Written Answers. - Grant Payments.

Noel Treacy

Ceist:

145 Mr. N. Treacy asked the Minister for Finance the reason a grant was not paid to a person (details supplied) in County Galway, if he will review this case and ensure that a grant is paid to this person; the date on which this will be done; the amount of grant to be paid; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16717/96]

The home relocation scheme was set up as part of the Government's humanitarian assistance package for the victims of flooding to benefit people who were made effectively homeless as a consequence of the severe flooding that affected many parts of the country in 1995.

The person referred to submitted an application for relocation which, following full consideration of the circumstances, was refused as the applicant failed to satisfy one of the basic qualification criteria for the scheme. The home relocation scheme, devised in full consultation with representative groups of the victims, stipulates quite clearly that only owner occupiers would qualify for assistance. In this particular instance the applicant was not in residence in the house at the time of the flooding — indeed, the house was never occupied by the applicant — and was, therefore, deemed not to qualify for assistance under the scheme. She was informed of this decision.

The applicant appealed this decision and the case was referred to an independent arbitrator for consideration as set out in the Commissioners of Public Works (Functions and Powers) Act, 1996, under which the home relocation scheme is being implemented. The arbitrator advised that the applicant "... fails to meet the stipulated criteria of owner/occupier under the scheme and cannot properly be considered for inclusion as she does not meet the specific parameters stipulated within this scheme".
The applicant's appeal was subsequently refused, she was informed of the decision and a copy of the arbitrator's advice was issued to her. As the applicant has already been through the statutory appeals process, I feel there would be no benefit in a further review of the case.