Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): I welcome John Greer, deputy secretary of the corporate services group in the Department, and Kathy Sands and Cherrie Arnold, who are finance directors in the Department. John, will you be making the opening statement?

Mr John Greer (Department for Communities): Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Following that, we will go to questions from members. Go ahead, John.

Mr Greer: Thank you for the opportunity to update you on the budget position for 2025-26 and future years. Following Executive agreement of the Budget and the June monitoring outcome, our budget position amounted to £946·5 million of non-ring-fenced resource departmental expenditure limit (DEL). That included £184 million of earmarked departmental expenditure. There was also £265·3 million of capital DEL and £41·2 million of financial transactions capital (FTC).

In June monitoring, we received an allocation of £0·6 million for derating, a £9 million capital allocation for new-build social housing and a £14·5 million ring-fenced non-cash resource allocation. It is important to reference that the £9 million of capital allocation for new-build social housing was well short of the £62 million that we bid for. The £9 million, while welcome, only brought us to 1,135 units of build against a target of 2,500 homes to be built in this year. It is also important to note that, at that time, that need was recognised somewhat, and there was an agreement that DFC would have first call on £2 million of an allocation in the December monitoring, if available, to go towards the social housing development programme (SHDP). As I have already touched upon, while those allocations were welcome, they did not recognise £50 million of non-ring-fenced resource bids, and, as I said, the £9 million allocation given to the SHDP fell very short.

You will be aware that we opened this financial year with significant pressures across the Department. We agreed that we would commit to a planned overcommitment of some £19 million. Given the pressure on the block grant, we have successfully managed that down and will bring in a balanced budget and are not seeking any additional resource DEL in December monitoring. In fact, there was no opportunity to bid for resource DEL in December monitoring.

Given the pressure on the block, December monitoring had an extreme focus on reduced requirements, so I will go to those first. We looked extensively across our budgets, particularly our capital budgets, to see what could be returned to the centre to help with those pressures. We submitted a number of earmarked reduced requirements totalling £49·2 million. That included £11·2 million of resource DEL and £38 million of capital DEL. The Committee will be interested to know that the majority of that was earmarked reduced requirements coming from Casement — some £27·3 million — and £5 million from the Northern Ireland Football Fund. There are delays to those programmes for a number of reasons, which the Committee will have sight of.

We used the opportunity in December monitoring to make a bid for capital and provided a briefing to the Committee on that. We submitted bids totalling £70·1 million, one of which was a £2·4 million bid of non-cash funding to recognise requirements with regard to depreciation and impairment. We also submitted a £67·7 million bid for capital. That included £29·8 million for the social housing development programme. It is important to note that that does not take us to the full requirement of the 2,500 new starts this year. In collaboration with the Housing Executive and its collaboration with housing associations, there is only absorption capacity of £29·8 million into the social housing development programme. If we are successful in receiving that in the December monitoring round, that will bring us to 1,750 units in total being built in this financial year. Again, that is some 750 short of the target. However, it will take us to a £210 million commitment for that.

We also put a bid in for £8·6 million for cladding safety. There has been an agreement with colleagues in DOF that, when we assumed that responsibility, we would have first call on those moneys. Other bids that we made related to disabled adaptations, decent homes and Active Communities.

I will move on to the future years' budget exercise. DOF commissioned a budget exercise, which is one of our first multi-year exercises, covering 2026 to 2030. That was commissioned on 30 June and took forward resource funding for three years and capital funding for four years. The Committee was supplied with a briefing on that on 12 November.

Obviously, the Budget landed yesterday, and we continue to work through the ramifications of that. It is expected that the Executive will convene in early December to consider and confirm the December monitoring round and to draft future years' Budgets.

This year's DFC budget was subject to a 12-week equality impact assessment consultation. It was launched on 15 May and closed on 7 August. We received some 31 responses to that exercise. We are assessing those responses. The outcome of December monitoring needs to be factored into that, and we will publish a final report following that.

