Pearse Doherty (Donegal South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 9, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following:"(c) which is a newly built property, previously unoccupied, but has been acquired by the individual for the purposes of occupation by the individual as his or her only or main residence on completion of the qualifying work and which is so occupied upon completion,
(d) any qualifying residence under the Living City Initiative will be excluded from qualifying for the Home Renovation Incentive;".

The home renovation incentive is a worthy but overly cumbersome initiative which needs to be revisited before Report Stage. However, we will deal with that matter when we discuss the section. In the context of what constitutes a qualifying residence, two criteria are laid down in the legislation, namely:

(a) which is owned by the individual and which is occupied by the individual as his or her only or main residence, or
(b) which has previously been occupied as a residence and has been acquired by the individual for the purposes of occupation by the individual as his or her only or main residence on completion of the qualifying work and which is so occupied upon completion ...

I wish to add two further subparagraphs to this provision, as detailed in the amendment.

The Living City initiative was introduced by means of the Finance Act 2013 and has been expanded upon further in the Bill before us. To say the least, it provides generous tax reliefs for refurbishing qualifying properties, which must, of course, be people's permanent places of residence. I am of the view that the reliefs involved should not be extended to the Living City initiative, with which I have a number of issues.

The main part of the amendment is that which relates to newly built properties. Under the Bill, a property will be eligible if it is a place of residence which was previously occupied and which, following purchase, is renovated by its new owner who will then take up permanent residency. The issue I have is that the provision is not made for people who want to buy residences that have never been occupied before and renovate them in order that they might take up residency. The Minister may well ask why we should do this and what would be the pitfalls involved. The danger is that houses that are half-finished and that are not residences could be purchased by individuals who will claim the tax relief in order to complete them. Under my amendment, which is carefully worded, in order to qualify it would have to be a newly built property rather than one which is half-finished.

I accept that taking account of individual cases does not make for good legislation, but I am aware of a person whose young daughter is wheelchair-bound and who has purchased a new property into which he intends to move with his family when the necessary renovations have been completed. Those renovations involve adapting the house for wheelchair usage. One could provide many examples of similar cases. Under the section, as it stands, the individual in question would not be allowed to avail of the home renovation incentive because the property he is purchasing has never been previously occupied. I have an issue with this aspect of the legislation and I want to amend it in order to make provision for people who purchase brand new properties which may need to be adapted for their use and which, upon completion of the relevant works, will be their permanent place of residence.