David Norris (Independent)

This is an important debate. I am sorry to see that once again the Government has introduced an amendment. We are all on the same side on this issue and it is unnecessary for this sort of amendment. All the amendment has done is remove some references from the motion and added more, mostly praise of the Government, but it is basically clear we are moving in the same direction. I am puzzled by the removal of any mention of Focus Ireland, the Simon Community, the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and Threshold, particularly as the Government side of the House frequently invoke and praise these groups. I do not understand the reason these names had to be removed or why they were not acknowledged. The requests of the MakeRoom campaign are ones that are supported by the Government side, so I cannot understand why in the name of God we have this awful adversarial system.

Senator Minihan made an excellent contribution and I support his call for the removal of the habitual residence qualification, which principally affects people from European countries like Poland. In today's paper there is a sad picture of a young man unconscious in hospital. He collapsed outside the Merchant's Quay Project, which is among the groups that briefed us for this debate, and was taken to hospital where he has been unconscious ever since. His entire possessions consisted of a small amount of Polish currency. This situation is a reproach to all of us and one with which we must deal.

Who are the homeless? We know who they are because we have a definition in the Housing Act. The Act provides that a person is homeless:

If there is no accommodation available which, in the opinion of the authority, he, together with any other person who normally resides with him or who might reasonably be expected to reside with him, can reasonably occupy or remain in occupation of...

or . . .

(b) he is living in a hospital, countyhome . . .

and has no other means.

The Merchant's Quay people have broken down the homeless into three categories. First, the visible homeless who are those people we see, even on the steps of our great public buildings. It is a cause of distress to many of us to see these people settling down for the night. These are not all stereotypical old people and drunkards, but young people who should be on the threshold of life. The second group is the hidden homeless who are people who are staying with relatives and so on who do not possess their own home.

The third group is the people at risk of homelessness. This is a growing section because, despite our increasing wealth and our satisfactory position on the world table, we have a situation where property is increasingly placed outside the capacity of young people to afford. The cost of housing has gone completely off the register. The house I bought in 1978 for €25,000 is now valued at €3.5 million, which is insane.

It is difficult to know how many homeless people we have. We can take a snapshot, but homelessness and the number of people we can detect as homeless change. There are approximately 5,000 homeless people. This is worrying and reflects the fact that housing has become increasingly unaffordable.

On the matter of affordable housing, it is a shame the Government has so often colluded with property developers in the avoidance of this responsibility. It has allowed them hand over parcels of useless land or money so that the middle class occupants of their developments will not be troubled or distressed by having to live beside people who come from a slightly different social background with a different accent. In 2002, there was a total of 102,000 local authority houses, but we had some 48,000 households on the waiting list. We need to take a look at this situation.

Homelessness has an impact on people's welfare. The average life expectancy of somebody on the streets is 42 years, yet this week we heard that women born today can expect to live to 100 years of age. People on the streets are also more prone to diseases such as TB and hepatitis and to drug addiction, etc.

I would like to end on a positive note. The ready for work programme is sponsored by the various groups involved in homelessness and by one of our banks. This initiative gives us a different view of the homeless who are often dismissed as shiftless or of having brought it on themselves. Since 2002, out of 178 referrals to the ready for work project some 118 or 66% began training. Of these, 95% completed the training and most went on to employment or to further training or education. It is marvellous that people from such a disadvantaged background could be assisted to get up and do something for themselves.

I like to put the human face on these issues. A woman was kicked out of home when she was 18 years of age and slept in doorways and begged all over the city. She now has two children and is in the business in the communities return to work scheme, assisted by the Society of St. Vincent de Paul. She said: "It is very strange having people respect me, if you know what I mean. When I was on the streets I just kept my head down. No-one hardly ever looked at me. It was horrible. Looking back to that time, it was just what was happening". This is one person who has been given hope. We have the resources and can do it.

I salute Senator Ryan and his colleagues for putting forward this important motion and I hope that more will be done. We should stick together and should not be divided by silly, unnecessary, adversarial amendments.