Peter Burke (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank all the Senators for their contributions. I will now address Senator Warfield’s opposition to section 39 and his amendment No. 28. Section 39 of the Bill provides for two ways in which the cost-rental designation of a dwelling may be ended. The first is when the owner of a property explicitly opts out of the cost-rental sector, which they will be entitled to do when the minimum period specified in the initial designation of the dwelling has expired. The Minister must consent to the revocation of the cost-rental designation in such circumstances.

The second route to the removal of a cost-rental designation from a dwelling is when the Minister is "satisfied on exceptional grounds that it is in the public interest". It is not envisaged that this power would ever be used in the normal course of events, but it is provided for in the legislation to deal with extraordinary cases, such as unforeseeable critical structural damage to a dwellings. This is an obviously sensible safety valve provision, at a time when cost-rental is only just being established in Ireland and I would hope that this emergency provision need never be utilised.

The first route to removal of a cost-rental designation, at the request of the owner of a dwelling after an agreed minimum period has expired, deserves some consideration. A number of Senators have raised the issue that the Bill does not guarantee that in all cases homes will be subject to cost-rental regulations in perpetuity. It is true that the owner will commit at the outset to a property remaining in the cost rental sector for a certain minimum period. This will be at least as long as the period over which the financial model spreads the initial capital costs, which will be at least 40 years, but it may be considerably longer. I should stress that this 40 years is an absolute minimum, and is envisaged only in cases where there is no public investment, no State-backed lending, and no subsidy. However, any project which receives public support will require a very long-term commitment. This will be set out in the funding agreement. Government and local authorities need the flexibility to set appropriate conditions for the varied ways in which the State can support cost-rental. Where, for example, our local authorities and the Land Development Agency deliver cost rental homes, I envisage their committing homes to the sector effectively in perpetuity and never requesting revocation of cost-rental designation. It is for these reasons that I must reject the Opposition amendment and the opposition to this section.