The next item of business on the Order Paper is the motion to annul a statutory rule. As is normal in debates on legislation, there will be no time limits for Members wishing to speak.

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I beg to move

That the Housing Benefit (Amendment No 2) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2011 (SR 2011/293) be annulled.

As I understand it, since the first mandate of this Assembly, only six prayers of annulment have been proposed and only four have been passed by the House. In that context, as the Chairperson of the Committee for Social Development, I come to the House to seek its support for the annulment of the statutory rule.

Although all Committee members expressed serious concerns about the rule, there was no consensus in the Committee when voting to seek a prayer of annulment. Largely, that was because of the question of parity. Members who voted against the motion to annul did so in the belief that any annulment would lead to a breach of parity, and they did not see that as an option. Those who voted to annul believed that the matter need not be a breach of parity and that there is a record of accommodation on the operation of parity to allow, at the very least, the matter to be looked at again.

In Committee, the motion to annul was carried by four votes to two, with a number of members choosing not to vote or to abstain. That vote reflected the uncertainty with which, the Committee felt, it ought to proceed. In such circumstances, it is right and proper for the Committee to seek the opinion of the Assembly. All Committee members agree that this statutory rule has serious consequences, and the House has the opportunity to voice its overall opinion on the issue and, more importantly, on the way to proceed. As Committee Chairperson, I am content that this is the right thing to do.

(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Beggs] in the Chair)

Statutory rule 293 — the rule we are debating today — amends the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006. It changes the definition of what constitutes a “young individual”. At present, a young individual is deemed to be someone under the age of 25. If the statutory rule is accepted, that age group will be raised to include all those under 35 years of age. The consequence will be that, whereas, at present, a single person over 25 is entitled to housing benefit at a rate that allows them to live in, for example, a privately rented, single-occupancy one-bedroom flat, the entitlement threshold will be raised to the age of 35. It means that a single person under 35 who is entitled to housing benefit and is seeking accommodation in the private sector will be entitled to rent only a single room in shared housing — in other words, accommodation in a HMO. There is provision for exemptions in specified circumstances, but they will not protect the vast majority of people from the change.

According to accepted figures, the statutory rule will immediately affect around 6,000 of the 8,000 individuals who already live in single occupancy accommodation. Their housing benefit will be cut from around £80 a week to £40 — a 50% reduction. In our view, a 50% reduction is tantamount to a notice to quit their current accommodation. To those 6,000 individuals will be added, year on year, all those who will join the list — those who would have been but will no longer be entitled to housing benefit for a single flat rather than a single room. The number of people rendered homeless is 6,000, and that figure will grow.

It is interesting to note that the statutory rule will apply only to the private rented sector, which currently accounts for 20% of available housing here. If those 6,000 people and all the others to follow could access suitable public housing, their housing benefit would be paid. However, we all know that public housing provision cannot meet that need here. The private rented sector offers the only viable option for most single people who are in need of accommodation, and that is one reason why Committee members as a whole viewed the rule as particularly harsh in the context of our local circumstances.

During consideration of the rule, the Committee heard from organisations that deal with housing issues and homelessness, and their evidence was truly shocking to many of us. I thank the Voluntary Sector Housing Policy Forum, which gave a lot of time and energy to provide important information to Committee members. The plain fact is that there is not enough shared accommodation to provide a roof over the heads of those whom the rule will render potentially homeless. Our hostels for the homeless are already filled to capacity and are turning people away. The Department accepts that argument. If we are forced to resort to emergency accommodation — B&Bs, hostels and so on — it will cost more than the housing benefit that it will replace.

Many of us would argue that the real motivation behind this is worth taking on board. People such as Iain Duncan Smith, the British Government Minister, have argued that this has nothing to do with cuts. He believes that providing public support for single occupancy tenancy for those under the age of 35 “erodes the incentive to work”. Many of us believe that he is wrong. Again, that addresses the issue of whether this is a change, whether it is about cuts or whether it is to further an ideological argument. Homelessness, insecure housing and rough sleeping undermine the ability of people to seek secure work: it renders them less employable, not more employable. Men under the age of 35 will be most adversely affected in our broader community, and this is the group in the North that carries a high risk of suicide. Many who will lose their home will not have the family ties and support that will see them through a crisis. Although the figures for women are lower, the loss of their home will be just as traumatic.

The debate is not about party politics, and it is not a criticism of the Minister or the Department. All members of all parties on the Committee have expressed serious concerns about this statutory rule and others. Some in the House will see this as an issue of parity and nothing else. Let me reassure them that it does not have to be. Different arrangements could be made, and we argue that, in other circumstances, different arrangements have been made and have not, in effect, been a breach of parity. Those who support the motion believe that, if the Assembly were to support the Committee on this prayer of annulment, it would allow that conversation to take place between DWP and DSD.

I will depart from speaking on behalf of the Committee to make a couple of points in my capacity as a party member. As I said, some Members believe that this is simply an issue of parity and that parity cannot be breached. I remind Members that parity is based on equality of input, output and outcome. In other words, people can be told that they pay the same national insurance and tax and, therefore, get the same level of benefits. However, parity has also been defined as parity of outcome. No one here has argued that properly. In fact, most people argue the reverse, which is that, because people here have a lower standard of living but higher costs, the outcome of adopting such a resolution from Westminster would be inequality for those in this region.

Members of the Committee who voted to propose the prayer of annulment are of the belief that the statutory rule does not represent parity in its strictest sense. We believe that there is and should be considerable room to manoeuvre, given that our housing infrastructure will not meet the needs of those who will be affected by the implementation of the statutory rule. We argue for maximum support from the Assembly. We ask the Assembly to support the motion. The motion is not a criticism of the Minister or the Department, but other Committee members and I feel that, too often, the Department takes the strictest definition of parity. It needs to be more creative in its approach.

