Ruth Coppinger (Dublin West, Solidarity) | Oireachtas source

The Minister said earlier on radio that we could not force people to sell with a tenant in situ. He said the same thing again here tonight. He said the value of the property of that owner would fall by 20% to 30%. I want to examine that claim with him. Does he have proof that would happen, given the dearth of available housing? Given the shortage of housing, would selling a house with a tenant in place lead to a 20% to 30% drop in value? There is an onus on the Minister to show us the economic evidence behind that. In any event, would it not be a good thing? We want to bring the price of housing down but it is rising relentlessly. This is adding to the maintenance of very high prices because it turns housing into a commodity and sustains the entire buy-to-let market.

The Minister also stated that the Government cannot reduce people's incomes or assets by 20% to 30%. It can, in fact, and it did so to many other people. Under Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael Governments, it was done to nurses, teachers and public sector workers. They had pay cuts and pension levies applied to their wages. What the Minister means is that he will not do it.

The Minister indicated that he is exceptionally worried about landlords. He referred to poor landlords on four or five occasions. She said very little about the poor families turfed onto the streets as a result of his intransigence. As has been stated, the main cause of homelessness is eviction from the private rented sector. There are no measures to protect somebody from being evicted if the landlord is intent on doing so. If a landlord wishes to get rid of a tenant, and I am not saying every landlord does, all he or she need do is state in an affidavit that he or she will sell the house. Who will challenge the landlords? How many cases arise where somebody challenges a landlord? There was one recently involving a high profile broadcaster and his family who evicted a tenant. When the tenant returned three months afterwards to collect post, lo and behold, the house was not sold. The tenant took a case against the landlord but only got €900 in compensation. That is not even a month's rent. Is the Minister seriously suggesting that is a disincentive for a landlord who wishes to get rid of somebody? It is not. The landlord has the balance of protection and the Minister is happy to keep it that way, even though there is a massive housing crisis.

The constant catchcry of the Minister, and of his predecessor, is that he cannot do anything because it will drive landlords out of the market. I wish to examine this. Driving tenants out is fine, but we cannot drive landlords out. Where would these landlords go? Would they leave the country with the houses on their backs? They would not. They would have two options, either to leave the house sitting idle and vacant or to sell it. If the landlord sells it, that is great because there will be another house available for somebody to buy. We have a shortage of housing. If landlords leave houses idle and vacant, why does the Minister not consider imposing a tax on such houses? Of course, doing so during a housing emergency would be criminal and scandalous. Again, the Minister is extremely worried about landlords all the time and does not give due consideration to people who are suffering under this policy.

The Minister stated that he had solved the corrupt practice whereby councils were overestimating the number of people who are homeless. If only he would put the same detective skills to use with councils that have not built a thing on the land they own in recent years. It would be great if he went to war with the councils about that, because that is the solution to the crisis in the first instance. The Minister also mentioned that during December and January, more people left homelessness than entered it. December is always a quiet month for homelessness. Generally, people do not get evicted in the run up to Christmas. It is usually left until the new year so I have a doubt about taking those two months alone.

The Minister mentioned the figures for consortia and huge companies buying property and said they were very low. How does he respond to a report in the news this week that I-RES REIT is going to buy 118 properties from a developer in north Dublin before they are built? It will buy them and rent them out. Is the Minister happy with that? Will he do anything about it? Deputy Michael Noonan may be out of office but the vultures and consortia are still thriving on this Minister's watch.

This is not personal. It is a little annoying when the Minister reacts extremely personally to everything. It is an international feature of capitalism that homelessness is escalating and public homes are not being built. It is not personal; the Minister is following a policy that is being followed in many other countries. However, the Minister's responses are unbelievable. He reacts in a plaintive and wounded tone, stating that it is beneath us to say the mildest things to him. He should see the scale of this, stop the self pity and apply some pity to the people who are suffering, that is, the people who are being made homeless as well as those who are stuck at home with their parents, in overcrowded situations, and who cannot live their own lives because of this situation.

Why is this happening? As already stated, it is an international phenomenon. It is an international ideology now that rather than invest in housing and things people need, such as health, the market has decided to operate like a casino where the super wealthy will gamble and speculate on commodities. A UN report in 2017 on a study on property stated that the commodity of choice for corporate finance is property. It is a safety deposit box for the wealthy. Real estate worldwide is worth $160 trillion, which is twice the world's total GDP. That is the reason we have this situation. Homelessness is increasing everywhere, and our native capitalist class is no different from others. We have experienced it under Fianna Fáil, the Fine Gael-Labour Party Government and this Fine Gael Government. They all took the same route and turned their backs on building public housing. This Minister has no problem with money being spent on housing. Consider what he is doing with HAP. Some €23 billion more will be spent on that over 30 years than will be spent on building houses. He does not mind money going on housing as long as it is going into the pockets of private landlords and developers.

How will we change course and force Governments such as that currently in office to change policy? We need a similar movement to the movement that was built against the water charges and the one built to repeal the eighth amendment. They were two successful movements through which Governments were forced to change course. We need the same now. I appeal to the trade union movement, in particular, to make this a workers' issue. Why not take a lead from the school students who went out on strike a couple of weeks ago over climate change? Why not make this a strike issue? Workers are suffering massively due to the amount of money they must pay to cover rent and mortgages.

There is a great deal of apathy about housing. This debate is a very pedestrian affair when one considers that the number of homeless has gone above 10,000. There are four Members in the House debating the issue. In the past, it would have been considered a far more serious issue. As homelessness increases, apathy increases in the media and the political establishment. That will change in the elections, and I would be extremely worried about the Minister, his party and its policies. People will see this as the most important issue in May. We need councillors who will fight for public homes on public lands. There is no need to seek new ideas. The Minister can return to an old idea that has worked repeatedly when there was a housing crisis. When public housing was built on a large scale the crisis was resolved. There is no need to reinvent the wheel. The solution is there, as is the public land and the wealth. Unfortunately, the political will on the part of the Minister is not.

See this speech in context