asked the Minister for Local Government if he will restore the housing grant at least on all houses which were contracted for prior to the Government's announcement of its withdrawal.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - House Grants.
7.
New house grants will continue to be allocated and paid to applicants who are eligible, on income or valuation basis, for supplementary grants from local authorities, and also for all houses where formal applications for grants were received or where certificates of reasonable value were issued before 1st January, 1976. The State grant will not be payable in other cases.
Would the Minister accept that there is a certain injustice there?
I would not agree that there is an injustice. I agree that a number of people have complaints because of the fact that they are not included. I understand what the Deputy is getting at. I have a certain amount of sympathy with him. Everybody who wanted to apply for a new house grant should have done so before they commenced building. This was repeated in practically every advertisement issued by the Department.
Would the Minister accept, especially in the cases to which I refer, that a fashion had grown up that the builders applied en bloc for the State grant? I will not say the Minister's Department condoned it but they accepted that situation. An unfortunate applicant who contracted last June or July with a builder, now finds that, with the withdrawal of the grant his repayments, if he capitalises £325, will be almost an additional £1 per week.
I think Deputy Tunney does not get the point. Before builders apply for the State grant they apply for certificates of reasonable value. Before they can sell a house they must have a certificate of reasonable value. There would not be any difficulty at all in the case of those people who have filled out a contract. This matter is fairly clearly defined. At present I am looking at the final phase which they asked me to look at. In a case where a contractor applied for a certificate of value and it was not issued to him because some further information was required, should that also be included? I am having a look at that part of it. The people Deputy Tunney is talking about are well covered. The only people not covered are the applicants for a single house.
The private individual.
Exactly. Normally, the private individual ensures that the application is made before he starts building. He is the one person who will do that because he has not got a pocket full of money in the normal case.
Is the Minister informing me that applicants who contracted with a builder on the perimeter of Dublin city last August or September to buy a house will get the grant.
Yes, I believe they are all covered, but, if they are not, will Deputy Tunney come back to me with specific cases?
I will do that.
Could consideration be given to a possible small number of people who commenced building before the announcement was made but, for one reason or another, had unfortunately not applied for the grant until it was too late? I know it is a problem.
It is and I wish I could find some way out of it. I have great sympathy with these people but, as the late Seán Dunne said, sympathy is not worth a damn to people looking for money. The number is not big but what I am being asked to do would mean changing the whole system because then something else would come up. We have to stop somewhere. The only hope I can hold out is that I may be able to cover those who were held up by the Department in the certificate of reasonable value. That is about the end of it. However, I will have a look at it.
Fair enough.
Would the Minister agree that in former times when grants were increased the applicant who had poured foundations was regarded as being outside the limit? In other words, a person who had the foundations poured did not get the increase. This suited the Department.
I would say not.
The Department would save money and would the Minister not agree that, in those circumstances, equally where a person had the foundations poured he should now be included?
No. I think the Deputy is mixing this up with something else. Before 10th February, 1973, anyone who had foundations poured was considered to have started the house and was, therefore, not required to give a certificate of reasonable value. Contractors took advantage of that. As far as the other is concerned, application was made and nobody went out to see whether the foundation had been poured at a particular date. The details were given on the application form. While I would like to cover most of the people about whom questions are being asked, there is no point in saying we will continue to make changes because, if we do, the scheme will never come into operation. While the sum is relatively small this year, next year it will be a very sizeable sum. There are about 16,000 or 17,000 grants which will be paid because they applied already.
We must make some progress with the remaining questions. Several Deputies are offering. I will take one more supplementtary question.
Is the Minister aware that the consensus now is in regard to buildings which, as Deputy Faulkner said, had already started. Could the Minister not arrange to take applications from people who can establish that the work was actually in progress before 1st January and is the Minister aware——
A brief supplementary, please.
——that while the regulation says you must make your application before you start, traditionally we have gone away from that over a period. Would the Minister agree that many representations have come to him from local authorities collectively asking him to enable the grant to be paid where the houses were started before 1st January?
No. I agree with Deputy Lalor I have had a number of representations made but that is not one I have come across. We looked at this because it was something that had to be gone into before a decision was made but it would take a great deal of trouble to establish when houses actually started. What CIF wanted dealt with were those who had made application and had got a certificate of valuation or had applied and were held up and I suppose that was their end of the bargain.
I am calling Question No. 8.
Deputy G. Fitzgerald and Deputy Power rose.
I am sorry. I have called the next question. There must be some finality about Question Time.
Surely you consider this of such importance that Deputies are allowed to ask just one supplementary. All representatives were unanimous that the Minister should give way. Are we allowed to ask a question?
Yes, indeed, and the Chair has allowed a great many questions.
I heard Kildare County Council are coming to see me about this, or are going to write to me about it?
Question No. 8.
May I ask just one supplementary?
Would Deputy Power allow the Chair to make some progress?
May I ask one supplementary?
No. I have called Question No. 8.
With your permission then, I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.
Certainly. I shall communicate with the Deputy.