That is a very high-level overview of this year and future years' budget exercise, and I will be happy to take some questions. However, before I do, if I may, I would like to make one acknowledgement. Cherrie Arnold, who you will all be familiar with and who usually answers all the tough questions and saves my bacon somewhat, is, unfortunately for us, moving to another position in the Department. It is a wonderful opportunity for Cherrie, although I am very sad to see her go. I am sure that you will join me in recognising the incredible work that Cherrie has led on during her time in the position.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Thank you very much for that. I appreciate the information. Some of it came very late in the day, and we would have appreciated that a bit sooner, but it is clearly an issue of concern for the Committee. We asked you for further information on a number of smaller announcements. That correspondence is with you. Can you give us an update as to when we can expect more information in relation to some of those allocations and what the budget line is for them?

Mr Greer: I would need to take that away and see where that is and come back to you on that in writing.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): OK. In relation benefit delivery and parity of funding, we have received correspondence, and the Department confirms that it requires recurrent funding for 500 to 700 benefit delivery posts to avoid parity failure with Britain, yet only a one-year, non-recurrent allocation has been secured so far. What precise contingency plan exists if the Executive cannot meet that requirement and the recurrent pressure from 2026 to 2030? What assessment has been made of the financial penalties that might be incurred as a result of that?

Ms Cherrie Arnold (Department for Communities): I will take that question. We were allocated £16·9 million this year for benefit delivery funding in order to bring in 400 additional staff. Unfortunately, we surrendered £9·4 million of that in the monitoring round because of easements. The recruitment competition is end-loaded in this financial year. We have had conversations with the Department of Finance about that. That should never have been allocated as recurrent funding. If you are going to bring in staff, there is a permanent commitment to continuing their salaries. The Department of Finance has said that it is sympathetic to that and will support it in the budget allocations for future years. Were that not to be reallocated by the Executive, we would have to look at how we would handle that. That, potentially, might include stopping recruitment. That is not a scenario that the Department for Communities wishes to be in. We see attrition levels of upwards of 5%. That is something that could, possibly, be managed in-year, but it would have catastrophic impacts on benefit delivery and on our ability to maintain parity.

Mr Greer: May I add to that, Chair? This situation has been persistent for a number of years. It was extremely welcome that we received the allocation to recruit 400 staff into the benefit delivery space. We are working as hard as we can with DOF to stress the need for that to be recurrent funding. As Cherrie said, if we do not receive that in recurrent funding, the deterioration in front-line services in our benefit delivery space will continue. We will all have seen the focus that was placed on welfare delivery and welfare reform in yesterday's Budget, which, obviously, heightens the risk that, at some stage, if we continue on a journey where we are moving further away from the policy intent and parity, we may incur financial penalties. We have no specific way that we can, if you like, monetise or quantify what those penalties might look like at this time.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): OK, thank you. I wanted to make the point that I am developing a Member's Bill on homelessness. I want to ask you about the homelessness budget and the prevention element in particular. I believe that that amounts to £74 million, of which £37 million is going on temporary accommodation and £5·5 million has been allocated to prevention. That is a relatively small sum, and I feel that any uplift to that would make a significant difference. Are there any bids or plans to move more of the money into prevention in order to get upstream and prevent people from becoming homeless, rather than leaving them in expensive temporary accommodation?

Ms Kathy Sands (Department for Communities): Yes, Chair, there are bids in for future years for strategic prevention. Those bids will increase significantly over the next number of years. The Minister took the decision this year to do a ring-fenced allocation in the Department of £2·5 million for strategic prevention. Our bids for future years will significantly increase and will go up to about £11 million over the three years.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): That is a useful approach. The more that we can put in there, the more that we can invest to save, in a sense.

Ms K Armstrong: Thank you very much, Cherrie. I am heartbroken that you are leaving us after all these years. You have been the voice of reason.

Ms Arnold: I am staying in the Department.

Ms K Armstrong: You will not be here, being tortured by us.

