Brendan Ryan (Labour)

I thank Members for the debate's extremely positive tone and content. It has been interesting, challenging, thoughtful and reflective. Although we had a few cross exchanges, I include the speech by the Minister of State, which was quite constructive.

In that context I cannot figure out who drafted the Government amendment, since no one in this Chamber used its tone or confrontational language. A few weeks ago, we had another Minister here, who, in the face of the good sense of Fianna Fáil Senators, had to excise large parts of his speech and become a good deal more conciliatory than intended. It is a pity that it did not happen here, since the issue is extremely important. It is welcome that we have come so far in the tone of the debate; I have something of a history in this area, whether it is positive or negative.

I will address one or two matters of great importance. What Senator Minihan said regarding the new immigrant population becoming homeless highlights a matter of great urgency. To start with, we need language skills so that people can speak to them. I spent ten years of my adult life campaigning to get homelessness recognised as a problem, and we have spent the subsequent 25 years trying to deal with it. I accept unequivocally that we are making progress, since things are better than they used to be. However, we all agree that they are not ideal. If we allow homeless immigrants to become another problem that must wait ten years to be recognised and another 25 to be resolved, we do both them and Irish society enormous harm.

I am sceptical of the suggestion by the Minister of State that agencies set up by the State were co-ordinating voluntary groups. The experience of voluntary groups is that they spend most of their time trying to co-ordinate State agencies that do not talk to or collaborate with each other, often being in competition. The situation may be better now, but that was how things were. Voluntary organisations have played a positive role in getting State agencies to face in the same direction and agree to the same agenda and to similar standards of service provision.

On standards in private rented accommodation, I am at a loss as to why the Private Residential Tenancies Board and the tax system cannot be co-ordinated so that no one may register with the PRTB who has not been paying his or her tax and no one doing so is able to claim allowances. One should meet certain standards before either is possible. It is very simple; one would give a landlord a statement to certify that he or she was compliant. He or she would sign it as a statement of fact — as happens with self-assessment for tax — and give it to the tenant, who would then be free to tell either the PRTB or the Revenue if the landlord was telling lies. Through making it self-assessed, one would obviate the need for large armies of inspectors . If, on the other hand, one is waiting for shyster landlords to improve who may make donations or campaign in elections, one will not do that. There are plenty of ways to do so, however.

The country's housing problem has reached crisis proportions. Earlier this week, I came into possession of a submission from the American Chamber of Commerce in Ireland to the Government in respect of the national development plan in which it was stated that unless the housing crisis is dealt with, US executives would find it difficult to come here to live because the level of house prices has reached ridiculous proportions. One cannot provide housing for the poor if the richest in our country are beginning to feel that houses are becoming ridiculously expensive. This is not the only issue at stake, but it is fundamental in nature.

It is a great pity that the Government did not have the graciousness to recognise, in its amendment, the work of the voluntary sector. That sector forced the State and a succession of Governments, including those of which my party was a member — albeit reluctantly at the outset — into providing a service. To omit the voluntary sector from the Government amendment is, unfortunately, a good example of insensitivity.

We could have reached a good consensus on this matter and engaged in a serious debate on the future of homelessness rather than hearing a succession of speeches of self-congratulation. In light of the quality of life we currently enjoy, none of us should congratulate ourselves about how we cater for the homeless. We have failed these people for 25 years. I accept that things are improving but we remain in failure mode. No one who enjoys the privileges enjoyed by Members of this House will be in a position to congratulate himself, herself, the Government or anyone else with regard to how we care for the homeless for some time.