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

I move amendment No. 24:

In page 63, between lines 36 and 37, to insert the following:"Report on section 372AAC of Principal Act

32. The Minister shall lay before the House, within six months, a report on the effect of the deletion of paragraph (c) of section 372AAC of the Principal Act.".

We have held a lengthy debate on this section, which deals with the living city initiative. My amendment asks the Minister to lay before the House within six months a report on the effect of the deletion of paragraph (c) in section 372AAC of the principal Act. Under that paragraph, the living city initiative tax relief can be availed of where the basements, ground floors or upper floors of two-storey houses are refurbished. This condition was included in the original legislation to ensure that the living part of the living city initiative was fulfilled.

Three years into the scheme, it is still not up and running. As a result of EU state aid approval, we are probably at the finish line. The scheme has been transformed. Originally, it was envisaged for Georgian houses. Subsequently, a "relevant house" was stipulated as one that had two storeys, with or without a basement. Today, the Finance Bill is moving us into a position where a "relevant house" does not need to be a two-storey house, with or without a basement. Any pre-1915 house within an area designated by a local authority could qualify. The new definition of "relevant house" will allow for single-storey dwellings to be converted in this way.

The Government has argued that if the ground floors of such houses are developed for commercial use, which was always the intention in the original legislation, one cannot necessarily ask the owner to refurbish the living parts as well, as commercial bungalows would not have living parts. That is a relevant argument. However, it is a far cry from the original intention, namely, to get people living and businesses operating in city centres again. There was always a dual purpose to the initiative.

I am not opposed to an extension of the scheme to other pre-1915 dwellings, including two-storey houses and bungalows. Even if this was done there would be no argument for deleting paragraph (c). That section could still take effect if bungalows were allowed into the scheme. I will outline the impact of the deletion. If one had a single-storey pre-1915 dwelling in a relevant area in, for example, Limerick or this city, one could develop it for commercial use and the money spent on it, up to a limit of €400,000, could be clawed back over a ten-year period. Many people would find this incentive appealing. That is fine. However, this legislation allows one to commercialise the ground floor or basement of a two-storey house without also requiring one to do anything with the upper floor. That is wrong. We should, at the minimum, live up to the ideas and aspirations contained in the living city initiative. Let bungalows be commercially developed under the initiative. That is not my argument. I have strong views on it and am not convinced but I am always willing to take risks. We know of the dilapidation in some of our town and city centres. As such, let us consider this as an option.

However, where there is a two-storey house there is no reason to move from what was originally envisaged, namely, the commercialisation of the ground floor and basement with a requirement to refurbish the upper storey. For this reason, we should not delete paragraph (c). I oppose the removal of that condition. Were I to oppose it in an amendment, however, it would be ruled out of order and I would not even be able to debate the issue. Instead, I suggest that a report on the matter should at least be laid before the House. My amendment refers to six months, but that timeframe is open to discussion. Despite my opposition to the deletion of paragraph (c), we should at least consider its effect within an appropriate period. For example, were the upper living quarters of those Georgian and other pre-1915 buildings reconstructed or was the commercial element the only focus? Under this Bill, someone could benefit from the commercialisation of one part as well as the living part, but there is no longer any requirement to do both. I would be interested in knowing whether a swathe of two-storey houses in the scheme only had their lower parts refurbished. If so, it should be identified and the provision should be closed. There is no reason to allow it in the first place. The scheme has not been up and running, so we should allow it to run its course. If we find that the current requirement becomes an issue, we could consider deleting paragraph (c), but I am not convinced on that front. Deleting it now is a mistake.

See this speech in context