In proposing the motion on behalf of the Committee and supporting it as a member of Sinn Féin, I ask Members to support the motion to annul the statutory rule on the basis that it is not, in effect, a breach of parity. It would allow a formal negotiation to commence between DSD and DWP to see whether we can find a more suitable accommodation — no pun intended —to meet the needs of the people whom, collectively, we in the House represent.

I do not think that there is any doubt in the House or among Committee members about the sense of division that will be felt by those who will feel the most direct impact of this statutory rule. I certainly did not hear any raised in Committee. In every comment that I heard was a broad acceptance that it will unfairly disadvantage young males between the ages of 25 and 35, in particular. The Chairman stated so, too. The amount of money that a breach of parity would cost the Department and the taxpayer here is, I suppose, the more relevant issue.

I am content that the Committee made the decision to allow the debate to come before the House. We can spend some time talking about the implications of the statutory rule. The rule and the impact that it could have are important matters that need to be discussed by public representatives. However, if we all fail to address how parity is assessed, they almost become side issues. Mr Maskey, the Chairman of the Committee, said that it did not have to be an issue of parity, but, unfortunately, that is the nub of the issue. Whether Members believe this to be a parity issue is not relevant. We can have views about that, and we can express them strongly or otherwise, but that is not the issue. The issue is whether the Minister for Social Development in discussion with the Department for Work and Pensions in London — they are the paymasters — conclude that there has been a breach of parity. That is what matters, not what I, the Committee or anyone in the Assembly thinks. We wait to hear what the Minister will say.

The key point in the debate is that, if the conclusion is that parity has been breached, on this issue alone, we are told, £9 million a year would have to be found from elsewhere in the budget to make up for that breach. We heard from senior DSD officials that, if there were a breach of parity and if, in other matters of welfare reform, there were further breaches of parity, the figure could rise to £4 billion — that is four thousand million, in case anybody thought that they misheard me. However, for this issue alone, £9 million would have to be found if the assessment of the Department for Work and Pensions and DSD is that there has been a breach of parity. Whether I think so is largely irrelevant. Whether the Committee Chairman thinks so is not really relevant either. However, if the Minister responsible determines that it is a breach of parity, it is a breach of parity, and we have to find the money. That is the unfortunate and invidious position that we find ourselves in.

I thank the Member for giving way. Is the Member suggesting that, if the matter were considered to be a breach of parity, the entire £4 billion subvention for social security benefits would fall as a result?

No, that is not what I said. I do not know if the Member was listening, but I said that the senior DSD official was very clear that, if this breach of parity were to be replicated across the realm of welfare reform, the figure could be up to £4 billion. We are talking about this statutory rule, which could, in itself, cost £9 million. The point that I am making — I repeat this point because I cannot overemphasise its importance — is that it does not matter whether Gregory Campbell thinks that this is a breach of parity or whether Alex Maskey thinks it is, but it does matter if the Westminster Government say, “We have listened to what you have said, and it is a breach of parity”. We would then have to find £9 million. I have not heard anyone, either in Committee or elsewhere, say where they think we will get that £9 million. I wait with interest to hear anyone outline that on the Floor of the Assembly. People are good at saying, “Find the money”, but, when you ask where they suggest we should find it, suddenly there is a dust cloud as people disappear and say that it is over to the Minister to get the money. However, somebody has to get it. If it is a question of parity, we have to take a decision about whether we are prepared to be upfront about finding £9 million to make up for that breach and the consequences that would follow.

The other issue that other members and I raised in Committee is almost as important as the one I have just outlined — it is a pretty close second — and it is as follows: is there any wriggle room for us to delay introduction of the measures to try to ensure that we can find accommodation, whether through private sector or public sector housing providers, for those who will be most directly affected by the changes within a period of, say, 12 months? Again, the Minister’s answer will be crucial because, if there is no wriggle room or room for manoeuvre, no deviation or obfuscation regarding delaying for another year or so, that will concentrate our minds. We may be told that the answer to both those questions is that DSD and DWP, regardless of what everybody else may think — that is the key — are of the mind that there has been a breach of parity and that there is no wriggle room as regards delay or phased introduction around raising the age either to 30 or possibly 35. If the answer to both those questions is a very direct “Yes, there has been a breach of parity” and “No, there is no wriggle room”, I am afraid that, inevitably, there can be only one responsible response from MLAs in the Chamber.

It would be unwise to underestimate the importance of what is going on in the Chamber this afternoon. In the Committee for Social Development, this matter was raised, discussed, chewed, digested and recycled, and a decision was eventually taken. Almost universal concern was expressed in Committee at the effect that acceptance of the rule would have on potentially 6,000 of our most vulnerable citizens. This is not something that we should or did treat lightly. Indeed, when the issue was taken to a vote, only one party, almost without comment, voted to accept the rule. That act potentially reduced the ability for this matter to be brought to the House, where it should perhaps be more properly and fully examined. As Mr Campbell said, the issue is simple: if we accept the rule, it may adversely affect up to 6,000 of our most vulnerable citizens. No one in the Chamber should or will do that lightly.

I received correspondence in response to questions to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. Uncharacteristically for me, I will read from it:

“The potential implications are that tenants may have to downsize in terms of the accommodation they occupy”.

They must lift themselves, against their will, from a place where, presumably, they are reasonably happy and comfortable and for reasons beyond their control remove themselves to some other property that may or may not be available. The Housing Executive went on to state:

“but the availability of that accommodation in the right geographical location may be problematic.”

That is a simple phrase, unless you happen to be put out of the house where you live and find it problematic to find alternative accommodation. The Housing Executive cites a range of barriers that deter tenants from moving. Those include sectarian and religious divides, which is peculiar to Northern Ireland, and the need for various types of support in a geographical location, such as family, welfare and education. The Housing Executive also refers to:

“separated parents, where both have access to children and may have children staying with them, even occasionally, which necessitates an extra bedroom.”

