Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Constitutional reform was very much on the agenda in 2011 when we had an election but we have not seen a whole lot of it. Despite the Constitutional Convention voting by 85% in favour of incorporating economic, social and cultural rights into our Constitution, there does not seem to be much of an appetite for real change. Ireland has ignored the recommendations of international bodies such as the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Council of Europe committee on social rights to formally adapt or incorporate the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

According to Article 45 of the Constitution, "The principles of social policy set forth in this Article are intended for the general guidance of the Oireachtas. The application of those principles in the making of laws shall be the care of the Oireachtas exclusively, and shall not be cognisable by any Court under any of the provisions of this Constitution." Just like our stance on neutrality, the protection of economic, social and cultural rights, which incorporate housing, labour and health rights, is left up to the policy-makers and the Government of the day. Enshrining these rights in our law would mean any decisions the Government would make would have to contribute to the delivery of these rights and guarantee to the best of its ability an adequate standard of living for everyone.

The general thrust of this Government over the last four years and of the Government before it has been neoliberal in nature. The neoliberal ideology is dominant in much of the developed world at the moment and, sadly, we too have gone along with it. I just mentioned the three areas of housing, labour and health rights. I tried to raise a few issues on housing today during Leaders' Questions but unfortunately I had my microphone cut off twice. I was probably trying to say too much. The problems resulting from the housing crisis are indicative of where we are as a society and how we organise it given that the Government is trying to address the crisis through the private sector rather than the public sector. The neoliberal philosophy dictates that the private sector be facilitated at every turn and this is the dominant trend of the latest so-called housing strategy.

Last year, 338 women and 259 children in Wexford were turned away by the women's refuge centre. While we realise that domestic violence is something terrible, the fact that so many women and children have presented themselves at the women's refuge centre is linked to the housing crisis. They do not have anywhere to go. The housing is not there for them and very often, the private sector does not want to entertain people who depend on rent supplement. I have two cases, one of which I mentioned earlier today. A woman with eight children is on the waiting list in Wexford for a four-bed house since 2000, 15 years ago. This is not the fault of the local authority because it cannot build the houses if central Government does not give it the money to do so. A woman approached me last night at a meeting in Wexford. She said she has six kids and is renting in the private rental market. She gets €575 in rent supplement, which goes to the landlord, and she tops this up because it is not enough rent for him. She is there two years and has a contract for five but he wants her out. The council has no place to put her. What is going to happen to her? Is this a fair system? Are we organising housing in a fair way?

The rent supplement scheme and the reliance on the private sector will mean that those with private rentals can cherry-pick their tenants and the worst of their apartments, the ones in the poorest condition and in the poorest of areas, will be all those who depend on rent supplement will have access to. What does this do for our society? Does it tackle inequality or enshrine it in the way we do things? I do not think this is a very difficult question. It is a huge indictment of the coalition that inequality has risen in its time in office.

See this speech in context