Simon Hamilton MLA

Social development does not fall into a tidy remit, covering housing, welfare, licensing and gambling. Ryan Jennings finds out how Committee Chair Simon Hamilton handles his varied workload.

“It is a broad term, and it’s a broad department,” Simon Hamilton comments.

He admits that upon first inspection, his conclusion on the social development remit was that it didn’t tie together that neatly: “It’s not like health, it’s not like education [and] it’s not even like regional development. With other things like liquor licensing and gambling laws, it seems to be a melange of different issues.”

First and foremost, though, for the Chair, it is about helping the most vulnerable in society. Admitting to having heard the department referred to the ‘department of poverty’, it is about providing a safety net for people who need it.

“If you look at the whole idea of community and voluntary work in Northern Ireland, it far surpasses what is there in other parts of the UK,” he states, and there is a “pressing need” to get the sector to strengthen itself so that it can help communities.

Upon taking up the brief in July 2009, Hamilton was struck by how dissimilar it was compared to his previous roles on the Finance and Enterprise Committees. “This was something completely different but when I did a breakdown of my own constituency work, between 40 and 45 per cent of my constituency work was DSD-related. Although I didn’t know it myself, there was already an understanding of the issues that the department [deals] with.”

While the twice-weekly committee meetings are necessary, on his watch members have been keen to move away from the formality of the committee room and have held numerous stakeholder meetings with representative groups, focussing on “one or two pressing issues” at a time.

Balancing act

Committees in general, Hamilton says, are legislation-heavy after a three-year settling in period for the Assembly as a whole. The scrutiny role can often take up too much of the committee’s time, he admits, and it is difficult to strike a healthy balance but the Chair is very aware of that problem: “If the committee is going to have any value it has got to do, one, its fundamental roles and scrutinise the department but it’s got to interact with the general public as well.

“There is so much coming out of the departments, you can easily get distracted with just purely departmental work and you don’t spend the time [out and about].”

A heavy legislative programme, however, is not always a bad thing. That there are many Bills coming to the committee’s table has meant that the stakeholder events have become more of a feature, but getting the balance, he says, is “dreadfully difficult”.

Hamilton is keen that the committee pursues its own interests outside the scrutiny role: “If you wanted to let yourself, as a committee, you could get bogged down very easily in just doing the scrutiny of legislation, doing what effectively the department gives you; it would be easy to fall behind them and not actually plot your own course.”

The forthcoming housing inquiry is certainly an example of that independence. The housing argument is well-known, but Hamilton believes that it is for the committee to move away from that orthodoxy. “The argument goes ‘there’s not enough money, there’s high demand, we need more money’. It’s easy then to knock on the Finance Minister’s door and ask for more money,” he says. So the committee’s aim is to look at what can be done differently.

“Other jurisdictions are doing different things to achieve the same aim – to deliver more social housing and trying to develop alternative funding models,” the Chair adds.

All five Executive parties have members on the committee, so if an alternative idea is put on the table and receives some support then it will go to the Executive for further discussion.

Review and reform

The common selection scheme has been on the committee’s radar since the Housing Bill in June 2009. The main criticism of the scheme is that where areas are oversubscribed applicants need an extremely high number of points to be in contention. As an elected member Hamilton candidly alludes to the system being “played”: “For example, politicians will encourage people – do this, do that and you will increase your chances – and it can result in people getting housing that is inappropriate for them.”

One hopes, he says, that the system can iron that out, but often it cannot. Retired couples, he says, can be allocated threebedroom houses and the current system “isn’t flexible enough”.

Drawing on his accountancy background, Hamilton says there is scope for a review of the Housing Executive.

“You’ve got in excess of £3 billion worth of assets sitting within the Housing Executive’s portfolio. The way things are currently constructed, they can’t access any finance off the back of that. This is the way business is done everywhere,” he contends.

“You’ve got in excess of £3 billion worth of assets sitting within the Housing Executive’s portfolio. The way things are currently constructed, they can’t access any finance off the back of that. This is the way business is done everywhere,” he contends.

It is known, however, that the Housing Executive would prefer to retain the stock as part of a renewed landlord function, perhaps as NIHE plc.

“Given the financial climate that we’re in and what we’re going to move into, to have that [money] sitting there and not at least explore what to do with it would be wrong,” he surmises.

Any funding surpluses could then, the Chair believes, be reinvested in programmes such as Supporting People, which looks after the more vulnerable tenants. A pilot scheme has been put in place in Derry whereby houses have been transferred to a housing authority and the committee is still waiting for the results.

The executive is not the only body which will likely have its profile reviewed. While the committee, along with the housing sector as a whole, appreciates the good work of the housing associations, Hamilton believes that they could have a wider community development role by contributing play areas in new developments and helping to lobby to bring bus routes out.

He points to the progress on mixed tenure in the South where developments will include owner-occupied, private-rented and social housing all in the same space. That has not been pursued here, partly because of legislative barriers, but also because of residents’ opposition. Those obstacles need not be a problem given how prevalent social housing has been in Northern Ireland’s past and that “everybody knows somebody or they themselves have lived in social housing”.

‘Parity is paramount’

While housing gets the most coverage from the DSD remit, the largest issue in monetary terms is the welfare system. In an ideal world he would like to see some changes in the system but he is of the view that having a £3 billion social security bill paid for out of Whitehall is advantageous.

“I think you particularly see it at times like this when people are finding it difficult out there that you have that safety net there. And it’s better that you have that safety net there than tamper with it, tweak it and risk losing it. That’s my biggest fear, if we make a change, do we risk losing it?” the Chairman queries.

Parity does, though, significantly reduce the committee’s role and Hamilton has also personally questioned the committee’s influence on welfare. Up until now he believes the committee has simply “karaoked” the legislation but he is encouraged that the Minister has not sought accelerated passage for the Welfare Reform Bill. Having a committee stage has its problems too. “We’re finding a lot of evidence coming back from people saying the system for [vulnerable] groups just doesn’t work … Even though your heart bleeds, if you make that change, you’re risking the whole system,” he concedes.

“I feel that the committee is in an invidious position and I feel that the department has kicked a very awkward ball on to our toe and the committee is going to be in a position to say: ‘We’re not making that change’,” he adds. Parity, he acknowledges, is “paramount”.

Speaking just before Alex Attwood took over from Margaret Ritchie, he was looking forward to working with the West Belfast MLA: “Alex and I have crossed swords many a time but what we’ve got to remember is that we’ve both got a job to do.”

He had become familiar with Ritchie and had built up a relationship with her, not least because of their constituencies’ proximity.

Hamilton does not expect the committee’s approach to change, which is one of being a cheerleader when it shares the Minister’s agenda but criticising when it is appropriate: “If you’re critical when you need to be critical, the public, and more importantly the Minister, appreciates what you’re doing. We are the critical friend.”

Committee members

Chair
Simon Hamilton (DUP)

Deputy Chair
Carál Ní Chuilín (SF)
Billy Armstrong (UUP)
Mary Bradley (SDLP)
Mickey Brady (SF)
Thomas Burns (SDLP)
Jonathan Craig (DUP)
Alex Easton (DUP)
David Hilditch (DUP)
Anna Lo (Alliance)
Fra McCann (SF)