As stated earlier, the availability of appropriate accommodation in the appropriate location is also such a barrier. In the words of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive:

“The potential implications are that if they remain in under-occupied accommodation, then there will be a financial shortfall which could lead to possible financial hardship, rent arrears, potential evictions and more homelessness.”

Those are serious issues that are properly brought here for our consideration today.

If we fail to accept the rule, we may break parity and cost the citizens of this part of the United Kingdom billions of pounds. Again, that cannot be taken lightly. We seek the Minister’s assurance that our failure to accept this rule will indeed break parity, because his opinion and that of those who advise him is the paramount basis on which we must make our decision. We also ask the Minister to examine the effects that accepting the rule will have on those of our citizens who will be most affected and to take whatever measures he can to lessen the damage, should the rule be accepted, by ensuring that proper safety nets are in place and taking steps to assess the current urban and rural supply of accommodation that qualifies for the single-room rate.

Every time departmental officials come to the Committee, they speak of parity and tell us that in no circumstances can parity be broken. However, as the Chair of the Committee said, there have been a number of occasions in the House when it has been broken. Indeed, it was broken twice in the Committee for Social Development alone, despite our being advised that it could not be broken, and there were no consequences. There were also indications that parity has been broken a number of times by Scotland, which was able to renegotiate some of the issues that were being dealt with.

If we were to listen to the Department every time, there would be no movement forward, and we would not be able to do anything. What I am asking — I was certainly thinking of this when I put forward the proposal — is that we look at it, go back and renegotiate and try to get a fair crack of the whip for our constituents. Alex said that, in many ways, we are worse off. That needs to be taken into consideration, as do the 6,000 people who could end up being made homeless.

I thank the Member for his comments, his intervention and his previous contributions in Committee. The Scottish example that he quoted is slightly difficult in that these provisions are not devolved in Scotland, and the issue on which it challenged parity led to parity being re-established across the rest of the United Kingdom. That is perhaps a slightly different issue.

We are faced with taking a decision today that is based on the Minister’s opinion, and his is the only opinion that I can take as a stated point of fact. With respect, what you have suggested, sir, could be a gamble, and the implications of that gamble could be considerable.

We do not intend, without comment, seriously to disadvantage 6,000 of our citizens. If an alternative can be found, let us hear about it. However, if the issue does break parity, to do so would be tantamount to irresponsibility; we cannot do that.

I support the prayer of annulment. I agree with the proposed change in the definition of “young people” to include those under 35 years of age, but, unfortunately, that is about it.

Much of today’s debate has been, rightly, about the issue of parity and whether the prayer of annulment would be a breach of parity. It clearly will be a breach, but it is how we reach that breach that is important. Although I fully recognise the importance of the issue and the implications of a breach, it is important that we look at the real issue that we are discussing and why we have brought it to the Assembly. We cannot lose sight of that. We cannot just tut and shake our heads in disapproval while allowing legislation such as this, which we know will have catastrophic effects, to pass. If we simply let it pass, we will fail those who elected us. Therefore, we must focus on the potential consequences of allowing the legislation to pass so that Members who are not on the Committee and who have not heard the arguments or the implications are more aware of the issue at hand.

The impact of the legislation on many young people and those who are over 35 years of age and, as a result, their families will be huge. The one section of our population that will be particularly affected — a couple of Members referred to it — are young men under the age of 35. I would narrow that even further to young fathers under the age of 35 with shared access arrangements for their children. Many non-resident fathers will be consigned to reside in shared accommodation and in houses of multiple occupation, often with total strangers. That will obviously have major implications for child protection, and for many it will make overnight access to their children impossible.

In London, where the legislation was dreamt up, the Victorian architecture lends itself to being used for houses of multiple occupation. Here, we are more likely to end up with people living in Victorian conditions than in Victorian houses, as people accept substandard accommodation just to keep a roof over their heads.

I just received an e-mail with an answer from the Minister to a question for written answer that we submitted a couple of weeks ago regarding HMOs in my constituency, Foyle. Of the HMOs inspected last year, 52% failed. Even the approved HMOs are failing inspections, never mind the houses that people will be forced to move into due to the fact that there are not enough HMOs in the first place.

In Committee, Gregory Campbell raised the point that the problem may be further exacerbated as owners of empty properties face an increased burden of rates and will come under pressure to rent them out in a substandard condition in order to generate some income.

The legislation also threatens the rural fabric of our region, as ever-increasing numbers of younger people from rural communities will be forced further away from their families. The Government in London appear to have no appreciation of the make-up of society in Northern Ireland. Figures that we received during the week indicate that there are only 82 HMOs in rural settings in Northern Ireland.

The rationale behind the legislation is obviously to effect a reduction in the sums of money paid out in housing benefit. However, it displays absolutely no concept of the financial, social and human cost of the increase in homelessness that it will inevitably create.

My party believes that the Assembly should resist implementing the proposals until a full equality impact assessment and a cost-benefit analysis are carried out and effective measures are put in place to mitigate the hardship that the legislation will, undoubtedly, cause.

Although I did not vote for this statutory rule to be brought to the Assembly to be annulled, it was not because I did not have concerns about its impact. Such was the strength of my concerns that I put them in writing to the Chairperson of the Committee, as the rule was originally due to be tabled at a meeting that I could not attend and I wanted to ensure that my thoughts were recorded. My party colleague Naomi Long was also wary of the implications of the outworking of this statutory rule and voted against it at Westminster.

