Home Improvement Grants
Private Members’ Business
Northern Ireland Assembly debates, 15 September 2009, 4:15 pm
William Hay (Speaker)
The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who wish to speak will have five minutes. One amendment has been selected and published on the Marshalled List. The proposer of the amendment will have 10 minutes to propose and five minutes for the winding-up speech.
Fra McCann (Sinn Féin)
I beg to move
That this Assembly urges the Minister for Social Development to explain why the Housing Executive has suspended the payment of home improvement grants, despite the Department for Social Development being awarded an extra £20m in the June monitoring round for housing; and further calls on the Minister to remove the suspension of these grants, which are vital to meeting the Decent Homes Standards to enable essential maintenance and home improvements work to be carried out.
Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I am sure that there will be widespread support in the Chamber for this motion as the issue under discussion affects people in all constituencies. How many Members have had people call to their offices and homes about home improvement grants? How many times have we received phone calls from people, young and old, who are in despair after learning that the Housing Executive has turned down their application for help towards home improvements?
(Mr speaker is in charge of proceedings of the House of Commons in..." class="glossary">Deputy Speaker [Mr Dallat] in the Chair)
As if that were not bad enough, how many of those people were encouraged to make an application only to be told by the Housing Executive at the last hurdle — after having gone through the entire process — that, because of budgetary problems, their grants would be frozen and that they would have to continue to live in the terrible conditions that they were trying to improve by applying for grant assistance?
The Minister said that she would rather put a roof over people’s heads than worry about kitchen replacements. What about the people who are sitting in homes with leaking roofs? What about the people whose electricity supply is substandard and in a dangerous condition? What about the people whose homes are riddled with damp and crumbling because of that?
What about people who live in a rural setting, have to endure intolerable living conditions and are waiting for help, only to be told that the Minister has redirected the money? She would rather put a roof on a new house than tackle the atrocious conditions that exist in many of the houses that have been refused assistance.
Perhaps the Minister can tell us how many of the houses that had a grant application refused were checked to ensure that they met health and safety standards. Are there ramifications for the health of the families who live in those houses? Two such families attended one of her infamous roadshows in Newry to ask that question, but they were shouted down and heckled by SDLP members. Where is the concern for those families?
The Minister needs to explain why she does not spread her budget more evenly to ensure that houses that are in a bad state of repair can be assisted along with the newbuilds. She needs to explain why rotten kitchens and heating systems that affect people’s health will not be replaced. Does she not realise that she is storing up a financial nightmare for the future? Does she not realise that rotten and decaying kitchens and doors affect the fabric of a house and cost more to put right further down the road? Does she not also realise that a heating system that is not repaired or replaced affects the fabric of a house?
Fra McCann (Sinn Féin)
I have no difficulty agreeing that there is a shortfall in the housing budget. However, the problem with the budget has been that the Minister has redirected all the finances towards newbuilds, which created the mess that we are in today. Over the past number of monitoring rounds, considerable amounts of money have been given to the Minister to deal with some of the problems that I mentioned, but she has chosen not to.
What costs can be matched against the damage to a person’s health? Those are questions that the Minister needs to answer. She should not blame other people, which she usually does. She should not evade the hard questions or play with words, which she has become famous for. Too much depends on this. Thousands of people are waiting for answers to those questions; hundreds of people who are employed in the sector, including Egan contractors, depend on the work to put bread on the table for their families.
I am sure that all Members have received letters from small contractors who are involved in the renovation sector saying that they are among the 900 small contractors who rely totally on the business from the home improvement grants to survive. That sector will go to the wall because of decisions taken by the Minister.
The Minister should admit that her interference led us to this crisis; she should admit that she made a mistake. How much of the money that should have been used to fund an improvement programme or those working on the Egan contracts has been used to purchase properties from private developers?
Does the Minister know how much money people have spent on preparing documents to supply the Housing Executive with plans for the work that they intended to carry out? How can that money be recouped? It is my understanding that some 14,700 people applied for grants, and the Housing Executive had a statutory responsibility to complete the work in 4,000 of those cases. In 9,700 instances, applications for a grant were refused or suspended. How do those people recoup the money that they spent in preparation for the receipt of a grant? They include elderly people who cannot afford to lose that money and families who had to borrow money to fulfil the requirements that were laid out by the Housing Executive. Will the Minister tell the House if she will guarantee that those people will receive refunds? Many people only took part in the scheme on the back of advice that they received from the Housing Executive, only to be told at the last minute that their grant had been frozen: where is the fairness in that? There are many questions for the Minister to answer and, as elected representatives, we require those answers to ensure that our constituents are given the correct information. We await the Minister’s explanation.
Even this morning, Members from across the House approached me to tell me horror stories from people in Derry, Strabane, Newry, Armagh, Fermanagh and across the board. Many people in rural areas live in atrocious conditions. The Minister said earlier that any case put forward would be investigated, but we continually put cases forward, and they are continually knocked back. That is the problem, and the Minister needs to deal with it right away.
I beg to move the following amendment: Leave out ‘remove’ and insert: “review”
I am delighted to make my first speech of the new Assembly term on such an important topic. Last year, the House saw many Sinn Féin motions that were directed at the Minister for Social Development. The SDLP did not support those motions, and it will not support this one without the acceptance of the amendment that I have proposed.
We all recognise the importance of the private-sector housing grants scheme, as detailed in the motion. I am a strong supporter of that scheme, which is an important tool for tackling bad conditions in private-sector housing. Those grants help people on low incomes who own their own homes to get their houses up to the decent homes standard. There is a real need for those grants, of that there is no doubt, and we can all agree on that aspect of the motion. People who need grants come into my constituency office, and they are desperately disappointed that those grants have been deferred or suspended. People need those grants to help to bring their houses up to a better standard.
At the same time, however, we all know that the Minister is caught in a catch-22 situation. She did indeed receive £20 million in the June monitoring round, but that money had conditions attached: DSD had the money spent before it was received. The Minister will no doubt explain in detail that that money needed to be spent on Egan contractors, kitchen replacements and bathroom replacements. Even with that extra £20 million, the budget for the Department for Social Development is still far short of what is required.
Fra McCann (Sinn Féin)
I think that most Members have been lobbied by people who work under Egan contracts. They say that the work that they are in the process of carrying out will shortly dry up and that they will be back to square one. As far as Egan contractors are concerned, £5 million of that £20 million was set aside to deal with their contracts. What happened to the rest of that money?
As you very well know, the Egan contractors who lobbied everyone had been given a commitment about all the work that needed to be completed for public-sector housing. Everyone knows that.
Originally, DSD needed an extra £100 million; that figure is now a mere £80 million. The reasons for the budget shortfall are well known, so I will not repeat them; the SDLP has been repeating those reasons for a long time. However, I remind Members of the reduction in income caused by the global economic downturn. I am happy that the Finance Minister is listening; Mr Wilson clearly understands the SDLP’s arguments. We will continue to press him for more money, and perhaps the social-housing budget will once again be put on a firm footing.
