ask the Minister for the Environment the number of applications for home improvement grants he would now accept as having been lost or mislaid in his Department; and the number of cases still disputed by his Department.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Home Improvement Grants.
11.
Where a person claims to have sent in an application for a house improvement grant of which there is no record in the Department I can only accept that it was received if conclusive evidence of its receipt, such as an official acknowledgement, is produced. The precise number of cases where such evidence has been furnished, although the applications had not been recorded, is estimated to be less than 50. Several times this number have claimed either directly or through public representatives that applications were sent in which are not on record but they have been unable to produce conclusive evidence to this effect and, having regard to the Housing Regulations, 1980, cannot therefore be considered for the payment of grants.
Before the final date for the receipt of applications all possible care was taken to ensure that each application would be individually date stamped on receipt and then recorded and acknowledged. In any case where papers are mislaid after the application has been recorded, the applicant's entitlement to a grant is not affected.
What would the Minister consider as conclusive evidence in the case of a lost application?
I presume the Deputy means a lost application——
The lost applications the Minister has been talking about.
A lost application is an application that has not been recorded or indexed in my Department and where conclusive evidence has not been produced by the applicant, such as sending the application by registered post with the receipt from the post office for that letter.
Suppose the letter had been sent by direct post without registering and there was no record?
At that time we took proper care to see that all applications were stamped and recorded as they came in. I want to make it clear that only five applicants have stated, through a public representative, that the applications they sent in were lost, mislaid or could not be accounted for.
Did the Minister accept them?
No.
In the last part of my question I asked the Minister the number of cases still disputed by his Department and he did not give an answer.
Less than 50 cases.
Did the Minister say how many cases he accepts were lost or mislaid, because he gave evidence the last time that certain files had been mislaid?
I want to clarify a point. That is a very good question.
I hope it gets a very good answer.
When an application is received in my Department it is recorded and sent out to the inspector involved. Then if it is lost in the post or mislaid we will still have it indexed in the Department. The Department will then make the necessary arrangements to make up a new file. If the applicant is entitled to the grant he will not be at any loss provided he meets the necessary criteria laid down under the regulations for the said grant.
That assumes that the application was properly indexed in the first place.
That is right.
That is a big assumption.
Yes.
I am glad the Minister agrees. In view of the fact that there are still a number of cases in dispute—the Minister says less than 50—would he be prepared to accept the sworn word on affidavit made by an applicant that he or she had made application prior to the closing date as being valid evidence of that application?
The Minister is precluded from paying a house improvement grant by article 14 of the Housing Regulations, 1980, unless the application for the grant was received by the Minister on or before 1 February 1980 or, where the application was received after 1 February 1980, verification is furnished that the application was sent by registered post or by letter postmarked in sufficient time to permit normal postal delivery by that date. Accordingly, any person who claims to have sent in an application which is not accepted as having been received cannot now qualify for a grant.
A final supplementary, Deputy Boland.
Does the Minister not realise that the first part of the regulation from which he quoted indicates that the application must have been received by the Department? Is the Minister not aware that if an application is in dispute there is no proof as to whether it was received? Would the Minister not be prepared to accept a sworn affidavit from the member of the public concerned? Is the Minister of State aware that it was his Minister who made those regulations and he may also amend them?
At the moment I am not prepared to accept an affidavit or to amend the regulations. I am very clear on that point.
In other words, the Minister does not believe the general public.
This is becoming a debate.
Is the Minister calling the 50 applicants liars?
Perjurers, not liars.
I did not call anyone in this House or any applicant a perjurer. I take a very serious view of that——
Please, Deputies, this is turning into a debate.
If the Minister refuses to accept a sworn affidavit, he is alleging——
I am not alleging anything.
(Interruptions.)
I have been in this House for a long time and I have never done anything like that.
A final supplementary from Deputy O'Keeffe.
I would ask the Minister to clarify one point arising out of a reply he made. He mentioned that he would accept proof of posting within a reasonable time to enable the application to be received in Dublin by 1 February. What does he consider a reasonable time, considering the vagaries of our postal system? Would he accept posting on the previous day?
Is the Deputy talking about 31 January 1980? If so, the answer is "Yes".
I have a particular case on which I am awaiting a reply.
12.
andMr. Tully asked the Minister for the Environment the amount of the outstanding commitments of each local housing authority in relation to house improvement grants terminated in 1980 as referred to on page 8 of the Public Capital Programme 1981.
I am not clear what information the Deputies require having regard to the fact that local authorities have no commitments in relation to this scheme of grants. If, however, the question relates to the outstanding grant commitments in each local authority area, the position is that records are not kept in my Department in a manner that would enable that information to be provided.
A provision of £19.5 million has been made for the payment of house improvement and solid-fuel grants accruing for payment in 1981 where the work is satisfactorily completed and payment is claimed by 31 March 1981. However, I should like to inform the House that I have extended the date to 30 June 1981.
13.
asked the Minister for the Environment the total number of applications received by his Department for (1) house improvement and (2) solid fuel grants from the inception of both schemes up to 31 December 1979; and the total number of such grants paid to date.
Separate records are not kept of applications received and grants paid under the house improvements grants scheme introduced in December 1977 and the previous scheme. The number of applications received under both schemes from 1 January 1978 to 31 December 1979 was 74,938. The number of applications received to 31 December 1979 under the solid fuel grant scheme, introduced in July 1979 was 15,145.
It is not possible to state how many grants have been paid to date in respect of these applications. However, the number of house improvement grants paid from 1 January 1978 to 31 January 1981 was 74,835 and the number of solid fuel grants paid from July 1979 to 31 January 1981 was 25,418.
Is the House correct in assuming that the Minister can give us the gross total payments in relation to house improvement grants and solid fuel grants to a considerable degree of accuracy, having counted to 74,835 house improvement grants, but that he cannot give a breakdown on a yearly basis?
I cannot give a breakdown because there may have been partial payments of grants. In some cases an instalment may be paid and there is a carry-over to another year.
Surely the Department have on their files the actual number of grants that have been paid in full each year and the number of cases where partial payment has been made.
No. Partial payment is not dealt with in the same way as payment in full. Last year the total number of solid fuel and new house grants paid was approximately 51,000.
Would the Minister not agree that the stewardship of this Department — not the Minister personally — is very inadequate vis-á-vis that of other Government Departments? Could he give the House any assurance that the whole system of monitoring and filing these applications will be improved so that we could get quarterly figures, as is the case with many other statistics which are published in a quarterly bulletin? Is the Minister satisfied with the system?
Yes, especially in view of the way payment is demanded. A number of public representatives from all parties ask me from time to time to pay an instalment and I am very flexible in this matter.