If the Assembly believes that we should be exempt from this statutory rule, surely it is for the Minister for Social Development to have made the case to DWP as to why Northern Ireland should be treated differently. From what I have been told, DWP has assessed that that should not be so. Therefore, I am sure that the Minister is disappointed not to have had the support of his MLAs at Committee Stage, given that the stakes are so high. I know that others have chosen to misrepresent my position in the press, but our constituents will not fall for such childish political gesturing.

When this statutory rule was brought to the Committee for a second time, I had the opportunity to raise my concerns. For example, at the outset, it appears that those who suffer from severe mental health issues, such as schizoaffective disorders, will be bound by this rule and unable to find suitable accommodation. However, the Department has confirmed that those in receipt of severe disability premium will be exempt from the rule. I also sought assurances from the Department that discretionary housing payment will be extended beyond six months and was informed that the discretionary housing payment budget will triple from 2012-13. Though that will not cover all of those affected by the change to this rule, it will lessen the blow.

At this stage, I take the opportunity to press the Department and the Executive to ensure that those who are affected are provided with advice and support in accessing suitable housing options and that potential wriggle room is fully explored.

My party has sympathy with housing benefit claimants. However, we believe that this is an issue of parity, and the cost of breaking parity, with regard to the shared accommodation rate, prohibits that course of action. We are honest enough with our electorate to say that that is the case. Unfortunately, the impacts of this rule are minimal compared with what is likely to be coming down the line.

Today, the Alliance Party will be responsible and sensible, as our voters expect. No doubt the DUP will support its Minister. Perhaps some will publicly oppose the welfare reform parity measures, safe in the knowledge that others will vote them through. Parity will be maintained, but those who opposed it will not be tarnished in the eyes of their supporters. If the issue had gone to the Executive, perhaps there would have been collective responsibility for it.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I support the Committee for Social Development’s motion on the prayer of annulment. I do so because of the particularly harsh impact that the ruling will have on the people whom we represent. Several weeks ago, at my suggestion, the Committee agreed to bring the matter to the Assembly to allow Members to voice their concerns, or otherwise, at the passage of this statutory rule and to come to a decision on how we can deal with this attack on the poorest and most vulnerable in our society.

As the Chairperson explained, statutory rule 293 will reduce the entitlement to housing benefit for single occupancy and, in doing so, put thousands of people out of their homes. In the future, it will undermine the ability of some of our most vulnerable citizens to secure appropriate accommodation.

Recently, a British Minister likened the plight of those who could lose their homes to that of students sharing accommodation while at university or young professionals sharing while they save for a deposit on a home. Nothing could be further from the truth. The lives of students and professionals do not mirror the experiences of the poorest in society. They cannot choose who they live with; they might not even know the people with whom they are forced to share. Those who have worked in housing for many years know the reality that the poorest in society face. In some shared accommodation, drug addiction, alcohol abuse and even violence are the norm. Imagine the plight of a single woman or vulnerable man who is driven by fear of destitution into accepting a room in a house where they do not feel safe.

I have had occasion to deal with people living in shared accommodation and know the problems that they face. They describe the chaos that such accommodation brings to their lives. Their cry for a place of their own goes unheard because the system will not allow it. They speak of constant parties in houses, bullying, intimidation, arguments over bills, repeated fights and the police never away from their door. I dealt with one person whose cry went unheard, and he attempted suicide. Is that the road that the Assembly wants to go down? Is that really the best that we can do?

To be honest, I did not come into politics to put people out of decent homes and push them into untenable situations or on to the streets, and I know that the vast majority of Members in this Chamber did not do so either. However, it is a fact that those could be the consequences of a decision that we make here today. As we speak, 5,892 people —

Will the Member give way?

Yes.

In my opening remarks as Chairperson, I made comments that were echoed by Gregory Campbell and other Committee members. We all endeavoured to be fair about the motivation of all members who voted or did not vote at the Committee meeting. On behalf of the Committee, I made it clear that members of all parties had expressed reservations and that the question of parity was the basis of their decision to vote for or against the prayer of annulment or to abstain. Does the Member agree that it is unfortunate, therefore, that Judith Cochrane introduced party politics and suggested that other Members might make their decision for the wrong reasons? That was unfortunate, and it was unfair, because at no time during my remarks did I give any subjective interpretation of others’ behaviour at Committee.

That is a fair point. One of the other comments that was made —

Will the Member give way?

No. She seemed to minimise the impact that it will have on 6,000 people by saying that there will be further problems down the line. The possibility of 6,000 people becoming homeless should be on all our minds.

As we speak, 5,892 people aged between 25 and 35 are claiming the one-bedroom rate of local housing allowance. Those people will not be able to afford to make up the shortfall in their rent. On top of housing benefit, many already pay a top-up to their landlord for accommodation. How will they afford the additional money? Will they turn to crime? People will do whatever it takes to protect themselves. Will they end up sleeping rough on the streets?

On 7 October 2011, the MP for West Belfast Mr Paul Maskey and I visited the Welcome Organisation. It has premises in the Divis area, where it deals with many vulnerable people. The organisation spoke of its concerns about the impact that statutory rule 293 will have. It has already seen an increase in the number of people who attend the centre and it is afraid that that number will increase further.

Unlike in Britain, there has never been a history of shared accommodation here. From what I gather, the level of that type of accommodation required to make moving possible is not available. Throughout the North, there are 4,000 registered houses of multiple occupation and many that are unregistered. Many of those houses are used as student accommodation. Several years ago, I read a report that commented on the atrocious conditions in the HMO sector, especially among unregistered HMOs. Is that the sort of accommodation into which we wish to force our constituents? Of the 4,000 registered HMOs, only 84 are in rural communities. What sort of impact will the statutory rule have on those communities? I stress again that the majority of HMOs are unregistered and unsuitable and provide substandard accommodation.

We have also been informed by the Department that there will be an increase in the money available for discretionary payments to help those who are affected by the changes. However, the word “discretionary” speaks for itself; the payments are at the whim of district managers. They are also temporary and last for only 13 weeks.

