NORTHERN IRELAND ASSEMBLY
COMMITTEE FOR SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
OFFICIAL REPORT
(Hansard)
Welfare Reform Bill
24 May 2007
Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Mr Gregory Campbell (Chairperson)
Mr David Hilditch (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Mickey Brady
Mr Thomas Burns
Mr Fred Cobain
Mr Jonathan Craig
Ms Anna Lo
Mr Fra McCann
Mrs Claire McGill
Miss Michelle McIlveen
Mr Alban Maginness
Witnesses:
Ms Margaret Ritchie, Minister for Social Development
Mr John O’Neill, Department for Social Development
The Chairpe rson (Mr Campbell):
Members should declare any interests they may hold in this matter, for example, as landlords. Michelle McIlveen has declared such an interest.
Mr Cobain:
I am a member of Filon Housing Association.
The Chairperson:
Thank you Mr Cobain. Does any other member have something to declare?
Hansard will be recording the Committee’s deliberations. Minister, thank you for coming to the Committee. The Committee has met with you informally, but this is the first occasion on which we meet on a formal basis. You will be aware of the Committee’s interest in the Welfare Reform Bill and in your desire to proceed in a particular manner.
The Minister will speak first, and then Members may ask questions. There will be an informal session at the end of the meeting.
The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie):
Thank you. I am grateful to the Committee and I am pleased to be here. What I have to say divides into two parts: the first relates to the Welfare Reform Bill and I want to discuss that in light of issues raised by the Committee last week.
I am anxious to explain to the Committee why the Bill should be given accelerated passage and the consequences of that not being granted. I am also prepared to discuss steps that might be taken to minimise future recourse to accelerated passage. I am aware of Members’ deep interest not only in social development per se, but also in social security matters. I know that we will have the opportunity to talk about more general issues later.
One of the benefits of devolution is that, across a range of issues, solutions can be tailor-made to suit circumstances in Northern Ireland. However, as the Committee is aware, social security is a policy area where a long-standing policy of parity with Great Britain has existed. Uniquely, parity of social security, pensions and child support is specifically provided for in the Northern Ireland Act 1998.
The stark reality is that the social security system in Northern Ireland is not self-financing. For example, in order to break even, Northern Ireland requires an annual subvention in respect of contributory benefits from Great Britain’s National Insurance Fund. In the last financial year, that amounted to £185 million. Non-contributory benefits, which are funded from general taxation, totalled £2·26 billion in the last financial year.
To set that in context, in 2004-05 — the last year for which tax revenue figures are available — the amount of subvention from the Great Britain National Insurance fund, and the money received to fund non-contributory benefits, exceeded the total amount of income tax raised in Northern Ireland. I must stress that that funding is predicated on the maintenance of parity. There are therefore many reasons why parity must be retained.
Given that, in effect, a single system of social security operates across Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Department for Social Development and the Department for Work and Pensions in London share computer systems for the payment of benefits. If parity were to be removed, we would have to pick up any additional benefit costs and might also have to pay for new computer infrastructure. Those are some of the hard realities of underpinning parity.
As my officials have already briefed the Committee on the main policy proposals, I shall outline the aims of the Bill and my reasons for seeking accelerated passage.
The Welfare Reform Bill corresponds to the provisions of the Welfare Reform Act 2007 and introduces new policies, as well as changes to, and clarification of, current legislation. The Bill introduces a new employment and support allowance to replace the current incapacity benefit. The new allowance will help to support individuals who wish to remain in, or return to, work. I will be having further discussions with my ministerial colleague in the Department for Employment and Learning about the resources that will be required for that allowance.
The Bill also provides a framework to reform and improve the design and administration of housing benefit, including the introduction of a local housing allowance across the private rented sector. A related change will allow local housing allowance to be paid directly to tenants in the same way that other social security benefits are paid.
I share the doubts expressed by some members of the Committee that the proposal could result in some benefit recipients falling into debt. I want to avoid that, as there are principles of social justice at stake. However, those concerns should not affect the enactment of the Bill. The Bill merely confers a power to make regulations. I wish to consider further the available evidence in order to be satisfied that the risk of debt is unlikely before bringing forward any regulations. I wish to discuss the way forward with the Committee, and I hope to work together on many issues, including welfare reform.