It is because of the lack of money that grants have been suspended. No doubt, all parties in the Assembly care about the people who need those grants. However, we cannot spend money that we do not have. That is why our proposed amendment calls for the Minister to keep the suspension under review. To open up a grants free-for-all when we do not have the money would not be wise.
Members must understand that within the funding shortfall, DSD has to consider carefully how every penny is spent, and providing new homes is the main priority. All Members will have people who are on housing waiting lists coming to their constituency offices.
Thousands of new homes are required as a matter of urgency, and current market conditions are well suited to building new houses. For that reason, the SDLP is committed to new building targets. The money for that is protected, and we will meet those targets.
The budget for the warm homes scheme is also protected to help householders who live in fuel poverty, as is the money for the Supporting People programme. The Minister has said many times that she will protect the most vulnerable in our society, and she deserves credit for that. Beyond that, given the budget shortfall, savings will have to be made somewhere. The Minister of Finance and Personnel knows that the money cannot be raised through the sale of land or houses, and, therefore, he must come up with additional funding. If he does that, the Minister for Social Development will be able to review the suspension, as proposed in our amendment.
Let me make it perfectly clear that there is no lack of will to provide the grants; the problem is a lack of money. I am hopeful that the suspension will be temporary, and I urge the Minister of Finance and Personnel to double his efforts to find the money to balance the DSD budget once and for all.
Simon Hamilton (DUP)
I will speak initially in my role as Chairman of the Committee for Social Development. The Committee considered the Department’s June monitoring round submission prior to the summer recess and endorsed the Department’s bids. However, members felt that, given the budgetary challenges facing the Executive at that time — indeed at all times — all bids, which amounted to £130 million, were unlikely to be met in the June monitoring round.
The Deputy Chairperson, Mr Hilditch, spoke in the House in July and warmly welcomed the outcome of the monitoring round, which included, as has been mentioned, an additional £20 million for renovation grants and for disabled adaptations. Most Members will be aware of some people’s frustration about renovation grants. Those householders want to improve their homes. They have made grant applications and, perhaps, incurred costs in doing so. They lodged those applications with the Housing Executive and had hoped that the extra money announced in June would lead to payment of their grants. It is now my understanding, as has been mentioned, that the backlog of applications was such that the additional money announced in June would only cover the cost of statutorily and contractually committed renovation work that was already in the system.
The Committee recognises the budgetary pressures and the difficult choices facing the Minister. However, the Committee expects important statutory housing obligations — for example, in relation to the special purchase of evacuated dwellings scheme (SPED) or certain disabled adaptations — to be met at all times. The majority of Committee members also expect a good and appropriate balance to be maintained in the delivery of the housing programme’s other objectives.
One other objective is the achievement of the decent homes standard in social housing, which is mentioned in the original motion. As the House will be aware, the Savills report, which is on the Minister’s desk, reportedly shows significant improvements in Housing Executive stock in that regard. The Committee intends to review progress on the decent homes standard when the Department makes the Savills report available to it. I encourage the Minister to share with the House and the Committee the difficulties and challenges that she faces and the successes that she has achieved with regard to housing.
I will use the remaining time to make some comments in a personal, party capacity. As I said in a Committee capacity, I fully understand, appreciate and empathise with the budgetary difficulties that the Minister faces, and I entirely understand the difficult situation that she was put in and the choice that she had to make to move money around in her budget. However, it is worth pointing out that doing that is not without consequence. There are many consequences of moving money around in that way. The pressure is biting really hard because we previously had a £40 million tap of money that flowed into renovations at a fairly steady rate each year.
That flow has not been reduced to a trickle: the tap has been turned off completely. That is where the consequences and some of the pain are coming from. That pain is being felt not only by those who are applying for funds but by those who carry out the work; not big building firms but owners of small businesses, some of whom would have been depending on two, three or four small grants jobs each year for their livelihood.
The Member, as Chairperson of the Committee for Social Development, seems to be implying that the Minister should rearrange the budget internally. The Minister has indicated that newbuild is a top priority, as are the warm homes scheme and the Supporting People programme. The Member is suggesting that some of those priorities should, in fact, be altered or their budgets reduced. Which of those does Mr Hamilton, either as Chairperson of the Social Development Committee or as an ordinary Member, suggest should be affected adversely?
Simon Hamilton (DUP)
The Member knows that it is unfair to ask that question of me as Chairperson of the Social Development Committee. I have already made comments that the Member, I am sure, subscribes to personally.
The point that I am getting at is that when the constant flow of money stops dead, there are ramifications. Small businesses are downsizing or are going out of business quietly as a result of this. They are local family firms that employ local people and use local building supplies to do their work. We cannot procure preferentially in any way, but we all know that grants work benefits local firms first and foremost.
We need not turn the tap back on to £40 million a year: it is not possible to do that. However, some small infusion of cash back into the renovations area would greatly assist those businesses and the people who benefit from those schemes. Perhaps not £40 million or even £4 million: £400,000 would be better than what is going through the system at the moment. It would let 20 small grants jobs go ahead, which is better than nothing, which is the case at present.
Problems are being stored up for the future. I take the Member’s point about the other priorities. Nevertheless, there is an onus on the Minister to ensure that, if in making those difficult choices at the end of the financial year there is money left over in any of those schemes, and I have particular concerns about the warm homes scheme and the slow start being made by the new scheme —
Simon Hamilton (DUP)
I know of one energy firm that has made 82 referrals, of which only three have gone through so far. There are issues developing, and it is absolutely necessary that the Minister ensures that having made the difficult choices, all the available money is spent on those other priorities. I welcome the debate.
Billy Armstrong (UUP)
It is no secret that there is a major problem with the Executive’s finances. The Minister for Social Development has repeatedly highlighted difficulties in her Department’s budget, and in particular, the problems that have been caused by the huge drop in revenue from house and land sales as property values have plummeted and income from sales has dropped from £100 million to £8 million in one year.
It is all very well for some Members and their parties to seek to attack the Minister as part of a political grandstanding exercise, but she cannot create money out of thin air as if by magic. The Executive Budget, never mind the DSD budget, is finite, and hard choices must be made, although we would not think so when we listen to some Members. I am not here to attack the Minister or her Department. I know that she wants to increase funding for public housing stock, public- and private-sector home improvement schemes and to combat fuel poverty. However, the problem is that we do not live in an ideal world: we live in the real world.
The motion appears to be slightly confused in that it refers to home improvement grants, which are for private homes, but goes on to mention the decent homes standards, which apply to public-sector housing.
On the first point, it is clear that there is a growing crisis with regard to home improvements. The motion identifies an additional £20 million that was allocated to Housing Executive funds in the June monitoring round. That may seem to be a large sum of money, but it would only partly cover those grants in which formal letters of approval have been issued. In other words, that money has already been spent, and the result is that no new money is available for further grant aid.
Over 13,000 private homes have applied for grant aid, some of which are in the final stages and are nearing approval. Over 9,000 of those homes have received letters from the Northern Ireland Housing Executive informing them that grant aid can no longer be provided. Furthermore, over 900 small and medium-sized family-based contracting firms, which have been actively engaged in contracts involving the Housing Executive grant, face the prospect of work drying up in early January 2010. With no approvals being issued, those firms are facing closure. That will throw even more people onto the dole queue. Even if contractors were redeployed to work on social housing projects, many of them are only at the early stages of planning and will not be ready for commencement until 2011.
