Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, Solidarity) | Oireachtas source

The Tánaiste referred to shocks in the system but what about the shock to the families of Natalia, Ian, Cherie and the others I spoke about earlier? What kind of shock to their systems is acceptable? What does he suggest that they do?

The logic of this Government is laid bare by the Tánaiste's answer and by the front page of today's Irish Independent. That logic is that we need to incentivise massive corporations to get involved in the housing sector here because that will be the answer. Those corporations are incentivised by being allowed to have the highest rental yields in all of Europe.

Under pressure from a movement among Tyrrelstown residents, the Government decided that more than ten residents cannot be evicted at the same time, but does the Tánaiste think it is okay, for example, that eight such residents could be evicted? Let us take the case of the residents of Exchange Hall. If it is found that there are only eight tenants in properties owned by one landlord in that building, does the Tánaiste think evicting them is okay? The Government opposed amendments at the time which would have expanded the remit of the Tyrrelstown amendment.

The consequence of this reliance on the private market to deliver is that the Government is communicating that, ultimately, the right to profit of these vultures, REITs and cuckoos comes before the right of people to a home. The Tánaiste referred to 10,000 units of public housing but does not admit that a large portion of that is the State transferring public money into private hands through the HAP scheme and other means, which is the problem. The answer is public housing.

See this speech in context