Official figures tell us that a greater number of people will be affected here than in Britain. The Voluntary Sector Housing Policy Forum has said that in Britain, 0·1% will be affected, but in the North, 0·3% of the population will be hit by the change. It is also my understanding that the Social Security Advisory Committee, which carried out a consultation on the introduction of the legislation, subsequently advised the Government that the extension of the shared accommodation rate should not be introduced. However, the Government ignored that.

None of us in the House knows the severity of the impact that that change will have in the North. When we make our decision on the matter today, we should worry about not only the almost 6,000 people who will be affected immediately but the additional 5,000 people who will seek that type of accommodation each year. Over the term of this mandate, more than 21,000 people will be affected by the introduction of statutory rule 293. A vote against that statutory rule is a vote to protect vulnerable people who will suffer as a consequence of its introduction.

The Assembly is being asked to endorse a statutory rule when it does not have all of the information at hand to make a judgement. The least that we should do is wait. When the Assembly makes a decision —

The Member has just said that a vote on the annulment would be a vote to protect 6,000 vulnerable people. No one disputes the fact that those people are vulnerable and that this is a disadvantageous move that appears to have been foisted upon us. However, the Member has not said from where the £9 million will come to protect those people. It could, possibly, come from other vulnerable people.

This is not the first time that we have argued against the introduction of such rules. Certainly, we have argued against them in Committee. When departmental officials come to the Committee, we are told that decisions cannot be turned around or negotiated. However, in some instances, the Assembly has breached parity. The Committee should go back and try to negotiate. We need to take a stand to protect these people. As Alex said, this is not the only piece of legislation that we will have difficulty passing; there are others that will be equally difficult. We need to go back and try to negotiate the terms of the legislation given the differences between people on benefits here and those who are on benefits in England.

In conclusion, we are being asked to endorse this statutory rule. We should, at least, wait. When we make a decision, we should do so on the basis of hard evidence. We are not doing that at present. In the midst of the statutory rule’s being brought to the Assembly, a consultation had just started. We were being asked to approve the rule in Committee even though the consultation was still on the go. That tells us something about the contempt in which we are held, certainly with regard to our opinions on this matter. I ask Members to support the motion.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I want to talk about two different aspects of the debate. I know that people have already covered the parity issue. I am not on the Committee, but, from what I know about the matter, this need not be viewed as a breach of parity. That is because there is sufficient flexibility in the operation of parity to allow for different circumstances.

I want to touch on the issue of suicide. The suicide rate in the North of Ireland is considerably higher than that in Britain, and it has risen particularly sharply in recent years. There is clear evidence of a relationship between unemployment and the rate of suicide. When we look at the age and gender profiles of people in that vulnerable group, we will see that men under 35 will probably be most adversely affected by this change in housing benefit entitlement. Unfortunately, that same group carries the highest risk of suicide in the North. When we look at figures showing recorded deaths by suicide, we will see that that group of males constitutes three out of every four of such deaths and that the highest percentage is among men aged 25 to 34. We need to look at that issue when we debate housing benefit entitlement, because it is very important.

Some of the information papers that we all probably read in the run-up to the debate mentioned the type of accommodation that people will lose and said that this would not work for them. It has been said that 28% of people who are on low pay get housing benefit to help them, so this change could force many of those people out of employment, because they will be unable to find accommodation.

I thank the Member for that intervention.

Some people have already touched on the issue of homelessness and those people who find themselves on the streets. Over time, landlords may look to rent to older tenants, which will reduce the availability of accommodation to younger people, particularly younger men, in the 16-25 age group. We need to think about the vulnerability that we could be pushing young people into. Young people, particularly young men but also young women, may have to sleep rough on the streets because accommodation is not available.

There are all sorts of reasons why people may not have the backup of an extended family or the support that they need. We will find that that means that those people may be pushed on to the streets. For a lot of people, the only recourse to date has been the private sector. This rule would close off the option of renting a single flat, for instance, to great numbers of people, and, as I say, it may propel more and more people on to the streets.

I am not on the Committee, so I have not debated the issue in full. However, as my colleague Fra McCann said, he has visited the Welcome Centre. We have talked to groups who work with people who have been bereaved through suicide. We have talked to groups who run support networks for people with drug and alcohol addictions. If we accept this statutory rule in the Assembly, I believe that we will make vulnerable people even more vulnerable, and our doing that would not be responsible. We need to look at protecting those people, particularly from suicide and homelessness.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Like my party colleagues, I firmly believe that the Assembly should reject statutory rule 293, as it would undoubtedly have a negative effect on the lives of many young people.

We need to ask a number of questions when we look at this rule. What will be the human effect? As the Chair of the Committee and the Member for East Belfast already outlined, 6,000 people will be detrimentally affected, with a reduction in their benefits of approximately £60. Will that leave people homeless? Undoubtedly. Homelessness hostels are already overflowing, and the rule will undoubtedly lead to an increase in evictions and poverty levels. It certainly will not result in more people being ready to go back to work. It will be quite the opposite, and that needs to be taken into account as well.

Many of us are blessed with families, support and social networks on which we can rely in times of stress, but in a lot of instances these vulnerable people will not have those supports. A lot of them, perhaps estranged from their families, will have no one to turn to. You can see how quickly the journey from being housed and having a roof over your head to becoming homeless and sleeping rough can happen. It will come about as a result of this statutory rule, if it is passed.

As other Members mentioned, men under 35 will be most adversely affected by this statutory rule. That is the social group that carries the highest suicide risk in the North. Undoubtedly, that risk will increase if those members of society lose their homes.

