Barry Cowen (Offaly, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Skehan for coming before the committee today and seeking to clarify the comments he made or the context in which he made them and the way in which they were interpreted. With regard to my reaction to the comment about gaming the system and the subsequent comments we heard today, from an accountability perspective, the buck stops with the Minister. When the Minister said in the public domain that there was no evidence to suggest that, I will accept his word and leave it at that if that is okay.

With regard to homelessness being normal and the right and the expectation to investigate the situation in other countries and to compare our figures against their figures, there is nothing wrong with doing that. There could be much to gain from doing that but I would simply ask that when the comparison is made, that this comparison is qualified with like-with-like figures because the methodology regarding how figures are compiled in some countries differs from the methodology used to compile them here. It might suit some quarters to give the impression that it is all done in a similar way and, therefore, we can say it is normal. That is far from being the case and I wish Mr. Skehan could acknowledge that so that is clarified as well.

Two issues relate to a point Mr. Skehan made. I do not think it was even in the context of that interview or articles he mentioned. Mr. Skehan said at one stage that "the point that starts a crisis, and the thing that makes them worse, is data being produced by people who have skin in the game. We now have people saying we need up to 50,000 houses a year, and that's rubbish". That was the quote. We now see the likes of Davy, Goodbody and the American Chamber Of Commerce Ireland putting the figure that is required to meet demand at 40,000 to 50,000. The ESRI says 35,000 to 40,000 units are required. The Housing Agency appears to be the only organisation that believes the demand is 20,000 to 25,000 so I ask Mr. Skehan to reiterate his confidence in that figure being the one to which we should aspire rather than 50,000.

Can Mr. Skehan confirm that he acted in an advisory capacity to Phil Hogan while he was in opposition? If so, does he believe the scale of that involvement with that party in some way colours his viewpoints and public statements? I would imagine not but Mr. Skehan needs to clarify that. In doing so, he could acknowledge that this connection is open to being drawn upon and could consequently lead to the assertion to which Deputy Barry referred. It is understandable if that assertion is made on foot of that connection.