(Cavan) asked the Minister for Local Government the reason for the delay in paying a new house grant to a person (name supplied) in County Cavan; and if he will arrange for immediate payment of the grant.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - County Cavan Housing Grant.
6.
There has been some delay in this case but the matter has been cleared and arrangements are being made for payment of an instalment of £230 and for an early inspection with a view to payment of the balance if the house is found to be in order.
(Cavan): Is the Minister aware that there is a familiar ring about the reply which he has given? Is he aware that he conveyed the very same statement over his Private Secretary's name on 20th January last when he stated that an instalment of £230 is being paid in this case and that a further inspection will be arranged with a view to payment of the balance when the Department is notified that the house is completed? Is the Minister further aware that, notwithstanding the fact that he said on 20th January that an instalment of £230 was being paid, not one shilling has been paid, although apparently the grant was ready for payment on that date? Is he still further aware that the public utility concerned wrote about this grant on 15th November, 1966, 28th November, 1966, 24th January, 1967, 21st March, 1967, and 1st May, 1967, and that the unfortunate man has not got one shilling yet? Would the Minister say what the reason for the delay is and would he please have the grant paid?
I do not think that there is a familiar ring about my reply in this case, as the Deputy says. In this case I started off by saying that there was some delay. To my knowledge, this is the first such case that has come to my notice since I became Minister for Local Government in which there was delay on the part of the Department. Not all the delay was caused by the Department. Some of the delay was due to the fact that on two occasions when it was reported that the roof of this house was ready for inspection it was found not to be complete. I agree that delay was before the dates which Deputy T. J. Fitzpatrick (Cavan) has mentioned.
As I said, there was delay that should not have occurred since that. This delay was due to the fact that when the county council reported that they had no notification of the allocation of any land to the applicant, my Department mistakenly adopted the procedure that used to be there of waiting until such notification had been received, until the question of title was cleared up, although that procedure has not, in fact, been appropriate since February, 1966, and that should not have been done. That is what caused the avoidable delay that should not have occurred in this case. This was a mistake, and mistakes do occur, which should not have occurred.
(Cavan): Is it not a fact that on the 1st May last the Secretary of the Public Utility Society wrote saying: “I enclose here evidence that the man in question is the registered owner of the site on which the new house stands. I will request an early payment of the instalment which was due from the 1st January.” What was the cause of the delay?
There was a delay and it should not have occurred. On the 3rd May the evidence to which the Deputy refers was received. It is just a delay that occurred due to an error in the Department.
(Cavan): I presume that, now that the Minister frankly admits that a delay occurred which should not have occurred, he will see that the payment will now be made?
It may have been received today. If not, it will be received in a day or two.