I appeal to the Minister to do all she can to secure funding to support grant aid in the private sector, and to alleviate the genuine fears of those firms whose main business is drawn from the private-sector grant schemes. As I said, I will not attack the Minister or her Department, as I understand the financial situation in which she has to operate and the difficult choices that have to be made. I urge her to look within her budget to see what can be done to support home improvement grants in the private sector and to meet the decent homes standards in the public sector.
The answer, as always, is more funding. If the Minister cannot find that in her budget, Members from other parties must pressurise their party colleagues in the Executive to allocate funds to the Social Development Minister. There is no other way.
Anna Lo (Alliance)
One of my constituents recently contacted my office seeking help. He had made a statutory application for a Housing Executive improvement and repair grant. The gentleman had already incurred associated costs of £987 when he was informed by the NIHE that his application would not be honoured, due to budget constraints. This 60-year-old gentleman has endured living in a property in the Village area without central heating or an indoor toilet for over 15 years. He was recently made redundant from his long-term employment without any redundancy package, and is suffering serious health problems, having had several heart attacks in the past year.
The Housing Executive reconsidered only after pressure from other elected representatives and me, and was forced to introduce a set of guidelines to deal with exceptional circumstances such as those of that gentleman. People should not be left in limbo waiting for grants to improve their unfit homes. That can have a very negative impact on their health and well-being. Delays in repairing some properties can also make those homes uninhabitable in the long run, thereby reducing the housing stock.
I call on the parties in the Executive to work together to give DSD the housing budget necessary to carry out the many aspects of its work. The Housing Executive is facing serious funding shortages of £100 million each year following the collapse of the housing market. The home improvement grant has been curtailed, like so many other programmes, due to a shortage of funds.
I recently attended a DSD public meeting when the Minister was present. It was embarrassing to watch her appeal to members of the audience, on several occasions, to lobby their elected representatives and respective parties to put the Department on a sound financial footing. That is indicative of what little support the Minister is getting from the Executive.
It took ‘The Stephen Nolan Show’ to resolve the difficulties of the SPED scheme. The situation is a disgrace, and when I spoke to the police officer in question, I realised the stress that it has put on him and his family. Last year, the Housing Executive spent more than £9 million on the SPED programme. This year’s budget was only £1·5 million, to be increased by scraps in monitoring rounds. That is no way to run any Department.
Kieran McCarthy (Alliance)
Does the Member agree that the problem was experienced not only by one ex-police officer but by a number of police officers? Indeed, other members of the public found themselves in exactly the same position. Extra resources are needed to meet those people’s demands.
Anna Lo (Alliance)
I absolutely agree.
People do not really care what Department is responsible for what. I think that the layperson on the street does not know what Department does what. All people want is for the Government to deliver public services to meet the needs of their citizens. Marginalising one or two Ministers from the smaller parties merely shows up the lack of cohesion in the Executive, who are so often playing party politics rather than working together for the common good.
The housing downturn was not the Minister’s fault. We must ensure that, in future, funding for important and much-needed schemes, such as the SPED scheme and the home improvement grants, are secure and not subject to fluctuating incomes from the receipt of house and land sales.
David Hilditch (DUP)
I support the motion, and I welcomed the Minister’s announcement back in July. More than 20,000 people are deemed to be in housing stress, and 9,000 are registered as homeless. On top of that, 17% of our housing stock is below the decent homes standard. Investment is required to replace properties’ obsolete and inefficient systems and functions. I understood that the £20 million that was awarded in the June monitoring round was to allow for the necessary maintenance work to proceed while providing important support for the construction sector in these difficult times.
Mr McCann took us on a geographical tour of the west of the Province, but we could all give examples from our own constituencies, including those in the east. On my doorstep, an area of social deprivation in Castlemara has been hit particularly hard and has had a number of maintenance schemes and cycle maintenance cancelled. The suspension of home improvement grants comes on top of that. Indeed, constituents have been told not only that there is no funding but that they will have to reapply when money becomes available again.
Many of those people are in vulnerable positions: they are unable to move away from Housing Executive property or to purchase properties elsewhere. Now they are being told that they cannot have the grants that are necessary to complete priority maintenance work. Like many constituents —
Adrian McQuillan (DUP)
Does the Member agree that people who were approved for a home improvement grant are worse off now than they were previously? Those people have gone to the expense of getting plans drawn up and had planning applications ready to submit. Some of those people will be out of pocket and will be up to £1,000 worse off than they were before they started.
David Hilditch (DUP)
In researching today’s speech, I obtained some information from the grants office in Ballyclare. If it is not correct, I am sorry.
All Members know about individual cases. Last night, I had an opportunity to visit an elderly woman who has spent two winters with rain coming in through the front windows of her house. Now that her application has been turned down again, she is not looking forward to a third such winter.
In my East Antrim constituency alone, 244 grants have been cancelled and 67 applications for home repair refused. I was horrified to learn that 94 renovation grants for properties that have been deemed unfit have also been refused. That means that 94 homes throughout the constituency are occupied despite their being unsafe. People’s lives are at risk because those dwellings are dangerous and in need of urgent repairs, such as rewiring, roof work, extensions, plastering, and so forth. To make matters worse, some of those households, as my colleague said, have been further penalised through having already paid for plans for extensions to be drawn up. The Housing Executive has offered no reimbursement for that expense.
I am thankful that the disabled facilities grant scheme will continue. However, more than 13,000 private homeowners have applied for grant aid, and some of their applications were at the final stages or nearing approval. Despite that, 9,000 of those applicants received letters from the Housing Executive to inform them that grant aid is no longer being provided. That is unacceptable. This year, the Housing Executive will approve only 2,000 grants approximately. Given that it approved some 7,000 last year, that is a shocking reduction.
Everyone has the right to live in a safe home, and it is unreasonable and unjust to concentrate solely on the provision of newbuilds. If the Northern Ireland Housing Executive is to remain committed to bringing all homes up to the decent homes standard by 2010, it is imperative that the Minister concentrates on both issues. The Housing Executive must be dedicated to providing quality housing services, and it must work with others to create safe and confident communities. It must take into account the importance of improvements and repairs, as well as address the needs of the homeless.
I ask the Minister to revoke the suspension of the grants and move towards supporting the construction industry. The crisis cannot be ignored, and the Department must start to approve grants again. Otherwise, the future of Housing Executive offices and their staff will be at risk, private housing is likely to deteriorate further and the companies of the contractors involved will face closure. I support the motion.
Paul Maskey (Sinn Féin)
Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. If Members compare Sinn Féin’s motion with the SDLP amendment, only one word differs. The amendment replaces “remove” with “review”. What does review mean? It could apply to a review lasting three weeks, three years, or for ever. Although that one word is the only difference between the motion and the amendment, it is unclear and jeopardises the entire motion.