The Bill gives more power to tackle benefit fraud, particularly repeat benefit fraud offenders, and includes measures to clarify the law relating to disability and attendance allowances and extend the loss of benefit provisions. The Bill also contains other minor measures to clarify various aspects of existing legislation in order to render it simpler to administer and easier to understand. I am sure that the Committee welcomes such proposals.
The GB Welfare Reform Act 2007 received Royal Assent on 3 May. Some of its provisions came into force on that date, and further substantive provisions will do so on 3 July, two months after Royal Assent was granted. The corresponding Northern Ireland provisions cannot come into operation until our proposed welfare reform Bill has completed its passage through the Assembly and received Royal Assent. That is one reason for seeking accelerated passage for the proposed Bill.
The remaining provisions will be brought into operation by a series of commencement Orders. For instance, section 58 of the Welfare Reform Act 2007 provides an easement of the definition of “relevant employer”, thus making it simpler for a person suffering as a result of certain dust-related diseases, such as mesothelioma and other asbestos-related conditions, to claim compensation. That provision is due to be brought into operation from 24 July. Furthermore, section 59, which widens the group of dependants who may make such a claim, comes into operation on 3 July. Those provisions relate to people who may have suffered indirectly as a result of such illnesses. The equivalent provisions for Northern Ireland are in clauses 52 and 53 of our proposed Bill.
Members will be aware of the consequences of some of those terrible diseases, which are frequently terminal. I am sure that Committee members will have been contacted by many of the organisations that represent people who have been bereaved or who are suffering. In order that Northern Ireland claimants do not lose out on the easements, it is vital that the provisions come into operation as soon as possible after those of the Westminster Act. That is another reason for asking for accelerated passage. Given that people in Northern Ireland pay the same National Insurance contributions and the same income tax as people in Great Britain, they therefore have the right to expect that the changes should apply here with the minimum of delay. Again, that is a social justice issue.
Notwithstanding my earlier comments on an aspect of the proposed new local housing allowance, other powers to make regulations that provide for its introduction will be used by October 2007. It is important that the corresponding Northern Ireland regulations are made as soon as possible after their GB counterparts. The process in the Bill for deciding on local housing allowance will differ substantially from the method that is used at present for deciding on housing benefits. The details will be set out in regulations, and the staff of the Housing Executive and Land and Property Services, who will operate the new arrangements, will need the opportunity to familiarise themselves with the processes before the regulations are introduced next April. Welfare rights bodies that advise and represent appellants will also need time to prepare for the new system.
I trust that the Committee is content with the broad thrust of the proposed Bill and understands why I need to seek accelerated passage for it. In decisions on whether to seek accelerated passage for future Bills, I will consider them on merit. I do not seek accelerated passage lightly now, and I will not do so in future. I fully appreciate the role that the Committee will have in giving detailed scrutiny to the Bills that my Department wishes to introduce. I will not seek the Committee’s agreement to shorten the process unless I feel that it is absolutely necessary. In the case of the proposed Bill that we consider today, to deny access to compensation to people who are already suffering as a result of asbestos-related conditions would, in my view, be a further hardship that those people need not endure. I hope that the Committee agrees.
I have received information from my officials about the briefing that the Committee was given last week, and I know that John O’Neill from my Department has given you a briefing earlier today on various benefit matters. That is the end of my submission; I welcome any questions.
The Chairperson:
Minister, the Committee and I understand the issues of parity, as outlined by Mr O’Neill, and we recognise the need to ensure that people on benefits continue to receive them.
I want to be clear about what you said about housing benefit regulations, about which many members expressed concern at last week’s meeting. My understanding is that the current system of payment will remain in place until 31 March 2008.
Ms Ritchie:
That is correct.
The Chairperson:
Under the existing system, claimants whose completed application forms for housing benefit have been accepted by the Department continue to have their rent paid directly to private landlords. Are you saying that regulations that could change that system will not be introduced before you come back to the Committee?
