asked the Minister for the Environment the reason a person with, for example, 20 weeks unemployment in the previous tax year may not be qualified under the projected income clause of the Housing Finance Agency scheme and is restricted to previous years earnings; and if he will give a directive to the agency to ensure that such cases are processed on a projected income basis.

11.

asked the Minister for the Environment if he will agree to vary the conditions stipulated by the Housing Finance Agency to allow persons to go on projected earnings where they have been on substantial social welfare earnings for the previous year or where they did not have earnings at all; if he will consider introducing amending legislation or making an amending order if necessary; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 10 and 11 together.

Certain guidelines were issued to housing authorities by my Department on 26 February 1982, to advise them of the general policies and principles to be adopted in dealing with applications for agency loans. This document stated specifically that the maximum amount of loan available under the scheme will be three times the gross income (including overtime) of the borrower or his spouse in the previous tax year, subject to this amount not exceeding 90 per cent of the net value of the house or the appropriate upper loan limit; provided, however, that where the income of a borrower or his spouse in the previous tax year was derived mainly from social welfare payments the amount of loan may be based on a multiple of up to three times the estimated income in the current year. To alter the scheme along the lines recommended by the Deputy would increase liabilities under the scheme. The agency considers that it would be undesirable at this early stage to alter the details of the scheme in a manner which would lead to increased liabilities. The agency will, however, keep the operation of the scheme under review and introduce amendments to the scheme in due course in the light of experience. Any such amendments will be subject to the consent of the Minister and the Minister for Finance.

I share the agency's view as regards their general approach to the question of amendments to the scheme, and I am not disposed at this stage to issue a directive to the agency along the lines proposed by the Deputy.

Is the Minister aware that when Deputy Barry was Minister for the Environment and introduced this legislation, he wanted to make finance available as widely as possible and to as many people as possible, especially to those most in need? It is not helpful to restrict benefit to someone who is unemployed for 20 or 23 weeks or, in the case of one constituent of mine who was a voluntary lay preacher, and had no income in the previous year——

I am sorry, Deputy Mitchell, you cannot make a speech, ask a question.

Would the Minister instruct the agency to allow these people to qualify and stop the nonsense?

The Minister is meeting the agency next week and, because the Deputy mentioned that matter before, the Minister is raising it with the agency next week.

Would the Minister also raise with the agency the position of people who were apprentices last year and came into mature employment after that and whose incomes for the year would be very much lower than £7,000?

I will do that.

Would the Minister communicate the outcome of that meeting to the House because of its obvious interest and importance?

I will write to the Deputy and let him know.

(Dún Laoghaire): Is the Minister aware that when the multiplier is applied to a previous year's earnings it is the only time that such a system is used with regard to housing finance loans? If one gets a loan from a building society it is based on the current year's earnings. Surely the original design of the scheme was that the £9,000 income limit was based on the previous year's earnings in order to qualify? Would the Minister agree to apply the multiplier to this year's earnings in the circumstances which Deputy Mitchell has outlined?

In view of what Deputy Barry has also said I will look at this question. With regard to general income it is generally the income on 5 April 1982, which is taken into account for loans. I take the Deputy's point and I will raise it with the agency next week.