I am very saddened to have to bring this matter to the attention of the House. It relates to Question No. 195 of 6 October wherein I asked the Minister for the Environment and Local Government the number of houses allocated to tenants by various local authorities on a county by county basis, including urban and rural areas; the number of families on the housing lists in these areas and if the Minister would make a statement on the matter. It was a simple question which deserved a simple and careful answer, particularly at this time. The Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, said
Details of lettings by local authorities are published in my Department's housing statistics bulletins, copies of which are available in the Oireachtas Library. Details of the results of the assessment of housing needs undertaken by local authorities until the end of March last were released yesterday and are available in the Oireachtas Library.
I do not know whether that was contempt for the House, the people on the housing lists or the Member who asked the question. It is no reflection on the Minister of State, Deputy Dan Wallace, who is here to respond to this matter but it is a sad reflection on the Minister of State who deigned to answer a parliamentary question in that fashion. I have been a Member of this House for a number of years, although not as long as the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy. Any Member asking a serious question about a serious issue is entitled to get a detailed and serious answer. Maybe the Minister of State was not prepared to answer the question or was embarrassed by the nature of the reply, but that is not my problem.
I listened with interest to the Minister of State today while he indicated to the Opposition that two and half years ago, it was responsible. Two and a half years before that, he and his former colleagues were responsible. Be that as it may, whoever is responsible at this time needs to recognise that the number of people who require housing, as a matter of urgency, is serious. All the billions in the national development plan and the grandiose notions in the world will do nothing in terms of embellishing the issue.
The Minister of State, in his reply to the parliamentary question, did not fully realise the serious nature of the issue as far as those in need of housing are concerned. I am not talking only about people who are unemployed but also about people who are employed, who have reasonably good jobs – public service and private sector jobs – and who have a reasonably high income but who have no chance of obtaining a house in the foreseeable future. I would have thought given that background and that the Minister of State has spent the past two and half years looking at the issue, but never dealing with the problem, he would have had the manners to come to the House tonight to respond to the matter because that is what he should have done.
If the Minister is really serious about the issue he should look at it again and ask himself whether he should have answered the question in the first instance. There is a growing tendency among some Ministers to try to avoid answering parliamentary questions and to answer them in such a way as to consider it smart to have got away with the answer. There is no smart way to get away without answering a parliamentary question. History should sufficiently illustrate that to all and sundry.