Ms Ritchie:
That is correct. I want to make it clear that I am aware of the Committee’s concerns and that I want to work with members. I have similar concerns, because I do not want people to fall into debt and perhaps face homelessness or eviction as a result. On the principle of justice, I, as the Minister for Social Development, and, I am sure, you, as members of the Committee, do not want that to happen. Therefore, I want to come back to the Committee for further discussion.
The Chairperson:
Thank you, Minister. Members may now put questions to the Minister.
Mr F McCann:
When Ms Ritchie returns for further discussion, will the Committee, or she, as Minister, be able to prevent the introduction of the new system should consultation indicate that it would be detrimental to people who may fall into debt?
Ms Ritchie:
I want to consider whether that is possible, Mr McCann, and I will seek further advice from my officials. As members are aware, I have considered the approach that was adopted in Britain, and I want to assess how it has worked there before proceeding any further. I will come back to discuss the issues to which you and the Chairperson have referred. I want to work cautiously on this matter.
The Chairperson:
Minister, I am sure that you will take into account the different socio-economic factors in Northern Ireland.
Ms Ritchie:
Yes, I will definitely take those into account, as well as low incomes.
The Chairperson:
The last thing that anyone wants is the implementation of a system that worsens levels of debt and rent arrears, simply because we had not examined the delivery mechanisms sufficiently arduously.
Mr Craig:
I thank the Minister for her explanation.
The Minister has previously referred to setting up an interdepartmental working group to consider what land may be available for building additional homes. Will the Minister expand on that? Who does she envisage being part of that group, and how far will it go in devising a solution to the problems of Government-owned land?
Will she also expand on whether the additional £70 million from underspends by the Department will be available to deliver this year’s —
The Chairperson:
Mr Craig, thank you for your questions, but they are not directly relevant to the topic being discussed. Perhaps the Minister may wish to respond to that point in the fullness of time.
Ms Ritchie:
Perhaps I could answer that in today’s second session. I am happy to do so, but members may have pressing questions about welfare reform or other benefit issues.
Mr Burns:
I am interested in the benefits that will be paid to people with asbestosis. You said that those will be introduced in July.
Ms Ritchie:
Yes. That is one reason that we need accelerated passage for the Bill, Mr Burns. I am aware that there are cases of asbestosis in your South Antrim constituency.
Mr O’Neill (Department for Social Development):
At present, sufferers of those diseases have the right to claim against their former employer or insurance company. If they cannot trace the employer or insurance company, they have recourse to compensation under the Pneumoconiosis, etc., (Workers’ Compensation) ( Northern Ireland) Order 1979. The Government pick up those payments.
The proposed legislation eases the conditions that must be met in order to prove the identity of a former employer and also widens the scope of the Order so that dependents of people who suffer from those diseases can make a claim on the pneumoconiosis fund. Therefore, it deals mostly with asbestos-related conditions such as asbestosis; byssinosis; mesothelioma; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and other conditions that are related to work in various industrial sectors. There is no new benefit. However, the legislation makes it easier for people to trace a former employer or a former insurance company in order to claim compensation through the pneumoconiosis fund, which operates for that particular type of case.
Miss McIlveen:
Thank you, Minister, for your presentation. We are all aware that antisocial behaviour is a huge problem in society. I note that clause 31 of the Bill deals with loss of housing benefit following eviction for antisocial behaviour. The Committee’s notes state that that would not be introduced until after a pilot scheme had been assessed in England. Is there any idea of how long that might take and what its outcomes might be?
Ms Ritchie:
I will refer that to Mr O’Neill: suffice it to say, however, that the Department has carried out a full equality impact assessment on the matter in case people have concerns.
Mr O’Neill:
The provision contains what is known in legislation terms as a “sunset clause”. Pilots are planned in England to test the effectiveness of the proposal, and decisions are being made about where those will be introduced. The schemes will be evaluated. Unless legislation is made for further provision by the end of 2010, that provision will fall.
Ms Ritchie:
My Department will proceed with caution on that particular matter.
Mrs McGill:
Thank you, Minister, for your briefing. I need clarification on the timescale. Does the Committee need to approve accelerated passage by July 2007?
The Chairperson:
The Committee is required to do that today, not to put too fine a point on the issue.
