The Government is tying itself up in knots trying to explain the screeching U-turns on the cuckoo funds. Yesterday, the Taoiseach said this capitulation to cuckoo funds had been signalled when the stamp duty increase was announced in May. However, when Deputy Donohoe announced this measure, he said three bodies would be exempt: local authorities, approved housing bodies and the Housing Agency. If he had signalled he was about to exempt cuckoo funds from a measure designed to target cuckoo funds, it certainly would have stood out and caused a row on the floor of this House.

The Taoiseach also told us 2,400 social homes are due to be leased this year and that they could be in jeopardy if the stamp duty surcharge were not waived. The cuckoo funds are not content with paying virtually no tax on their profits or the extraordinarily lucrative 25-year contracts and secure investments, which have been described by some as Government bonds on steroids. No, the State has to sweeten the deal further and exempt them from this stamp duty increase if it wants them to play ball. The revelation 2,400 lease deals are about to be done with cuckoo funds for 2021 was also a big surprise. Last year 1,440 social homes were delivered through that lease programme. The Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage now tells us the number of lease deals in the pipeline is substantially more than the total amount leased for last year, despite everyone in Government agreeing this is terrible value for money. The Minister might address that point. What does in the pipeline mean? Are there contracts in place?

When Paschal Donohoe announced this measure in May, he said there would be a three-month transition period for the execution of binding contracts which had been entered into but not completed, prior to the commencement of the resolution. Were we to understand this is additional to those ones in binding contracts? If it was the case they were all in binding contracts, there would have been no need for that resolution last night.

Perhaps the Minister could answer a simple question. How many lease deals do we expect in 2021? What is the ballpark? There is no transparency around this. Councillors only hear at local authority level after the deal is done. When I raised this during Leaders' Questions some months ago, I was looked at as though I were making it up and there were only tiny numbers, when it is exactly what I thought it was at the time. Will the Minister tell us what is in the pipeline? Is this over and above those which are already in existing contracts? Will the Minister give a ballpark for this year and does he accept this is awful value for public money?

I agree with the Taoiseach yesterday that what we will see in the Housing for All strategy, which will be published shortly, is a change in how we do leasing arrangements and a recognition this is not the approach we want to take as we develop a new Housing for All strategy. It will change. There are 2,450 units projected in this year's target and a direct build target of 9,500 units. A percentage of the leased units would be in mortgage to rent and repair and lease schemes, of which approximately one third of those houses already leased so far this year are part. It is not that a lease arrangement, repair and lease or mortgage to rent may have a role to play in every single instance, and I think other parties have recognised that, but we need to change the policy and approach. Whether that is in much longer leases, with ownership reverting to the local authority, or other such arrangements, that is what will be set out in the Housing for All strategy.

My recollection during the implementation of this short-term measure to avoid what happened in Maynooth and other locations, in which large volumes of housing estates where bought up, was there was a clear indication and signal at that time, for example, with regard to direct provision, social housing or such policy areas where we want to see an immediate response in supply this year, that we would look to try to take a different approach in such categories.

However, these are short-term, emergency measures to address a particular problem. The key thing we need to get right now involves the new Housing for All strategy and a different approach to housing. Yes, we need additional social housing and, critically in my mind, additional cost rental and affordable housing for purchase. Critically, it is not all about the numbers. It is about where the housing is going, to make sure we get transport-led development housing close to new public transport systems. We need more balanced regional developments in order that it is not just all pressure on Dublin. My constituency and Deputy Murphy's are some of the areas in which some of the worst increases in rent have occurred and the biggest problems exist.

In this new Housing for All strategy, there will be much stronger State engagement, including the use of public lands and the Land Development Agency, to provide social and affordable housing, as was agreed in recent amendments to the affordable housing legislation. No one is saying the current leasing arrangement is something we think is the future. We have a legacy issue here and targets and an immediate issue in that certain contracts have to be delivered upon, but the key change coming was signalled by the Taoiseach yesterday and is one I agree with.

The Minister described this as a short-term emergency measure - for 25 years. Let us just talk about what this entails. A builder builds a housing estate and a cuckoo fund comes in and buys it in its entirety. It is exempted from the 10% stamp duty because it will lease it to the local authority. The local authority will pay the equivalent, if not more, in terms of a mortgage for 25 years. The local authority will then refurbish the house and hand it back to the original owner. You could not make this up. This is not short term. This is an abuse of public money.

What will be even more abusive is that we will be told the 1,400, 2,400 or 3,800 houses are part of the housing stock the Government has delivered.

The Government has not delivered it. Will the Minister accept that this is desperate value for money? Why did he go along with the 10% U-turn?

For clarity, the Minister for Finance, Deputy Donohoe, said in the Dáil on 19 May that multiple purchases of property are undertaken by bodies specifically for the purpose of providing social and affordable housing and it is not intended to apply the higher stamp duty rate to those instances. I do not disagree with the Deputy on her underlying point. We need to change the approach. The massive ramping up of the investment we are about to make in social housing is not best provided if it is done in an arrangement whereby we have a 25-year lease with ownership not being transferred at the end. My expectation is that we will see a change in direction in that regard in the housing for all strategy. It will not be a complete switch because there will be certain instances, a very small number such as the type of instance I mentioned earlier, where leasing arrangements may have a role, but it cannot provide a substantial part in the meeting of social or affordable housing targets on which we all agree and which have to be delivered. There will be a change. The new housing for all strategy is imminent. Within that, there will be a variety of different measures to see an overall change in housing policy.