Ceist 8.

With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle I propose to take Questions Nos. 8, 9 and 10 together.

(Cavan-Monaghan): I never raise points of order.

Inspection prior to the commencement of work was made an absolute condition of eligibility by the previous Government——

Did Deputy Fitzpatrick raise a point of order?

(Cavan-Monaghan): I did not.

——at the inception of the current house improvement grant scheme last October.

(Cavan-Monaghan): I am being orderly.

We had about 15 supplementaries.

(Cavan-Monaghan): I am not asking a supplementary.

May I go ahead?

(Cavan-Monaghan): I want to tell the Ceann Comhairle in an orderly and respectful way that, in view of the unsatisfactory manner in which this question was replied to, I propose to ask him tomorrow to give me permission to raise it on the Adjournment. I will not do it this evening because there will be no time.

The Deputy can ask that tomorrow. He has given me prior notice?

(Cavan-Monaghan): The fact that I am mentioning it today might have some little influence.

The Minister's reply has not been heard.

Ceist 8.

8.

asked the Minister for the Environment if he is aware that thousands of people throughout the country are unable to qualify for a grant for home improvements due to the regulation that the job has to be inspected before the work begins; and if he will consider amending this regulation so that many people who proceeded to carry out home improvements in good faith will be entitled to a grant.

9.

asked the Minister for the Environment if he will reconsider the case of all applicants who were refused house improvement grants because they had commenced the work before the housing inspector called on them; and if he will allow a grant to be paid by his Department to all such applicants who had only part of the work done.

10.

asked the Minister for the Environment if he will review those house improvement grant applications which were refused because work was in progress.

With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 8, 9 and 10 together. Inspection prior to the commencement of work was made an absolute condition of eligibility by the previous Government at the inception of the current house improvement grants scheme last October. This condition was prominently advertised at the time and again in April 1982 when the expansion of the grants scheme was announced. It is also highlighted in the Department's explanatory memorandum and application form.

As the scheme has now been in operation for eight months I could not recommend to the Government at this stage, that this condition be dispensed with because of the grave danger of the abuse of public funds, the impracticality of enforcing a retrospective commencement date in relation to improvement works and because the substantial funds that would be needed have not been provided for in the current year's budget. I do not, therefore, propose to review the prior inspection requirement.

Would the Minister agree that every new scheme introduced has teething problems and this is one teething problem with this scheme of house improvement grants? It is a well known fact——

Will the Deputy make it a question?

Would the Minister reconsider his decision on applicants who had only the bare wall of the extension erected when the inspector called? They had no fittings of a bath in the building. There was nothing done except the block-work. In view of that, the Minister should be well aware that there was no abuse of public funds so far as those applicants were concerned. As well as that the Minister must also agree that there are such things as stations being held twice a year in many parts of the country and the people concerned are anxious to have their houses repaired in time for the stations. As well as that, the weather——

The Deputy must ask a question.

The weather also has a major effect. Also the contractors will not wait. Finally is the Minister aware that there is a delay of four to six months before the inspector calls after the application is sent to the Department?

Prior inspection applies in the UK and other countries operating schemes of this nature. When the previous Government brought in the grants the terms of reference were the same and we amended this scheme to take in the fabric of the house. The main reason for doing that was to cut out the frills that are not needed such as verandas and other fancy work. I am not going to change that. I have explained this in speeches I have made, in advertisements in the paper and so on that it was a prior condition now not to commence the work until the inspector had called. At the moment I am led to believe that the average time before inspection is about five or six weeks.

No.

That is the information I have at the moment. Also it happens that people are not at home when the inspector calls. The terms of reference are in the memorandum that was set out by the previous Government. But now the number of applications coming into my Department where the work has commenced are very few.

Is the Minister of State aware that when he was on this side of the House he was very vocal in his criticism of this precondition of the grant? How can he now justify his acrobatics in relation to this decision? Is he aware that the reason for this condition was that since the grants had been abolished, in order that they could be backdated for a number of years, it was essential to put this in? This is no longer necessary. For future cases will the Minister alter this scheme so that work would not be completed but could commence and go ahead and could be approved in one inspection which would save his Department money. This authorisation would not cost the Department anything more in new grants?

I have nothing to add to my reply.

Will the Minister come this far with us on this side of the House? Will he accept that if in any case it is possible to determine beyond any doubt whatever that an applicant is a person to whom the scheme applies, that the work he is engaging on is work contemplated by the scheme and that the work is being carried out in accordance with the scheme that in those limited circumstances he would authorise the payment of a grant?

Under the scheme brought in in October last if the work has commenced it does not comply with the terms of reference in the memorandum that I referred to, and this is a condition that I cannot waive except by Government order. Is the Deputy clear on this? This is in the memorandum that was issued and it is also on the application form that work shall not commence until the inspector comes out to examine the work that is going to be done.

(Cavan-Monaghan): It would not take a referendum to alter that.

The Deputy's leader is on that trail.