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

I welcome the witnesses to the committee and thank the Peter McVerry Trust for raising the issue of housing, including radical measures to address the issue. Fr. McVerry was among those who warned long ago about what was coming down the line and the phrase "tsunami of homelessness" continues to resonate.

The submission notes that we have a housing system rather than a housing market. The programme for Government states that the aim of housing policy will be "to create a functioning housing market." I have a problem with that and I ask the witnesses what their views are on Government policy given that the Peter McVerry Trust has indicated it has a problem with a housing market. Does the trust agree that the Government's approach to solving what it continues to describe as a "housing shortage" is to make the supply of housing profitable for developers and landlords and that this approach will make it more expensive for first-time buyers, families and people who are renting accommodation? The Government's philosophy on housing is a problem.

The Peter McVerry Trust notes that three quarters of those on the housing list are accommodated in private rented accommodation. Why is the Government still pursuing this policy? According to the most recent figures, 75% of people on the housing list will continue to be housed in private rented accommodation unless the current approach is changed as a result of the deliberations of the committee. Is it not logical that the current approach would continue given that the aim of the Government is to create a housing market? Do members of the Government and Oireachtas share the same interests as developers and landlords? While we do not have figures on newly elected Deputies, approximately 20% of Deputies are landlords compared to 4% of the general population. As such, landlords are over-represented in the Dáil.

I am pleased the Peter McVerry Trust has raised the issue of compulsory purchase orders and that this issue has found an echo elsewhere. While we do not have time to discuss it in detail, the committee discussed compulsory purchase orders with Mr. Edmund Honohan and Professor P.J. Drudy in two previous sessions. Given that Mr. Honohan's submission contained 30 points, I do not accept that legal advice is lacking on the issue. Mr. Honohan addressed all the relevant issues, including the public interest and common good. The nub of his argument was that the Supreme Court generally starts with the premise that laws are constitutional. The common good also has considerable legal weight.

If the Dáil is not satisfied, it can make clear that there is a fundamental problem and that it is in the common good that housing is supplied. There are ways of proceeding. Deputy Cowen has left but I recall that Mr. Edmund Honohan went through the legal aspects of this chapter and verse. I suppose one will get the legal advice one wants. We all know one can get the legal advice one wants.

The Peter McVerry Trust raised the issue of compulsory purchase orders in terms of vacant properties. What level of compensation should be paid? If we pay the market rate, that would have the effect of rewarding hoarding. The witnesses also raised the issue of vulture funds and called for legislation to prevent financial institutions and local authorities from evicting people into homelessness. Should that be extended to private landlords? The majority of people affected are being evicted into homelessness by private landlords who use the excuse that they have to sell the property, that the grandmother has to move in and so on. Representatives from the Private Residential Tenancies Board and other agencies who appeared before the committee stated that overholding has increased by 50% and evictions have increased from 2010 to 2013 by 137%. It is obvious that some law is needed to protect people in the private rented sector also. I think the legislation should extend also to those people.

On the issue of voids, how many are left? Will the witnesses agree that the Government has been using the voids to mask much of the work it is doing? It is clear from the figures that voids are included in the new housing. They are not new housing. They existed previously but funding was not provided for their refurbishment.

Representatives from the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government appeared before the committee on Tuesday last. I raised the issue of why the Department has consistently recommended to the Minister, including last year, not to increase the rent supplement, knowing full well - as the Peter McVerry Trust pointed out in its submission - that the latter has decreased 27% while rents have increased by huge amounts. The Department has played a role in causing the homeless crisis. It seems that the only rent controls have been enforced on the backs of the poorest people.

On the issue of mortgage to rent, while I agree absolutely with the policy I wish to propose another option. The witnesses advocate that the approved housing body buy the mortgage and the State top it up, as it would in the case of HAP or whatever. Should the State-owned banks, such as AIB and Permanent TSB, be asked to write down mortgages as we will end up paying through HAP for a State subsidy for the scheme and more money could be released to the family to spend in the economy which would also help to reduce house prices?