Eoghan Murphy (Dublin Bay South, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputy for the questions. We need to be very careful when we talk about numbers so that in trying to make a political charge against me, members do not end up inadvertently undermining the system we have in terms of the permanent government of civil servants and Departments. If we spend money on housing and give numbers on houses delivered through a build programme, those numbers are not verified just by the actual houses built but through a whole system of accounting that goes before the Accounting Officer and the different reporting he has to do. There are checks and balances with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform and everyone else. We have to be careful in making political charges against each other about how we define voids that we do not inadvertently target the system that supports all of us in delivering public services for the public good.

What bothers me with some commentators, whom I will not name but who are fully aware that we have a number of different streams to increase the stock of social housing, is that they cherry-pick certain numbers or streams, compare them with others and state that something does not add up to create confusion. We have invited different commentators and economists who are working publicly in the area to the Department on numerous occasions to explain Rebuilding Ireland and the different delivery streams we have, but some continue to do that. They continue to measure only local authority builds against our social housing stock increases or our social housing builds, which include other streams of delivery. It is more prudent to spread out our streams of delivery for social housing, because should we then come into difficulty, we will not then have no social houses being built. That is the approach we have taken under Rebuilding Ireland to protect the delivery of social housing from future shocks.

I met the new chair of NOAC yesterday to go through a number of issues around the commission. It is a new body, albeit four years old now, and there is a great deal more it can do to give people greater faith and trust around what is happening around local spending. We often hear about how a local authority may have defaulted with Revenue. People ask how that can have happened. To have those things aired at national level is a matter in respect of which NOAC has a great role to play. It can tell people what is actually happening there so that they can continue to have faith in their local authorities. However, the NOAC report does not count the increase in stock delivered through housing bodies which are working with us to use public money to increase the stock of social housing. It does not include houses delivered through the Part V process which are homes we then get into the stock of social housing. These are social housing homes. It used to be that Part V was the only delivery mechanism we had but now we have many more, thankfully.

When we publish our numbers under Rebuilding Ireland, it is the State and the Government of Ireland producing those numbers. It would be a different thing if the Minister was getting a number and requiring the number to be doubled or changing the press release to include another number. While I know that political charge is not being made against me, when we count the numbers and publish our information in the Department, we are very clear to ensure we publish accurate information on what is spent and what is delivered in social housing stock. In any event, that is the difference between what NOAC has and what we publish. There is a difference and people should point it out when they are talking about it publicly. If a so-called expert on housing is discussing the stock of social housing, he or she should point out what he or she is not counting and be fair about what is actually being done and the progress being made under Rebuilding Ireland. Of course, not everything is moving in the right direction. The number of people in emergency accommodation tells us that. When we look at the repair and leasing scheme numbers, it tells us that. I have numbers from a previous question I can provide in a moment.

Voids are not being double counted. They are not allowed to be in the funding line we have. We are not talking about casual vacancies. We are talking about houses that need upwards of €30,000 to get them back into use. Unfortunately, there was something of a perverse incentive regarding a long-term vacancy versus a short-term vacancy when it came to social housing. There was a fear that some local authorities would allow a house to be vacant longer than it should have been to get more funding. We do not want that happening. As we get these voids back into use, funding will go towards maintaining the stock. It is happening now as we move towards the end of Rebuilding Ireland over the next two years. Funding will go towards ensuring that casual vacancies are short-term and that it does not take forever to let the house again. In any event, voids are not double counted and they cannot be under the programme. We separate voids from our delivery. I wanted to ensure that when we referred to more than 4,000 homes in the social housing stock this year, it did not include voids. When we talk about more than 6,000 next year, that will not include voids. That is important in terms of transparency, accountability and everyone knowing exactly what we are delivering and trying to deliver.

Cherrywood is fantastic. What will happen there is that more than 23,000 people will come to live in Cherrywood in more than 9,000 homes. This is a new town. It is huge. It is incorrect to say that nothing is happening there. Look at all the roads. Look at the Luas going through and the council going through with water services, wastewater infrastructure, lighting, sports pitches and tennis courts. Now, they are ready to build. They have got commencement and are going on site and building. It is important that they will build. The cost of delivering apartments is high due to the amount of money spent on the excellent infrastructure to serve the communities there. They are going for the build-to-rent model which is different from the cost of owning and buying. We need more build-to-rent as it is important. The standards for apartments are better, which means they are more expensive. However, we have worked to help cut costs so that, in an area like Cherrywood, the default will be no car parking spaces for an apartment block or just a few to cater for visitors or those people with a permanent need for a car. When there are five Luas stops through Cherrywood and the Dublin Bus network going across the site, there is great transport infrastructure and we do not need car parking spaces.

The new build-to-rent guidelines will also help to drive down costs for future planning applications which come forward. Of the housing delivered, 10% will be social and we have an affordability dividend coming from LIHAF. In everything we do, the fundamental thing is the delivery of supply. If new homes are not being built, there is no point talking about how much they will cost to buy or rent or what percentage is social.

We need to make sure we are catering for everyone's housing need.

If the Deputy considers the approximately 25,000 homes that will be built next year - the Central Bank thinks it will be more like 24,000, but we will know at the end of next year - at least 6,000 will be social housing homes. The remainder will be new homes for families throughout the country, which will all be bought. Some, but not all, will be bought at very high prices because people can afford to buy at such a price level. In the 12 months up to June, one in two first-time buyers bought their houses for less than €250,000. In parts of the country affordability is not an issue. Residential construction is now driving the growth in commercial construction. We are also seeing the slowest pace of house price increases in the past two years. These aspects of Rebuilding Ireland are working and helping people.