It is really positive that such an amount of time has been provided for this debate. For the first time in any debate during this term, we have had the chance to engage in a to-and-fro on an amendment such as this, which may not seem that important. In the past, we may have rushed on to later sections which we opposed ideologically. I welcome the fact that we have more time for discussion during this debate. It allows for the type of thing sought in this amendment. The Government is listening to the Opposition, whi…

I move amendment No. 51: In page 15, to delete lines 5 to 7. The "long stop date" goes against the fundamental principles of affordable purchase or rent. If the initial equity is not recouped in 30 or 50 years, it effectively remains there as a charge for whenever the house is sold on. I would like to get the Minister of State's view on that. Is this amendment grouped with amendment No. 52?

I will leave it there.

As there are no other speakers, I propose to withdraw and resubmit on Report Stage.

I move amendment No. 52: In page 15, to delete lines 27 to 30. The Bill provides that the Minister may prescribe additional matters in the dwelling purchase agreement, including, but not limited to "prohibiting any structural alterations or additions to the affordable dwelling without the prior written consent of the housing authority, which shall not be unreasonably withheld, and subject to any conditions imposed in such prior written consent". I do not know why this is included in the legislation. Why would the M…

I do not see why a person would be prohibited from adapting or extending a house. I do not understand. Does it imply the person does not own the home, by any chance? I fundamentally disagree that a person should not be allowed to adapt or extend a house.

You are never prohibited from extending or adapting your house because you have a mortgage from the bank. The fact that you do not own your car does not prohibit you from souping it up, for want of a better term.

May I now move amendment No. 59?

It is in the group on which we have been speaking.

I will only briefly go over what has been said. To be clear, for the record, what Sinn Féin wants is a statement of the proposed initial maximum rent to be calculated in such a manner that it would be spread over 50 years. The key point that has been mentioned is security of tenure. The longer the repayment period, the lower the rent. We see that in cost-rental models like the Vienna model. I will not rehash what has been said. I would welcome the Minister of State's contribution.

I welcome the acceptance of the amendment. Obviously we were keen to see the more ambitious 50 years being accepted but this is really welcome. I commend my Labour Party colleague and the Minister of State.

I move amendment No. 60: In page 32, to delete lines 12 and 13. This amendment refers to the minimum cost rental period. I do not know why a minimum period is stated. If the costs are covered, cost rental should be extended indefinitely. I would welcome the Minister of State's contribution on that matter. I know this amendment is a part of a group.

I move amendment No. 62: In page 32, line 18, to delete “and limited equity returns”. I do not want to specify a minimum period. If the costs are covered, the cost-rental scheme should surely be extended indefinitely.

If the construction and management costs are covered, I do not see why there is a need to specify a limited equity return.

I move amendment No. 67: In page 33, line 37, after “may” to insert the following: “, following consultation with the relevant Oireachtas Committee, local authority managers and local authority elected members,”.

I move amendment No. 68: In page 34, line 36, to delete “removal,”. This is about the power to remove a tenant being put in legislation. Given the means are already stipulated in the guidelines on removing tenants in normal circumstances, why is that power in the Bill?

I appreciate what the Minister of State has said. I will withdraw the amendment with the right to resubmit it on Report Stage.

I am sorry, is the Senator sending the message that it is only landlords that Fine Gael stands up for? He is showing a total lack of awareness. It is absolutely outrageous. This is a perfect example of Fine Gael's approach. Senator Paddy Burke is coming in here to say he is standing up for landlords. Fine Gael only stands up for landlords and real estate investment trusts.

Sorry, a Leas-Chathaoirligh. I got a bit excited earlier and I should not have. I just thought it was a perfect example of Fine Gael claiming to stand up for landlords when in reality the only landlords it stands up for are the real estate investment trusts, which pay no capital gains tax and so on.

I will not withdraw it. It is well established at this point. I will support amendment No. 71, in the names of Senators Boyhan, Keogan and Norris. The percentage is a bit high. I would have liked to see in the amendment 30% of net income based on CSO annual earning incomes but I will support the amendment.