Thank you very much for the figures, guys. I know that it has been a difficult time for you, given the fact that Health and Education suck everything away. The 1,135 new builds that will be achieved in 2025-26 mean that, as the Chair has said, the need for temporary accommodation costs are there. When you are putting forward bids for capital, is the argument made to the Executive that by not giving the money or supporting the provision of the money for the new-build programme, under the housing strategy that they agreed, the costs that they are creating are x amount? The £37 million for temporary costs is not all of it, but the fact is that we are missing more than 800 homes. That is going on. I looked at the forward plan for future years; if that amount of money is not achieved, the temporary accommodation costs are going to go up. Is that balance provided in that argument to the Department of Finance?

Ms Sands: That is very much at the fore of our discussions with DOF officials and the ongoing conversations with our housing colleagues in the Northern Ireland Housing Executive (NIHE). If we do not get the money directed into things such as strategic prevention or for social housing, that will ultimately have an impact on the resource need for temporary accommodation. A number of schemes are being looked at, one of which is a temporary accommodation acquisition proposal by NIHE. There are currently negotiations with DOF officials about that to get it over the line. Part of that is to enable resource savings. Obviously, it will have a capital impact, but there will be very substantial resource savings.

Ms K Armstrong: If the Housing Executive needs to buy places to provide temporary accommodation, there are some buildings in Belfast that were going to be student buildings but are not now going ahead as such. I imagine that such buildings will be involved, but that would cost quite a lot of money. Will that capital cost come out of the new-build budget, or is there is a separate capital bid for that?

Ms Sands: Separate requirements are going in for all of that. There will be a bid for the social housing development programme, and there are bids that look at what the other options are, some of which will be temporary accommodation acquisition and proposals around trying to get better leases in place. As I said, unfortunately, those have a capital impact, but they will generate huge resource savings. All of that is very much part of the ongoing conversations.

Ms K Armstrong: My next question is about the anti-poverty strategy, which refers to a retrofit programme that will target vulnerable people who live in social homes. The amount that has been put forward for the retrofit programme seems very low. Is there an opportunity to review or update that? The amount for what is referred to as the retrofit project is very small. The table in our papers refers to the housing association retrofit pilot, but I do not see the same thing for the Housing Executive or any other homes. It refers to a bid of £1 million for 2026-27, a bid of £6 million for 2027-28 and a bid of £9 million for 2028-29. I know that there is FTC for that, but I am surprised that there is not anything more in there for a national retrofit strategy, especially given the multi-year budget approach.

Ms Sands: Can I come back to you on that? I will refer to the business areas to get the proper detail.

Mr Greer: Bids are also being made for the affordable warmth programme, which focuses on NIHE assets and addressing the efficiency of those properties with regard to heating and fuel poverty.

Ms K Armstrong: To be honest, we are into a battle for nothing in that regard, because it would be better if some of those houses were pulled down and rebuilt to a better standard. I would be concerned if affordable warmth were being targeted towards only Housing Executive properties. I take it that there will be options for private homeowners.

Ms Sands: A new business case will come forward for affordable warmth. It is being looked at right across the range. I think that some of the people who work on the policy side of that would be better able to answer that than me, Kellie.

Ms K Armstrong: That would be handy. I am very keen to see, as was planned elsewhere, the affordable warmth programme's being used to sort out cladding on walls or roof-space insulation and then moving on to windows and then thermal bridging. It would be useful for the Committee to see more figures on what is planned over the next number of years. If that is not in Communities, who else is looking at it? Is it coming through Economy? It feels, at the minute, as though the FTC for the housing associations and the money that is being allocated through the capital budget is quite low.

Ms Sands: The outline business case (OBC) for the retrofit programme is still being worked on. We have eased some of that in this financial year. There will be bigger requirements as officials get to the OBC and have all of that worked through.

Mrs Mason: You said in your presentation that you will look at yesterday's announcement, but surely you had some idea of what was coming down the line. Do you have any read-out of what the impact is going to be?

Mr Greer: Just for absolute clarity, we get no more notice than you, or any member of the public, gets.

