Welfare Supplementary Payments Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2016

Executive Committee Business – in the Northern Ireland Assembly at 3:30 pm on 14 March 2016.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Lord Maurice Morrow Lord Maurice Morrow DUP 3:30, 14 March 2016

I beg to move

That the draft Welfare Supplementary Payments Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2016 be approved.

I am seeking the Assembly's approval for the Welfare Supplementary Payments Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2016. These regulations are being brought in under article 137 of the Welfare Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 2015 and will make provision for mitigating changes to welfare benefits introduced under articles 57 and 101 of the order. The draft statutory rule was approved by the Social Development Committee on 10 March. The regulations have been made following the publication of the welfare reform working group proposals on how the Executive should help the most vulnerable as a consequence of the introduction of a number of changes to the welfare system. I would like to thank Professor Evason and her colleagues on the working group for the work completed within a limited time frame in bringing forward recommendations to the Executive, which were subsequently endorsed on 21 January.

These regulations will enable the Department to implement mitigation payments to claimants impacted by the benefit cap and employment and support allowance (ESA) time-limiting measures. The benefit cap will restrict the total amount of benefit paid to a household to £26,000, and the cap will be applied through a claimant's housing benefit. The main out-of-work and child-related benefits that are included when calculating the benefit cap are jobseeker's allowance, income support and employment and support allowance, except where the support component has been awarded. A household is exempt from the benefit cap if they are entitled to working tax credits or a range of disability-related benefits.

Mitigation payments will be made to families who are receiving more than £26,000 a year, providing that they have been continuously in receipt of any combination of the welfare benefits that contribute towards the calculation of the cap from 31 May 2016 until the point at which they are impacted by the cap. That will include families who may initially have been exempt but who later lose that exemption and are impacted by the cap, and families who are initially below the cap level but for whom a change in their circumstances later causes their benefit income to exceed the cap.

Claimants will receive a payment equal to the amount by which their benefit is capped through reduction to their housing benefit, so there will effectively be no loss of benefit. These payments are transitional in nature and are intended to assist claimants with the transition from the current benefit system to the new welfare system. Households will continue to receive welfare supplementary benefits at the same level unless the amount by which their housing benefit is capped is reduced. In cases where there is an increase in the amount by which the housing benefit is capped, claimants will be able to apply for a discretionary housing payment for the restriction in the amount of housing benefit not covered by a mitigation payment. Discretionary housing payments are extra payments to help people to pay their rent.

I now turn to the time-limiting of employment and support allowance. Members will be aware that, if a claimant is receiving contribution-based employment and support allowance and are in the work-related activity group, the amount of time they can receive the benefit will be restricted to 12 months. If a claimant is in the support group, the time-limiting restriction will not apply, and they will continue to receive benefit as long as they remain in this group. Claimants who are no longer entitled to contribution-based employment and support allowance because of the new provision may be eligible for income-related employment and support allowance. In many cases, that will be paid at the same rate, which means that claimants will not experience a reduction in their benefit entitlement as a result of the change.

The amount of the welfare supplementary payment to mitigate employment and support allowance time-limiting will be either: the difference between the amount of the contribution-based employment and support allowance and the new award of income-related employment and support allowance; or a payment equal to the award of contributory employment and support allowance where there is no entitlement or no claim made to income-related employment and support allowance. Entitlement to a payment will be reviewed if a claimant subsequently has a new or increased award of income-related employment and support allowance. Further measures recommended by the working group to mitigate welfare reform are currently being prepared with a view to being those presented to the incoming Executive following the Assembly elections.

Photo of Alex Maskey Alex Maskey Sinn Féin 3:45, 14 March 2016

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for bringing these regulations to the House.

Members are very aware that the forthcoming reform of our welfare system will be the biggest change to our benefit and tax credit system in over 70 years. From its initial consideration of the Welfare Reform Bill, which concluded in February 2013, the Committee for Social Development, like all Members of the House and numerous stakeholders, was particularly concerned about how such radical reform would impact on the most vulnerable people in our society. It has been a long process to agreeing a way forward on welfare, and, admittedly, there has been much disagreement along the way.

Discussions moved from the policy arena to the political arena, eventually emerging in the Stormont House Agreement and subsequently the Fresh Start Agreement. Following the Fresh Start Agreement, the Committee received a briefing, on 4 February 2016, on the recommendations of the working group on welfare reform mitigations, led by Professor Eileen Evason and her team. It was agreed that the recommendations of the working group would be fully implemented. In order to do this, secondary legislation is, of course, required.