The SDLP is not in the habit of using the same definition of the word as Sinn Féin, when it referred to the reviews of the programme of cohesion, sharing and integration, of the anti-poverty strategy or of the Civic Forum. In contrast to Sinn Féin, the SDLP has time frames.
Paul Maskey (Sinn Féin)
Go raibh maith agat. I thank the Member for that point of information. Although Dolores may think otherwise, the matter that is being debated is important, and we should not be getting it mixed up with any other issues. It never fails to amaze me how Dolores manages to introduce sectarian issues, as happened earlier when she raised a point of order.
Paul Maskey (Sinn Féin)
The subject matter was slightly different, but she talked about how the two main parties on the Executive and in the Chamber are not dealing with sectarianism effectively.
The Sinn Féin motion refers to “essential maintenance and home improvements”. The key word is “essential”.
Some of that was mentioned. I think that Simon Hamilton touched on the figure, but the fact is that it was cut down, seemingly as a matter of urgency. It did not seem that any real thought went into closing the door. Perhaps the Minister has not given the right direction to her staff in the grants offices because people have received letters that state that the grant scheme is closed and that they will have to reapply.
During a telephone conversation, I was told by a member of staff that the scheme will probably never even be opened up again. Perhaps the Minister could give better direction to her Department’s staff.
Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin)
In connection with what the Member said, and in response to Mr Maginness’s point, I have a letter from the Housing Executive that very clearly states that people will have to make a further application if grant aid becomes available in the future.
Paul Maskey (Sinn Féin)
It seems that all of the points from the rest of the Members and parties in this Chamber back that view. That is the message that quite clearly is coming from the Minister’s Department. The Minister refuses to recognise that point, but a number of her party colleagues have questioned whether that is the case. Perhaps better direction needs to come from the Minister on that issue.
Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin)
I have one question about exceptional circumstances that I want the Minister to address. The Housing Executive’s website states that it expects that applications for discretionary grants may be approved only in exceptional circumstances. We are talking about the current state of play.
There is a lady who lives in Carrickmore, County Tyrone, who has twice been a victim of the conflict. She recently had an intruder in her home, and her repair grant application is to secure her back door. There is an 80-year-old lady from Mountfield, County Tyrone, whose guttering is rotting away. She is fearful of infestation of mice and rats, and she is cold in the winter months. I want the Minister to give an assurance that she will review cases such as those here and now so that they will qualify as exceptional circumstances because, all too often, MLAs are being told that exceptional circumstances do not apply.
Paul Maskey (Sinn Féin)
I thank the Member for that intervention. On no fewer than six occasions during Question Time today, the Minister stated that the housing budget needs to be placed on a sound financial footing. That is exactly right, and every single Department in the Executive has to ensure that all of its moneys are on a sound financial footing. If they fail to do that and fail to work the system in a proper way, they are accountable to the elected Members of this Chamber and to the entire community outside.
I have heard more money being asked for in this Chamber before. Does it come out of the health budget, or does it come out of the education or roads budgets? What budget should it come out of? That is the question that the Minister has to answer because it must be remembered that all of us have to answer to all of our constituents. In recent times, I have had a number of people in my office because of the door being slammed in their faces when it comes to the grants that they had applied for.
Paul Maskey (Sinn Féin)
Those constituents had been brought to the wire and they had been promised those grants, yet they were refused.
I support my party’s amendment to the motion. We have before us an impossible situation that has been caused by a £100 million shortfall in the housing budget. That shortfall was brought about by the economic downturn, and everybody should remember that.
I am well aware that there are huge pressures on the Finance Minister’s bank balance. However, the simple fact is staring us all in the face. Although Sinn Féin would have us believe otherwise, the housing budget is inefficient, ineffective and is unfairly portrayed. I applaud the Finance Minister for giving £20 million in the June monitoring round to the Department for Social Development. However, that merely fed the historical black hole that already existed due to the Department for Social Development starting the financial year from behind because of deficits that were caused by the collapse in land and house sales, as assets could not be sold at a good price. The case today is the same as it was last year, and the Minister will make that case again today. Hopefully, her plight will be listened to this time.
However, for those who need it spelled out, the bottom line is that the housing budget is totally unfit for purpose, even though the Minister has suggested ways forward that might help.
A motion such as this serves as a pathetic point-scoring exercise. Yesterday, we heard the Education Minister ask the Assembly to work with her to move forward. The SDLP is asking for the same sentiment to be afforded to the Social Development Minister. The Executive exist to create a better quality —
No, I will not give way. The Executive exist to create a better quality of life for the people of Northern Ireland. Surely, one of the most basic rights is to have a decent roof over your head. I ask Sinn Féin and the DUP, as the majority — [Interruption.]
I did not say anything when Mr McCann was speaking. Please have manners.
I am asking Sinn Féin and the DUP, as the majority vote holders in the Executive to put their money, literally, where their mouths are and give the Minister what she needs to make that provision a reality for those people who need the help of home improvement grants.
Does the Member agree, and I am sure that her ministerial colleague does, that we have heard Assembly debates ad nauseam about housing grants and affordable housing — so many that you could paper the Chamber with Hansard reports of them — with commitments left, right and centre? Maybe, left and right, depending on how the political axis is viewed at the minute.
However, to re-emphasise the point, if Sinn Féin and the DUP are interested in putting their money where their mouths are, could they put it into the most practical form of affordable housing to help people by way of a home repairs grant, a renovation grant or a replacement grant at minimal cost to the public purse? Will the Member accept that point and reflect it in the debate?
I certainly will, I agree with that point. My office is inundated, as are many others, with constituents who have suffered due to the grant process being restricted. I can see only one way out. If we are to help those who voted for us, they and the parties must know that the DSD cupboard is bare because of external factors.
The Minister is not a magician. She can work only with what she has. It is obvious to me that we should all support her efforts to seek further funding, rather than score points at the behest of our constituents. We should deal with constituents’ problems by supporting the housing budget. To use Paul Maskey’s word, it is “essential” that everybody in the Chamber supports the Minister and her housing budget.
Last year, we heard Mr Fra McCann tell the Minister to stop whingeing and take the money, but the Minister fought on and got additional money for her budget. Thankfully, she did not listen to Sinn Féin that time round, and I am quite sure that she will not listen to Sinn Féin this time round.
It is clear from the debate that Sinn Féin intends to carry on this term the same way that it left off in June: attack the sole SDLP Minister without once directing any of its anger or concerns at the Minister of Finance and Personnel, who has refused the Minister for Social Development any additional funding to relieve the housing budget. As far back as December, Sinn Féin would not allow the Minister to reallocate her own £38 million within her Department to meet housing need.
Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin)
I have a question that I would love to have answered, if possible. Did any of the £20 million given to the Minister for Social development in the June monitoring round go to Housing Executive grants offices in Omagh and Derry, for example, where I have constituents who are anxiously trying to get redress?
I am sure that the Minister herself will answer that question. However, on that point, I have a copy of a letter dated 30 June 2009 from Sinn Féin Minister Michelle Gildernew to the Finance Minister. In it, the Sinn Féin Minister wrote:
“I am perplexed by the proposal to increase the capital overcommittment by £20m in respect of housing improvements for DSD.”
