asked the Minister for Local Government whether he is aware that in the case of a new house [name and address supplied] built strictly in accordance with plans submitted to, and approved by, his Department a reduced grant has been paid and if, in view of the fact that such reduction appears to constitute an injustice, he will now take steps to have the balance paid.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Reduced Housing Grant.
I am aware that the house referred to by the Deputy was erected in accordance with plans submitted to and approved by the appointed officer for the area, and that the grant payable was reduced owing to certain deficiencies in the plan which did not fully meet the statutory requirements. In connection with this reduction I would refer the Deputy to Article 13 of the Housing (New Houses) Regulations, 1948, which provides that no grant shall be payable, notwithstanding the issue of a certificate of the appointed officer, until the Minister is satisfied as to the accuracy of the certificate. I do not propose to vary the decision already given.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that his Department sanctioned certain plans in this case and the person constructing the house had the house constructed according to the plans sanctioned by the Minister? Had those plans not been sanctioned, the applicant would have got plans which did comply with the regulations mentioned in the section to which the Parliamentary Secretary has referred. In view of that, is it not most unfair to penalise an applicant because of a mistake made by an officer of the Minister's Department?
It was not a mistake.
Then may I ask the Parliamentary Secretary if this applicant is being penalised because his house does not comply with the regulations, and is he aware that it does not comply with the regulations because these plans got the O.K. from the Minister?
They got the O.K. subject to a fine and that fine was reduced from £15 to £10.
There was no indication in the certificate of approval issued that there would be a fine and there was no indication that the plans were substandard.
Application for a certificate of approval in this case was made to the appointed officer on the 28th April, 1954, by the St. Eunan's Public Utility Society. The certificate of approval was issued on the 30th April, 1954. On 23rd December, 1954, a letter was received from the appointed officer stating that, on a recent inspection of the house for the purpose of authorising payment of an instalment of the grant, it was found that the glazed areas of the larger rooms were substandard. The papers were referred to the local housing inspector for investigation and he reported that the glazed area of one room was insufficient and, also, that the total floor area of bedroom accommodation provided was substandard. The public utility society was advised that a reduction of £15 would be made in the grant in respect of these deficiencies. The members subsequently appealed against this decision and, on further consideration, the reduction was mitigated to £10.
All those ills arose because of the fact that the Department of Local Government had sanctioned a plan which was substandard. There is no use in saying now these things arose afterwards. They arose when it was too late because——
The appointed officer passed a plan and subsequently he would not approve of the house.