The statutory rules being considered today are the first of a number of packages of such rules, as the Minister mentioned, that will underpin the agreed mitigation measures. The intent of these particular rules is to alleviate the reduction in benefits incurred as a result of the introduction of the benefit cap and time-limiting of contribution-based employment and support allowance, which is due to be introduced here from 31 May 2016. Latest estimates indicate that it will affect around 400 households. That is a very important, necessary and welcome mitigation measure. Similarly, mitigation payments will be available to claimants of contribution-based employment and support allowance on the day on which the new time-limiting provision comes into operation. This, we understand, is expected to be in October/November 2016.

On 3 March 2016, the Committee received a briefing from the Social Security Agency on the proposed regulations, and it was agreed that the Committee was content for the rule to be made. It subsequently considered the statutory rule at its meeting on 10 March 2016, and there were no objections raised by members of the Committee. Indeed, we had a presentation at the same meeting from the Social Security Agency, which outlined a comprehensive range of measures that it is undertaking, in conjunction with the independent advice sector, to make sure that everyone who may be affected by the changes — as I said, the biggest changes in 70-odd years — is aware.

The Social Security Agency is undertaking a comprehensive range of actions, from advertising on TV and in the local media to briefing advice workers right across the Six Counties. It is working with all the disability advocate organisations to ensure that any transitioning from disability living allowance (DLA) to personal independence payment (PIP) is done in a way that does not further harm, hinder, hurt or traumatise people who have been affected in various ways through particular illnesses or disability. So, a very comprehensive range of measures is absolutely being undertaken by the Social Security Agency to advise the public as to how the changes may impact on them. In the context of these welfare payment measures this afternoon, they are also to make sure that people are fully aware of the mitigation measures — the payments that they will be entitled to — as a result of the Fresh Start Agreement.

Chair, with your indulgence, I will now speak as a member of Sinn Féin and an MLA, having made my earlier remarks as Chairperson of the Social Development Committee. Again, I welcome the measures tabled this afternoon. These measures obviously represent the product of an agreement that was fought for long and hard. Not everybody in the House signed up to it, but I would simply say that a lot of what I have heard so far, over the last year or two, and certainly within the last number of months, is favourable, despite the fact that, just a few months ago, this Assembly was on the point of collapse on one particular key issue. That was failure to reach agreement on the welfare cuts that were being imposed by the British Government, but we reached an agreement. We have the institutions. Critically, in the context of the discussion this afternoon, that agreement reached a mitigation package — "an envelope", as people describe it — of £585 million over four years. That will be formally reviewed within three years, to check whether we are doing the right thing or need to do more. That will be evidence for another day's discussion.

Crucially — I think that it was very important here — a panel of experts, led by Professor Eileen Evason, was established and asked to examine the measures that might be required to ease the burden for people who have a number of children, low-income families, the disabled, the sick and so on and so forth. The expert panel was asked to look at how best they could use the money that we secured for a mitigation package. For me, the most important aspect of this is that the panel are experts in welfare and benefits: they are not party political hacks or people with a view. Whether that view is legitimate is not the point. The point is that we had a panel of experts, which we agreed would, hopefully, depoliticise the argument so that none of the measures being recommended or introduced would be subject to party political haggling.

To the credit of the then First Minister and deputy First Minister they agreed, in advance, to endorse and implement the recommendations produced by the panel led by Eileen Evason. I do not think that anyone could level any criticism against that panel of experts. The panel did a lot of hard work and I want to place on record my commendation to them for taking on the onerous task and coming up with very fair recommendations designed to blunt the worst aspects of the Tory cuts coming from London.

We all accept that these cuts have been imposed by London. Some may choose to ignore that, but the reality is that the British Government are responsible for welfare. We had it transferred here within very narrow confines, and we understand the principle of parity, which, essentially, boils down to the British Government saying that if we want to do anything different in terms of welfare we will have to get their agreement and pay for it ourselves. That is precisely what has been done in this case through the Fresh Start Agreement.

I think it is important that we remind the House that we have secured an additional £500 million of funding which we will put towards front-line public services. We also secured a budget of £585 million from within our own grant, which was set aside for very important mitigation measures. That, of course, will add to the range of flexibilities that we previously secured. Those were flexibilities that we had been asked for, and had been lobbied for, and which many of the parties in the Chamber here agreed to fight for. They included split payments, fortnightly payments, and payments for rent being paid directly to landlords. All of those very important measures will alleviate the burdens of people facing the cuts and restrictions that the British Government initially wanted to impose on people here. Therefore, it was very important to have secured those mitigations and flexibilities some time ago.

I do not think that any party in the House could deny how difficult a job it was to secure that range of flexibilities in the first instance. I have heard people in the Chamber talking in terms of how they had great friends in Lord Freud and in all the rest, and that he was a great listener. I met Lord Freud in his office in London on more than one occasion, and I can assure anybody that there was no quick fix or easy rollover from him or anybody else, no matter how good a listener they indicated they were or wanted to be. So, none of those flexibilities, which were secured through negotiation, were delivered easily or conceded easily. They were hard fought for and hard won, and I am glad that we have them.

