I move amendment No. 20: In page 35, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following: “(4) Without prejudice to subsection (5) , no rent shall be defined as “cost rental rent” whereby the total amount of such rent would exceed 33 per cent of the applicant’s net income as determined by a housing authority.”.

I move amendment No. 21: In page 35, line 27, after “plus” to insert “or minus”.

The amendments address the mechanisms whereby rent may be changed over a period. It is in that context that I note that there is provision in the Bill for rent to change over a period. Rent is not set and does not remain the same. There are provisions for the changing of rent. For this to work consideration must be given to the previous points made about affordability, which we have discussed. I suggest that a way to blend that is for the Dáil to look to a period, if we are find that rent in cost rentals exceeds 35…

It is interesting when we speak about landlords to ask who is envisaged and imagined in that. I am glad the Minister of State envisages housing authorities and affordable housing bodies being part of that landlord piece. Nonetheless, some of the narrative around what is needed in terms of security and so forth seems to be framed from the perspective of thinking of the central provider - the imaginary central provider for a long time in the State - as the private landlord who is seeking private financing in respect …

I second the amendment.

I move amendment No. 23: In page 35, line 33, after “plus” to insert “or minus”.

I move amendment No. 24: In page 35, line 39, after “plus” to insert “or minus”.

Was it combined with the previous grouping of amendments?

Apologies; I did not realise that. I would note that amendment No. 25-----

I move amendment No. 25: In page 36, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following: “(8) A tenant may request a rent review, including a downward review, to reflect a change in the harmonised index of consumer prices and other such circumstances and the mechanisms for making such a request shall be set out by the Minister in regulation.”.

I second the amendment.

I support these amendments, which are extremely reasonable. One of the concerns is that there will be for-profit actors who are required and motivated to maximise the return for their investors in this area and this model is designed for them to be inserted into it. That is a pity because it creates a conflicting tension. In that context, it is important that there be full transparency about how those rents are being calculated in a new review. A very short notice period would have a financial impact on people who …

This goes to the core of the issue. It is one of the tests and it is sensible. Not to go back to previous amendments but with regard to the 90 days and the idea that tenants would be well aware and go in with their eyes open, I presume landlords will also do so. It should not be too much trouble for landlords to give 90 days' notice if they know the date. It would be reasonable to put the onus on the landlord to give people 90 days' notice if the date is so predictable. Certainly, landlords are more likely to be de…

I move amendment No. 29: In page 40, between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following: " 41 . When there is public land which is made available for the purposes of the development or provision of cost rental dwellings then such dwellings shall revert to public ownership following the termination of the cost rental period or any extension thereof under section 28 .".

As previously discussed, we are talking about a model whereby investors are able to cash out when the minimum period has expired. A recent article in the Business Post looked at the fact that Ireland has done a lot of work to, effectively, de-risk the market for investors. There is probably no safer investment than that of an investor who knows that tenants are, effectively, guaranteed. A rent level is guaranteed, as is an additional equity return. A 40-year contract ensures the costs will be covered and at that po…

I am concerned about a phrase used in the response regarding the access to the land being the value that the State has contributed at the beginning. That signals to me that this is envisaged as being the giving of access to public land. The State's relationship with the land is envisaged as being solely at the beginning of the cost calculation. I do not believe that approved housing bodies would be like that. If they are approved housing bodies whose goal is the provision of social and affordable housing in the lon…

I move amendment No. 30: In page 40, between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following: “ 41. When there is public land which is made available for the purposes of the development or provision of cost rental dwellings, following the termination of the cost rental period, such property will revert to public ownership.”.

I move amendment No. 32: In page 43, between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following: “(4) Where there is a more than five per cent inflation in the price of dwellings in the State recorded in any given year, this section shall be suspended for the following calendar year.”.

In moving the amendment I will note that it is strange, to say the least, that an amendment might be in order on Committee Stage but then-----

Nonetheless, I will speak to my amendment. The other amendments were looking to avoid the mechanism of shared equity. My amendment is a compromise in which I am seeking to insert an internal break mechanism within this portion of the Bill on shared equity. With regard to the idea of shared equity and of the State taking an amount and paying an amount to bridge the gap and allow persons to meet market prices, the concern is this does not deal with the core issue of the intense inflation of market prices. The prices …