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

In terms of voids, the problem with the way the figures are being presented - I was one of those who asked for that figure to be removed, so I welcome that the Minister did that - is that, when the voids programme was originally introduced, it was concerned with bringing units that were effectively not part of the housing stock back into it. Regardless of whether they were included in the build figure, they were to be counted as additions to the stock, and so they should have been. If a property is vacant for six, 12 or 18 months or two years and is then refurbished, it should be considered as an addition to the stock. However, if a property that is only ten or 13 weeks between tenants costs €40,000 or €50,000 to do up, it cannot be counted as new to the stock. I made a freedom of information request to South Dublin County Council regarding its void programme last year. According to the council, the average length of time for voids to be returned under the long-term voids programme, as I call it, was 10.29 weeks.

I accept the Minister's comments about not wanting to disincentivise people or give them a perverse incentive to leave the properties vacant for longer in order to avail of funding, but we must separate the two types of property. First is a property that is long-term void - it has not had a tenant within a reasonable period - and is effectively a new unit in the stock. Second, an expensive relet cannot be counted as a new unit, especially if it had someone in it ten, 12 or 18 weeks ago. These two types must be counted differently and the latter should be removed from the new unit figures, as they are just expensive relets. Of the 560 voids being targeted this year, I imagine that the overwhelming majority are expensive relets. They are above the €30,000 level, but they probably had tenants at some stage this year or at the end of last year. There is a genuine problem in how the Department is counting them.

Regarding the enhanced leasing scheme, I want to be clear, as I may have misunderstood the Minister's press release. My understanding is that the cost of the day-to-day maintenance of the property will rest with the approved housing body, AHB, or local authority and the cost of the structural maintenance of the property will rest elsewhere. If I am wrong, the Minister might clarify the situation. Is he saying that he has run numbers on this and that, over the 25 years, these units will be less expensive or more expensive to the State? The major difference is that, with standard leasing from AHBs, the AHBs own the units at the end of the 25 years. With this scheme, there is a 25-year lease but, if a social housing family is still in the property at the end of that time, the AHB sector will not own the unit. If the family wants to remain, there would have to be a new lease. Therefore, the cost to the taxpayer over the lifetime of the tenancy will be substantially more than under standard leasing from AHBs, which is essentially leasing to buy. Has the Minister numbers on the cost comparison between the two types of leasing within and post the 25 years?

The other point I want to make is not one for the Minister but for his colleague in finance. There is a real concern that the requirement to bring 100% capital funding to this excludes the approved housing bodies. They will not be able to buy into this. Many of the alternative investment funds that are likely to invest in this will pay substantially lower levels of tax because of their tax status. Other than the dividend withholding tax, they will pay very little tax at all on their rent roll. This means there will be an additional loss to the State. That is not a question for the Minister. I am making a point about the tax status of the vehicles that will be investing in this. Questions need to be asked about the additional benefits of this deal for those vehicles. Is the taxpayer really getting a good deal at the end of it?