We also secured very important limitations on the sanction regime that the British Government wanted to impose as well. We have taken off the worst of the sanctions that are being imposed in England, Scotland and Wales. We have also made sure that things will be less onerous for single parents who, for example, apply for jobs, due to the fact that our circumstances here are fundamentally different than they are in Britain.

It is on that basis that my party wants to support these measures this afternoon. It is an absolute nonsense to tell people out there that welfare powers have been given over to the British Government. Everybody here knows that the British Government have the ultimate power over welfare issues here. They did threaten to introduce, and were on the point of introducing, a welfare reform Bill just a few months ago. People can choose to ignore that if they wish, but it is a hard reality.

I am pleased to say that I have spoken to the mitigations panel, to trade union representatives and to a lot of people in the community and voluntary sector and no one wants the cuts imposed. Everybody accepts that they are being imposed by London, and most people will welcome the fact that parties here came together in negotiations and fought a long, hard battle to make sure that we blunted the worst excesses of the cuts coming down the track from London.

Further cuts will be brought in by the British Government, as we heard even over the last weekend, and they are still considering new ways of punishing the poor. We know, regrettably in our view, that the current British Government were elected with a mandate, and they are an unfettered Tory Administration. I am not even arguing that the Lib Dems, who were with them previously, did any blunting.

Photo of Sammy Douglas Sammy Douglas DUP

I thank the Member for giving way. He was in Coleraine last week with the Social Development Committee when it talked about the implementation in May and June of this year. Does he agree with me — maybe the Minister will respond on this as well — about the importance of independent advice for those claimants? The advice agencies do great work across Northern Ireland; I am thinking of the East Belfast Independent Advice Centre in my area. Those organisations need support from the Assembly.

Photo of Alex Maskey Alex Maskey Sinn Féin

I totally agree with the Member. It is worth reminding ourselves that the measures recommended by Professor Eileen Evason's panel represent around £8 million, which is no small amount of money in the scheme of things. Five million pounds of that will be directly allocated through district council advice centres, and the independent sector is in there. The remainder will be distributed at a regional level to the bigger organisations. That has to be tailored to meet the need — in other words, to ensure that all that money goes to the front line of advising people who may well be affected by the changes and some of the cuts in the time ahead.

I welcome the regulations. None of us wants to see any of the cuts being imposed on people. A lot of us can be quite satisfied — I would not say "pleased" — that we have done our best to ensure that we have lessened the burden as best we can in the face of an unfettered Tory Government being elected in Britain with, unfortunately, a mandate to cut benefits and public services. That is their mandate, and it is worth reminding ourselves of that. We will all argue that no one in this society in the North — the Six Counties — approved that mandate. I am glad to say that, widespread throughout civic society, people here lobbied the political parties hard to do our best to blunt the worst excesses of the cuts coming from the Tory Government. I am satisfied that we have managed to do that. Rather than making statements that, in my view, are empty rhetoric, I will make it clear that the people who were involved in this recent negotiation have secured important flexibilities in respect of universal credit and so on. They have secured very important financial protections for those who will suffer the bigger loss from some of the cuts being imposed to the tune of half a billion pounds over the next four years. We can be reasonably satisfied that we have secured that. There is no other similar system or mitigation measure in place in England, Scotland or Wales. To that extent, we can be grateful that we have managed to secure that here. We represent people here; we do not represent people anywhere else. I am pleased that we managed to secure the mitigations, the money for the independent advice centres, as Mr Douglas reminded us, and the flexibilities that have been built into the system to make things much easier. I look forward to the public awareness programme being rolled out by the Social Security Agency in conjunction with the independent advice sector and others in the very short time ahead.

Clearly, as time goes on, we will address, as and when they arise, the further cuts that may well be imposed. Neither I nor anyone else in the Chamber can make any further commitments at this point; we will simply have to see how further cuts are imposed, what their impact may be, who will be worse off and so on. I have no doubt that, having demonstrated our ability to do our level best to mitigate thus far the worst cuts coming from London, we will continue to endeavour to do that in the time ahead. Even if there are no further cuts to be imposed over the next three or four years, we will, within three years, formally review the mitigation package to see how effective it has been and what else we may need to do.

The people who were involved in the Fresh Start Agreement have delivered a package that, I know — it is not a matter of belief — is, quite clearly, second to none in these islands. That is important to state. We would have loved to be able to do more. I have heard a lot of other commentary, but empty rhetoric makes for empty purses. That agreement puts money into the pockets of the most vulnerable. I am pleased that we can stand over that today.