This need not be a breach of parity, a LeasCheann Comhairle. There is sufficient flexibility in the operation of parity to allow for the accommodation of differences. That is why parity has worked, and that is acknowledged in the language of the legislation itself, which refers to the British Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the Social Development Minister —

I thank the Member for giving way. He says that it need not be a question of parity. I thought there was some clarity about that but I repeat the question: if the Westminster Government say it is a breach of parity, what then?

I was just coming to that point. If the Westminster Government say it is a breach of parity, we can refer to past examples when they said the same but, when challenged, we sometimes came to a more positive result than if we had merely sat back and done nothing. Doing nothing in this instance is not an option.

Of course, there is an onus. The legislation states that the Minister for Work and Pensions and the Social Development Minister from time to time consult one another and agree between them. It is not a case of one telling the other what to do. There has to be some agreement and some give and take in that process. The legislation talks about ensuring a co-ordinated system, not one that is identical in every way. It is not identical as it is. Significant differences have been accommodated which have not been viewed as being in breach of parity. That can happen when a significant difference in circumstances and outcome can be identified, and this is clearly such a case.

A report from the Policy Research Institute identifies flexibility at the heart of parity and cites that as one of the main reasons why parity has worked. It also identified three elements encapsulated within the operation of parity: parity of input, output and outcome. The element of outcome allows for divergence, when the imposition of parity is clearly disadvantageous to people here.

Members may well remember when the additional difficulties faced by lone parents here in attending work-focused interviews because of the lack of childcare here compared with Britain were first pointed out. At first, we were told that nothing could be done because it constituted a breach of parity. The Assembly challenged that anyway, and a way was found to maintain parity while accommodating that additional circumstance and difficulty.

There are parallels to be drawn from that and there are clear and significant differences in relation to this statutory rule. First, there is the lack of availability of shared accommodation, which Members referred to. The outcome here will not be to push single-tenancy occupants into renting a room as it will in Britain. What it will do, however, as Members said, is force people to seek emergency hostel accommodation or sleep on the streets. That is not what the legislation intends. Secondly, consideration must be given to the high rates of suicide here, particularly within the age and gender profile of those who will be most badly affected by this change.

I urge the House to support the prayer of annulment and allow the issue to be considered again. We need to stick up for the 6,000 people who will be so badly affected, many of them already in very vulnerable positions.

It does not matter whether it affects 6,000, 60,000 or 600,000 people, although some parties might take a different opinion if it affected a significantly larger number of people. We need to stick up for these people, and we need at least to challenge the matter. Parity is not rigid. Members should not treat the issue as though it is; it can be contested without being broken, and that is what we need to do.

I listened with interest to Members’ contributions, and I thank all who have spoken for their input. As Minister with responsibility for social security matters, I will take a few minutes to outline the purpose of the housing benefit regulations that we are discussing and to explain how voting to annul the regulations would have much wider implications for everyone in Northern Ireland.

The regulations amend the age threshold so that the shared accommodation rate applies to most single claimants living in the private rented sector who are under 35 years of age. To date, the age limit has been set at 25 years of age. The aim of the measure is to help to contain the spiralling cost of housing benefit expenditure and to ensure that single people aged 25 to 34 years of age who are in receipt of housing benefit have to make the same choices about their accommodation as those who are not in receipt of benefit.

Under the proposed measure, the amount of housing benefit for rent payable to single claimants under 35 years of age living in the private rented sector would be restricted to the shared accommodation rate based on rent levels for a single room in accommodation that is not self-contained. The restriction for those who are under 25 years of age has been in place since 1996. It was never the intention that housing benefit should guarantee that people on benefit would have unrestricted access to accommodation at any price. Many young people who are working cannot afford to rent by themselves and already live in shared accommodation.

In seeking to ensure that work always pays, it is important that benefit levels — in this case, housing benefit levels — are pitched at a level that encourages individuals to join the labour market and do not act as a disincentive to take up work by affording access to accommodation that their peer age group who are in work cannot afford.

I recognise the fact that some of those who spoke during the debate have very real concerns. Everyone has concerns about how the measure will impact on individuals. It is, therefore, important to emphasise that not all those single claimants who are under 35 years of age will be expected to live in shared accommodation. Under the existing rules, there are exemptions for many of the groups that were mentioned: for example, claimants entitled to the severe disability premium of housing benefit; claimants in certain supported accommodation; claimants under the age of 22 who were formerly in the care of social services; claimants who have a non-dependant residing with them; and claimants who require overnight care and a bedroom for a non-resident carer. The shared accommodation rate does not apply to those living in the social rented sector.

In addition, there is already a general housing benefit easement that entitles new claimants to have their rent met in full for 13 weeks if they have not claimed housing benefit in the past year and could afford the rent at the time that they entered into the tenancy. People who have been recently bereaved are entitled to similar protection for 12 months — for example, following the loss of a partner or, for a lone parent, the loss of a child.

Those current exemptions will continue to apply, and two new exemptions are being introduced for those aged 25 and over. The first new exemption is for those who have spent at least three months in a homeless hostel or hostels specialising in rehabilitating and resettling in the community. The second new exemption is for certain offenders subject to risk management, where there is a risk of serious harm to the public. The aim is to protect the general public.

Of course, a case could be made for further groups of individuals who should not be expected to share accommodation. However, rather than creating blanket exemptions for broad categories, I consider that support to those who need it, via the discretionary housing payment scheme, is a more appropriate mechanism for dealing with such cases. In recognition of that and other housing benefit reforms, the discretionary housing payments budget has been increased by 50% to £1·713 million in 2011-12, which will triple to £3·426 million from 2012-13. There has therefore been a significant increase, and will there will in future be a substantial increase in the discretionary housing payments budget. That is intended to give the Northern Ireland Housing Executive the flexibility to sustain tenancies where additional support is needed in vulnerable cases.

