Pearse Doherty (Donegal South West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

We would not have to walk far from this building to find many buildings that were not constructed in compliance with building regulations. Unfortunately, such buildings are a scar on society. We have recently seen the consequences of this practice.

I understand the logic behind the restrictions. For example, I acknowledged the reason for restricting the incentive to previously occupied houses. It would be wrong if the scheme were used for carrying out works associated with unfinished or unfitted houses. The case to which I referred is not an isolated one. The only way the family in question would be eligible to avail of the incentive would be if they were to first move into the house first, as this would satisfy the criteria on residence. However, they cannot move into the house because it is not suitable for their daughter's needs. In such cases, families may need to have works, such as a wheelchair ramp to the front entrance, completed to make the house suitable for the person with a disability. If the family were to move before such works had been completed, they would experience the discomfort of living in a house that had not been adapted to their needs. On the other hand, a family that buys a second-hand house could continue to rent or reside in their current accommodation while the necessary works are carried out to make the house fit for a wheelchair-user or person with particular needs.

The Minister indicated that the measure was targeted at homeowners. The scheme provides for two categories - namely, homeowners and people who are purchasing new homes that they intend to use as their permanent residence. My argument is that the provisions must satisfy individual needs. Some people who are trading up or down or moving into a new area may wish to buy a new house that may not be suitable for them. Such persons will only become eligible for this incentive if they move into the house before having the necessary works done.

Many of the empty houses that are on the market at low prices were previously occupied. Anyone purchasing one of these homes would immediately rip out the fittings because the house may not have been occupied for the past ten, 12 or 15 years. The Minister referred to deadweight. It is impossible to design a scheme that addresses all the examples I have cited. The scheme was not designed for persons who purchase a second-hand house and wish to repair a kitchen that is in poor condition. We must recognise that not all second-hand homes do not have appropriate fittings. Anyone buying such a house will immediately replace the fittings. Disallowing the scheme for the category of persons I have highlighted is wrong. One can change the wording. My amendment refers to a newly built property. It would be sensible to provide protection against potential exploitation of the measure. For example, the Minister could give the Revenue Commissioners the power to prevent people from availing of the incentive where they install fittings that were not previously in the residence.

The definition of a qualifying residence is flawed. While I understand the Minister's argument, it excludes some people, especially persons with a disability who need to renovate a house. We all know such individuals. The Minister cited the example of a room which may require an en suite bathroom or a house which may require a shower at ground level. It is wrong to disallow works to modify a shower for an elderly or infirm person in a newly built house while allowing its use for such works in a second-hand home. I ask the Minister to consider the amendment.