Mrs Mason: You are bound to have prepared for what was possibly coming down the line. Do you have any read-out of what the impact is going to be?

Mr Greer: We have read-out from the lifting of the two-child benefit cap and the effect that that might have on families in poverty with regard to how many people may be affected and also with regard to any relationship that it might have to the mitigations package. There are a lot of dependencies in this, particularly in the mitigations space. Those are being worked on by our colleagues in our analytics division to be very precise about that. That work started yesterday and is ongoing, so we should have absolute specificity on the numbers around that very soon.

I am sure that the Committee will appreciate that that specificity is absolutely required in this space. We have to be absolutely clear about how we communicate that to members of the public, including those who are in receipt of benefits and those who will be impacted on by the changes that were announced yesterday.

Mrs Mason: Thank you. I am new to this brief, but I have been doing my own research around it. It is very clear that British austerity has caused shortfalls in the Department. There is no doubt about that. I am confused about how funding is being prioritised. You supplied written information and spoke in your presentation about overcommitments on schemes such as the affordable warmth scheme, yet — again, I am new to all this — I am seeing a million pounds being spent on marching bands and things like that whilst the Belfast fuel poverty scheme, which I think cost around the same amount, was not able to be funded. I want to get some clarity around how things are prioritised or how budgeting is being done.

Ms Sands: I will speak about capital because you mentioned a couple of capital schemes. With our capital, we have to deal, first, with what is inescapable in that it is contractually committed. We are dealing with everything on that and then the Minister's priorities. There is a scheme of work at the outset of the year on that process and those allocations.

Mrs Mason: You say that there are inescapable areas. Surely, funding for marching bands is not an inescapable pressure that the Department is facing, but you would imagine that fuel poverty is.

Ms Sands: We are dealing with everything, which includes the Minister's priorities and our statutory commitments.

Mr Greer: I think that it is important that, for the purpose of the Committee, we are very clear here. The Department, while it has a very significant budget of, as I spoke about, some £900 million, the amount that is available for discretionary spending is relatively low. It is just above 15% when you take out our statutory obligations and what is inescapable and pre-committed. On the capital side in this year, the Minister has already committed a significant amount of his discretionary budget towards programmes such as housing. Across the revenue side, as I said, he has a very small discretionary pot, and it is his decisions to fund his priorities that instruct and guide officials with regard to those allocations.

Mrs Mason: I appreciate that, and I think that it is very clear across all Departments that Ministers need to make choices on what they want to see. I will leave it at that.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Thank you, Deputy Chair.

I will ask a couple of questions. You mentioned that there is a further allocation around housebuilding, and that is welcome. You mention that those numbers continue to rise, however they are not meeting the targets. Given that we are now into a multi-year budgeting cycle, what is the trajectory looking like over the next number of years for house starts?

Mr Greer: Kathy can provide more detail on the numbers, but, for the past number of years, we have not met our target. Essentially, we are creating a backlog in the SHDP. That has been profiled into the four years of the future-years' budgeting exercise to put us on track to meet the Programme for Government (PFG) commitment. We have bid for that, and it will be for the Executive to decide whether they wish to allocate funding to that to take us to the PFG target. If you wish, Kathy might be able to talk about the profile that will get us there.

Ms Sands: John, you are absolutely right. On the forward planning piece, there is about £244 million in for next year for 2026-27, but that was on the basis of our delivering 2,000 homes, which is our target for this year. Therefore, the profile will probably need to be updated for where we land this year. It is starting with 2,150, and it is building up each year by another 150 homes. That profile and the requirement is there in the pack that you have been given.

Mr Greer: Members will be aware that the outcome of the comprehensive spending review indicates that it is broadly a flat allocation in capital for the Executive for the next four years.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): OK. Thank you. What bids relating to the Sign Language Bill will be submitted in the next number of years?

Ms Sands: We will need to come back to you on the specific amount.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): We are dealing with that legislation, so I am keen to find out what resource is planned for it.