(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

I accept that shared accommodation is not popular, and, as we heard today, some find difficulty in supporting its extension to a wider age group. However, it is crucial that we consider the policy issue contained in the regulations as part of the wider welfare benefits and social security arena. The change is not restricted to Northern Ireland; it was announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the comprehensive spending review last October. The regulations correspond to regulations already made in Great Britain, which come into effect there from January 2012.

Although social security is a transferred matter, there is a longstanding principle of parity in those matters. In effect, a single system of social security operates in Great Britain and Northern Ireland — that is, across the United Kingdom. The principle of parity means that an individual in Northern Ireland is entitled to the same level of benefits, paid subject to the same conditions, as an individual elsewhere in the United Kingdom. An additional practical consideration is the extent to which we utilise the IT systems provided through DWP for the delivery of benefits to our claimants here in Northern Ireland. Those practical difficulties in departing from the United Kingdom system that operates in Great Britain need to be kept in mind.

We receive over £3 billion a year from general taxation and by way of subvention from the Great Britain national insurance fund to fund our social security system. Funding that is outside of and additional to our block expenditure for departmental budgets is predicated on parity. The obvious consequences for the Northern Ireland block if parity were breached cannot be underestimated. The consensus across all parties is that parity has worked to the advantage of people in Northern Ireland; it has resulted in higher rates of benefit being paid than would be the case if Northern Ireland were to set up and maintain its own social security system. Without parity and the associated funding, the Northern Ireland social security system would probably be unsustainable.

Should the regulations in question be annulled, the additional cost to Her Majesty’s Treasury for all the expected Northern Ireland claims impacted could be about £9·17 million. That figure is based on the June rates and the number of claimants. The figure of £9 million is a recurring cost, which would probably increase each year. As I mentioned, because of our dependence on the IT systems operated through DWP, there would be additional costs on top of the £9 million to adapt the computer system and for any other administrative expenses.

The position was stated very clearly by the Commercial Secretary to the Treasury in December 2010. When asked whether the Treasury:

“will adjust the annual transfer payment if new housing benefit payment policies are not introduced on a parity basis in Northern Ireland” the unambiguous Treasury response was:

“Where costs arise due to divergence between the Northern Ireland system and policy in Great Britain, the Northern Ireland Executive must meet those costs.”

You cannot have anything more explicit than that in a response from Westminster.

That means that, if these regulations are to be annulled, the likelihood is that Executive Ministers will be required to meet a shortfall of more than £9 million from their already overstretched departmental budgets. I emphasise Executive Ministers, because that would be a burden that would fall on the Executive and all Ministers, not simply on the Department for Social Development. If Members want to work out the implications for areas such as education, health and other sectors if we start down that road, I am sure that they can do that very easily. I will return to that point in due course.

I add that, although a breach of parity would have particular implications in relation to these regulations, there is a risk that such a breach of parity could trigger a review of the present, very favourable social security funding arrangements and could well result in a less favourable outcome; for example, funding in line with the Barnett formula or regional benefit rates. The dangers of going down that road must be recognised by all who approach this in a responsible manner. It is possible that a successful prayer of annulment could begin a process of undermining parity, which would have profound implications for the Northern Ireland block. Clearly, it is in the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland that we protect the principle of parity with all its benefits and are very careful not to undermine or jeopardise it.

I hope that Members will be persuaded by the purpose behind the regulations; that is, to reduce benefit costs and provide fairer choices between those young people who are working and those who are on benefit. However, for most Members, the overriding issue must surely be that, when we take into account the concerns and fears that exist, we start down a very dangerous and slippery slope if we go down the road of breaching parity.

I want to quickly pick up on a number of points that were raised by individual Members. Mr Campbell asked whether introduction could be delayed. After its deliberations on the findings of the Social Security Advisory Committee, the Department for Work and Pensions concluded that there is no case for delaying the introduction of this change to a statutory rule that has been in existence since 1996.

Mr Copeland sought an assurance on parity. I will make the point not just to Mr Copeland but to all Members: the Treasury has stated categorically and clearly that this would be a breach. Earlier on, some Members expressed the views that I might not think that it was a breach or that I interpret a breach or understand a breach in a particular way. You can talk about outcomes and outputs from now until next year.

At the end of the day, let us remember — and this is a response to Mr McKay — that the sovereign Parliament of the United Kingdom is at Westminster. He may not like that, but that is how it is. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, and this is a devolved Assembly. In other words, power is handed from the sovereign Government at Westminster to the devolved Assembly here in Northern Ireland, but the sovereignty remains at Westminster. The fact is that, in spite of all the arguments put forward by Mr McKay and others, if Westminster decides that this is a breach of parity and the Treasury says that it is, that settles it. They are not going to change their minds.

I thank the Minister for giving way. Perhaps he was not listening to or learning from what I was saying. The Treasury would say that, wouldn’t it? It said it before in other instances. The fact is that there is a devolved Assembly here, and its role is to challenge when necessary and to stick up for the people out there on the streets. That is your role as well, Minister. You are putting forward, through the Assembly today, the impression that you are quite happy just to roll over for the British Government.

Some people are slow learners. The question is whether there is any scope to diverge from Great Britain. There is some room for divergence in the administration of housing benefit. For example, under local housing allowance arrangements, we retained claimant choice as to who received the housing benefit while Great Britain moved to payment to the claimant as the norm. However — let us be clear so that Mr McKay understands — any financial costs would have to be met from the Northern Ireland block grant. You can have certain divergence as regards some administrative matters. However, where there is the financial implication that we are talking about, which, at £9 million a year every year, is a substantial financial implication, it would have to be met from the Northern Ireland block grant.

I thank the Minister for giving way. Perhaps he could outline, because the issue was raised by several Members, a couple of instances in which there was a deviation or departure from strict parity. He has been absolutely clear and precise so far about the Westminster Government saying that they believe that this would be a breach of parity, but will he outline the instances that were referred to by Members opposite?

