Mervyn Storey
North Antrim · Democratic Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“I thank the Minister for his statement. It will be noted that there are those who cry much about the environment and purport to be the champions of the environment who did not have the courtesy to come to the House and be present when the statement was being made.”
“I thank the Minister for his statement. Clearly, there are some in the House who want to continue with the same old, same old and get the same outcomes at a huge cost to the public purse and to farms in Northern Ireland. The Minister is absolutely right: it is a scourge.”
“I am sure that the Minister will be aware, having listened to the Member who spoke before me, that the farmers of North Antrim will make an informed choice about who best supported farmers during this mandate of the Assembly.”
“A pilot scheme has been operating with the Education Authority, the PSNI and the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust across 60 schools in the south Down area since September 2021 and was extended to a further 77 schools in the Newry and south Armagh areas at the start of February 2022.”
“As Chair of the Justice Committee, I am pleased to welcome the motion. It implements the provisions taken forward by the Committee in the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act (Northern Ireland) 2021 to establish an Operation Encompass model in Northern Ireland, which is, as the Minister has outlined, a police and early intervention pa…”
“We had our final meeting of that Committee this morning, and I want to place on the public record our appreciation and thanks to our Committee staff of for all the work that they have done.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,983 lines we hold for Mervyn Storey, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 38 of 60.
“I thank the Member for her supplementary question. Obviously, in any of these, I would like to be in a position where we disposing of assets in a way that is generating more revenue for us, given the debate we are having in the House today on the Budget. However, I think that the targets have to be realistic, and, if you look at the past record on this, you will see that there has been an attempt to ensure that we did not overestimate what was achievable. As a result, the amount of money that has come in has been realistic. The Member made the point that this is all public money, and she is right. This is all under the responsibility and due diligence of the public purse, and I think that that is all the more reason why we have to ensure that, when we possibly can, we get the best possible outcome for the sales we enter into.”
“This is being taken forward under the reform of property management programme, which is a DFP project supported by the Strategic Investment Board. My Department is fully engaged in that process. <BR /> <BR />The Housing Executive has advised that it has 21 sites on its land disposal programme 2015-16 for sale on the open market, valued at £1·9 million. Offers have been received on seven sites, totalling almost £0·57 million, but no sales have yet been completed. The value of the undeveloped land schedule surplus sites sold in 2014-15 was £160,450, and in 2013-14 it was £117,500. The Housing Executive has advised that the figures at two above do not include land transfers to housing associations, which are at nil consideration as they do not represent the total of all land disposals, for example open space lands and leases.”
“My Department adheres to best practice in identifying and disposing of surplus assets. This best practice is set out in the Department of Finance and Personnel’s guidance, ‘Disposal of Surplus Public Property In Northern Ireland’. Last year, for example, my Department achieved £3·38 million of receipts from the sale of surplus assets, and has a target to achieve £5 million in the current financial year. I am pleased to report that we are well on course to achieving this target. <BR /> <BR />In the broader context, the Executive approved their asset management strategy in June 2013. One of the recommendations was to establish a central disposal unit in DFP properties division by April 2017 for the processing of all surplus assets from all Departments.”
“I thank Mr Dickson for his comments on behalf of the Committee. I also thank the Committee for the work that it has done on the two issues that I brought to the House today. <BR /> <BR />The change presents an opportunity for a more proactive JSA regime that will help people to manage health conditions that affect their work capability, whilst allowing them the choice of remaining on JSA and staying in touch with the personalised support available from their adviser to enable them to remain engaged with the labour market. It is a welcome change, and I thank the House for its support.”
“It will also make it operationally more complex, but the change is being made to avoid, in most circumstances, a situation in which someone has a period of 13 weeks of sickness at the end of a 12-month period and another 13 weeks at the start of the next 12-month period.”
“Therefore, it would be possible for a claimant to have two short periods of sickness and, separately, an extended period of sickness. Where a claimant starts on two weeks of sickness and that period extends beyond two weeks, they can transfer to the extended period of sickness. However, the initial two-week period will count towards the 13-week maximum. <BR /> <BR />For the purposes of applying the new sickness provisions to a claimant, the first 12 months in a job-seeking period will start from the first day on which the claimant is unable to work on account of the illness or disablement and, if the job-seeking period exceeds 12 months, in each successive 12-month period. That differs from the existing sickness provisions, in which the first 12 months in the job-seeking period start on the first day of the job-seeking period.”
“Under the proposed change, claimants with a temporary medical condition and appropriate medical evidence will have the option of voluntarily remaining on JSA for one period of sickness of up to 13 weeks. During this period, the claimant would not be required to take up paid work but would be treated as being capable of work and as meeting availability requirements, as per the existing JSA sickness provisions. Claimants who take up this opportunity can claim ESA at any point, should they wish. <BR /> <BR />The extended period of sickness will work as follows: it will be a continuous period for up to 13 weeks in a 12-month period and cannot be split into multiple periods; and claimants with a short spell of sickness of two weeks or less can still make use of the existing sickness provisions under regulation 55 of the JSA regulations.”
“Secondly, being required to switch benefits for a short period is unnecessarily disruptive to the payment of benefits and can impact the payment of passported benefits, for example housing benefit.”