Photo of Dolores Kelly Dolores Kelly Social Democratic and Labour Party 4:00, 14 March 2016

The final note from Mr Maskey was about empty rhetoric making for empty purses. One of his latter comments was that they could make no further commitment on any future welfare cuts. That is a far cry from the rhetoric of Mr Adams, his party leader, when he said that no current or future claimant would be adversely affected by welfare cuts. If they want to look for empty rhetoric, they do not have far to look.

In relation to the regulations, we in the SDLP are pleased that many of the recommendations contained in the Evason report reflected the amendments that were tabled by our party and others to mitigate the worst excesses of the welfare proposals. We are pleased that they have been largely adopted. As you know, Mr Speaker, they were petitioned against by the DUP and Sinn Féin, so one wonders what the last year or so has been about, apart from further delay and uncertainty.

Last week, the Minister's Department gave a very good presentation to the Social Development Committee about how it would inform people. It took on board some of the concerns of members in terms of the communication, the telephone number and how it will communicate, in particular, with people with visual impairments. I look forward to those considered comments being reflected in the final communication strategy. People are already coming to our constituency offices with concerns about discretionary payments and housing benefit. People will pick up on the debate today on the regulations and on the announcement by George Osborne on his future proposals in relation to DLA and PIPs. A lot of people are concerned. I hope that the Minister has plans in place for front-line staff to be trained. When we recently met senior staff at the Housing Executive, there was a great deal of uncertainty and grey areas on just how they were all going to be rolled out. As far as possible, we want to allay people's anxieties and concerns.

One of the big concerns in the news today is the fact that there is to be more strenuous testing in the move to PIPs from DLA. Sinn Féin can make no commitment on any future proposals or reforms that the Tories will introduce because they have been gifted that power by the DUP and Sinn Féin. The legislation does not have to come before this House for detailed scrutiny. Before the Minister leaves office, will he write to the Department for Work and Pensions and Mr Osborne to look for some exemptions from whatever they are going to do? Thousands of people who have to cope with a devastating prognosis and diagnosis around chronic and enduring conditions will never get better. Let us face it: people with MS or Parkinson's disease, those who have been left with debilitating conditions after a stroke, people who have learning disabilities and people who have chronic mental ill health, including psychotic-type illnesses, will never have the full lives that we would hope that they would have. They have to cope with a devastating prognosis for the rest of their life. Those of us who have represented people at appeals know about the stress that affects individuals who have to appear before such appeal panels. They are made to feel as if they have a begging bowl out. They have to prove before that panel the level of the disability that they have and the pain that they endure.

Will the Minister commit to writing to point out that, at the very least and as a starting point, there should be exemptions for chronic and enduring conditions that are life-limiting and for which there are no miracle cures? I seek that commitment from the Minister.

I thank the Minister and others for the opportunity to speak today, but, again, there is a lot of uncertainty. We are coming to the end of the mandate, and too much time has passed to reassure people that they will be able to continue with the income receipts that they currently enjoy and about how time-limited it will be. These are some of the first questions that people will ask. We all know that the Tories talk about having to make work pay. That is all very well, but, over here in the North, we have not had the same success with our economy as has been enjoyed elsewhere in these islands. We do not have those well-paid jobs, and many people are still trapped in the benefits system. I make a special plea to the Minister in relation to further cuts are coming down the track.

Photo of Roy Beggs Roy Beggs UUP

As others said, this is part of the biggest change to the welfare system affecting everyone in the United Kingdom in 70 years. Major changes will be undertaken in Northern Ireland within a matter of months. I, too, pay tribute to Professor Eileen Evason and her working group for their welfare reform mitigation suggestions. One of the outcomes of their work are the new regulations to try to protect against the worst aspect of the changes and to allow people additional time to adapt to the new financial situations that will befall them. However, we all have to recognise that there is a limited amount of funds. The mechanism that has been chosen that will best help most people will give assistance for up to one year. I turn to the ESA contribution-based time limit that is in these regulations. Additional support will be given to assist people who may be affected by those changes, and I generally welcome that.

On the benefit cap changes and the mitigation in the regulations, I notice that, at part 2, regulation 4(6) states that the mitigations will end on 31 March 2020. It is important that there is recognition that significant change is afoot and that choices are made when we pay funds into this area. Mitigation is being given to protect, in particular, families with children. Nevertheless, this support is time-limited. We have to recognise that some have been receiving very large amounts of benefits. Information given to the Committee showed that one household was earning over £47,000 a year. This legislation will give a degree of protection, but everyone needs to recognise that there are no certainties.