What I gave was an example of the sort of thing that I am talking about. It is around administration. Where there is a financial cost involved, we are not in a position in which we can in any way depart from it. Treasury has said that it would be a breach. I assure Mr McKay that it is not about rolling over to a Government at Westminster; it is simply acknowledging the fact that we are part of the United Kingdom and that the sovereign Parliament is at Westminster.

Mr Copeland wants the effects that flow from this to be monitored. Housing division is commissioning research on impact with a view to addressing those issues within the constraints of parity. Research will be done to monitor the impact to see how it will work out.

I return to a number of things that other Members raised.

I think that the honourable Member has convinced the vast majority of Members of the House of why he is correct. Members opposite, in their enthusiasm to break parity, have tried to indicate that there are fundamental differences between the situation in this part of the United Kingdom and that in other parts of the United Kingdom. Does he accept that many of the points about the lack of social inclusion, people on poor incomes and people with broken families apply exactly the same to inner city Glasgow, London, Cardiff and Belfast? There is no difference. Exactly the same pressures affect young people throughout the United Kingdom, so there is not even a philosophical argument for the breach of parity. There is no good reason for it.

There is no doubt that there are many parts of Great Britain where the situation is similar to that in Northern Ireland.

I will pick up on some individual points. Mrs Cochrane said that all have concerns and that it is important to debate the issue on the Floor of the House. She is absolutely right. I welcome the fact that she spoke of the need to approach the measures responsibly, and she is also right to say that this is a minor issue in comparison with some of the much larger ones that are coming down the track on welfare reform. I hope that, when we come to those other issues, we do not have the same grandstanding or beating of chests by people who are going to take on the world and everyone else for their cause. There has to be a bit of realism and reality that says that we are where we are.

Mr McCann raised the issue of the nature of housing provision in Northern Ireland. As I said earlier, it is important that we monitor the outworkings of this and, over the next while, look at the impact of the sort of housing provision that we have in Northern Ireland and our housing policies. For a long time —

Will the Minister give way?

Yes, but I am running out of time.

On the question of supply, are there enough places to take the 6,000 people who will be affected? Most of the accommodation, especially in the HMO sector, remains unregistered and, in many ways, would provide poor living accommodation for anyone. Does he advise people to go into that?

In Northern Ireland, the private rented sector is already a large sector and is growing. We have not had the sort of oversight of that sector that we should have had, and I share the concern that I am sure the Member has about that. Therefore, we are looking at a range of issues. We are aware of the changes that there will be with the Housing Executive, housing associations, welfare reform and housing policy. We need to look at housing in the round to consider how we get more affordable housing and how we deal with housing issues. The Department is taking a new look at it and, perhaps, reprioritising some things and de-prioritising others. We need to look at the nature of housing stock, whether we are building the right sort of houses with the right mix of tenures, whether we are building the right size of accommodation and so on. I accept that all of those things need to be looked at carefully, and many of us have concerns about the outworking of the private sector in our constituencies. Not all landlords are exemplary landlords.

On Mr McCann’s other point, if a claimant experiences difficulty in finding somewhere affordable — for example, due to a shortage of suitable accommodation — further assistance to help with the rent shortfall may be available through discretionary housing payments. The Member said that he had concerns about the word “discretion”, but it is not at the whim of someone sitting at a desk. I take it and believe discretion to mean that it is dependent on the individual circumstances and situation. That is not a whim; it is looking at the evidence of a situation. The Member may not have confidence in the staff who work in our social security offices and the Housing Executive, but I have a much higher confidence level.

I was a bit concerned by the line that Jennifer McCann took. There is a danger of overplaying certain things. The other day, I visited the Stella Maris hostel in north Belfast, and, fairly soon, I am due to visit another hostel that is run by the same organisation, Depaul, in Londonderry. I have looked at the issue of homelessness and the provision that we make, such as hostels for people who are sleeping rough and so on. We in Northern Ireland are in a much better position with the provision than is the case in Great Britain. The provision is based around the faith sectors, whether Salvation Army or Depaul. There are a lot of positives around how we assist the most vulnerable people. However, bearing in mind the fact that I outlined the various categories of exemption earlier, there is concern and, therefore, accommodation for some of the most vulnerable people.

Mr Durkan said that the Government have no idea — I think that those were his exact words. I assure him that, in all areas of welfare reform, we have very full and in-depth engagement with the Government. Lord Freud, for example, has been over here on a number of occasions about other aspects of welfare reform and benefits. He is taking a hands-on approach on behalf of the coalition Government at Westminster, and people who represent Northern Ireland are on some of his working groups. He is conscious of the differences, and those relate to other aspects of welfare reform. So they do know, and those points are being forcibly conveyed. I was pleasantly surprised at his level of understanding that Northern Ireland is not exactly the same as some parts of London, and so on.

However, having dealt with all those points, I come back to the core point, which was identified by my party colleague Mr Campbell and is one that I have made again and again here. This is a difficult decision, but it has to be made. We need to respect the principle of parity as defined by Westminster. There is no point in us trying to fool ourselves or anyone else, which is all we would be doing. Let us have the honesty, courage and integrity to face the facts, to do what we can to take this forward in the most acceptable way and to ensure that, when we look at our future provision and policy for housing, we take into account the impacts of this regulation.

If we go down a road that will cost £9 million for a single regulation, which Department will pay for it? Will it mean that we close more rural schools? Will it mean that we impact more on the hospitals sector? Where will the £9 million, and all the other £9 million that come down the road after that, come from? Let us have the courage and integrity to take this forward.

As Question Time commences at 2.30 pm, I suggest that the House takes its ease until that time. We will come back to the debate after Question Time, when Mickey Brady will conclude on the motion.

The debate stood suspended.