Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I support the principle of the amendment which proposes a review of the implementation of various sets of proposals. Everything that has been said to date indicates that there is a need to be able to review the position to see that it is working effectively because of the consequences for individuals and families if the proposals in the Bill do not have the desired effect the Minister set out.

I refer in particular to paragraph (1)(c) of Deputy Catherine Murphy's amendment, which refers to "the number of local authority staff required by each housing authority for the optimal administration of the measures under this Part". I repeat the point I made on Second Stage and subsequently, that in my experience local authorities do not dedicate sufficient staff to housing departments in order for them to achieve the optimal outcome in terms of either construction programmes when there was funding being provided or the general effective administration of housing. I put it to the Minister that housing is not a priority for the Government and it has not been a priority for previous governments.

Although I am particularly proud of my own party's achievements in government, I have to say that when we were in government we did not give sufficient priority to housing.

As managers and potential managers look at their career paths and how they might build on them, they will see how the number of miles of motorway built through their county may enhance those career paths. The number of community development organisations that are established may also enhance their career paths, as will the number of artistic programmes mounted in a particular county. However, building local authority houses or working on the housing agenda does not seem to positively affect county managers' career paths.

The Minister of State should call in county managers and tell them in clear terms that her Department requires a level of achievement and output, as envisaged in the amendment before us which refers to a six-monthly review. Without that level of enforcement, we will not see the sort of results we want. It is more than just a problem for local authorities, it is also a problem for us as politicians. I am convinced that one of the reasons housing is not a priority is because a large percentage of those on the housing list do not vote. Many of them are not included on the electoral register because they move from place to place regularly. They would have to make an effort above and beyond that made by other citizens to ensure they remain on the electoral register. That is one of the reasons they are not the political priority they should be.

We hear much more talk about homelessness than about those on the housing list. One reason for this is because many good, worthwhile and admirable agencies, such as the Fr. Peter McVerry Trust, the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and Threshold, have a particular focus on homelessness. It is their focus that causes the issue to be prioritised to some extent in the national media, whereas the problem of the mainstream of people who require and depend on local authorities to provide housing supports for them does not get the same level of priority.

The Minister of State has an empathy and understanding of the issue but there is nothing in this legislation to indicate that sort of feeling is being given effect to. The Minister of State should look positively on the amendment before us and give it the support it deserves.

See this speech in context