Ms Mulholland: Would it be possible for us to get a read-out of the Department's discretionary spend thus far in this financial year? We get figures on what the Department has spent, but it would be useful for us to see them in a spreadsheet that shows only the discretionary spend that is not linked to statutory requirements. I would find that really helpful — maybe others know how to separate those figures — if it is possible.

My other question is about the two-child limit, which has been mentioned. In response to a question for written answer, the Minister stated that, as of May 2025, about 13,810 households were affected by that. Given that the Minister knew the figure for May, how will we be able to track it and make sure that the money comes through? Is there any indication that that money will come from the Treasury for larger families who will become eligible for benefit cap mitigation and that kind of thing? How will that be funded? Do we have any indication of whether that will come out of our budget or be provided by Treasury? Is there a way in which we can guarantee that spending on discretionary support and other things like that will not be reduced as a result of that increased spend? That is where my real concern lies: giving with one hand and taking away with the other.

Ms Arnold: We understand that the number of children in Northern Ireland who are not eligible for support under the two-child limit sits at 17,600. Yesterday's Budget announcement will see those people become eligible. Eligibility could mean people are affected by the benefit cap. We mitigate the benefit cap in Northern Ireland, so we will have to consider an additional requirement as part of our welfare mitigations, and we have advised our DOF colleagues that we will amend our bids accordingly. The finer detail of what that will mean financially is being worked through. The cost, up to the benefit cap in each case, of making those people eligible will be met by the UK Government. We will amend our annually managed expenditure requirements for future years to take that into consideration.

Ms Mulholland: OK.

Ms Arnold: There are eligibility criteria for discretionary support grants and loans. Those will remain, and people who are eligible will still be able to apply for them.

Ms Mulholland: OK. Great. Would it be possible to provide the Committee with a breakdown of the Department's discretionary spend in this financial year?

Ms Arnold: We had a response drafted — John mentioned this — so we will take the question back and see where that has got to. It is difficult to pull out figures and provide a specific spreadsheet at this point in the year. We started the year with a £17 million resource overspend, which we have been trying to manage through easements. However, at this stage in the year, we have no non-ring-fenced easements, and our budget is fully committed in line with the Minister's priorities. We will see what we can provide.

Mr Greer: We will look at that, Sian. At this late stage in the financial year, the level of any discretionary funding that is not already committed will be very low, but we are happy to take that away.

Ms Mulholland: It would be really useful to have that as a bit of an overview. I admit that it might be just me — I do not think that it is, but it might be — but, when I see a press release stating that the Minister has committed x thousand pounds to a project, I find it hard to know whether that amount will come out of a previous allocation or of spending that the Minister has been able to profile differently or whether it is discretionary spend. It would be really useful for us to have that overview in order to understand where the money for specific new projects will come from.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): To be clear, we are asking for a fuller explanation of the discretion that is already being applied rather than of the fact that there is no discretion left; that is the bit that we need. Cherrie, you said that a response is drafted. Is that with the Minister?

Ms Arnold: We will follow up on that. I am not sure where the response is at the minute.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): OK. Where does it go to after you? Who is next?

Mr Greer: Me. I need to check.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): It is on your desk.

Mr Greer: It could be on my desk or on the Minister's desk. I need to check where it is .

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): OK. I am very keen to find that out.

Ms Arnold: We are putting processes in place to make sure that, going forward, we give you the line detail. That will come.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): OK. Thank you.

Ms Mulholland: Thank you for all your engagement with the Committee, Cherrie. All the very best with your new role.

Ms Arnold: Thank you.

Mr Allen: Several of my points have been covered. John mentioned a bid in December monitoring for £29 million for the social housing development programme. The Minister recently made an announcement in the House about the grant for housing associations. Does that bid take account of the new grant, which, I think, will be effective from 1 December 2025? If so, what will be the outcome? How many new units will we see as a result of that? What engagement have you had with the housing associations about their factoring that in to their private borrowing?

