- These Budget allocations are reliant on rent being increased by GDP + 2%. If Housing Executive rent isn't increased by GDP + 2%, some programmes will suffer?
- During our last meeting, this whole issue was discussed, and that would be correct. However, this area was again looked at by the Department, and a new scenario has arisen [members were handed a paper with an updated analysis of the effect of raising Housing Executive rents by a variety of measures]
- On the strength of this revised scenario, 125,000 houses will have an increase of £1.76 per week in their rent, if rents increase by GDP + 2%?
Your paper shows that the average weekly rent is £39.18 per week, and this is for all properties - not just houses, but for multi-storey flats etc. as well. Wouldn't it be fair to say rents are actually significantly higher for houses?
- Yes, but the figures quoted are based on averages.
- Working families would be the hardest hit. People on Housing Benefit will have their rents paid for them, but working people who are not entitled to Housing Benefit will be having to use up more of their already low income.
- I accept that approximately 20% of Housing Executive residents are not eligible for Housing Benefit, but not all people on Housing Benefit will have their full rent paid. Around 65% of Housing Benefit recipients will have their rent paid and approximately 15% will have to pay some degree of rent, which is in line with the UK average of 13.1% in England, 12.3% in Wales and 11.1% in Scotland.
- New building rents are approximately £45 - £50 per week. A lot of pensioners live in modern bungalows that are therefore at the top range of rents. As GDP + 2% is higher than the rate of inflation, these people will be expected to pay higher increases than their benefits allow. Will the GDP formula continue to be used?
- I agree that this cycle should be broken and we will look at this question very seriously. We will have difficulties in this particular year but I will take your views on board.
- What is the position in relation to House Sales? Is there any way that the Department could take account of fluctuations likely to take place as a result of loss of rental income?
- House sales this year are the highest ever on record and we do try to project what money will be raised in relation to them. We bid to recoup loss of rental income each year and to enhance the baseline for maintenance. However, because the housing stock is reduced we have difficulty sustaining our argument for funds.
- The Housing Executive cannot raise money privately any more. In the past, huge sums of money could be attracted from Banks and Building Societies. This approach could solve some of our housing problems including fuel poverty. Can consideration be given to changing the structure of the Housing Executive rather than giving money to the Housing Associations?
- Firstly, I can tell you that we are going to put in new heating and reduce fuel poverty. The green paper published recently does propose attracting private funding and will enable borrowing from the private sector. I can also tell you that some preliminary discussions have taken place with the Housing Executive.
- Why has this not been included in the Housing Bill?
- This is a wider issue than simply attracting private funding - other issues need to be taken into account.
- Housing Associations received a 6.4% increase although some of them appear to hold huge amounts of money in reserves. Many schemes were signed up to on the last day of the financial year. In relation to their funding, what kind of control is there and how is this monitored?
- I can assure you that all of the money is spent. If new homes have been started then the money is seen as spent. There are stringent auditing arrangements in relation to all Housing Associations. The Department would be happy to provide figures in relation to this.
- No extra money has been awarded to Housing Land and Property. North Belfast has a massive problem. What is going to happen there and what is the Housing Executive expected to do?
- I was very disappointed our needs were not met and we will try again next year. We will not walk away from this question. I have Officials working on it at the moment - looking at the Housing Associations purchasing and developing the land.
- There is a difference of some £59m between what was submitted and what was awarded. What role and input will the Committee have in prioritising where the shortfalls will be met?
- The figures have just been produced and we will have to look at Baseline figures to see what we can prioritise. When we have looked at them we will come back to the Committee, as we are very keen to have your views. Could we perhaps have the Committee's list of unmet bids in order of priority?
- On the issue of Advice Services, the Citizens Advice Bureau reports that 50% of its workload involves Social Security advice. The Independent Advice Centres also report that around 70-80% of their workload involves Social Security. Both organisations work within limited budgets yet are taking on work that's properly the role of the SSA. Their resources don't allow for this. It is also reported that Agency staff has referred people to Advice Bodies to get advice and have forms (which, on the whole, are overly cumbersome and complicated) completed. What is the SSA position on this?
- The Department and Agency is in discussion with Advice Bodies regarding their role. It is simply not the case where the Agency is transferring responsibility for advice to these Bodies. The SSA has an Advisory Service for its customers and is currently in the process of building up its Visiting Service. But it is recognised that a large number of people do use the services of Advice Bodies. On the issue of referrals to Advice Bodies by SSA staff, this is not what is expected of Social Security staff. It is considered that Agency staff do provide an excellent advisory service and it is regrettable if some people have been referred to Advisory Bodies by staff. Of course, it is also the case that people would prefer to go to Advice Bodies because they feel that they'd rather have independent advice. However, in saying that, it would be surprising if this practice didn't tale off with the new Benefit system coming into place making claiming easier.
- £7m of Income Support went unclaimed last year and this is money that should have gone to people who were in most need. There is evidently something wrong with the system if this is the case. Should there not be a more stringent take-up campaign to ensure that people get every penny they're entitled to?
- Would agree that there were some people entitled to benefit that weren't getting it, and this is regrettable. To get everyone who's entitled to benefits is the Agency's goal. I am convinced that the new measures will improve the whole system.