Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I would prefer not to be having a conversation about statistics and data because the longer we spend talking about them, the less time we spend discussing the real adults and children who are homeless and how we need to tackle their plight. If we do not have accurate data, we will not be able to adequately plan and implement solutions. This is echoed in many of the written submissions the committee has received from the homelessness NGOs. It is, however, important to talk about data.

Professor O'Sullivan stated, "The second modification has created some confusion and undermined confidence in the data as it is unclear what the criteria are for removing these households." That is a very damning indictment of the data that is being presented on this issue by somebody who, from the outset, was centrally involved in agreeing the methodology, in conjunction with NGOs and the Department, to produce these figures. The Simon Communities of Ireland, in their written submission to the committee, stated that the recategorisation is "a cause for concern". It said that it has created confusion and caused a range of problems. Focus Ireland went further by stating not only is it unclear but the fact that the recategorisation was not retrospectively applied to give us a proper read lends further weight to the suspicion that the "underlying motive was to produce a lower total figure". For an NGO funded by Government to make that kind of potential charge is significant. It strongly recommends, as does Merchant's Quay Ireland, that responsibility for data for this issue should be handed over to the CSO. Barnardos has also raised concerns about this matter.

I was more confused after reading the Department's report on the recategorisation than I had been beforehand. It seems that this is what has happened: the Department, with the approval of the Minister, created a new category of persons, not housed, not in tenancies as we understand them, but no longer homeless because the temporary accommodation they are in is different from, or better than, the temporary accommodation they were in previously. That means they are neither homeless nor not homeless which is bizarre. We know they are not in tenancies, bar a very few in Louth from the original recategorisation, yet we are still being told that they are not at risk of homelessness. That is where much of the confusion arises.

From the Department's point of view surely emergency accommodation always included own door accommodation - for some time we have called it transitional accommodation. Therefore, by somehow saying that emergency accommodation is only hotels, bed and breakfasts and night to night, is the Department not redefining the long-standing understanding of emergency accommodation that included both night and transitional accommodation which was under licence for six, nine, 12 or 18 months depending on the circumstances? I also do not understand why the Department's recategorisation is not consistent. It has not removed all of those households in own-door accommodation. There is no logic for removing some and not others. There are many people, families and individuals, still included in the Department's monthly report who are in own-door accommodation, transitional accommodation, some in properties owned by local authorities others in accommodation provided by the NGO sector. How can Ms Hurley explain this lack of consistency in the application of that still unclear recategorisation? Many of us have corresponded directly with local authorities, and Kitty Holland, a journalist with The Irish Times, corresponded with all of the local authorities after the September report published by the Department. There is a consistency in their responses. They are telling us, and the documents have been provided to the committee, members have had access to them since yesterday-----