Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 28 Mar 1995

Vol. 451 No. 2

Adjournment Debate. - Local Loans Fund Privatisation.

My initial interest in this matter is in my capacity as party spokesperson on local authority housing. I tabled the question some days ago and I accept that in the last week information has dribbled out on this issue. I thank the Minister of State for coming in to reply and I hope he will make a comprehensive statement on the matter tonight.

I am amazed at the decision of the Department of Finance in this regard. I have no objection to the payment of equality arrears; it is the way the resources are raised that concerns me. My first reaction was that this was privatisation of a capital fund and I wonder how the Minister reconciles this privatisation with the Programme for Government. How has he sold it, particularly to Labour and Democratic Left backbenchers, and why has he quickly changed his principles on privatisation and fiscal rectitude?

My party in the past privatised capital assets, but capital funds when liquidised should be used for capital projects, not for day-to-day expenditure. Is this a sale to a foreign bank or a funny money job, with part of the local loans fund being sold to the HFA or the National Treasury Management Agency which will then have to borrow the money privately to finance it? How much of the fund is being sold? Is it going at a discount and, if so, how much? What effect will it have on the agreements between mortgage holders and local authorities? What effect will it have on local authorities which currently trade when redeeming loans? Will penalties be involved if a loan is redeemed early? What effect will it have on the future provision of local authority housing?

I understand the £40 million or £50 million interest that comes in every year directly or indirectly is earmarked for the Department of the Environment, particularly local authority housing. Can the Government give a guarantee that future expenditure on housing will not be affected by this reckless decision? It is selling the family silver for short term gain.

Women have been waiting 12 years for this money.

When the Government took office the budget was balanced for the first time in almost 30 years. The Minister promised firm management of the public finances. He said that firm discipline would be needed and strict adherence to the commitments as laid down in the Programme for Government. This promise has quickly gone out the window. It is a political scandal that within a few short weeks of the budget the Minister has breached his own expenditure limits by such a large margin.

The Deputy worries too much.

Deputy Byrne does not worry.

This extra payout, without corresponding savings elsewhere, will raise the ceiling of 6 per cent on the increase in current expenditure to over 7 per cent, and next year's promise to tighter limits has gone out the window. If this extra borrowing is added to the public sector borrowing requirement the figure will increase to 3.4 per cent of GNP — last year it was only 2.5 per cent.

The technical term for this procedure is securitisation, but "screwitisation" of the taxpayer might be a more appropriate term. This decision undermines the credibility of the Department's financial policy and confirms the view that the Government seems hell bent on a spend, spend policy as if there was no tomorrow. I hope the Minister will give some reassurance on the points I raised, particularly the housing aspects.

The Government is buying its way out of trouble.

I welcome this opportunity to clarify the position of the local loans fund. The Minister for Finance referred in his budget statements to the commitment in the Government's policy agreement to payments of the legally determined entitlements of married women to social welfare equality payments. He indicated that he was including £60 million in the budget for this purpose in 1995 and that if it should prove necessary to spend more on these exceptional payments this year there were funding possibilities open to him through the disposal of State assets which were not in commercial semi-State bodies. Funding of any such payments in excess of the £60 million by the disposal of such assets would not increase the target for the EBR.

The judgment of the High Court on the entitlements of women under the Equal Treatment Directive was delivered on 3 February 1995 and the Government announced recently that it was accepting the judgement and it committed itself to paying the £260 million as quickly as possible. The reason for speeding up the payments is that they are legally due and must be paid as quickly as possible. In the current year payments to the affected women will amount to approximately £200 million. These payments are of an entirely exceptional and non-recurrent nature.

Accordingly, additional expenditure of £140 million over the amount provided in the budget will arise in 1995 and it is proposed, as indicated already, to fund this by the disposal of certain assets. Sales of assets will be limited to the amount needed to cover the additional Exchequer cost arising from the decision to accept the court judgment.

Possible methods for the disposal of part of the local loans fund loan portfolio for this purpose are being examined at present. The local loans fund is a statutory fund under the control of the Minister for Finance. It has assets of about £550 million, of which £490 million are fixed rate loans made to local authorities which the authorities used to advance mortgage loans to persons who satisfied a means test qualification. The local authorities make capital and interest payments on these loans to the fund twice a year. Almost all of these loans were made prior to 1 July 1986 and since then most of the capital required by local authorities to finance their mortgage lending activities has been provided by the Housing Finance Agency at variable rates of interest.

An important point to note is that the liability to repay the loans to the local loans fund rests on the local authorities themselves and is independent of the liability of individual mortgagees to make payments to the local authorities on foot of the loans they have received from the authorities. In fact, there are no arrears owed to the fund; the housing loan accounts of all the authorities with the fund are fully up to date.

The capital of the local loans fund has been provided by the Exchequer by way of borrowings and accordingly the Exchequer has liabilities which match the assets of the fund. Two avenues for disposal of part of the assets of the fund are being examined at present. One would involve a securitisation by the National Treasury Management Agency and the other would be by the activation of section 15 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act. 1992, which allows the sale of local loans fund assets to the Housing Finance Agency. The comparative merits of each course are being examined at present by officials in my Department who are being advised by the two agencies and it is expected that their recommendations will be available shortly.

It needs to be made absolutely clear that the sale of the loan assets will not affect people with mortgages from the local authorities in any way. What will be sold are the loans from the fund to the local authorities. People with mortgages from the local authorities will continue to make their mortgage payments to the local authorities as they have always done. There will be no change of any sort in their position. The only impact the sale will have on local authorities is that instead of making repayments of loans to the local loans fund they will make them to the new owners of the assets. There will be no change in their financial position or in the arrangements for funding capital projects by the authorities.

The Minister for Finance expects to make a decision on the route to be followed in relation to the sale of the assets in the near future.

Barr
Roinn