Mrs McGill:
The Committee is required to do that today. Does that mean, in effect, that all of the changes, such as the payment of rent directly to the tenant —
The Chairperson:
My understanding of what the Minister has just said is that, having heard the Committee’s representations, the matter is off the table until she returns.
Ms Ritchie:
That is correct.
Mrs McGill:
Therefore, that will not be included in the Bill?
Ms Ritchie:
Mr O’Neill will clarify that.
Mr O’Neill:
The power to make regulations to bring that into effect will be contained in the Bill. When the Bill is enacted, that power will be there. A further Commencement Order would have to be made.
Mrs McGill:
I apologise, Mr O’Neill. Will you explain that more slowly, please? I do not quite understand the process.
Mr O’Neill:
The Bill will go before the Assembly. The Assembly will, presumably, pass the Bill. Most of the powers contained in the Bill cannot be used until a Commencement Order is made to bring a particular power into effect on a particular day.
The power with regard to the local housing allowance will be there. However, a further set of regulations must be made in order to enable that power to be applied by the Housing Executive. The Minister has said that she will return to the Committee before those regulations are made.
The Chairperson:
To simplify that even further: if one assumes that accelerated passage is agreed to by the Committee and is, shortly, approved by the Assembly, the Department will have acquired the power to change the system. However, it will not implement those changes until the Minister has returned to the Committee.
Mr O’Neill:
The Department will have acquired the power to make regulations. The power will be implemented in two stages: first, it must be brought into effect, and then utilised.
Ms Ritchie:
The regulations will not take effect immediately. That is the bottom line. I will return to the Committee before that happens, because I am well aware of concern in the community, the Assembly and the Committee. I also have personal concerns about it. I will proceed with caution.
Mrs McGill:
Are the regulations in place? Is it the case that they will simply not take effect?
Ms Ritchie:
The power to make the regulations is in place.
Mr O’Neill:
We have not yet drafted regulations.
Ms Ritchie:
If I were to bring forward regulations, a commencement Order would be required, which is another piece of supplementary legislation. It is not my intention to do that — if it were, I would come to the Committee for further discussion, advice and guidance. In addition to my own concerns, I am aware of those expressed by the Chairperson and by members of the Committee.
The Chairperson:
I would like to copper-fasten this matter.
Ms Ritchie:
Chairperson, you have reflected the concerns well.
The Chairperson:
What would happen if, after six or eight months, you came back to the Committee with the intention of proceeding with the regulations, and the Committee were opposed to that?
Ms Ritchie:
I would be anxious to hear the views of — and seek guidance from — the Committee. The views of the Committee must be acknowledged, and I wish to examine the results of assessments that have been carried out in GB. I wish to proceed cautiously.
The Chairperson:
Would you be inclined to proceed, even if the Committee were unanimously opposed?
Ms Ritchie:
I would consider the matter extremely carefully. I have grave concerns; my approach will be cautious, and I was not content when I read the provisions of the Bill. I hope that my language is clear.
Mr F McCann:
I appreciate that you have reservations, Minister, as we all do. There was a time, here, when payments were made directly to tenants. Rather than concentrating on schemes in England, would it not be better to consider how the scheme operated in the past, and base any judgement on that? All of us who have worked tirelessly in the community, including the Minister, will have encountered many people who would rather feed their children or buy essential items than pay the rent.
Perhaps I am stretching the point in asking my next question, but it concerns a matter that was raised last week. The Minister probably shares my concerns and those of other members of the Committee about the payment of housing benefits. Often, the amount that is paid to tenants does not meet the rents that are set by private landlords. That situation can lead to serious mental-health problems and crime. Is the Minister considering any measures to deal with that problem?
Ms Ritchie:
I fully appreciate and understand what Mr McCann said, because I have personally encountered several constituents, on low incomes, who were in receipt of housing benefit while renting in the private sector, and there was sometimes quite a shortfall. I referred to that matter on Monday 21 May during the Assembly debate on the affordable housing crisis. I want that matter to be addressed by the ministerial review of affordable housing, and I will take advice on that matter from my officials and the Housing Executive. I recognise those concerns and I empathise and sympathise with people who fall into such a trap. I want that issue to be addressed.
