asked the Minister for the Environment the number of house improvement grants which were sought by applicants between 1986 and 1987 inclusive, which were refused on the ground that the contractor/builder was not properly qualified in terms of the tax compliance regulations which were attached to the conditions of those grants; the sums of money involved which were withheld; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Housing Grant Statistics.
6.
The information requested is not available since the available statistics relating to house improvement grants do not include particulars of the grounds of rejection of applications.
Does the Minister agree that the reason these conditions were introduced was to avoid the widespread abuse by black economy operators in the construction industry? Is the Minister saying that having gone to some lengths to eliminate this kind of abuse, the Department do not have the statistics available to monitor whether the new system has been effective?
The Deputy is right in that one of the reasons for bringing this in was to frustrate those working in the black economy. It has had the desired result. The number the Deputy is talking about is very small. It has never been the practice to segregate the rejected applications on the basis of the grounds for rejection. Those who apply recognise that they have to have a registered contractor with a VAT number and so on, before one gets approval and before one gets payment following the certification of the job completed.
Having regard to the basis upon which this new grants system was introduced, the information I sought in my question should be available. I understood the Minister to say that the information was not available because records were not kept. Surely it would be useful to know what number of people attempted to get through the net and to have work done with contractors who are not registered? The Minister, as a public representative, was aware of various kinds of abuses that took place and of various loopholes that were there in the application for these grants. Does the Minister not think it is a matter of concern, having regard to the fact that the Government have eliminated most of those grants on grounds of cost, to have a better system of monitoring which might enable us to retain some of the grants which have been abolished?
Out of 140,000 applications, 123,800 were approved. As the Deputy knows, it is part and parcel of the application that one had a registered contractor and gave all the details, etc. Subsequently once one claimed payment the registered contractor had to give the VAT number and all that goes with it before the money was issued. The system worked well.
Perhaps I am not asking the question clearly——
If it works so well, why did you abolish it?
(Interruptions.)
It is obvious that in the initial case a small percentage of the total number of original applications which were approved in the first instance were refused. Between the original approval and the final certificate, including payment of the cheque, what was the fallout? did our system of looking for tax clearance work? Do the Department have statistics to bear that out? The Minister's initial reply was to the effect that he does not have statistics on the second part, when payment would have been made. If the Minister does not have the information, perhaps he might make it available to me at another time.
It has never been the practice to segregate rejected applications on the basis of the grounds for that rejection. I do not see any need for that, considering that very many of the applications have been terminated and paid, even though there is still a large number to be paid and a large amount of money to be made available to finalise the business. I know what the Deputy is getting at. The figures are not there.
I want to come to deal with other questions.
May I put one final supplementary question? It is in the context of various grants which the Minister's Government have brought in for other aspects of the distribution of taxpayers' money. Does he not think that the practice should now be changed so as to establish very clearly how effective these tax certificate requirements are and so that we can know, in relation to any other kind of grant, the way in which we can prevent people who do not pay taxes of any kind from benefiting from grants, be they builders or recipients, for which they have not made a contribution in the first place?
Perhaps I am not following the Deputy too closely, but my advice on the means of certifications, is that certainly before payments are made on foot of completed applications, or following their receipt in the Department, the Department must be satisfied that only registered contractors or sub-contractors are involved and employed in dealing with this matter.
I wanted to know the numbers. That was the purpose of the question.
The numbers are not available. If the Deputy had any particular case in mind——
No.