On housing benefit assistance, I see that there are proposals that the additional benefit must be paid through a landlord who is registered under the landlord registration scheme or, alternatively, the Housing Executive or a housing association. That is correct. It is important that people who are receiving support should be in bodies or working with landlords who are properly registered and meet the required standards, that public money is limited to those people and, ultimately, that, when landlords do not behave as required, they risk losing their registration and, as such, their tenant.

I also see, under the miscellaneous section of the regulations, that there are other changes to the requirement for individuals to be present in Northern Ireland. Under the heading, "Temporary absence from Northern Ireland", the time limit will be the first four weeks of absence unless there are medical issues or treatment happening. If there are, the period will be extended to 13 weeks. The four-week limit is a sensible proposal.

There is concern that some have been using and abusing benefits in Northern Ireland. The ability to receive funds for four weeks when not present seems reasonably generous. I would not wish for someone to come to Northern Ireland, receive benefits, be here for a very limited period and continue to receive benefits. So, I can see why that change has come in in other parts of the United Kingdom and give general support to the four-week period being introduced here, with the adjustment for those who have to travel outside Northern Ireland because they are receiving medical treatment.

I give general support to the proposals.

Photo of Alex Attwood Alex Attwood Social Democratic and Labour Party

I concur with all the comments made by other Members about the work undertaken by Professor Eileen Evason and her team. I spoke to her and other members of the team, and they were working to a very tight time frame and in very heated circumstances over the Christmas period. The work undertaken by her in particular and by her colleagues in general was mighty.

In one way it is appropriate that, in the very last hours of this mandate, we go back to the issues that have, in some ways, defined this mandate, namely need, welfare dogma, the authority of the Assembly in those matters, and the outcomes that we have reached. It is appropriate to come back to those because, and I say this rather guardedly, we have not seen the half of it. Even if that is not the case, there is certainly more to come.

You have only to read the commentaries over the weekend in advance of the Budget this week to get a sense of where London is positioning itself so soon after the Budget statement. The speculation over the weekend was that the Chancellor would propose in this week's Budget to save £1·2 billion by reforming personal independence payments to the detriment of over 600,000 disabled people. So, having been given false reassurances in the autumn statement, five or six months later we learn of the next phase of welfare reform and welfare cuts that may work itself across the Irish Sea and into the lives and homes of people here.

Given that the Chancellor got it so wrong six months ago, is it not possible, indeed likely, that he will get his call wrong this week as well on where the economy in Britain and Northern Ireland is going? Is there not a possibility that, six months from this week, whoever is in the Chamber will be back again, discussing the next measure that the Chancellor wishes to propose in respect of further budgetary cuts?

For all those reasons, given London Treasury ambitions and where the economy in Britain and Northern Ireland is, we may well have more pain to swallow beyond what is announced this week. Remember that, whilst the Chancellor wants to pretend that it only means a cut of 50p in every £100, he deliberately neglects to tell everybody that, because certain areas of revenue and budget are protected, that 50p works out at a lot more for those areas that are not protected. In all that you can see a sleight of hand by the Chancellor to hide the true intentions behind what we will discover by the end of this week.

It is utterly remarkable that anybody in this Chamber could say, as a consequence of the mitigation:

"we have lessened the burden ... of an unfettered Tory Government".

Inasmuch as there is £500 million-plus going into mitigation, that is true, but it is not true to claim in the House that we have lessened the burden of an unfettered Tory Government when this Assembly, last November, handed to an unfettered Tory Government the ability to make law on welfare for this part of the world. How dare anyone say to anyone in our community —

Photo of Alex Attwood Alex Attwood Social Democratic and Labour Party

In a second. How dare anyone say to anyone in our community that we have lessened the burden of an unfettered Tory Government when we gave power to an unfettered Tory Government to do their worst? You cannot reconcile those comments. How dare anyone in this Chamber say that no one approved that Tory mandate? No, we did not approve that mandate. We did something worse; we gave the Tories their mandate by handing them the power to legislate on welfare in Northern Ireland. I will give way.

Photo of Mitchel McLaughlin Mitchel McLaughlin Speaker

I will intervene. I want to remind the House what it is that we are discussing. I do not want to rehearse debates that we have had already. We are discussing a statutory rule. I just point that out. You have yet to address that topic, Mr Attwood, and, unless you do, fairly soon, I will intervene and move on.

Will your intervention bring us back to the topic or are you responding to what I regard as another topic of discussion?

Photo of Alex Maskey Alex Maskey Sinn Féin

I had intended to respond briefly, given the inaccuracy —

Photo of Mitchel McLaughlin Mitchel McLaughlin Speaker

I would rather you did not. I would rather that this stopped here and now and that we returned to the topic. Thank you.