No support came from Sinn Féin in the Executive on that occasion. The letter continues:
“Whilst I am sure that this bid has substantial merits, the paper does not spell out why this particular bid should be met at the expense of any other capital bid, and there is no compelling rationale as to why we should make an exception”.
Shame, shame, shame on Sinn Féin and Michelle Gildernew for not supporting the SDLP in the Executive when Margaret Ritchie was looking for money. Everyone in the House ought to know, because the Minister has told them often enough —
In a moment. There are substantial restraints on where that £20 million can be spent. Of course I will give way to Mr Maskey.
Paul Maskey (Sinn Féin)
I have not heard or seen that information, so I am wondering where it came from. Maybe she is just making it up, or is it confidential stuff from the Executive that should not be given out?
I assure the House that I am not a tout. I do not inform on sources. As far as I am aware, there are no touts in our party, unlike some parties, which have major concerns about informers in their midst. Indeed, the document is not marked confidential, but it is a matter of record, and I hope that it will be read into the record. Perhaps Mr Maskey would do better to ask Michelle Gildernew why she would not support the SDLP Minister for Social Development in meeting the real and pressing needs of people in housing stress.
Fra McCann (Sinn Féin)
On a point of order, Mr speaker is in charge of proceedings of the House of Commons in..." class="glossary">Deputy Speaker. The Member keeps quoting information that nobody else is aware of. To put the record straight, at every Executive meeting when monitoring rounds have come up, Sinn Féin has fully supported additional money going to the housing budget to deal with the DSD’s problems.
Mr speaker is in charge of proceedings of the House of Commons in..." class="glossary">Deputy Speaker, I do not think that that was a point of order. That is the same Member who, only a matter of months ago —
John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin)
On a point of order, Mr speaker is in charge of proceedings of the House of Commons in..." class="glossary">Deputy Speaker. I am aware that, on previous occasions, Speakers have ruled with respect to documents that Members have referred to during debates and that the reference document must be verified. All that we are asking is whether the document is an Executive paper and whether the Member is prepared to lodge it in the Assembly Library.
John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin)
With respect, Mr speaker is in charge of proceedings of the House of Commons in..." class="glossary">Deputy Speaker, I raised the point of order with you. On previous occasions, rulings have been made on that subject.
I am more than happy to lodge the document in the Library, and to allow all and sundry to read it and see Sinn Féin’s real purpose in the Executive, which is to attack the SDLP in the hope that it will fail in its Ministry. While Margaret Ritchie remains as the SDLP Minister, there is no chance of that happening, and I have every confidence in her being the shining star in the Executive that she is today, and will be tomorrow. I seem to have hit a sore point with Sinn Féin Members, so they really should take the matter up with Michelle Gildernew.
There are ways to spend money more efficiently and effectively, and that is exactly what Margaret Ritchie has done in respect of the Housing Executive. For example, she told Housing Executive officials to use brownfield sites and existing housing land to ensure that there is less cost to the public purse. Margaret Ritchie is driving efficiencies and effectiveness through the Housing Executive to the best of her ability, and often, as Mr speaker is in charge of proceedings of the House of Commons in..." class="glossary">Deputy Speaker knows, her efforts are being held up and not supported by the so-called main nationalist republican party in the House, which tries to say that it speaks for the most vulnerable people in society. The SDLP started out speaking on housing matters and for the most vulnerable and marginalised people in society, and, next year, we will go into our fortieth anniversary on the same platform: ensuring that the most marginalised people in our society are protected.
I am sure that most of us are deeply concerned about the needs of our constituents; I hope that that is the case. I also hope that Sinn Féin will reconsider the strategy that it is employing. Many people are being held up and cannot get grant aid. Many people are looking to have houses built. If we had a bit more co-operation in this place, yesterday and today, we would have been faced with an Executive showcasing to the world what they are doing for the people of the North, rather than having silly and juvenile debates.
Let us have a bit of co-operation at Executive level. Let us see delivery for those who really count: the people, including those who have applications in the grants system.
Naomi Long (Alliance)
I share a lot of the concerns that Sinn Féin has raised in relation to the suspension of the housing grants scheme. Most Members share those concerns. I am willing, or I was willing, to consider the notion of a review, but I am slightly worried by what I have just heard, because it sounds increasingly as though the issue is no longer about a review but about people digging in and taking entrenched positions. I am not sure that that is helpful. I am waiting for the Minister’s reassurance that if we say that something should be reviewed there is a commitment to review it. As Dolores Kelly rightly pointed out, the word “review” is often a euphemism in the Assembly for doing nothing. The public do not want that: they want a proper review in the light of all the information.
The other thing that impresses me about the debate, and others like it, is Sinn Féin’s almost relentless pursuit of the DSD Minister on every issue. If that energy were put into working with the other parties in the Executive to create better collectivity, we would be able to move forward a lot faster, and the public might be more impressed by the Executive that are representing them.
John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin)
I thank the Member for giving way. All of us in the Chamber are hard-nosed politicians, including the Minister for Social Development. If any Minister is not a hard-nosed politician, he or she should not be a Minister. I know that the media have portrayed the Minister as “Saint Margaret of DSD”, but, at the end of the day, Margaret Ritchie is a Minister who has to be held to account by the Executive. As regards funding for DSD, if anyone wishes to read Sinn Féin’s submission on the Budget, it states clearly that Sinn Féin would support extra funding for social housing — [Interruption.]
Naomi Long (Alliance)
I thank Mr O’Dowd for what he said. I come from a particular tradition that is not really into sainthood, but we are not into relentlessly demonising people either. This is about looking at the issues on their merits. Nobody who objectively analyses the number of issues brought to the Chamber by Sinn Féin that are directly related to DSD could miss the point that it has been relentless in its pursuit and criticism.
It is also not fair to say, despite my reservations about the suspension of the grants programme, that the DSD Minister has been the worst performing Minister in the Executive. That is telling, because if people were pursuing other Ministers with the same relentless passion when they are not performing, we might get more out the other end of the Executive.
Naomi Long (Alliance)
No, I will not give way, because I want to finish what I have to say.
I want to focus on the issue, which is the impact that this has had. I hope that the Minister will consider a review. The debate was slightly pre-empted by Question Time. However, I listened to the Minister, and she said that she had focused on protecting the vulnerable. That is very worthy, and I can understand that in difficult budgetary constraints it is what she must do. However, some of the people we are dealing with in this discussion about the grants are vulnerable people who also need to be protected. There has to be some balance between building new houses and maintaining the housing stock that we already have. The pendulum has, perhaps, swung too far.
For those who clamour about where the money would come from, we need to look, realistically, at freeing up what are relatively small amounts of money for the grants scheme from the newbuild scheme, if necessary, in order to provide an opportunity to maintain the housing stock. We can expand the housing stock, and we can be more cost effective in how we do that, if we can maintain, adapt and renovate existing properties or those properties that are falling out of use and bring them back online more quickly. There is also the danger that if it is not done, the cost of doing it down the line, when the scheme reopens, will be a lot greater because the properties will be in a worse state of repair. There are also knock-on effects for neighbouring properties in many cases, particularly mid-terrace properties. For example, when roofs start to leak when a terraced house becomes abandoned, and there are all sorts of other issues, that has an implication for the rest of the houses in that terrace. There are also issues about how quickly uninhabited houses can be restored to full use.
