I wish to take this opportunity of speaking on this Bill to express my support of the terms of the Bill, which, in fact, I have been one of the sponsors of. I particularly wish to support all the efforts which have been made by my colleague Senator Brendan Ryan in presenting this Bill, all the background information to the Bill and in highlighting the plight of homeless people in Ireland, in particular highlighting the fact that there is no end responsibility, as it were, for dealing with the problem of homelessness and we are left in the position where each institution or statutory authority passes responsibility to another.
It is interesting — I make no apology for going back to something which was emphasised by Senator Ryan in his original speech on the Bill about a year ago — that this Bill has received support from so many voluntary groups of all sorts who deal with the homeless, the elderly homeless and the young homeless, the boys and girls who are now sleeping rough. All those voluntary bodies are, in fact, putting in the vast majority of effort in dealing with homeless persons at the moment, because 90 per cent of the actual beds provided for homeless people are provided through voluntary bodies rather than through the State. These people have the experience of dealing with the problem and they have the right to speak about it. It is very interesting and important that they have expressed their support of this Bill. They are extremely concerned with the need to do something about the problem of homelessness.
The Bill and the body of information that lies behind it has been based on firsthand research, much of it carried out by these voluntary bodies. It gives an opportunity for the creation of a partnership between the State and the voluntary bodies of a kind which repeatedly has been advocated by various Ministers for Health and Social Welfare over the years. Indeed, one of the primary aims of the National Social Service Board, which used to be the National Social Service Council, was to arrange co-operation between voluntary and statutory bodies in this kind of area. It would be an extremely good example in the whole area of care for deprived and oppressed persons if we could move into a situation where we could have a fruitful partnership between the voluntary and statutory bodies, where there would be a responsibility, where the State would be prepared to provide on a reasonable level for the care of homeless people and where, really in principle, there would be a statutory responsibility for the housing of people who do not have homes; they would no longer be allowed to fall through the gaps in the services, as it were.
We have had numerous examples over the past year, even since the Bill was introduced, of the vulnerability, the difficulties associated with poverty and age, poverty and unemployment and poverty and youth which give rise to homelessness. We have seen most often in recent weeks how very vulnerable old people, for instance, even where they have housing and are living alone, can be. People who have no homes are perhaps some of the most vulnerable people in our society, and therefore, people for whose care we have a primary responsibility.
Some of the reports relied on by Senator Ryan were reports from the Simon Community, with which he is most closely involved, but, even since he originally introduced the Bill, there has been further evidence from organisations like the St. Vincent de Paul Society, ALONE, HOPE and so on which spell out even more the extent of this problem and the difficulties suffered by those who are homeless.
To respond to homelessness with the provisions of the Vagrancy Act, 1824 is an insult rather than an answer. To suggest that by criminalising homelessness, by making it a chargeable offence, as it were, we will do away with it is to go back to the worst excesses of the poor law system. Even under the poor law system there was a framework of workhouse accommodation which has gradually been whittled away because in various areas of the country the county homes have simply ceased to provide wards for casual people, wards for the homeless, so that there is an enormous variation from county to county, from health board area to health board area and from local authority area to local authority area as to what is in fact provided and what is not provided for homeless people.
The closing of the facilities in county homes for homeless people, as happened for instance in Carlow, can in a provincial town like that give rise to a problem of homelessness which was not so acute beforehand. All this is allowed to fall back on the voluntary bodies. Some of these voluntary bodies, of course, receive grants from the State to help them in their work, but it certainly has turned out to be a cheaper alternative for the State and for the community as a whole to say: "ah, well, we will give the odd grant to the voluntary organisations and they will look after this problem" rather than accepting that even through the county homes system or through the health boards system some kind of provision of a home for homeless people should be made.
Many homeless people at present spend their nights in hostels. There are good and bad hostels, but hostels are not an ideal form of accommodation and certainly would not be regarded as a first priority by people who were asked what sort of a home they wanted. If any of us were asked about this problem and if we thought about it as affecting our own lives, there is no doubt about it that we would put a great value on having a real home for ourselves, however small. To spend one's nights in hostel accommodation, particularly when on almost all occasions these hostels insist on the people who stay there during the night leaving during the day and spending their day wandering in the streets, is a very low grade form of accommodation. Even that, of course, does not cover all the people who need beds for the night. I do not think it would be a sufficient response to say that if we could produce enough hostel accommodation that will be enough. We need to look a good deal further into it and try to produce some much more real solution in providing a real form of accommodation for homeless people, whether they are young or old.
There is the basic difficulty that neither the local authorities nor the health boards have a final responsibility for housing a homeless person in this country, and there are enormous variations in their approach. Some will use the excuse that they have not got any housing available for single persons, only housing available for families. Others, perhaps, will go to considerable lengths to provide housing and accommodation for such people. The real difficulty is that there is no final responsibility and that so often in different areas the buck passes so quickly from one statutory authority to another that it can hardly be seen by the naked eye. Also, we must contrast what we have failed to do in this country with what has been done in other countries. In Britain and in the other countries in the EC very considerable advances have been made.
There is one particular example that I would like to give of what can be done where responsibility is established. That is in the city of New York, a city which, Senators know, has suffered considerable financial difficulties in the past few years, so that we cannot sit back and say: "that is a rich authority whereas this is a poor country". There is no doubt that the city of New York has been practically in liquidation on several occasions because of its financial problems. Therefore, when we see how much they can spend and think worthwhile spending on the provision of accommodation for the homeless this should make us pause.
In the present financial year New York city is spending $58.8 million on services to homeless individuals, which is a 600 per cent increase on what they did in 1978. In the fiscal year of 1985 they will be spending in current expenditure $75.9 million, which is added to a capital expenditure of $27.4 million, that is well over $100 million for provision for homeless people in New York city. If you take comparable population figures with this country that would be at least £10 million in a year for us.
This is a real commitment for provision of proper decent accommodation for homeless people. Part of the reason for that is that it was established legally that there was a right to shelter and a right to accommodation, that it was part of the human rights of the ordinary person. Therefore, a responsibility was created whereby the authority must provide housing. This is what has been lacking here. We do not see this as a human right although it is certainly arguable that it is the kind of unenumerated human right that one might have in the Constitution, the right to a home. It is largely because we have not got this feeling of responsibility for provision that we do not make provision. The Bill before the House is directed at this. Without going any further into the detail of the matter I would like to express my absolute support for the Bill and to direct the attention of the Minister to the acute problem that exists and to the fact that there is really no bottom line, no responsibility for dealing with people in this situation and that these are a genuinely oppressed class within our society and one for which we have a moral, if not a constitutional responsibility.