Photo of Alex Attwood Alex Attwood Social Democratic and Labour Party

Respecting your ruling, Mr Speaker, this is how what I have just said comes right back to the proposals that are being brought by the Minister to this Chamber. I have a question for the Minister on what he is proposing, given what is happening to people in the work-related activity group on ESA. As the Minister is aware, within the last two weeks, the London Government invoked what they refer to as the rule of financial privilege to block House of Lords proposals to resist the reduction of employment and support allowance for people in the work-related activity group from £103 to £73 a week. On two occasions, the House of Lords — that is what we have to rely upon now — blocked proposals by the London Government in the Welfare Reform and Work Bill that will mean a reduction from £103 to £73 a week for people in the ESA work-related activity group. That will apply from April next year for new claimants.

Will the package that the Minister is proposing this afternoon have any impact on any of those people in the work-related activity group, who, on the far side of this legislation, will see their ESA reduced from £103 to £73 a week? That is my question to the Minister, and very relevant it is to the proposals he is making this afternoon. In that answer from the Minister, which I await with interest, will the narrative on all this become clear? The legislation going through Westminster, which this Chamber signed off on in November without a moment of oversight at that time or since, is going to result in that sort of impact on the people in this part of Ireland who are in the ESA work-related activity group, unless I am completely wrong. I am asking the Minister to confirm these questions: is that going to be the case for that category of claimant? Will that category of claimant, in any shape or form, be given any protection whatsoever through the proposals that are being tabled today and that will continue until 2020?

More than that, if there is a reduction from £103 to £73, which is £30 a week and £120 a month, for those relevant qualifying claimants, will they get a penny of mitigation in the new measure that the London Government forced through Westminster by relying on the principle of financial privilege to block the House of Lords? That is the measure of Tory dogma on welfare, and it is the measure of impact that will be upon our citizens. Against that sort of measure, people will need to know whether there will be any penny of mitigation on the far side of the proposals the Minister is making this afternoon.

My second question goes back to the bedroom tax. I want the Minister to be unambiguous — absolutely certain and clear — about this question. On previous occasions, his predecessor indicated in the House that there might be a category of person who is subject to the bedroom tax and who might not get mitigation in full for that tax. Then it transpired, and I welcomed this, that there appeared to be more certainty in the point that every citizen who was subject to the bedroom tax would get mitigation in full. Some new doubts have arisen about this, so I ask the Minister to be comprehensive and unambiguous in his reply and to confirm: is it or is it not the case that every tenant who is subject to the bedroom tax will get additional funding for each and every penny of the penalty of that tax? Is that or is that not going to be the case, or is there, even at this late stage, some potential that some tenants will not get mitigation in full? I ask the Minister to answer those two questions in his reply. The bedroom tax has been the most punitive of nearly all the measures being proposed by the British Government. In that regard, having certainty, even at this late stage, would be welcome.

Photo of Fra McCann Fra McCann Sinn Féin

I will try to be brief on this. I am someone who, from the very outset —

Photo of Adrian McQuillan Adrian McQuillan DUP

[Interruption.]

Photo of Fra McCann Fra McCann Sinn Féin

Thanks, Adrian.

I am someone who, since coming into the Assembly, has argued against the introduction of welfare cuts not only in this place but in many public meetings. That is despite the fact that members of the party that just spoke were behind the first introduction of welfare reform in this Building, which included ATOS coming in to oversee the assessments and the sanctions against the tens of thousands of people who have been penalised because of infringements on benefit, as they see it.

We are here to talk about a statutory rule, but in discussions, and even in what they said today, they did not offer a proposal that would bring one pound extra into people's benefits. As a matter of fact, during all the discussions that took place, they were the complete opposite. It is easy to stand up in here and say that you put forward amendments and proposals, but the time to do that was when the discussions were going on between the political parties.

What we are talking about today is freeing up money to allow people to get the additional mitigations. I would have liked the House to be unanimous in that decision so that people could understand what a panel of experts has put together.

Maybe Dolores, who has just left, was at the meeting — maybe she was not, as she was not at that many — when Eileen Evason of the panel said that the bedroom tax was finished. I take it for granted that what those experts said — those experts who were brought in to look at how we can mitigate effectively the worst excesses of welfare reform — sent us a clear message that, although they might not have been fully happy, because they would have liked more money, they were introducing mitigations, within the confines of the money available, that would work for people and give them some help to overcome those worst excesses.

We obviously need to get the regulations through, as we need to ensure that people get the benefits. The tale will be told by the people out there who will get the additional help that the regulations will ensure that they get.

Photo of Jim Allister Jim Allister Traditional Unionist Voice

It is worth reminding ourselves and the public that the regulations form part of a package that, far from putting new money into the pocket of NI plc, will in fact, over the next four years, take half a billion pounds out of our block grant — out of our expenditure on schools, health, roads and other vital services — for the exclusive purpose of siphoning that money into welfare mitigation measures.

