It is true to say that we know from our own personal observations and from the reports coming in from workers in the field that the statistics of homeless people is an increasing one, and that more and more young people are finding themselves among this group. That gives me a feeling of disquiet. It is probably obvious to all of us why this should be so. In speaking about a homeless persons Bill and in looking for some arm of Government to make itself statutorily responsible for the homeless, we must not overlook the fact that the root causes of homelessness must be attacked with vigour by our Legislature.
The origin of the state in which an increasing number of people find themselves is in the breakdown of individual family situations. This is a very poignant and sad situation if we reflect upon it. There is usually a breakdown of relationships in a family context, or perhaps in an educational context, or an employment context. In general, such a breakdown takes place in the community in which these individual people find themselves. This becomes apparent to all of us when we see the number of deserted, aged people and the number of youngsters who, perforce, sleep rough. The youngsters sleeping rough is a new phenomenon in our society and one which is extremely poignant and gives cause for enormous concern.
Once a problem is defined as a social problem rather than an individual or a personal problem, society is bound to intervene with some adequate response in order to alleviate the problems and to redress it. This intervention can take many forms. It could, as it is hoped by the proposers of this Bill, take the form of legislation, or it could take the form of a therapeutic service. Indeed, we have various voluntary and therapeutic services working very vigorously in this area. I should like to pay tribute to them and to the proponent of this legislation who has always worked tirelessly in the field of the deprived, the oppressed and the marginalised. I refer to Senator Brendan Ryan. A tribute from all sides of the House is due to him for his unceasing vigilance and care in this regard.
Ireland is the only EC country, with the exception of Greece, which does not have some kind of statutory provision for the homeless. If we really think about that, it is quite shocking. It is something which we must take urgent steps to redress. I will give examples of how other EC countries cope with this problem, which is a common one to all of the member states. In France there is a national rehabilitation programme under the Interior Department. Germany spends over 400 million Deutsche Marks annually in a series of programmes for the homeless. In Denmark the 1966 Social Assistance Act guarantees social services for the homeless. In Italy the homeless must be housed by the autonomous regions.
In Britain the 1977 Homeless Persons Act ensured the housing of over 100,000 families since 1977. In the socialist countries housing objectives are part of the Constitution. Leaving the EC aside, in two of the American states there is a constitutional right to shelter, in West Virginia since March 1983 and in New York since December 1980. In this latter case the Governor was taken to court by homeless men in the city and the Supreme Court ordered New York to provide shelter immediately, and they meant immediately. In fact, they meant that night. For every hour the city authorities failed to do so, they were fined heavily by the Supreme Court until it was cheaper to provide shelter than to pay the fines.
It may well be that if our marginalised homeless people receive scant attention from our authority, they will have recourse to some similar measures. I can see somebody not too far from me who would avail of the opportunity to do something like this if the basic requests which are being made by way of this legislation are not met with an adequate response from Government.
This Bill sets out to do three things. First it defines a homeless person. This may seem a fairly simple, basic, germane way to approach any legislation. It is a classic instruction given by teachers to all students to define your terms. It is quite extraordinary that this has not been done before in the case of the homeless. It is very necessary that it should be done. Secondly, the Bill attempts to define the local authority as the responsible agency. Here we have a problem, because there is a certain anomaly or ambivalance in our community and the homeless generally tend to fall between two statutory bodies, the health authority and the local authority, and end up in a no-man's-land where nobody feels responsible for the provision of housing for them. Thirdly, the Bill sets the responsibility firmly on the local authority to house homeless people. This is the logical thing to do since statutorily the local authority are charged with housing rather than the health boards.
The Bill defines a homeless person as someone who sleeps rough or who has no ownership of property, or access to property by virtue of renting it or who, because he is homeless, has to stay in night shelters, or in common lodging houses, prisons or psychiatric institutions. It should embrace all the categories of what is commonly understood by the word "homeless". That is a fairly comprehensive definition. Anybody who is aware of the plight of the homeless will know that generally the sorts of places where they end up to get shelter are covered by this definition.
The local authority, as I have already stated, are defined as responsible. The thinking behind the Bill is that homelessness is a problem caused by the lack of access to housing. This Bill is devastatingly logical, and it is hard to avoid this inescapable quality of it. It is not seen as a health problem. The ill-health of homeless people, for example, TB, or foot sores, malnutrition, or alcoholism, is generally as a result of their being homeless and is not the cause of their homelessness. As I said earlier, the cause is generally a breakdown in relationships which arises from a variety of reasons for the individuals concerned.
What was apparent to speakers who spoke the last time on the Bill and will be apparent to all who take part in the debate today is that no agency is uniquely responsible. We all know that when no one agency, or person, or institution, is responsible for something, it is generally shrugged off as being the responsibility of no one. Health boards are very clear in their belief that the responsibility of housing the homeless is a local authority housing problem.
Housing authorities, because of the plethora of social problems attached to the individuals, are inclined to the belief that it is a health problem and they send them back to the health boards. There is a great deal of what is commonly called buck passing between the one and the other, all very well-intentioned and very concerned but because the parameters are not drawn there is a lack of clarity which makes it possible for this kind of exercise to occur. Anybody who is a member of a local authority will be well aware of what is happening in this area and will be concerned.