Mr F McCann:
Often, housing benefit is paid at a rate of £80 or £90 a week, or £360 a month, yet those in receipt of it are charged £550 a month for rent. Given that those who receive housing allowance are on low incomes, and some are close to the poverty line, that is a big shortfall.
It is one of those issues that the Minister needs to tackle right away, because it is creating difficulties and problems in the private rented sector, which continues to grow.
Ms Ritchie:
I will be very happy to look at that. I am already aware of those issues, and if the ministerial review is approved by the Executive, I intend to tackle them and to have my officials work, along with the Housing Executive, in that respect.
Very exorbitant rents have been charged by the private sector, and that is a very unfair and unjust way of dealing with people in receipt of income support, particularly given two reports that came out quite recently from Save the Children and Barnardo’s, which dealt with child poverty in Northern Ireland. They showed that high rent levels impact on the amount of expendable income people have to purchase food and other necessities, which then impacts on the lives of children and families. As Minister for Social Development, I am sympathetic to those issues.
Ms Lo:
Is there a timescale for the commencement of the new system?
Mr O’Neill:
From April next year, local housing allowance will apply only to those tenants in the private sector who take out new rentals after that date. Anyone who is on the existing housing benefit stays on that until he or she changes tenancy. It will come in gradually for new rental agreements coming into effect after that time.
Ms Lo:
In the meantime, will there be consultation with the community and voluntary sector?
Mr O’Neill:
The proposal for local housing allowance was included in the consultation document in 2005, and that included the employment and support allowance. We had responses from the Housing Rights Service and other bodies in Northern Ireland at that time.
Mr Brady:
I would like to thank the Minister for her presentation.
As Sinn Féin spokesman on welfare issues and for older people, I have some concerns with the part of the Welfare Reform Bill that deals with entitlement to benefit, particularly in relation to older people and the actual physical delivery of benefits. That issue was highlighted recently by the proposed closure of many post offices, which a lot of older people who do not have bank accounts rely on. I would like the Minister to look at that. Apart from the post office being a social focus for people, it facilitates the physical delivery of benefits. That is another question perhaps for the future. We were told that something like £400 million was going to be saved in the first year after the virtual abolition of order books. I wonder what happened to that, because no explanations have been given.
Ms Ritchie:
I will take the first part of the question, and I will refer to Mr O’Neill for the second.
I fully appreciate and sympathise with what has been said about rural post offices and the possible impact of last week’s statement from the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, John Hutton. As a consequence of that, I asked my officials to investigate the possibility of a separate Northern Ireland card account in recognition of the fact that people do use the Post Office card account here and that they provide a very good facility for the elderly. I am awaiting that report and will reply to the Committee at a later stage.
Mr O’Neill:
Savings are a matter for the Social Security Agency.
One of the things that was found in the local-housing-allowance experiments and pathfinder projects in GB was that people who previously did not have a bank account opened one and arranged for their rent to be paid by standing order. In the pathfinder areas there was an increase in the number of people going into the banking system, because they had to have that arrangement. They either used the Post Office card account or, in many cases, opened a very simple bank account.
Mr Brady:
The point I was making is that there are differences here; post offices are very much part of the local community. That may, or may not, be the case in Britain.
Ms Ritchie:
That is why I have asked my officials to look at the feasibility, or the possibility, of setting up a separate mechanism for Northern Ireland, but I would like to come back to the Committee at a later stage, as there may be cost implications.
The other issue raised was about the Social Security Agency, and it was an operational matter concerning efficiencies. I am currently exploring that matter with my officials. I want to see the best delivery of front-line services to all people continuing as regards benefits. Two weeks ago, I launched the benefit uptake campaign for this financial year, which will target 230,000 elderly, disabled and disadvantaged people. I want the existing front-line services to be the best quality that we have the capacity to deliver and to provide the service that people deserve.
The Chairperson:
An issue was raised a moment ago regarding what Mr O’Neill said about the local housing allowance that is to be introduced for new tenants.
Ms Ritchie:
I am quite clear about that. I will be referring to the Committee before I do anything as regards supplementary legislation.