The public need to be aware that that is what the Assembly is being invited to, and it undoubtedly will, vote through, or start a process of voting through, this afternoon. It is a raid on the block grant for that specific purpose, and it is done by a process from which there was very deliberate and calculated abdication by the proponents of the Fresh Start Agreement. Rather than have the courage of their convictions to see through into regulations and to define the details of the mitigations, they abdicated that responsibility to Professor Evason and her team, and they did so in a manner in which, not knowing what she would come up with, they nonetheless blindly committed themselves to accepting whatever she came up with, such was their desperation not to have their own fingerprints on, or the authorship of, whatever was produced. That, no doubt, was to save the blushes of some who had made rash, unsustainable promises about no one now or in the future suffering as a result of welfare cuts. Therefore, part of the political answer to that was to abdicate to the professor and her colleagues the responsibility for deciding how and where the axe would fall and how and where mitigation would arise.

So what we are doing today is the remarkable outcome of a process where the Ministers in the Executive, before they knew what was in the mitigation package, had committed themselves to accepting whatever it was. The Social Development Minister is but a surrogate, bringing forward the proposals that he and his colleagues had committed themselves to accepting, whatever they might be. That does not speak of government to me. It certainly does not speak of good government, and it does not speak of due scrutiny by an Administration. Rather, it speaks of face-saving and passing the buck. That is what we are seeing.

In these proposals, there is another element of face-saving, because even though Professor Evason produced a unified package of proposals, for the purposes of putting them through this House they have been divided up so that, today, we only have part of her package of proposals: those dealing predominantly with the welfare cap. Other aspects of her proposals have, significantly, been pushed down the road beyond the election. Of course, there is a reason for that, because one of the most obnoxious proposals is that there should be special points given to perpetrators of terrorism — to victim-makers, who, in order to protect their benefits, should be gifted an extra four points when they are transferred across to PIP to ensure that they do not suffer.

It is an obnoxious proposal, and one with which the Minister does not want to dirty his hands this side of the election. Therefore, that aspect of the proposals has been carefully and deliberately pushed to beyond the election, when the Minister knows he will be gone, and someone else can dirty their hands with that proposal. He will wash his hands of it today, by bringing forward only that which excludes it. It is perfectly clear to anyone what is going on.

So not only have we had an abdication in bringing us to this point, and a face-saving and a washing of hands, but we have had a very deliberate pushing down the track of that obnoxious part of the proposals which the Minister and his party do not want to be seen in ownership of on this side of the election. They know and I know that they are in ownership of it, because they have already committed themselves to the implementation of it. When this House returns, be it with a different Minister or whatever, there are those who hope that, because the election will be gone, it will be less controversial for them to be seen to be dirtying their hands with it, but their fingerprints are all over it.

Photo of Lord Maurice Morrow Lord Maurice Morrow DUP 4:30, 14 March 2016

Mr Speaker, I will endeavour to deal with the issues that have been raised today. We have heard a lot of them before, and a lot of the stuff that we heard did not have much relevance to what we are debating today. I think your own intervention was a very timely one, and it brought some Members back to what we are here to discuss and debate today. Whether we can say there is consensus or not might be stretching it a little bit, but at least some have spoken and could see exactly what was trying to be achieved through these regulations. The Executive Committee and the Social Development Committee have adopted a fairly positive stance in relation to what is on offer and what these proposals are all about.

Mr Maskey said something that needs to be corrected. He spoke of a package of, I think, around £585 million: the package, over the four-year period, is £501 million. It is proper that we put that on record.

When Mrs Kelly — Dolores Kelly — got up to speak, she got into a spat with Sinn Féin. I have no interest in entering that spat, at this time anyway, because how they come down on the issue is a matter for her party and Sinn Féin. However, she raised some issues that merit a reply. Maybe, I should reply to those. She commented on the training of staff. I think she asked directly whether staff would be trained to deliver all welfare supplementary payments. That is a pertinent question, and it merits a response. I can tell her in the positive that the Department is working on a detailed training plan that will be tailored to individual job roles and will ensure that staff are adequately trained to administer the welfare supplementary payments, as well as the new benefits introduced as part of the welfare reform, including personal independence payments. I hope that she takes some comfort from that and that that reassures her to some degree.

