Yes, if the second person has an income. We should not confuse the shared ownership scheme and eligibility for local authority housing with what we are discussing here. I cannot agree with the suggestion that we abandon all reference to income in this scheme. It would mean that a person with an annual income of £100,000 could go on the social and affordable housing list of the local authority. If one abandons the concept of income eligibility, that type of problem will arise and we do not want that.
Eligibility and determining eligibility is dealt with in section 79. Deputy Hayes took my use of the word "benchmark" to mean that it was a standard. I am sorry if I gave that impression. This is a qualification. I called it a benchmark because I understood that term to mean it was the rule to be applied. Somebody who is above this guideline will not be eligible and somebody who is below it will be eligible. I want to clarify that it is not a moving feast. It cannot be a moving feast because there must be absolute certainty in legislation. I am sorry if I misled the Deputy in that regard. The scheme is not designed to exclude people - that phrase has been used. It is designed to include anybody who is eligible and it is flexible.
For the purposes of qualifying to purchase an affordable house, the following criteria under section 79 will be considered: a person's net income, a person's status, whether he or she is single or it is a couple in any guise, as I stated in response to Deputy Kelleher, a person's accommodation needs - one must take into account whether there are children, the cost of housing in the area and the cost of mortgages. All those matters must be taken into account.
Far from being inflexible, to respond to Deputy Gilmore, the same rule will apply everywhere but there will be different circumstances like the cost of houses, etc. Deputy Gilmore asked if it means that a person in one part of the country could qualify for this scheme and a person in another part where house prices are different but who is in the same circumstances might not. Far from being inflexible, it will respond to the particular circumstances of the people and house prices in a particular area.
Deputy Hayes raised one other point about the similarities with the shared ownership scheme. He is correct in stating that the figure is either 32% or 33% when you take the 90% loan under the shared ownership scheme, but this scheme is not similar in all respects to the shared ownership scheme because that scheme involves income limits also, although again it depends on whether it relates to a single person or a couple.
Deputy Gilmore asked if a teacher at the top level of the scale will be eligible. If all the circumstances are correct, if the house prices are at a particular level and the teacher is at a particular level of income after tax, etc., a teacher at the top level of the scale could qualify for this but that would depend, as the Deputy rightly pointed out, on house prices in a particular area. We do not intend to exclude teachers, gardaí, industrial workers, etc. It is only right that they would be included, if the circumstances are appropriate. I take the Deputy's point, that it is unfortunate if people in what would have been regarded until recently as reasonably well paid jobs happen to come within the scope of this but if that is the case, so be it. We cannot discriminate, and I know the Deputy was not suggesting that we would.
Deputy Gilmore also raised the issue of increasing interest rates. The flexibility of the scheme is such that, while we have based our examples here on an interest rate of 4.5%, if interest rates increase to 5.5%, then the resulting calculations will be different and a person on a higher salary will qualify for the affordable housing.
On the specific point he raised about somebody who qualifies, gets a house and the interest rates increase a week, three weeks or 12 months later, such a person will not be able to go back to square one because at that stage he or she will have received a house, will be repaying at a particular level and the interest rates will increase, but the same applies to somebody who gets a mortgage. Even with a local authority mortgage, where a person may qualify one year when interest rates are at 3.5%, 4%, 4.5% or whatever, when interest rates jump 1% or 2% the person does not have the opportunity of going back to square one or very few such people would take the opportunity to do so.
Regarding similar points made by Deputies Hayes and Gilmore, the definition covers the relevant variables of income, house prices, interest rates and the eligibility limits. Those are the stan-dards which must be taken into account and they will apply throughout the country, but because of different circumstances, different house prices, etc., some people will qualify in some areas and some will not.
There must be an objective limit of affordability in order that the local authorities know who is eligible and they can estimate the amount of land they need to take under the scheme. The members here are well aware of it, but everybody outside is talking about the provision in the Bill to take 20% of housing land for affordable housing. However, the provision includes up to 20% of the housing lands involved and the provision must be considered in the context of each development plan and the needs of the people in the local area. It is on that basis that the local authority will decide in its housing strategy whether it is 10%, 15% or up to 20%. When the local authorities are drawing up their housing strategies they must have some kind of independent criteria on which to decide whether it is10%, 15% or 20% and this is the way it will be done. We are providing that the land needed for affordable housing will be transferred to the local authority at the existing value rather than at market value, but in case of a legal challenge, the local authority must be able to justify the take, that is, the percentage. Part of their justification will be being able to approve the levels of affordable housing which the local authority has an obligation to provide. Therefore, there is a need for such a definition in the Bill.
I hope I have covered the points raised by the Deputies. We could spend a long time discussing the price of houses and whether they should be at their present levels. The effect of Deputy Hayes amendment would open up——