The suspension of the payment of home improvement grants can impact on the waiting list, because if people cannot adapt their homes to their needs, they will join the waiting list and seek a home that suits their needs. Those two issues are not separate. They are linked in that the people who will join the waiting list will be people whose homes could be adapted if the money and support were available. Therefore, there needs to be a balance on this issue.
The impact that living conditions have on the health and well-being of individuals is crucial, which Anna Lo and other Members mentioned. I am concerned about that. There are also financial implications, and a number of Members have spoken about the professional fees that people have incurred when making their applications. There are also people who bought properties, which required modernisation to make them habitable, on the understanding that they would be able to rent out those properties and return them to the market. Those people are also incurring costs from properties that cannot be let. They still have to pay their fees, and they will suffer from not being able to get insurance if they cannot return them to a habitable state. There are all sorts of other wider financial implications. Such issues need to be addressed.
Naomi Long (Alliance)
The impact on industry has been touched on, but, as a result of this debate, I would like the Minister to indicate that she is willing to review the suspension of the grants and other Members to indicate that they are willing to co-operate.
I thank the Members who contributed to the debate, and I welcome the opportunity to respond to those contributions, not least because it gives me the opportunity to clarify and correct some of the issues that were raised. I will try to address all the questions and points that Members raised, and I assure the House that I will study the Hansard report and write to any Member who has raised an issue that is not covered in my response.
The motion asks me to explain why the Housing Executive has suspended the payment of home improvement grants, despite being awarded an extra £20 million in the June monitoring round. I am happy to provide that explanation. The SDLP amendment has asked me to review the position on that suspension of grants, and I am happy to do that as well.
I welcome the opportunity to talk to Members again about the difficulties that I face, because they are all aware that, due to the downturn in house and land sales, the housing budget started this year with a £100 million shortfall, which has impacted on all spending programmes. I remind the House that I started last year with a shortfall of £80 million. Difficult decisions have had to be made, and the Housing Executive has had no choice but to prioritise its expenditure in all budget areas. The outcome of that is that it has ultimately affected the delivery of certain housing programmes. In those circumstances — and I emphasise this — I have listened to the political grandstanding this afternoon, and I question whether certain Members are really interested in the vulnerable and in wee Maggie down the lane who is waiting for an improvement grant. I sympathise with that sort of person, because I live in the countryside, and I know what it is like to have to wait for an improvement grant.
No. I will not, because Members have given way already. I want to continue and explain the problem. That is what is wrong; people do not want to listen to the problem. They want to politically grandstand and attack rather than help.
I have done my utmost to protect the most vulnerable households by ring-fencing budgets for newbuild social housing to help those in housing stress; for the warm homes scheme to help those in fuel poverty; and in support of people living independently in the community rather than in institutions. I have heard Members from around the House say that that is what they want as well.
I have also decided on the provision of newbuild social housing within the social housing development programme. It is a priority, because the current market conditions are more suited than ever before to increase investment in social housing, to stimulate the economy, to protect jobs in the overall construction industry and to help the most vulnerable and needy in society by providing them with a home.
There is a falsehood out there that I have somehow diverted money from the provision of grants, and I heard Fra McCann saying that today. It is a pity that he does not listen better at the meetings of the Social Development Committee; perhaps then he might have some answers. There is a falsehood out there that I have somehow diverted money away from grants, and from other parts of my Department’s budget, to concentrate solely on the provision of newbuild social housing. I can categorically state that that is not true.
Let me say it again: I have protected only three areas from the full impact of the £100 million shortfall, and the Housing Executive has had to absorb pressures right across the housing budget. However, there has been no diversion to social newbuilds. What was given to Members yesterday in documents sent by a certain gentleman, representing a certain organisation, was a misrepresentation of the facts.
However, as I have said, difficult decisions have had to be made. As the level of funding available for home improvements in the private sector is insufficient, applications for discretionary grants, including renovation grants, replacement grants and home repairs assistance, may now be approved only in exceptional circumstances. However, I have ensured that other grants such as disabled facilities grants, which provide adaptations to enable disabled people to remain in their own homes, and repair grants approved on foot of statutory notices given by district councils will continue to operate normally.
In such difficult circumstances, I welcomed the Executive’s decision to make £20 million available for social housing in the June monitoring round. I have ensured — to answer some queries made, I believe, by Barry McElduff — that £15 million has been allocated to private-sector grants and £5 million has been allocated to disabled adaptations. However, as Members will know, that £20 million addresses only part of what is a £100 million shortfall in the housing budget, and I must continue to bid in future monitoring rounds to protect the housing agenda.
Members may not be aware that the additional funding is conditional on the release of £20 million from the existing resources to Egan contractors, who carry out maintenance works such as kitchen replacements on Housing Executive properties. The Executive are perfectly within their rights to attach conditions to the release of £20 million to housing, but in this instance, and for someone trying to manage the budget proactively, those conditions were not helpful. In order for the Housing Executive to release the £20 million for Egan contracts, it had to cut back other planned maintenance and related works. Effectively, I was given £20 million and asked to fund £40 million — £20 million for Egan contracts, and £20 million for grants and disability adaptations — from the June monitoring round allocation.
Historically, there has been a time lag between grants being approved and the eventual application for payment, which has resulted in a significant commitment being built up in the grants system. As a result of the economic downturn, the availability of builders has meant that previously approved grants are now resulting in payment requests being received sooner. Therefore, the additional funding allocated in the June monitoring round will only allow the Housing Executive to meet commitments for private-sector grant applications which have already received formal approval, and to fund the statutory grant approvals this year. However, I have ensured that any cancelled or refused grant applications will be held on file in the place they were in the queue against the event that additional funding becomes available at some future date. I have also ensured that the Housing Executive writes to all applicants who have had their applications cancelled or refused, to explain the approach to be taken.
David Hilditch raised an issue that he had taken on board from the Ballyclare grants office, and Francie Molloy raised a similar issue.
If Members know of cases where people have not received those letters, please let me know. My instructions were that nobody was to lose their place in the queue and nobody had to reapply. I want to make that absolutely clear.
I know that many people have been disappointed by the non-approval of their grant, but they will not have wasted their efforts in bringing their applications to an advanced stage. Many people are out of pocket on various consultancy, architect and civil engineering fees advancing their grant applications, and many of those people are on low incomes. As I advised my colleague Patsy McGlone earlier during Question Time, I am looking at what can be done to help those people ahead of their grants receiving final approval. I hope that I get the support for that scheme when it comes forward.
I sincerely hope that the Housing Executive’s restriction on grants will be temporary. I hope that I will be able to help everybody whose applications are in the pipeline. I bid for additional funds in the September monitoring round, which will allow the Housing Executive to approve the grants received this year, and which it has not been able to process due to a lack of funding.
