I move amendment No. 37: In page 12, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following: “(8) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (7) and (8) a housing authority may set out additional criteria for eligibility of applicants for a specific affordable housing purchase arrangement with respect to income and asset thresholds with regard to ensuring access to affordable purchase for persons from each income quintile within a housing authority area and such other matters as may be outlined under section 6(4).”. I will s…

I will come to my amendment presently. First, however, I want to speak briefly on amendment No. 38, which is stronger in some respects than my amendment. I believe we should press these amendments but I will also be coming back to see if we can incorporate some of the language from amendments Nos. 38 and 37. Of course, these amendments are not contradictory and there is nothing to stop them working together. Amendment No. 37 recognises the specific local knowledge of local authorities and housing authorities. The p…

I withdraw amendment No. 37 and reserve the right to reintroduce it on Report Stage.

I believe this amendment complements this section of the Bill. We had some indication in the last session that a previous constructive amendment, which was tabled by Senator Warfield in respect of the role of co-operatives, would be taken on board. Amendment No. 40 is complementary. I recognise that the 30% piece goes towards some of my concerns about prioritisation rather than eligibility. Senator Warfield's amendment means there would be an almost two-way information piece within the 70% of the priority. Yes, the…

I will be brief. This is a better drafted version of my amendments Nos. 34 and 35, which related to households headed by a single person. I also had amendments relating to households with a disability. It should be borne in mind that households in which somebody has a disability constitute a very large proportion of the population. For technical reasons those amendments could not be introduced, but I hope that this is considered within the systems of eligibility and the priorities planning. I fully support this ame…

I will briefly speak to amendment No. 43. We have talked about the input that local authorities can have in respect of the scheme of priority but my concern is that housing authorities can make or amend a scheme of priority and give it to the Minister, but the Minister can then change it completely. The Minister can direct the local authority to amend the scheme of priority. The section states that "the housing authority shall comply with any such direction ... as specified by the Minister". There may well be an in…

I move amendment No. 43: In page 13, line 27, to delete "comply with" and substitute "have regard to".

I move amendment No. 44: In page 13, between lines 34 and 35, to insert the following: “ 12. Where a dwelling is being made available for affordable purchase under a Part V agreement under section 5(b) that dwelling shall be made available for affordable purchase according to such criteria of affordability as may be set out by the Minister in regulation or by the relevant housing authority and there shall be no obligation on a housing authority to provide any financial contribution above such an agreed affordable t…

For clarity, amendment No. 46 does not relate to open market dwellings but to Part V housing. The “or (b)” that is being removed relates to Part V housing. I understand and do not have any problem with the intent of the Bill but I have concerns about the drafting. That is why I have gone back and forth and have come at it two or three different ways, which I accept may not be the best ways to come at it. I hope that the considerably greater drafting resources to which the Minister of State might have access will re…

The Minister of State has indicated that he will engage with us between now and Report Stage to clarify the legal language. We all have the same policy intent and we need to ensure that we do not create an ambiguity or any expectation in the language. To allow the Minister of State to come forward with his own tightened or clarifying language, I will withdraw the amendment.

I move amendment No. 46: In page 14, line 1, to delete “or (b) ”. I note specifically my need for clarification on Part 5.

I move amendment No. 48: In page 14, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following: “(5) For the avoidance of doubt, no affordable dwelling contributions shall be required from a local authority in respect of an affordable dwelling made available for sale under a Part V agreement as specified in section 5(b) or section 7(2) .”.

I am happy to yield to Senator Warfield if he wants to reply to that point.

I will be brief. Of course there need to be building regulations and things need to be done properly but the concern is that certain structural changes are discretionary and do not require planning permission. Small changes can be made. There is a certain square footage of glass one can add to one's kitchen or whatever. There are things that do not require planning permission. I am all for proper planning processes for anything else but we do not want an estate where all those who bought their house at full price a…

This amendment is grouped with No. 59, so all of the amendments get spoken to before the Minister of State speaks to all of them together.

They are grouped.

I am glad that the Minister of State accepted amendment No. 58. I refrained from engaging on that amendment, which touched on one part of cost rental. In his answer, the Minister of State spoke to the other concern about cost rental. It is a fundamental concern, unfortunately, about how this Bill approaches cost rental in terms of the role of what are referred to as non-Exchequer backed sources. It deals with the role of speculative finance. It is still there. I find it very concerning that not only are speculative…

I thought it was grouped.

I move amendment No. 61: In page 32, line 12, after “dwelling” to insert the following: “, which in any case where a loan is or has been granted by the housing agency shall be not less than 90 years,”.

I will not speak for very long because I thought this amendment was grouped with a previous one so I spoke to it then. The core issue is still my concern about the motivation of the State, local authorities and approved housing bodies in engaging in cost rental as a vehicle for the provision of housing in the long term. It is a totally legitimate motivation, but it is based on returns for shareholders, for example, in a pension scheme or fund. It brings a different dynamic and imperative into the scheme. That is wh…