asked the Minister for the Environment if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the third instalment of a mortgage subsidy for a person (details supplied) in County Meath due to be paid in December 1987 has not yet been paid; that the person was informed that it would take 16 weeks for it to be paid even though it was in order for payment; that the first and second instalments were paid in 1985 and 1986 respectively on time before the end of December of the year in question; and the reason for such an exceptional unprecedented delay in respect of the payment of the third instalment.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Mortgage Subsidy Payment.
3.
There has been no undue delay. The claim for the third instalment of the mortgage subsidy was received in my Department on 16th November 1987 and payment was made on 18th January 1988.
Is the Minister aware that he gave a reply to a question yesterday to the effect that all grants which came in course of payment during the year ended 31 December 1987 were paid before that date? Is he claiming at this stage that this grant was not in course of payment? If he is not so claiming, why was it not paid, in accordance with the answer he gave yesterday, before 31 December? Was the delay into January in fact an attempt to massage the budget figures and is this case just one of many for that purpose?
I think not because the amount of money allowed for the purpose of mortgage subsidy payment has increased substantially. It was £20.91 million in 1985, £21.66 million in 1986 and in 1987 we expended £25.5 million so there has been no reduction or curtailment in the amount of money being provided to meet the demand under that system. I do not think — and I am sure the Deputy will agree with me — that having submitted application for payment for such a subsidy in mid-November and being paid by mid-January is unreasonable.
It might not be but for the fact that one financial year had ended and another one had begun at the time and, further, that when this grant was claimed in previous years it was paid in December on both occasions. May I ask why it was retained until January in this year?
I think the Deputy is making an awful lot out of a fortnight's delay when in actual fact application for the payment was not received until a few weeks before Christmas. The Deputy would have a good point if there had been some reduction in the amount of money that had been allocated for the payments last year or if the total that had been allocated in the Estimate had not been increased by me by some £3 million at the end of the year. In all the circumstances — the increased amount of money that was made available for the payment of the subsidy last year and the fact that there were only a few weeks between receipt of the application and payment — I do not think the Deputy should pursue the matter too far.
Would the Minister agree that his reply to this question is in direct conflict with the reply he gave to Question No. 91 yesterday when he said that all grants that were due were paid before 31 December?
All grants that were due and that had been processed through the Department were paid and, in fact, there was an enormous pay out of grants immediately before the Christmas period——
There was an enormous hold up.
——because I was anxious that people should get their money before Christmas if at all possible. Because of the administrative difficulties attached to the enormous pay outs, it was not possible to pay everybody. That is why the money was not paid until a week or two afterwards. What is the complaint about that?
Would the Minister agree that in the payment of mortgage subsidy where the applicant is a borrower under the Housing Finance Agency loan system, it is wrong to have such subsidy paid to the Housing Finance Agency rather than directly to the borrower when no provision is made——
I am sorry to interrupt the Deputy but this question refers to a specific person and I cannot allow an extension of that question.
May I ask if the Minister is aware——
The Deputy ought to put down a separate question on that matter. It is injecting new matter into the question before us.
Deputy Bruton may be interested to know also that there was a big increase in the number of applications for payment during that time because of the termination of the scheme. That is why there was a big overload on the administrative system. There was no hold-up so far as payments were concerned. The money was there.