Many issues were raised during the debate. At one stage, I thought that Mr McCann was in a state of confusion, because he mixed up improvement grants with Egan contractors and planned maintenance.
He sounded confused to me, because they are distinct issues. However, it might be better if Mr McCann were to encourage his colleagues to support me round the Executive table to put housing on a sound financial footing. His words would be put to more profitable use if he were to deploy them to that end.
I thank Mr Burns for his helpful comments. Simon Hamilton recognised the frustration that many people have about improvement grants, which I also recognise. I note, sadly, that as Chairperson of the Committee, he is not in his usual place. I agree with him that many of those issues are not without their consequences. He raised the issue of the warm homes scheme, and I addressed that during Question Time when I said that everybody in the pipeline will be dealt with by scheme managers and everybody should be contacted by November. I would like to think that that will happen earlier, and I will be urging them to do so.
I hope that the Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee will provide strong support and urge their ministerial colleagues in the DUP to put housing on that illusive sound financial footing. Why do we want that? For too long the funding of housing has been predicated on capital receipts. However, capital receipts have now dissipated, as has the level of house sales. In this new financial situation, which was pointed out by my colleagues in our document ‘New Priorities in Difficult Times’, we need to look at housing to ensure that it is put on a sound financial footing.
I welcome the support of Billy Armstrong and Anna Lo, and I sympathise with her constituent. Many of us have constituents who have found themselves in such difficulties, and I echo her clarion call to put housing on a sound financial footing.
I have already answered David Hilditch’s question about the Ballyclare grants office. Anna Lo also raised the issue of people who have spent money on architects’ fees. We are dealing with that issue and I hope that I will be able to come forward with a clearly worked-up scheme.
I hope that Mr McCann will urge his Sinn Féin ministerial colleagues in the Executive to support me in putting housing on a sound financial footing rather than carping and trying to make a political football out of people’s misery and suffering. Dolores Kelly is absolutely right: I remember in October 2007 Mr McCann saying me that I should accept my lot and stop whinging. He then changes his tune to suit the political moment, save for the fact that he does not always have his facts correct.
Paul Maskey raised an issue and, again, there seems to have been some misinformation, which I have already corrected.
Barry McElduff raised the issue of exceptional circumstances. The criteria used to determine exceptional circumstances are clearly laid out. An exceptional circumstance is one in which an imminent and significant health and safety risk exists; a serious risk under structural stability exists, or any other circumstance that is considered to be exceptional exists. There is a simultaneous application for disabled facilities and renovations, and where works are required, the adaption is allowed to proceed. If Mr McElduff knows of applications that fulfil those criteria and have not been properly addressed, I suggest that he refers them to me and I will ensure that they are assessed again. Such matters should be addressed in a totally professional, adult and mature manner.
Patsy McGlone and Mary Bradley raised the issue of affordable housing and the need for funding. I could not agree more that there must be an investment of resources, that housing should be put on a sound financial footing, and that the needs and suffering of people should be recognised. Dolores Kelly put in a sterling performance and referred to the fact that I am stretching my budget like an elastic band, that we are witnessing a miracle akin to that of the loaves and fishes, and that I have been doing things with the budget to prove that it can be stretched.
First, we can increase the level of resources by securing further financial commitments from the Executive. We can also be innovative through the transfer of sites, leasing and other measures. I would appreciate the support of the House in securing additional funding for housing. The problem is an overall lack of finance, not a lack of desire to provide all private-sector grants and enable essential maintenance and home-improvement works.
I have a feeling of déjà vu in relation to the debate, because we have seen many previous attacks on the Minister for Social Development. The motion is no more than a thinly veiled attack on the Minister. Naomi Long and other Members have indicated that, in fact —
Fra McCann (Sinn Féin)
You and Naomi Long have made that point. What you are both actually saying is that if I, as the housing spokesperson for Sinn Féin, have any major complaints about the way the Minister runs her Department, I should not bring them up because they might annoy you, her, or your party.
I will repeat the point: if Margaret Ritchie of the SDLP were not the Minister for Social Development, the motion is unlikely to have reached the Floor of the House. That is the situation.
Naomi Long (Alliance)
Does the Member agree that if Mr McCann, as housing spokesperson for Sinn Féin, were genuinely concerned about housing issues, we would all accept his right to raise them with the Minister, and, indeed, with his party colleagues who are Ministers in the same Executive, and with other Ministers, who would be able to give the Minister support so that she could get the money?
Naomi Long has made it very plain. Not the SDLP, but the Alliance Party, and indeed Billy Armstrong, have made it very plain that the motion and debate are part of the relentless pursuit of the Minister for Social Development. That is the situation. The Minister has made it very clear that she is under severe budgetary pressures. She has effectively lost £100 million of funding. I ask Sinn Féin: in similar circumstances, could a Minister from its party perform as well as the current Minister has performed, and would its Minister — [Interruption.]
I will speak more loudly.
Any other Minister, faced with a loss of £100 million in funding, would be presented with the same difficulties. The Minister has said that there are three priorities: the warm homes scheme, the Supporting People programme, and newbuild housing. From which of those priorities is the Minister to take in order to provide grants? In this situation, additional funding for the Department for Social Development is required so that the legitimate concerns of all our constituents can be met. We should all support the Minister in demanding that.
Have we heard one word of criticism from Sinn Féin of the Department of Finance or the Finance Minister? No; not one. That is because the motion is part of a political vendetta against the SDLP Minister. Innumerable motions have been brought by Mr McCann and his colleagues against the Minister, for which the only reason is political. It is not to defend the vulnerable —
Order. When it is obvious that a Member is not willing to give way, another Member should not persist in asking.
I have given way; we do not get time added when making a winding-up speech.
I thank Anno Lo, Naomi Long, Billy Armstrong and my colleagues for supporting the Minister on this issue. What is now required is for the House to support the SDLP amendment, which asks for a thorough review so that we can get to grips with and resolve this problem in the same way as the special purchase of evicted dwellings problem was solved last week. That was done by two Ministers — the Minister of Finance and Personnel, Sammy Wilson, and the Minister for Social Development — coming together and working out that issue. However, that needs the support of all Members and all parties in the Assembly. I hope that people would not be perverse in pursuing a party-political attack on, or vendetta against, a Minister, to the detriment of the interests of their constituents. We want to resolve the issue for vulnerable people, not make the situation worse.
Mickey Brady (Sinn Féin)
Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. From the content of the debate so far, it is clear that the issue of grants being stopped is a serious one. Private-sector grants deal directly with unfitness and include replacement grants and potential unfitness with home-assistance repair grants. All those grants are means-tested and applicants have to prove their financial hardship. The grants are targeted at those homeowners who have no disposable income and they are primarily designed to ensure that owners and residents of substandard private accommodation can acquire a decent standard of fit accommodation and remain in their homes. That will reduce the increasing burden on public-sector housing. Surely that is reason alone to ensure that the grants are prioritised.
The number of fit newbuild properties is decreasing dramatically, and as a consequence of the decision to stop grants, unfitness in the private sector will increase. The withdrawal of grant funding will cause unemployment, as such funding generated approximately 700-plus jobs in the construction industry, across all the trades and among component suppliers to that industry.
