asked the Minister for the Environment if he will sanction the payment in full of the £600 house improvement/reconstruction grant for the replacement of timber or metal windows which cannot be made draughtproof and where replacements by new metal windows is the only solution and if such windows, having been extracted by the owner, will be assessed by the inspector as being unfit for use.

A house improvement grant of £600 or two-thirds of the approved cost, whichever is the lesser, is available towards the cost of replacing windows which, in the opinion of my Department's inspector are defective and need replacement. Where replacement work has been started or completed in advance of inspection, the old windows must be retained to enable the inspector to arrive at a decision on the need for replacement. I have no intention of extending that arrangement.

I appreciate that the Minister is under pressure, as any spending Minister is in these circumstances. Instead of introducing a new conservation grant would he not agree, in relation to windows which in this day and age of high energy costs are draughty and cannot be made draughtproof, as is the case with many metal windows which are still structurally sound, and without getting into trouble with the Department of Finance, that he could rule that such windows are unfit for use? The Minister can enable his inspector to pass such defective windows for the grant.

The Deputy mentioned steel windows which are no longer draughtproof because they have become warped. Rotting timber or steel windows which have become warped qualify for the grant.

On numerous occasions people have been refused a grant for the replacement of such windows with aluminium windows.

The Deputy is giving information.

Would the Minister not consider that it is a legitimate reason to replace such windows if they are draughty and a cause of heat loss as distinct from being structurally unfit? Will he revise the regulations for the inspector?

Rotting timber and steel windows that are warped qualify for the grant. Perhaps they were refused because the people did not keep the windows which were removed for the inspector to examine them. That is necessary if they are not inspected before they are removed.

They kept the windows but the inspector felt that they were not sufficiently sub-standard to warrant the grant. There have been a number of questions in relation to conservation grants. I am asking the Minister to have a look at it. I do not expect an answer across the floor of the House. It is a legitimate reason to replace such windows for energy conservation purposes.

I will have a look at it.