Paul McAuliffe (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will try to avoid the trap some of the previous speakers have fallen into in directing questions to the manager. We all have the habit of calling Mr. Keegan the manager. It shows the length of time some of us have been on local authorities. Some of us have come from local authorities in just the last Dáil term.

The pipeline both local authorities have put in front of us is interesting. There is often a suggestion that nothing has changed in terms of housing. Three or four of us here left local authorities at the beginning of the Dáil term. For both pipelines there was no legislative basis for anything other than social housing. All of the pipelines now involve mixed income and mixed tenure. There was nothing approaching the instruments for dereliction and, with the speed and the multi-annual budget that is there with Housing for All, they are all now in place. It is very obvious when we look at the list the witnesses have presented to us that that is having an impact. It is hard to see it yet at the stage where people are putting keys in their doors, but I looked at the latest Dublin City Council list for my area, Dublin North-West, and there are 29 different sites across my very small three-seat constituency. It is worth reflecting on them. We have Kildonan; the Church of the Annunciation; Carton; local area plan, LAP, sites 13, 8, 11, 9, 5, 15, 16, 17 and 18; Barry Avenue; Meadow Court; Wellmount Road; Balbutcher, site 14; LAP sites 21, 22, 23 and 25; High Park; Prospect Hill; Hampton Wood; Collins Avenue; Thatch Road; LAP site 19; Casement Drive; Casement Road; Barnamore; Berryfield; LAP 10; Collins Avenue; and Oscar Traynor Road. Anyone who says local authorities are not back in the business of building housing is just not looking at the reality. The question the previous speaker posed was if the local authorities will be able to deliver in a timely manner. That is the concern I have now. It falls into two areas.

I will first deal with staffing. The number of additional staff both local authorities have got is a bit underwhelming. I note Mr. Keegan's wording, that they have all the sanction for what they want. Should the witnesses be looking for more staffing for both local authorities? Considering even just all those sites I listed, the idea that 16 or 20 staff would be enough to help the local authorities with that seems on the low side. Am I wrong?