Mr. Brendan Burgess:

What happens is that the taxpayer will pay for that. Most of us would agree that the taxpayer should provide social housing. I do not believe anyone is in disagreement on that, but what about the 100,000 people or whatever the number already on the social housing list? Under mortgage-to-rent schemes, not only do people get a house but they get a house of their choice and skip the housing queue. I believe there is a fairness issue with mortgage-to-rent schemes. The alternative I am suggesting, namely, the mortgage assistance payment, could be implemented for many more people and it could be done immediately. There would not be a change of ownership of the house. The borrower retains ownership of the house and it is much cheaper for the State to pay the interest than to pay the rent. In addition, if the borrower's circumstances improve, he or she will no longer need the mortgage assistance payment. Since 1 April, the United Kingdom's equivalent to my proposed mortgage assistance payment has been provided not as a welfare payment but as a loan. I suggested this eight or nine years ago when we had the mortgage interest supplement, but my suggestion was dismissed out of hand.

The mortgage interest supplement in the UK is now provided not as a welfare payment but as a loan. They will actually pay the mortgage on behalf of the people who would qualify for social housing, and who would qualify for rent assistance. They pay the mortgage on their behalf and it becomes a second mortgage on their home, so if they die or sell the house in 20 years, the primary mortgage to AIB or whatever is paid off. If there is equity left over, it pays off the mortgage.

This is so clearly obvious that I just cannot see why people do not call for mortgage-to-rent to be scrapped. We are creating all these extra housing bodies, administration and legal problems. It is just not necessary.