People who live in poor housing experience poor health and poor standards of living generally, and that affects their daily lives. Housing fitness needs to be made a priority and needs to be actively pursued.
The Minister, in responding to the debate, talked about vulnerable people and how sympathetic she is. However, at a recent public meeting in Newry that was hosted by the Minister for Social Development, I was appalled by the cavalier attitude of the Minister and her party colleagues. Some people who had come to the meeting to explain the dreadful condition of their homes — the dampness and disrepair — were heckled and ridiculed by an SDLP MLA and a number of SDLP councillors.
Mickey Brady (Sinn Féin)
No, I will not give way; I was at the meeting and the Member was not.
The SDLP representatives were not prepared to listen to, or sympathise with, people whose living conditions are dire and unacceptable. Given the tenor of Mrs Kelly’s contribution today, it still seems to be a source of amusement to her that those people continue to live in those dire conditions.
Sinn Féin has always supported bids for more money for social housing, and it has supported the Minister, a fact of which she is well aware.
Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin)
Does the Member agree that there is an onus on all Ministers to be proactive in looking for moneys that are not there? In the Minister’s answer to my earlier question about her discussions with the credit union organisation, which has indicated that it could provide a substantial sum of money for the social housing programme, she stated that she met that organisation several months ago, which is not acceptable. Does the Member agree that the Minister needs to be more proactive in chasing that funding?
Mickey Brady (Sinn Féin)
During the debate, several Members mentioned the substandard conditions in which people are living, and the types of repairs that are required, such as fixing leaking roofs and windows. Mr McCann referred to that issue.
Thomas Burns talked about the global economic downturn, which we all know about. He also said that Sammy Wilson, apparently, clearly understands the SDLP arguments. I am glad that someone does.
Mickey Brady (Sinn Féin)
No, I will not. Simon Hamilton, speaking as Chairperson of the Committee for Social Development —
On a point of order, Mr speaker is in charge of proceedings of the House of Commons in..." class="glossary">Deputy Speaker. During Mr Brady’s contribution, he referred to me. I was the only SDLP MLA present at the DSD meeting in Newry. He made an unfounded and spurious attack on me. I think that I deserve the right to answer.
Mickey Brady (Sinn Féin)
Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Simon Hamilton, as Chairperson of the Committee for Social Development, talked about the problems that the Committee and, indeed, the Department are facing because of the lack of funding. He made an appropriate point that there has to be a balance in the delivery of housing standards, and that budgeting difficulties — in the sense of moving money around — are not without consequences.
Billy Armstrong was something of a cheerleader for the Minister, so I will simply pass on his points. Anna Lo mentioned specific cases in her constituency, to which we can all relate. David Hilditch spoke about there being 20,000 people in housing stress and 17% of housing stock being below decent homes standards; that is an appalling statistic. Where is the £20 million that was allocated from the monitoring round for construction and the alleviation of social deprivation?
The Minister was asked about the issue of reapplying. People come into my constituency office with letters from the Housing Executive that state that they have to reapply. Perhaps the Minister should, and could, clarify that issue with her officials.
Paul Maskey talked about the difference between the words “remove” and “review”. There is a vast difference. In her intervention, Dolores Kelly went into the semantics of defining the word “review”. To be perfectly honest, I am not quite sure what she was on about, but if she did not know herself, that probably explains it.
Mary Bradley said that the housing budget was not fit for purpose. We all sympathise with the fact that not enough money is there, but it has to be recognised that money is not available.
Dolores Kelly talked about Mr McCann whingeing and about his attack on the SDLP Minister. That is par for the course at the moment. I ask the same question that Fra McCann put to Naomi Long: if the Minister is not performing well, should we accept it?
Naomi Long (Alliance)
I am happy to answer that and to clarify my position. It is right that the Assembly should hold all Ministers to account. The problem is that one Minister is being singled out by one party for party-political reasons. If the Member wishes to look closer to home, there are a few underperforming Ministers to deal with. The Alliance Party has said that we support the Minister’s request for additional funding, and we support a review of her decision; we do not support the current position.
Mickey Brady (Sinn Féin)
That is magnanimous, coming from a Member from a party that does not have a Minister. Mrs Long said that she does not come from a tradition that goes in for sainthood. Perhaps she recognises martyrdom, because it seems that, according to her party colleagues, the Minister is being sacrificed on the altar of the Department for Social Development.
The Minister talked a lot about the difficulties that she faces — the downturn in housing sales. We have heard her mantra of “give me the money and I will build the houses”, but many vulnerable people are not getting the service that they need and deserve. The Minister seems to be somewhat fixated with Mr McCann. I was trying to think whether they had a D H Lawrence kind of relationship. Is it “love-hate” or “hate-hate”? The SDLP appears to be paranoid about Mr McCann, and I am sure that he lies awake worrying about that. Alban Maginness also appears to be paranoid about the issue, but I shall rest our case there.
I support the motion, and I do not support the amendment. I ask the House to support the motion. Go raibh míle maith agat.
Question, That the amendment be made, put
The Assembly divided: Ayes 26; Noes 36.
AYES
Mr Armstrong, Mr Attwood, Mr D Bradley, Mrs M Bradley, Mr P J Bradley, Mr Burns, Mr Cree, Mr Durkan, Sir Reg Empey, Dr Farry, Mr Gallagher, Mrs Hanna, Mrs D Kelly, Mr Kennedy, Ms Lo, Mrs Long, Mr A Maginness, Mr McCallister, Mr McCarthy, Mr B McCrea, Dr McDonnell, Mr McGlone, Mr Neeson, Mr O’Loan, Mr P Ramsey, Ms Ritchie.
Tellers for the Ayes: Mr P J Bradley and Mr Burns.
NOES
Mr Brady, Lord Browne, Mr Butler, Mr T Clarke, Mr Dodds, Mr Donaldson, Mr Easton, Mrs Foster, Ms Gildernew, Mr Hamilton, Mr Hilditch, Mr A Maskey, Mr P Maskey, Mr F McCann, Ms J McCann, Mr McCartney, Mr I McCrea, Dr W McCrea, Mr McElduff, Miss McIlveen, Mr McKay, Mr McQuillan, Mr Molloy, Lord Morrow, Mr Murphy, Mr O’Dowd, Mr Paisley Jnr, Rev Dr Ian Paisley, Mr Poots, Ms S Ramsey, Mr Ross, Mr Shannon, Mr Simpson, Mr Spratt, Mr Weir, Mr S Wilson.
Tellers for the Noes: Ms J McCann and Ms S Ramsey.
Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly urges the Minister for Social Development to explain why the Housing Executive has suspended the payment of home improvement grants, despite the Department for Social Development being awarded an extra £20m in the June monitoring round for housing; and further calls on the Minister to remove the suspension of these grants, which are vital to meeting the Decent Homes Standards to enable essential maintenance and home improvements work to be carried out.
Motion made:
That the Assembly do now adjourn. — [Mr speaker is in charge of proceedings of the House of Commons in..." class="glossary">Deputy Speaker.]