asked the Minister for Local Government if he will sanction the payment of a reconstruction grant to a person (name supplied) in County Galway who has built two additional bedrooms on to his house to accommodate a family of ten children.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Reconstruction Grant.
35.
A reconstruction grant of £120 in respect of a four roomed house was paid to the person named in June, 1972. A further grant for additional rooms cannot be paid within five years from that date. However, in the circumstances of this case, both schemes of work are being treated as one and the appropriate reconstruction grant is £140 for a house of five rooms or more, where work started prior to May, 1972.
Arrangements are being made for payment of a further £20.
I am grateful for the reply but it will not meet this man's situation. I want to ask the Minister if in view of the type of case highlighted in the question he will consider changing the five-year clause altogether, where that can be justified, so that a grant can be paid in cases where families are large and the houses are small.
The Deputy is widening the scope of the question.
Will the Minister consider changing these regulations?
I have been considering what the Deputy has been referring to, particularly where there are circumstances in which I think something should be done. It is not a question of somebody being terribly poor. If it was, the possibility of a second grant might arise. I see the point Deputy Molloy has been making and I shall be glad to have another look at it.
Can he hold out any hope for this applicant? He is not a wealthy man, even by the Minister's standards.
I do not know what the Deputy would regard as being my standard in regard to a wealthy man.
What about the bricks?
Deputy Wilson will be glad to hear that the bricks in Kings-court involved inability to fill an order which was required recently.
The bricks were for a rich man's house.
Am I to gather from the Minister's reply to Deputy Molloy that in these cases he has discretion?
No. The only discretion, if you would call it discretion, is that if somebody is entitled to a grant of £140—it is now £200—and he makes application for a further grant within a period during which he is not entitled to a second grant, I consider —it was not considered before now— that he is entitled to the balance of that grant, if it was possible to give an extra £20. It is a small sum but it was not given at all heretofore. If Deputy Molloy were here, they would not get it.
But the Minister must bear in mind the present costs of building.
Fortunately, Deputy Molloy is still here. I am sure the Minister, from his experience as a Deputy, realises there can be many different sorts of cases involved. Would the Minister consider, either as Deputy Molloy suggests, reducing these periods of limitation or, alternatively, giving himself some flexibility or discretion to meet hardship and other types of cases?
The law, as framed by this House, does not give me that type of discretion at present.
We will give it to the Minister.
For several months I have been considering the desirability of having improvements made. One of the recommendations I have made is that applicants should receive the balance of a grant which they did not receive up to now. I think there is a point in having a full grant paid within a relatively short time, under certain circumstances, and I am attempting to find out whether this can be done.
Might I ask the Minister whether, instead of a question of periods qualifying or not qualifying people for second or subsequent grants, he is thinking of relating the eligibility of applicants for second or subsequent grants to their particular circumstances rather than to a time period?
The only snag about that is that if somebody does a job in respect of which they qualify for £200, together with £200 from a local authority, that gives them a total of £400. If what the Deputy has just suggested was put into operation, within a relatively short time, they could qualify again for a further £400 and this would not be desirable. I do not want to go any deeper into it now. The matter is under consideration and I hope it will be possible to do something about it.
Might I clarify the Minister's thinking——
I am afraid we shall have to pass on.
The Minister should bear in mind that that is not what would eventuate if he did what I suggest, that a much more suitable arrangement could be arrived at if the time periods were abolished and the merits of a particular case were the criteria on which the Minister or his Department would act.
I must call the next question.
I am flattered at the confidence Deputies have placed in me since I became Minister.
Question No. 36.
Judging by the delays involved in some cases——
When Deputy Blaney was Minister for Local Government nobody could get anything out of the Department.