asked the Minister for the Environment if it was in order to terminate reconstruction grants in June 1981 without first notifying individually all applicants who had work in progress as no closure date for applications would have been indicated on the original application forms.

Yes. The statutory authority for the various deadlines which applied to the former schemes of house improvement grants is contained in article 14 of the Housing Regulations, 1980, as amended by article 3 of the Housing Regulations, 1980 (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations, 1981.

Would the Minister not agree that all those applicants entered into a financial commitment expecting to be paid their grants? Just because they did not buy a newspaper, they are now being deprived of that grant.

The applicants actually got 16 months to complete the work. Notices appeared in the daily and Sunday papers and also they were notified by letter that we had extended the deadline, which happened on two occasions — 31 March and 30 June. That is the situation. To enlighten the Deputy who may not be aware of the fact, his Government had a look at this scheme and decided not to extend the date.

(Cavan-Monaghan): Would the Minister agree that while he extended the deadline for completion of the work, he never extended the deadline for receipt of the applications? Deputy Begley's complaint is that the application form sent out did not indicate any final date for making the application. Because people did not refer to newspapers, they were at a disadvantage. I want to emphasise that. Does the Minister not agree that when he speaks of extending the deadline, he means the deadline for finishing the work and claiming payment and that he never extended the deadline for the application from 1 February 1980?

No, I certainly did not. I want to bring the Deputy more into the picture. He may not be aware that his Government decided not to extend the date. His Minister had a look at it and he and, as far as I know, the Deputy's party, decided not to extend the date either.

(Cavan-Monaghan): The Minister cannot get around that.

I will tell the Deputy this much. I am giving the Deputy the facts. We extended the date for the applications for two weeks so that people could apply who had entered into a contract. We gave them 16 months to complete the work. Are the Deputies saying that 16 months was not a good opportunity to finish the work? We extended the date on two occasions — I want to be absolutely clear on this — first to 31 March and then to 30 June. The applicants saw the notices in the papers. With all due respect to Deputy Fitzpatrick, he is under-estimating the intelligence of the applicants. They are very intelligent. They knew the deadline was there. I will give the Deputies a more comprehensive reply in answer to the next question and tell them what really happened.

(Cavan-Monaghan): And the next one to that. We will wait for that.

Deputy Sherlock.

While accepting that nothing happened to change the system between June 1981 and January 1982 and one had to be very much involved——

Could you put this by way of a question, please?

I will, indeed. I am not questioning the Minister's integrity and want him to know that. However, he made a statement to the effect that, besides a notice being put in the paper, individual applicants were notified by letter from the Department. The Minister would need to check that out.

That statement is untrue.

They were notified early in the day.

What is Deputy Sherlock's question?

The Minister is saying that people were notified. All that was done was to put a notice in the papers, which is a very unfair way of doing the thing, because many people missed that notice.

Hear, hear.

Will the Minister look at this whole question? There cannot be so very many applicants in that category, and would the Minister now consider paying the grants to the people who carried out the work according to the specification and so forth and spent money in anticipation of getting that grant from the Department? Will he consider paying a grant to those people who are justly entitled to it?

I want to be honest with the Deputy. I have no money at my disposal to do that. I want to make that absolutely clear. I can refer the matter to my Minister who will take it up with the Government. Further money has not been provided in the Estimate to have that done.

In view of the normal practice when contracts have been entered into and notice has been served to terminate, and in view of the hardships which people have suffered because of entering into contracts, would the Minister not put to the Government that these grants be paid, and thereby put an end to this matter?

I have nothing further to add.

When the advertisements about the termination date for the old reconstruction grant scheme appeared, did they appear in local newspapers? I am sure the Minister is aware that many people down the country do not read the daily newspapers.

The advertisements appeared in The Sunday Press, Sunday Journal and Sunday Independent.

In view of the fact that the Minister accepts that the thousands of applicants are intelligent people, will the Minister also accept that those people know they posted their applications in time? The Minister has acknowledged that those people have intelligence, and would he therefore accept that perhaps the problem lies in the Department? Should he therefore not review the manner in which the Department have been dealing with these applications?

I have nothing to add to my earlier reply.

6.