ask the Minister for the Environment the number of applications for home improvement grants he would now accept as having been lost or mislaid in his Department; and the number of cases still disputed by his Department.

Where a person claims to have sent in an application for a house improvement grant of which there is no record in the Department I can only accept that it was received if conclusive evidence of its receipt, such as an official acknowledgement, is produced. The precise number of cases where such evidence has been furnished, although the applications had not been recorded, is estimated to be less than 50. Several times this number have claimed either directly or through public representatives that applications were sent in which are not on record but they have been unable to produce conclusive evidence to this effect and, having regard to the Housing Regulations, 1980, cannot therefore be considered for the payment of grants.

Before the final date for the receipt of applications all possible care was taken to ensure that each application would be individually date stamped on receipt and then recorded and acknowledged. In any case where papers are mislaid after the application has been recorded, the applicant's entitlement to a grant is not affected.

What would the Minister consider as conclusive evidence in the case of a lost application?

I presume the Deputy means a lost application——

The lost applications the Minister has been talking about.

A lost application is an application that has not been recorded or indexed in my Department and where conclusive evidence has not been produced by the applicant, such as sending the application by registered post with the receipt from the post office for that letter.

Suppose the letter had been sent by direct post without registering and there was no record?

At that time we took proper care to see that all applications were stamped and recorded as they came in. I want to make it clear that only five applicants have stated, through a public representative, that the applications they sent in were lost, mislaid or could not be accounted for.

Did the Minister accept them?

No.

In the last part of my question I asked the Minister the number of cases still disputed by his Department and he did not give an answer.

Less than 50 cases.

Did the Minister say how many cases he accepts were lost or mislaid, because he gave evidence the last time that certain files had been mislaid?

I want to clarify a point. That is a very good question.

I hope it gets a very good answer.

When an application is received in my Department it is recorded and sent out to the inspector involved. Then if it is lost in the post or mislaid we will still have it indexed in the Department. The Department will then make the necessary arrangements to make up a new file. If the applicant is entitled to the grant he will not be at any loss provided he meets the necessary criteria laid down under the regulations for the said grant.

That assumes that the application was properly indexed in the first place.

That is right.

That is a big assumption.

Yes.

I am glad the Minister agrees. In view of the fact that there are still a number of cases in dispute—the Minister says less than 50—would he be prepared to accept the sworn word on affidavit made by an applicant that he or she had made application prior to the closing date as being valid evidence of that application?

The Minister is precluded from paying a house improvement grant by article 14 of the Housing Regulations, 1980, unless the application for the grant was received by the Minister on or before 1 February 1980 or, where the application was received after 1 February 1980, verification is furnished that the application was sent by registered post or by letter postmarked in sufficient time to permit normal postal delivery by that date. Accordingly, any person who claims to have sent in an application which is not accepted as having been received cannot now qualify for a grant.

A final supplementary, Deputy Boland.

Does the Minister not realise that the first part of the regulation from which he quoted indicates that the application must have been received by the Department? Is the Minister not aware that if an application is in dispute there is no proof as to whether it was received? Would the Minister not be prepared to accept a sworn affidavit from the member of the public concerned? Is the Minister of State aware that it was his Minister who made those regulations and he may also amend them?

At the moment I am not prepared to accept an affidavit or to amend the regulations. I am very clear on that point.

In other words, the Minister does not believe the general public.

This is becoming a debate.

Is the Minister calling the 50 applicants liars?

Perjurers, not liars.

I did not call anyone in this House or any applicant a perjurer. I take a very serious view of that——

Please, Deputies, this is turning into a debate.

If the Minister refuses to accept a sworn affidavit, he is alleging——

I am not alleging anything.

I have been in this House for a long time and I have never done anything like that.

A final supplementary from Deputy O'Keeffe.

I would ask the Minister to clarify one point arising out of a reply he made. He mentioned that he would accept proof of posting within a reasonable time to enable the application to be received in Dublin by 1 February. What does he consider a reasonable time, considering the vagaries of our postal system? Would he accept posting on the previous day?

Is the Deputy talking about 31 January 1980? If so, the answer is "Yes".

I have a particular case on which I am awaiting a reply.

12.