It is a disgrace that this House has not had a chance to discuss that scheme. I do not believe-----

I do not believe it is in conflict with the Bill. Indeed, a pro-developer shared equity scheme is precisely---

It should never have been in an affordable housing Bill in the first place.

That is not what-----

The Minister has not-----

It is interesting that I was told the very same thing from the Government benches, that this would be done and that there was no need to push for a vote, when debating my amendment on co-operatives and community housing trusts. I called a vote and it was passed.

I had a question on the open market dwelling last time. I would like the Minister to explain as clearly as possible what he means by open market dwelling. I am not being in any way hostile about this. The Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, did not clarify the term for me and there was a bit of discussion in the House. Can the Minister give us a concrete example in plain English of what an open market dwelling might look like in section 8? For example, is it where an affordable purchaser identifies a house that he or…

Can I just ask-----

I have not received an answer to my question.

I am asking, as a Senator-----

I support the intention of the amendment. My preference and that of Sinn Féin is for a 30% cap and we will get to that amendment later. That would be incredible for ordinary people. It would be transformative that people could have roofs over their heads at a cost of 30% of their income. We need to put that wording in legislation.

I move amendment No. 14: In page 32, line 12, to delete “40 years” and substitute “50 years”. I welcome the improvement on the repayment period of 30 years following the passing of amendment on Committee Stage, but I believe 50 years is better than what is currently in the Bill and what was previously in the Bill, going on a model. Going by the Vienna model, the longer the repayment period, the more chance we have of setting lower rents for the outset. My belief is 50 years is a better option and we should substitu…

A whole chunk of renters pay 60% of their salary every month for rent. It was mentioned that we do not need arbitrary figures. We do need a figure. In Sinn Féin's view, we need to put in the Bill the figure of 30% of what people earn and ensure that rent would not exceed this. This is the definition of affordable. That would be incredible for ordinary people. It would be absolutely transformative. Every week, people would have a roof over their head for a cost of 30% of their income. We need to put this wording in …

I move amendment No. 22: In page 35, lines 28 to 31, to delete all words from and including “to” in line 28 down to and including “prescribe,” in line 31 and substitute “that is up to 30 per cent of the net income of the proposed tenant”.

I move amendment No. 26: In page 36, to delete line 21 and substitute the following: “(a) be served 90 days before”

Amendment No. 26 refers to page 36 in the Bill and relates to a rent review notice. The Bill states that it shall, "be served not earlier than two weeks before, and not later than four weeks after, the date on which the setting of the rent by way of a review is to take effect". The standard for the Residential Tenancies Act is 90 days for a review. I firmly believe that two weeks, especially for people on an income that qualifies them for cost rental, is not enough time for notice to be given for a rent rise. We wa…

I do not buy that all. The Bill says in black and white: A rent review notice shall— (a) be served not earlier than two weeks before, and not later than four weeks after, I do not see how this amounts to a tenant having his or her eyes open as regards a rent review. Standard practice under the Residential Tenancies Act and the RTB is that a tenant needs to get at least 90 days notice of a rent review. I will press the amendment in order for us to progress the debate.

I move amendment No. 27: In page 36, line 24, after “review” to insert “including the detail of how the new rent amount was arrived at”.

I move amendment No. 28: In page 39, to delete lines 33 to 40, and in page 40, to delete lines 1 to 30.

Senator Mullen is being good to me today. There is a concern that the owner can seek a revocation of the cost-rental designation once the minimum cost-rental designation period comes to an end and that the Minister must revoke it, given the mandatory meaning of "shall" in section 39. The minimum period is at least as long as the cost calculation period of 40 years, which we have debated and in which respect amendments have been accepted. The provision in the Bill builds in what is essentially an automatic end to th…