Ruth Coppinger (Dublin West, Anti-Austerity Alliance) | Oireachtas source

I welcomed many of Mr. Honohan's recent comments, in particular because I represent a constituency in which residents in Tyrrelstown are facing eviction by a vulture fund and where the housing crisis is probably the most acute.

I wish to refer to a couple of the legal issues that Mr. Honohan has raised. The tenor of his contribution is to the effect that compulsory acquisition of public housing is arguably now for the common good and legally justified. If compulsory acquisition of distressed and vacant properties is legal and there is a major housing crisis, why has the State not done it? This is the question that Mr. Honohan is posing. Would he agree that we can deduce that it is because the State is putting the interests of private capital, be that capital foreign vulture funds or domestic banks, ahead of the public good and the interests of ordinary people?

Would he agree that it must be ideological? I welcome that he used what is a dirty word around here, the "n" word, which is nationalisation. There is an idea that the State should just sit back and not do anything when people are threatened with the ruination of their lives. It is good the witness used that word and the State can nationalise these vulture fund or distressed properties.

In the statement the witness advocated that the State would probably have to pay the full market price for the properties. He also cites a European court ruling indicating that in exceptional circumstances, it would not have to do so. What are the exceptional circumstances under which these properties could be expropriated without compensation? For example, is the current housing crisis an exceptional crisis wherein the State would not necessarily have to pay the full market price but would be justified in paying lower than the market price or even not compensating these funds?

Does the witness know of any legal impediment to resuming local authority home building on the scale mentioned in the contribution? The witness mentioned that 200,000 dwellings were built by councils and urban housing developments between 1880 and 1960. Is there any legal reason the State could not do that again? Has a State order to mortgage write-down been considered as a cheaper alternative to the State buying these properties, as well as being in the common good? I welcome the witness mentioning children, indicating that enhanced rights were given in the Constitution to children by the recent referendum. Children are being really badly affected by the housing crisis. I attended a court scenario recently and a homeless woman made that point to the judge. What about the rights of children? She made a pithy contribution when the judge said nothing could be done. She asked about the rights of children and that has been raised again by the witness. Could the constitutional rights of the child be a way of blocking evictions, whether from rented or mortgaged accommodation? That would be in conjunction with the State compulsorily purchasing properties as a way of keeping children in their communities and where they attend school etc. I am particularly interested to hear the witness's view on that.