The Bill obliges local authorities to house the homeless because, under the existing policies of most but not all local authorities, single people are not eligible for housing no matter how destitute they are. Dublin Simon has single homeless people aged 72 years of age who cannot get housing. Others are in their fifties and in their sixties. Very often they have TB and they cannot get housing. Several men died in the 1982 freeze-up sleeping outside because they were too young in the eyes of some local authorities to be considered for housing. There is a devastating body of information collected by Simon and other agencies which points up the painful reality for many people because of the lack of clarity and statutory responsibility in this area.
The Bill requires that the local authorities should house the most needy of our citizens and bring the country into line with our nearest neighbour, the UK, and with our European neighbours. It is humanitarian in intent. It may lack in the area of practicality. I am sure that the Minister of State at the Department of Social Welfare, Deputy Pattison, whom I welcome here today, will have something to say about the practicalities involved. The Minister will know very clearly what this is all about because he and I both served on the South Eastern Health Board. Anybody who serves on a health board is kept aware of the plight of the homeless because of the anomalies to which I have already referred.
On 2 May I spoke at length on the Bill. It is not my intention to take up the time of the House at any great length today. I should like to make reference to my own city of Waterford where there is a very active St. Vincent de Paul Conference who run an excellent shelter for the homeless in Waterford called Ozanam House. It is new, very well equipped and extremely well run by a body of dedicated people. The house accommodates approximately 40 men. They are charged a small amount of money, £19 or £20 per week, for full board and lodging. Great care is taken by the members of the St. Vincent de Paul Conference to relate to the people who are dwellers there.
While speaking to Mr. Martin Arthur, who is very prominent in this area, I asked him if he could give me some idea or some breakdown of the sorts of people who use this hostel. A majority are older people. They are there for a variety of reasons. Alcohol is one of the difficulties of some who sleep in the hostel. It is a result of their homelessness rather than a cause generally. Interestingly enough some few have been released from prison but, because of the absence of any rehabilitation programme in our prisons, or indeed a follow through after being released from prison, these people feel unhappy about re-entering their old familiar environment and end up being homeless. Very often they are pressed back into a life of crime because they have not come to terms with the fact that they have discharged their obligation to society and that they can re-enter it as useful law-abiding citizens. They are confused, unhappy and, willy-nilly, they are sucked into the hostel-type life.
It intrigues me to think people are coming into hostels who formerly served in the Irish Army. This is a feature of some of the people who are homeless. I expect it is like any group of people who have been living an institutional life and who suddenly find themselves outside that institution. They have difficulty in coming to terms with life back in civvy street and, for a variety of reasons, they drift towards hostel accommodation. It points up the need for rehabilitation and re-education programmes when people are discharged from the Army or decide to leave it. They should be eased back into life in the community. Having lived in an institution for four or five years I know that it gets a grip on an individual no matter what that institution is. Some of us who may leave this institution will find it very difficult to get back to living as private citizens. Perhaps it is tempting fate to even speak about it, let alone think about it. This is another reason why people find themselves living in hostels.
We have a growing number of young people in the Waterford hostel. This hostel caters for men, so I can only speak of them, who have become alienated from home and society and who find themselves in hostels. The members of St. Vincent de Paul who work in the hostel do their best to try to effect reconciliations with families and to hasten young people out of this way of life because they know how demoralising it can be for them as they get older.
We have an acute problem in Waterford and I expect it is no different from anywhere else in that we have no provisions for homeless women and young girls. However, we are aware of this in Waterford, and there is a very active committee called Oasis which is busying itself in fund raising and getting tremendous help from Waterford Rotary and from Concordia, a well-known women's organisation in Waterford, and from various other sources in order to provide hostel accommodation or crisis intervention accommodation for homeless women and young girls.
Mr. Martin Arthur, to whom I spoke about this problem, the person I referred to connected with the St. Vincent de Paul, told me of two young women in Waterford last week. They gave them accommodation in a night room just for a couple of nights in order to sort them out. He felt badly when they were not able to do this for any continuing period, and he had to let them go wondering what on earth would happen to them. We must not ignore the fact that there is a danger both for young men and for young women, especially in a port city, of being attracted to prostitution and crime and abuse of one sort or another. We have to make sure that the services are there to help people like them.
I welcome the thrust of this Bill and I absolutely subscribe to the humanitarian beliefs which underlie it. There is a serious social problem which should be and must be tackled both at this end of ensuring that there is statutory provision for housing and more importantly, at its root cause. That is difficult, of course, and it really depends on the interaction of individuals within their own community. Legislation is required in order to deal with what is at present a grey and anomalous area. I feel strongly that there can be no room in our response for attitudes of prejudice, hypocrisy or silence in the face of this human tragedy which affects a growing number of Irish men, women and children.
There is total confusion as to where the responsibility lies. The Simon Community did a survey of 15 county homes. It is very interesting to see the extent of the confusion. Five of the county homes which were surveyed by Simon thought they had a statutory obligation to provide accommodation. Eight of them thought they did not, and two did not know. Official Government policy is that institutional care may be provided for individuals by the health board, but one health board at least do not accept that view. Others acknowledge responsibility for people called genuine mendicants, which is a very interesting turn of phrase.
Another of the health boards surveyed by Simon specifically disavow responsibility for able-bodied, single people. No mention is made of their psychological or psychiatric state, which is as much an illness as physical illness and should demand a response. The homeless, therefore, find themselves in a limbo. It is a limbo of bureaucratic and official confusion. They are uncounted and their needs, since they have never been ascertained, are not being responded to, hence this legislation before the House.