I was not sure what Mr Attwood was driving at at times, but I suspect that it had more to do with the election than with what we are discussing today. It was quite unbelievable that, in all of his mutterings and rambling from Dan to Beersheba to try to articulate a case, he said — I think Mrs Kelly said the same thing — that this was very late in coming to the Floor, right in the mouth of an election. You are absolutely right, but we could have had this debate a year or 18 months ago, had your party, in particular, stood up and acknowledged what everybody else seems to be acknowledging today: when it comes to financial matters, London is in charge; London is in control. We have never shied away from saying that; those are the facts of the matter. However, it took until today to get the SDLP, in particular, to acknowledge that fact. During all of his contribution, there was not one mention of the exorbitant fines that were imposed because the SDLP would not stand up and face facts. They are standing up today. Then they accused some of us of holding this off until virtually the last day of the term. We had no alternative. Had Mr Attwood, who takes the lead on the issue, given his party different advice, we could have been over this hurdle 12 months ago, at least, and the millions and millions and millions that were lost because of his inadequacy and his refusal to stand up and be counted would not have been lost. I hope that Mr Attwood takes that on board.

At times, I cannot understand where people are coming from. How many times do they have to be told that the bedroom tax does not apply in Northern Ireland? In fairness to Fra McCann, he was the one who said so, after some people mentioned it. It was Fra McCann who pointed that out, I think, but that seems to have been lost on Mr Attwood. I hope that you have got the message today, at least, that the bedroom tax does not apply in Northern Ireland. Furthermore, he asked if everyone would be mitigated. The answer to that, Mr Attwood, is very clear: the Northern Ireland Executive confirmed in 'A Fresh Start: The Stormont Agreement and Implementation Plan' that underoccupancy or:

"the social sector size criteria – the so called bedroom tax – will not apply" in Northern Ireland. I hope that that goes on the record. The welfare reform mitigations working group, led by Professor Eileen Evason, welcomed that provision of full mitigation of the social sector size criteria for Northern Ireland Housing Executive and housing association tenants. I am considering options that will deliver the Executive's commitment that current and future claimants will not be impacted by the social sector size criteria. I hope that that is also useful.

The Member also asked about employment and support allowance. The best that I can give you today on that is that I will look at it and write to you with details of when the payments will be made to claimants affected by the removal of work-related activity group payments. You can expect some detail from me on that one to make sure that we have the details right.

Mr Attwood also asked whether all claimants would receive a mitigating payment if affected by the benefit cap. I can tell him that a claimant with children who is affected by the benefit cap will be entitled to a mitigating payment, provided they had been continuously in receipt of a relevant payment from this date. The Member asked specific direct questions, and I have tried to answer the ones that I can today directly to him. On the one that I cannot answer, I will come back to him in writing at a later date.

Roy Beggs generally welcomed what we were trying to do, and we thank him for that. He also acknowledged that changes are afoot and there are no certainties. That is a profound statement. I think that it is true: there are no certainties. I think that it was Mrs Kelly and Mr Attwood who referred to the Chancellor bringing more proposals: how true. That just reinforces what some of us have been saying for a long, long time: when it comes to matters financial, London is in control. Some of us have acknowledged that for a long time, and others found it difficult to come to that position, but that is the truth of the matter.

Mr Allister said that I was trying to put stuff back until after the election. No, I am not trying to put anything back beyond the election — absolutely not. If the SDLP and Sinn Féin had stood up, we would have had this through a long time ago. There is a time factor that we just cannot get round. Time is not on our side. No, Mr Allister, I am not trying to put something back until after the election — absolutely not. I know that you now agree with me on that, so you do.

[Laughter.]

Photo of Lord Maurice Morrow Lord Maurice Morrow DUP

Well, you can laugh. It would not be the first time that you have done that. Let me say that I hope that you acknowledge that and at least accept that we make an honest effort to get on with what we are trying to do and get it through the House. It is not of our making that we are standing here today: had the SDLP and Sinn Féin got their house in order, we could have been here 12 or 15 months ago. Some of them have now come to that position and accept that London is in charge when it comes to financial matters.

I hope that I have responded to the issues that were raised on the Floor. However, if I have not, we will take a close look at Hansard to see whether there is any issue that should have been addressed and has not been.

The regulations enable the Department to implement mitigation payments to assist claimants impacted by the benefit cap and employment and support allowance time-limiting measures. The measures mean that claimants will be given time to adjust to the impact of welfare reform by providing financial support for up to one year for claimants affected by employment and support allowance time-limiting measures and support for up to four years for claimants affected by the benefit cap. The measures are unique to Northern Ireland and demonstrate our determination to protect the most vulnerable, putting us ahead of the rest of the UK in efforts to do so. Further measures to mitigate welfare reform are being prepared and will be presented to the incoming Executive following the election due to there being no time to do it before then.

I have already outlined why that is the case.

I take this opportunity to thank Members for their interest in the regulations. I hope that they will support them to enable mitigation payments to be made to those affected by the benefit cap and employment and support allowance time limit measures. I commend the motion to the House.

Question put and agreed to. Resolved:

That the draft Welfare Supplementary Payments Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2016 be approved.

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