asked the Minister for the Environment if payment of the £1,000 new house grant is being denied to persons who must dispose of their dwelling house, due to job transfer or other reasons, before the grant has been received.

It is a condition of payment of the £1,000 new house grant that the applicant occupies the house on completion as his normal place of residence. Provided this, and the other conditions of payment have been complied with, payment of the grant would be made to the applicant.

For how long is it necessary to occupy the house?

He must be in occupation on a yearly basis. There is a difference between that and a holiday type home.

Will the Minister clarify the expression "on a yearly basis"

A yearly basis is a permanent basis when the grant is paid. It is not on a holiday basis.

The Minister is either deliberately or, I hope, accidentally missing the point of the question which is not a question of a second or holiday home but of someone who built a house—I have three people in mind—and who, shortly after going into occupation, was transferred from his job. I am aware that there are difficulties in obtaining the grant in that situation and why is this so?

The grant was not paid before the person was transferred?

The scenario is as follows: house built, usual delay in payment of grant, person in occupation, gets a transfer in his job, grant refused.

Grant refused?

Yes.

Was the house completed?

Yes.

And the person in occupation?

Yes.

Was it passed for payment as completed and was the person also in occupation? There is no reason why that grant should not have been paid if the circumstances are as the Deputy said.

I will furnish the Minister with three specific cases.

I should be glad if the Deputy would do so.

One involved a doctor, another a creamery worker and the last a person in another occupation. They had to change their houses after completion and going into occupation but before receipt of the grant.

Were they in occupation for payment of the grant?

After the house was built.

They did not comply with the occupation clause that for payment of the grant one must be in occupation.

That clause was not in the manifesto.

It is in the grant.

They built the houses and went to live in them.

At the time of inspection were they in occupation?

In one instance the inspection was delayed for six months and they had left at that point. Will that preclude them from payment of the grant?

They did not go into occupation?

Yes, they were in occupation.

Let me have details and I will examine them personally.

Will the Minister accept that where a person builds a house and goes into occupation and where he has to move to another town and sells the house he will not be denied the grant because of delay in either the inspection or issuing of the grant?

I will.

I will give the Minister details.