Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, Socialist Party) | Oireachtas source

Almost a year has passed since Jonathan Corrie died not far from Leinster House. In the aftermath of his death, Members were promised many things. They were promised things would change and this kind of thing would not happen again. Shortly before his death, Members were promised the largest housing programme probably in the history of the State. There have been promises, plans, announcements, press releases and press conferences but there has not been the building of homes and homeless people cannot live in promises. It is why it is entirely appropriate for all the different housing groups, different political parties, including the Anti-Austerity Alliance, and different trade unions to come together on Molesworth Street at 5 p.m. on 1 December, the anniversary of Jonathan Corrie's death, for a major national protest about this housing and homelessness emergency because since then, the tsunami of homelessness has continued and worsened. The country now faces into a month in which there will be a major crisis that will be worse than ever before because on a monthly basis, the number of homeless families and homeless children is increasing at a rate of 82 families per month. During December, hotel places will not be available because they will be booked up and hotels will not accept homeless people. Consequently, this tsunami will appear in parks, in streets and beside rivers across this city in particular and nationwide. The existing crisis of homelessness that is affecting people will become highly public and will shame the Government. Ireland is in danger of arriving at a situation like that which exists in many American cities of having tent cities, in which homeless people are forced to live in tents for long periods. This will happen unless the Government takes emergency action.

The key demand in the motion Members have tabled is simple. They are asking the Dáil and the Government to recognise this is an emergency. It must be called an emergency in the first instance and then the appropriate emergency action must be taken to deal with it because such action is not being undertaken by the Government at present. The Government's amendment refers to the complexity of the situation, how the solution is multifaceted etc. This issue is not that complex. Obviously, individual cases of individual people who are homeless can be complicated matters but the overall national housing and homelessness emergency is not very complicated. What is needed is simple and clear, namely, real rent controls and a supply of social and affordable housing for people that also will lift pressure on rents. It is quite simple and only those, like the Government which includes the Labour Party, who are completely blinded by Thatcherite dogma cannot see the action that must be taken. For all the action the Government proposes to take, it remains completely bound within the straitjacket of the European Union fiscal rules, which are an embodiment of that Thatcherite dogma. It is about the privatisation of council homes, the incentivisation of private developers to build and a sop in respect of rent certainty that does nothing whatsoever. If one desires a solution, the precondition is to state the right of people to a home comes before the right of landlords to maximise their rental income, the right of banks to maximise their returns on mortgages and the rights of developers and construction companies to maximise their profit. I believe a majority of people in this State would agree with the idea that the right to a home should come first and then the consequences would flow quite logically from that.

If one takes the issue of rent controls, Members heard the Minister, Deputy Kelly, was going to fight the fight against Fine Gael and would ensure that rent controls linked to the rate of inflation would be put in place. That was the fight, he was going to stand up to the party of the landlords and would ensure this was achieved. Instead, there now is what is lauded in the Government amendment as rent certainty. The only certainty is that people will face massive rent increases on a two-yearly basis instead of every year. It means people will not have the worries of a rent increase every year but instead will have twice the worry every two years. Members are aware that rent increases over the past three months have been at the highest rate they ever have been. In addition, they are aware the tenant associations, that is, those which are dealing with tenants, state overwhelmingly this is a joke and is not a real response to the crisis of absolutely spiralling rents people simply cannot afford. The answer is simple and has been put forward in this motion. It is rent controls linked to the consumer price index, that is, to inflation and backdated to 2011, when rents were somewhat affordable, and then empowering and democratising the Private Residential Tenancies Board, PRTB, and resourcing that body to enable people to approach it to claim they deserve a rent reduction because their current rent is too high, based on 2011 rates plus inflation. In addition, there should be actual rent controls and I note many different forms of rent controls exist all around the world. The other side of that is not pushing ahead with the privatisation of the banking system but instead having a public banking system working as a democratically-controlled public utility in the interests of society, rather than in the interests of the banks' profits, and as part of that, facilitating the write-down of mortgages, both of buy-to-let landlords and of owner-occupiers who live in their homes, to affordable levels.

I wish to speak briefly on the specific question of Traveller accommodation, which is a real shame on this House, on the Government and on councils across the State, particularly in light of the Carrickmines tragedy. The funding for Traveller accommodation was cut by 90% between 2008 and 2013, which is far more than any other aspect of Government spending and even then, the councils did not apply for or take all of the funding that was available. This in part is because of the kind of disgusting right-wing racist dog-whistle politics pursued by some councillors in different local authorities, which is to treat Traveller accommodation as something that is to be avoided, as opposed to being built. This must be transformed immediately, must be resourced properly from central Government and then the councils must access those funds and build appropriate accommodation. I also wish to discuss the question of appropriate accommodation for refugees and asylum seekers. The Minister of State, Deputy Ó Ríordáin, quite eloquently has described the situation of direct provision as inhumane and intolerable. However, although he stated that well over a year ago, this inhumane and intolerable situation continues and remains. I have visited a number of these centres and they are akin to open prisons in which people have no sense of independence or anything else and more than 4,000 people still live in such conditions. They must be removed, direct provision must end and these people must be given appropriate housing.

New refugees coming into this State need to be provided with decent homes rather than being put into facilities akin to direct provision. This can be done. Refugees do not need to be pitted against homeless people or those in housing crises in this State. The resources exist on a vast scale to provide decent homes for everybody, as outlined in the motion. The resources exist to do all of this. It is a question of mobilising the resources to address the emergency and of turning NAMA from a life-support machine for the developers into a democratic body with a different mandate to provide social and affordable homes. It is about the funds Deputy Coppinger referred to in terms of the development levies of NAMA, the overseas properties that it controls and the strategic investment fund.

This is also about a progressive taxation system. It is about having a taxation system that taxes corporations on their profits, taxes millionaires on their wealth and taxes high earners on their earnings and the use of those resources to provide homes. One example in this regard is that of Apple. It is shameful that the Irish Government proposes to line up beside Apple against the European Commission and say it does not want the taxes that are owed to the Irish taxpayer. We do not want the up to €17 billion that we could use to build homes because the Government is more interested in Apple not paying any taxes. The resources exist. It is a question of political prioritisation to end homeless and the housing crisis over Apple not paying any tax.

See this speech in context