The Chairperson:
As regards new tenants who commence occupancy on or after 1 April 2008 —
Mr O’Neill:
— or existing private tenants who move from one private rental property to another.
The Chairperson:
Yes. Will the situation for those people be identical to that for tenants at the moment; and will their method of payment change?
Mr O’Neill:
If people in the private rental sector who are in receipt of housing benefit move after 1 April 2008, they will go onto the new system and have a local housing allowance. If they remain in an existing tenancy, they will stay under the current system until they move to a new tenancy.
The Chairperson:
What will happen then?
Mr O’Neill:
They will be subject to the new regime.
Ms Ritchie:
I would like to be able to come back to the Committee to discuss those particular issues, because I have given an undertaking to do so.
The Chairperson:
The Committee would like to be clear about this point, so as to avoid any doubt. At the moment, accelerated passage will allow all of the parity legislation to proceed. Many Committee members are concerned that if the delivery mechanism for housing benefit is changed, then there may be a possibility — some might argue, a probability — that people on lower income or on benefit who at the moment get their rent paid directly to the landlord would on occasions go into considerable periods of debt if it were paid directly to them. Minister, are you saying that regulations will not be enforced before you come back to the Committee?
Ms Ritchie:
That is my understanding. I want to refer to the Committee before considering Commencement Orders or supplementary legislation.
The Chairperson:
Minister, to avoid any doubt as regards new tenants: if accelerated passage is agreed to and granted by the Assembly, and we reach 1 April 2008 without your having come back to the Committee and the present regime is in place, what will happen to new tenants on 2 April 2008 who apply for housing benefit under the current provisions? Will their rent be paid directly to the landlord or will there be a change?
Mr O’Neill:
The Department will have to make regulations in order to change the current provisions. Therefore, unless that has been done, new tenants, from that date, would still have their rent paid to their landlords because the regulations would not have been made.
The Chairperson:
That is clear.
Ms Ritchie:
The situation is quite clear. I would have to make a Commencement Order, and I would not do so unless I had discussed the matter with the Committee. The fundamental issue is that I want to take further advice on the assessments that have been carried out, or are ongoing, in GB.
Mr F McCann:
What Mr O’Neill has said runs against the spirit of what the Minister said.
Ms Ritchie:
That is not so. I want to make it quite clear that I will be coming back to the Committee before anything happens as regards the regulations. I want to get the views, advice and guidance of Committee members before proceeding. I am quite clear about that.
Mr F McCann:
I was fairly clear that Mr O’Neill said that any new tenants, or anyone who moved on when the old scheme ended, would be treated under the new scheme. That runs against the spirit of what the Minister was saying. I was under the impression that there would be agreement today that no one would be impacted by the new scheme until the Minister comes back to the Committee.
The Chairperson:
I think that is what is being said. However, let us just get it 100% nailed on the line.
Mr O’Neill:
Local housing allowance is more than the method of payment; it is a new method of calculating how benefit is paid to people. What will come into effect on 1 April 2008 is the new method of calculating the benefit and calling it local housing allowance. Anyone who creates a new tenancy or moves to a new tenancy after that date will have local housing allowance paid to them. How that is paid is what the Minister is going to come back to the Committee about.
The Chairperson:
However, if the Minister does not come back to the Committee before 1 April 2008, will existing and new tenants be paid under the present regime?
Mr O’Neill:
Unless we make new regulations.
The Chairperson:
Will the Minister come back to the Committee on that matter?
Ms Ritchie:
I assure you, Chairperson and members, that I will come back to the Committee on the method of payment before taking any action on Commencement Orders. I hope that that is clear.
The Chairperson:
Yes.
Mr Cobain:
I welcome the Minister. She referred to benefit take-up. Mr O’Neill came before the Committee this morning and gave members a quick rundown on that matter. The Chairman was right: a lot of members’ eyes glazed over halfway through that briefing.
Claiming benefit can be difficult. Last week, the Minister participated in a benefit take-up campaign. She and members of the Committee know that, without proper independently funded advice, offering service at source, a large proportion of people who are in need of benefit will find it too difficult to claim. A proportion of people who are at the lowest end of the social and economic scale are not claiming all of the benefits to which they are entitled.