Ms Sands: In my discussions with our housing officials and the NIHE, I have been assured that that programme has delivered 1,135 units to date, that the £29·8 million will bring us to 1,750 units by year-end, and that it should factor in the new changes in the rates. As I understand it, there have been conversations. I am not involved in that; it is more in the remit of our housing officials and the Housing Executive.

Mr Allen: I am particularly interested in how many new units will be delivered, outside of what would have been expected to be delivered if the Minister had not taken forward the change?

Ms Sands: I do not have those details to hand, but I can go back and ask for you.

Mr Allen: OK. I appreciate that.

Mr McHugh: Tá sé deas bualadh libhse arís.

Cherrie, you are leaving us, and I wish you all the best in your new ventures.

The Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill is coming to the fore. Has a cost-benefit analysis been carried out to find out how much might be saved as a result of that Bill?

Ms Arnold: The UK Government worked it out at £1·5 billion over the next five years, which would mean around £45 million for Northern Ireland. We have not done any detailed analysis of the cost to take that forward. There are additional powers with regard to bank details. It will provide our staff with extra tools when they are considering welfare fraud and error, but there has been no costing of the requirements. We have to look at whether there will be any Barnett consequentials associated with it, and we are progressing with that work. In the multi-year Budget exercise, we have a bid in — for just over £9 million per year over the next three years — to take forward additional fraud and error activities. That is more an extension of our existing business as usual. In yesterday's Budget, there was a reference to the UK Government working with the Executive on that to help us secure a share of the savings. That is a positive that could bring tens of millions of pounds into Northern Ireland for investment in employment programmes or other support. That was good news yesterday.

Mr McHugh: I have often heard it said — I am sure that you have heard it too — that, through its tax evasion, big business is more guilty of fraud than people who commit benefit fraud. To what extent is that Bill targeted at people who are on benefits as opposed to tax evasion by big business?

Ms Arnold: It will support the Department in looking at benefits fraud and error.

Mr McHugh: Benefits?

Ms Arnold: Yes.

Mr McHugh: What about tax evasion?

Ms Arnold: I have looked at it specifically from a departmental perspective. I will take your question away and come back on it.

Mr Greer: It is not within our remit; that is for HMRC.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): That angle of it is for a different Committee. However, coming back to the remit of this Committee, it is clear that there is no hard and fast commitment to any savings for us. The savings that you outlined, Cherrie, are to the British Treasury. There is no commitment yet to any savings for us, though there are discussions.

Ms Arnold: Discussions are ongoing; yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): We have asked your counterparts about savings from that Bill, and that appears to be the case.

Mr Bradley: I will ask about something that Maolíosa brought up: tackling fraud and error. The Minister has a paper with the Executive. What will be the cost to the Department if that paper is not brought before the Assembly?

Ms Arnold: We are seeking to secure just over £9 million per year to deliver £45 million worth of savings annually. If we secure 50% of that, as we hope to, we could save at least £22 million annually, and that money could be reinvested.

Mr Greer: It is important to note that our levels of fraud and error have historically been significantly lower than those of DWP. In the most recent figures, we have higher levels than DWP. In yesterday's Budget, there was a clear focus on fraud and error prevention as a method of saving. That is in line with the business case that we put to Treasury: that, if we invest £9 million, we will be able to save money, and, potentially, Treasury will share 50% of those savings with the Executive. It is important to say that Treasury would share the savings with the Executive. There is the risk that, if we continue to move out of parity in our rate of identifying fraud and error, we will incur penalties.

Mr Bradley: Fraud is fraud. Whether it is money laundering, tax evasion or benefit fraud, it is a crime. The Department is right to try to claw back as much money that has been fraudulently gained as possible.

I wish you all the best in your move across the Department.

Ms Arnold: Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): I agree that fraud should not be tolerated, but I want to be clear here. You mentioned the £45 million figure a few times, Cherrie, but that is a notional figure. It may or may not materialise, depending on whether the figure is right and on what percentage the Treasury may agree to. The best case scenario is that that is the level and you achieve a 50% return. You have a bid in for £9 million that will, at best, recover £13·5 million, in excess of that £9 million spent. Therefore, £13·5 million is the figure that would be additional.

