Martin Conway (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Ms Hurley should not get me wrong - I acknowledge that thousands of people around the country have correctly benefited from the scheme. Deputy O'Dowd raised the issue of local authorities providing 20% of funding for the scheme. However, that a local authority has incurred debt as a result of purchasing land that is probably still lying vacant is not a reason for people in need of the scheme to suffer. There must be some wriggle room. Although I buy into the local contribution, it is not good enough that citizens suffer as a result.

Furthermore, the scheme is being abused. It should be far more uniform. Local authorities that are not drawing down and spending their allocation should be asked to justify that. It should be properly audited and transparent and published.

The scheme is being abused by some members of the public. I know of several applications to the scheme involving elderly persons who are on the verge of passing away or going into a nursing home. I mean no disrespect to them. Their families draw down money from the scheme and upgrade the property, thus increasing its value. The elderly person then goes into a nursing home and we discover that the property is rented out. In other cases, sadly, the person passes away and the taxpayer has pumped €20,000 or €30,000 into a property and upped its value. The person has died and there is no recourse. I gave the Minister a position paper 12 months ago to which I have received no reply, wherein I stated that there should be some sort of safeguard on a 60-month basis whereby if a person passes away within a year of benefiting from the scheme there would be a clawback of 50% of the moneys allocated under the scheme if the property is sold or rented. That would reduce to 40% in year 2 and continue to reduce annually such that after five years there would be no liability. More people would benefit if there were safeguards in place to ensure that those who should not benefit from the scheme do not do so inadvertently.

It annoys me more that the Department accepts the word of local authorities in respect of the scheme. As I understand it, a person applies to the scheme and an inspector or engineer then visits the property.

He or she inspects the work, says what needs to be done and then allocates the jobs. They go into a queuing system and the work is done. Possibly the same inspector or an engineer comes out to inspect the work and says, "Yes, it has been done." Does the Department at any stage cross-reference or perhaps take a sample of 5% of the grants allocated? Do its officials go to see if the work has actually been done in an appropriate way, from its perspective?