, he says, the state is paying so much in HAP it might as well accrue an asset.

“There is still value in moving a home from the private sector to public housing,” said Pidgeon.

Care-leavers and social homes

Councillors agreed at Monday night’s meeting to restrict which care leavers can get priority for social housing, after council managers said that tightening the criteria would help those most at risk of homelessness.

Since 2018, the council has granted priority for social housing to care leavers when they turn 18.

The new criteria stipulates for the first time that the care leavers should be at risk of homelessness, and also says that they must be coming from residential care, rather than foster care, and they must have a Tusla aftercare worker.

People Before Profit Councillor Conor Reddy tabled amendments to the new rules, proposing that the council prioritise young people leaving all forms of state care.

He proposed prioritising care leavers who are currently living in homeless accommodation, as well as those in other forms of insecure accommodation.

The council should be proud of the care leavers’ priority, said Reddy at the meeting. “It’s kept a lot of people coming from care out of homelessness.”

“We all know of the lifelong effects of childhood adversity,” said Reddy. Being a child in care is one of the most profound childhood adversities. “That is not restricted to people in residential care,” he said.

Some councillors spoke in favour of Reddy’s amendments.

Labour Councillor Dermot Lacey said that the council should review the requirement that the young person must be engaging with Tusla’s aftercare service to get social housing priority because he doubts that all care leavers have an aftercare worker.

Social Democrats Councillor Lesley Byrne said she works with young people in care and those leaving care, and they are often in precarious foster families and sometimes in other unofficial arrangements.

“Many have been badly let down by the state,” she says.

Some of the young people have had multiple different social workers, and so they no longer want to engage with Tusla, said Byrne. “These are the most vulnerable children.”

Others argued that the social housing priority system only works if it is very targeted. “If everybody is a priority, nobody is a priority,” said the council housing manager Mick Mulhern.

Green Party Councillor Ray Cunningham said that the council’s original aim was to provide for a “very specific category of people – young people leaving residential care at age 18 – who face a cliff edge” and are at serious risk of homelessness.

Reddy pointed out that the current policy is not restricted to residential care leavers.

There was a debate in which some councillors suggested that the changes should be discussed further at the upcoming workshops, which will examine all the priority categories.

Mary Hayes, the director of the Dublin Region Homeless Executive, said that if the council wants to introduce priority for those leaving foster care, they can look at that as part of the review of the scheme of lettings.

“This criteria is around going back to what we said we would do, which was around 20 to 25 lettings to people at immediate risk of homelessness who are leaving care,” says Hayes. “That was what we discussed in 2018.”

The scheme of lettings from 2018 doesn’t say that, though. It says: “Young people leaving care will be considered in accordance with the Protocol for Young People Leaving Care. When they become eligible for housing (age 18) they will receive Priority under Band 1 of the Housing List.”

Hayes says that so far this year, 17 single people have entered homeless services from the care system. She wants to prioritise those young care leavers that are homeless and at those at the highest risk of becoming homeless, she says.

Fianna Fáil Councillor Deirdre Heney, who chairs the housing committee, urged councillors to accept the manager’s proposal and she suggested that anyone with an interest in the issue should attend upcoming workshops, through which they will review all the priority categories.

“I don’t disrespect Councillor Reddy’s sincerity in this matter, but I really do urge people not to make amendments like this, on such an important issue, at a city council meeting,” she said.

Councillors voted against Reddy’s proposed amendments 16 in favour and 34 against, but they agreed to refer his proposals to the housing committee for discussion.

Councillors agreed to the manager’s amendments to the rules.

People who have experienced exceptional adversity and have poor housing circumstances can still apply for exceptional social grounds priority, said Hayes.