John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

He was succeeded by his son the Prince Regent who ruled until 1820. Mad King George died in 1820 and his son became George IV. He ruled until 1830 when he was succeeded by his brother, William IV, who ruled until 1837. Many regard that date as marking the end of the Georgian era. When it comes to architecture one could ask what is the cut-off point. Georgian-style architecture kept being built well into the 1840s; some would say well beyond that. It is important that we determine the definition of Georgian buildings and architecture in the two cities. Those who do that for a living do not believe Georgian architecture should be strictly determined by dates. It is accepted in those circles that Georgian architecture was being built well into the 1840s.

If a strict definition is applied to what constitutes a Georgian building, Waterford will not benefit a great deal from the provision. The dates must be extended into the early Victorian period. Within a short period we will have a good idea of the footprint of Georgian and early Victorian houses. It is most likely that a comprehensive inventory of Georgian and early Victorian houses has never been done before. We must find out how many such houses there were, where they are and what they are now being used for. It is important that the city gets the maximum benefit from the provision. The measure could be broadened into the early Victorian era at the very least to accommodate those houses that are in the style of Georgian architecture and not those that were built strictly within a certain date range.

The second part of the pilot project is to assist the retail sector. It is a generous provision. Improvements, renovations and extensions can be made and the cost can be written off against income tax once the building or premises is owned and operated by the person conducting the business. As with the previous provision it would be helpful if the Minister considered tweaking the provisions slightly to maximise the impact, certainly in the case of Waterford city. One point that has already been raised with me is that the number of retail outlets owned and operated by the same individuals in the centre of Waterford is not high. That is what I have determined to date in initial conversations I have had with people who know these things.

I understand the definition of retail may be broadened to include service-oriented businesses such as a solicitor’s office, dentist’s office or café. I note there may be a broad definition when it comes to refurbishment. That leads me to believe we have to consider loosening slightly the strict definition of owner-occupier to bring in, for example, long-term leases, or in cases where a tenant has been in situ in a particular location for a considerable period, which would determine and suggest continuity. It is important that the Department would think along those lines.

I am aware of the constraints under which the Minister is operating. The measure requires EU grant aid approval. One measure the EU will not approve is the kind of investor tax reliefs introduced by the previous Administration that ultimately helped destroy the economy. They made a lot of people rich in this country but, ultimately they helped ruin it. I have asked interested parties in Waterford city to think about the measures in order that they could come up with proposals that might make sense to the Minister and the European Commission. I urge the Minister to keep the door open on the measure before the commencement order is signed later this year or early next year.

Every one to whom I have spoken sees the benefit and potential of the measure but they just want the opportunity to make suggestions as the process develops. I listened to the Sinn Féin spokesman deal with the measure last night. He needs to read the details before commenting. It is unbelievable that someone would not have even a basic grasp of what is involved before commenting on it on the floor of the Dáil. Anyone to whom I have spoken in Waterford sees the benefit of the measure. If it works it will have an additional impact, namely, on the construction industry locally. Anyone, from a painter-decorator, plumber or highly skilled craftsman has the potential to get work following on from the introduction of the measure. That is important in a region that has an effective rate of 20% unemployment. In the city of Waterford the rate of unemployment is probably a lot higher – it could be as high as 35% in some areas.

I have been highlighting the damage done to the regional and local economy in Waterford and the south east for some time. To my mind, this is tacit recognition by the Government that a major problem exists and that extraordinary and targeted steps must be taken. The figures back that up. The ESRI also support my argument. Three weeks ago it published a report entitled, The Regional Dimension of the Unemployment Crisis. The ESRI concluded that the national statistics hide the fact that there are areas with considerably higher unemployment rates than the average and others with considerably lower rates. It said that the persistence of unemployment differentials suggest that there are underlying structural differences across regions. From a policy perspective that is important as national policies are unlikely to address the region and location-specific factors.

I thank the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, in particular for recognising what the ESRI has exposed and for trying to do something about it. Other Ministers must take note. When they formulate policy they must consider the potential detrimental impact a measure might have on a region that cannot endure much more. I look forward to engaging in dialogue with the Department and the Ministers involved in the coming months. I am hopeful the Minister will consider some suggestions that might help make the legislation as effective as possible.

See this speech in context