Ms Arnold: There would be £45 million going to Treasury from the £9 million spend, of which we would hope to secure 50% for Northern Ireland.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Do you agree with me that that would equate to £13·5 million, if that agreement is done?

Ms Arnold: Yes, but our levels of fraud and error increased from £220 million last year to £350 million this year, so the cost, if a financial penalty is levied, could be significantly higher again.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): I thought that the Minister's approach of naming and shaming was going to reduce fraud. Can you explain why fraud is increasing?

Ms Arnold: It is partly due to the uprating of benefits, because it is based on our total benefits bill every year. However, we have seen an increase in our fraud percentage. Over the past number of years, DWP has secured significant additional funding to invest in the likes of universal credit and digital benefits, which are more susceptible to fraud. The Minister has made a commitment to take a zero-tolerance approach to fraud, but we have not been equipped with the funding to put in place the staff to be able to tackle it at the level that we should.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): OK. Thank you.

Mr Durkan: Thanks to the team. Sometimes, we bemoan our not getting enough information, but that is certainly not the case with this presentation.

You have made a monitoring round bid for £29 million for housing new builds. You were unable to answer Andy's question as to how many new units that would represent, but we can see that it would go from the current trajectory of 1,035 to over 1,700, which seems to be a lot of bang for buck for £29 million. Is it fair to say that the cost of completion of those units has to be carried over to and computed in next year's budget?

Ms Sands: Yes, Mark, you are absolutely right. There is currently an assumption that £96 million will be carried forward into 2026-27, but I need to put on record that, when we completed this exercise, we were working on the basis of our being hopeful that we would get the full remit of funding that we required to deliver 2,000 homes. We will to have to reassess to take account of the outcome of the December monitoring round. What we get in December, and what our total SHDP build will be, will determine what we carry forward into future years.

Mr Durkan: Yes. There is also the issue of what actually constitutes a "start", but that might be more for the housing team to respond on than yourselves.

Kellie spoke about buildings that could potentially be used for temporary accommodation acquisition by the Housing Executive. If my reading is correct, the Housing Executive will initially look at former Housing Executive properties. If the Housing Executive buys 600 houses that it used to own, where is it foreseen that those who currently own and live in those properties will go?

Ms Sands: I am not best placed to answer that, Mark; I would need to refer you to NIHE colleagues. Yes, there is an acquisition business case for 600 properties, primarily from within the current Housing Executive portfolio. Those houses are currently owner-occupied, and the intention is to buy some of them, if they are on the market.

Mr Durkan: It will also be about how the Housing Executive avoids bidding wars with private speculators or developers who may want to buy those houses from the current occupiers or owners.

On the rate support grant, I see a bid for £12 million in each of the next three years. I made this point earlier in Committee. The rate support grant is not ring-fenced, and the Department has rejected the review's recommendation to set a minimum amount for it. Has the Department made any efforts, along with the Department of Finance, to have that grant ring-fenced at Executive level, as the de-rating grant is? There is a statutory duty on the Department not only to pay the de-rating grant but to act almost as Finance's postbox for it. When the rate support grant is not ring-fenced, it is usually the first to go or decrease.

Ms Sands: Mark, I am not aware of any discussions about ring-fencing it. I reiterate what I have said previously: while the rate support grant is statutory in nature, its quantum is discretionary. It is currently £3·1 million. We have put forward the bid to DOF. We have to wait on the outcome of the future-years Budget to see what allocations we will receive.

Mr Durkan: OK.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Thank you very much, John and Kathy. I want to thank Cherrie, in particular, given the fact that you she is moving on. Cherrie, thank you for your attendance at the Committee and, indeed, at sessions outside of the Committee, where you provided information to members. I wish you all the very best. Thank you, all, for your briefing this morning — we will come back to this, no doubt — and the information that you sent through. Good luck to you all.