There have been various benefit take-up campaigns over the past 20 or 30 years, and every year we are told that a certain amount of benefit has not been claimed. The only way to deal with that problem is to provide a proper independent service at source, as close to the community as possible. Two organisations already provide such a service: an independent advice service, with which the Minister is familiar, and the Citizens Advice Bureau. Both of those organisations have enormous difficulties with funding. In fact, they regularly trail to the Minister’s Department to ask for money.
The Chairperson:
Mr Cobain, what is your question?
Mr Cobain:
How will we increase the take-up of benefits by people who are at the lowest end of the economic and social scale if the Department does not spend sufficient resources on providing a proper independent advice service? The Minister’s Department has lead responsibility for providing that service. There is no clear resource for the groups to which I have referred.
Ms Ritchie:
I fully appreciate Mr Cobain’s point. I have had several discussions with my officials on that matter. People who are entitled to benefit should be able to avail of all the services that currently exist. There are services within the Social Security Agency, there are pension advisers, and there is a network of advice centres. I shall examine that matter to see whether the best possible advice is available to achieve the level of benefit uptake that we wish to see.
Every effort must be put into front-line services, and I want the Committee’s support to do that. When the Committee makes representations to the Department of Finance and Personnel, it must ensure that sufficient resources from the comprehensive spending review are put into front-line services.
I will hold further discussions with my departmental officials in an effort to ensure that people are provided with the best possible advice. New claim forms are to be issued for disability living allowance, which will be much simpler and easier to understand.
I hope that the advice centre network will have sufficient support. I will soon be bringing an advice and information strategy to the Executive for approval, and the resourcing of that strategy must be examined. The advice centre network is anxious for that strategy to be published at the earliest opportunity. Any leverage that the Committee could use, in that respect, would be greatly appreciated.
Ms Lo:
Before I ask a question, I had better declare an interest: I remain as chief executive of the Chinese Welfare Association until the end of May.
Following on from Mr Cobain’s question about the uptake of benefits, it must be noted that members of ethnic-minority communities very rarely take up the full amount of social security benefits to which they are entitled. They are not aware of issues, and there is a huge language barrier in the Chinese community. The Chinese Welfare Association, which provides free information on welfare services to the whole Chinese community in Northern Ireland, employs only one bilingual welfare worker
When the organisation applied to become part of the general network of welfare help, it was told that its services did not fall into the category of “advice”, and therefore did not receive access to the funding stream. In October, the funding for the welfare worker’s post will run out. Without that post, the whole of the Chinese community will lose its only bilingual worker. I am using this opportunity to ask the Minister to look into that issue.
Ms Ritchie:
I am very happy to have my officials investigate that matter on behalf of Ms Lo and the Committee, and we will report our findings to the Committee.
The Chairperson:
There were lots of questions and answers about the regulations. Therefore, prior to going into closed session during which the Committee will consider the need for accelerated passage of the Bill, and before the Minister leaves, are members content with the categorical assurance that the Minister has given?
Ms Ritchie:
I could not be more categorical.
The Chairperson:
We have that on the record.
Mr Cobain:
I have it.
Mr Brady:
Before the Minister leaves, may I raise the issue about the savings made due to the direct payment of benefits, which I realise is an operational issue? Would it be possible to get some information on that?
Ms Ritchie:
I will ensure that my officials investigate the matter, and I will reply to the Committee Chairperson and to Mr Brady.
Mr Brady:
The savings might be diverted into the mainstream funding for advice centres — you never know.
Ms Ritchie:
I understand what Mr Brady is saying.
The Chairperson:
Thank you, Minister. The Committee will take a few minutes to consider the matter of accelerated passage and will then reconvene in public session.
The Committee met in private session.
On resuming –
The Chairperson:
I wish to indicate formally that the Committee is back in session and that our deliberations are being recorded.
Minister, the Committee has met in private session and agreed unanimously to the accelerated passage of the Welfare Reform Bill, given your unambiguous and unequivocal declaration in relation to some aspects of the Bill. The Committee will issue a press release to that effect at the conclusion of this meeting.