“First, claimants on ESA before the medical assessment — work capability assessment — do not currently have any conditionality requirements and do not generally benefit from the support of advisers as they look for employment.”
“<BR /> <BR />This change presents an opportunity for a more proactive jobseeker's allowance regime in helping people to manage health conditions that affect their work capability, whilst allowing them the choice of remaining on JSA and staying in touch with the personalised support available from their adviser, keeping them engaged with the labour market. In practice, if a claimant provides evidence of sickness that is expected to last for more than two weeks, they will be directed to claim employment and support allowance (ESA). In addition, if a claimant has a third period of sickness, however short, during that 12-month period, their JSA award is terminated and they must claim ESA if they have no other source of income. <BR /> <BR />Being required to claim ESA for short periods can have a number of disadvantages.”
“These regulations amend the Jobseeker’s Allowance Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1996 to allow an extended period of sickness that will enable the claimant to voluntarily remain on jobseeker's allowance (JSA) when they have a short spell of sickness that is expected to last more than two weeks but fewer than 13 weeks or they have exhausted the number of occasions on which they may be treated as capable of work. Claimants will need to provide medical evidence to qualify for the new period of sickness.”
“I thank the representative of the Committee for his comments.”
“However, that usually takes place at evenings or weekends to fit around volunteers' work and other commitments, and, as a result, there is no adverse effect on their benefit claim. <BR /> <BR />I believe that it is unnecessarily cumbersome and time-consuming for claimants and my Department to terminate awards of benefit and then require new claims to be made when training has ended. These changes are entirely beneficial and will generate less disruption for reservists, who will no longer be required to end their benefit claim and then make a repeat claim when their training has ended.”
“Once claimants and/or their partners have completed their first year of service, they will then be entitled to the annual continuous training concession of 15 days per calendar year to enable them to attend their mandatory annual training camp. By consolidating their first year's training into three or four blocks totalling up to 43 days, unemployed reservists can be trained more swiftly, thus helping to speed up and increase the number of trained reservists over the next few years. <BR /> <BR />Members of the lifeboat service, Fire and Rescue Service and others engaged in emergency duties for the benefit of others are also required to undertake training throughout the year.”
“They are treated as available for and actively seeking work, if appropriate, for the duration of this training, and their earnings are disregarded, leaving just 10p of benefit in payment. These changes removed the need for them to reclaim benefits after training has come to an end and to retain any passported benefits, such as housing benefit, during this training. <BR /> <BR />These amendments impact on claimants and/or their partners in receipt of JSA or IS and also ESA claimants' partners who are members of the Reserve forces. This will mean that they can attend a maximum of 43 days' training in future whilst in their first year of service without the need to terminate their claim to benefit.”
“These regulations enable claimants of jobseeker's allowance (JSA) or income support (IS) or partners of a claimant in receipt of these benefits or employment and support allowance (ESA) who are new members of the Reserve forces to attend a maximum of 43 days' training in their first year of service without the need to end their entitlement to benefit. <BR /> <BR />Existing legislation that was implemented in July 2012 allows claimants and/or their partners who are in receipt of JSA or IS, or the partner of a claimant who is in receipt of ESA, to attend the mandatory 15-day annual training camp without losing entitlement. Income-based claimants also retain any passported benefits, such as housing benefit, during this training.”
“What we will acknowledge is that, tonight, the SDLP will join Sinn Féin and bring to an end any measures, mitigations and benefit that would come to the people of Northern Ireland, whose champions they claim to be. <BR /> <BR />Members, we have come to the end of the debate today. It is now up to Members to decide how they will protect the people whom they claim they represent. The decision is now over to you.”
“Let me refer to the bedroom tax. Some cloud of mist seems to have now descended on the SDLP in that it somehow was not aware of the bedroom tax and its implementation or non-implementation, its place in the Bill and how all that would transpire. The SDLP endorsed the Executive paper on 22 January that set out how the Executive would ensure that the bedroom tax would not be introduced in Northern Ireland. Let me say that again: it endorsed the Executive paper on 22 January. The paper provided that current and future claimants would be protected from the financial consequences of the bedroom tax. The paper also clearly set out that existing and future tenants would be protected from any reduction in their housing benefit. All that was endorsed by the SDLP, so let us not have any of this, "But it wasn't us, Jack; it was somebody else".”
“If the party opposite thought that I, as Minister, was going to do something that had significant financial consequences, legal impediments and operational difficulties, it is not living in the real world. The party opposite knows well, as does the SDLP, that my officials and I have endeavoured, in good faith, to do the very best that we could in extremely difficult circumstances.”
“<BR /> <BR />Mr Maskey also referred to the need for political leadership and, while he was commending the work of the officials, he suggested that it is not officials who make the policy. He is absolutely correct. He said that it is important to point out that senior civil servants have a key responsibility to provide Ministers with objective and impartial advice to enable politicians to make informed policy decisions. Let me make this very clear: the advice provided on the supplementary payments scheme rightly pointed out the significant financial consequences, the legal impediments and the operational difficulties of making the types of payments that Sinn Féin proposed for future claimants.”
“What I proposed in the Bill was real and affordable support that would have ensured that current claimants would not have suffered any financial loss during the lifetime of the scheme, and that financial support would have been available to future claimants who had not suffered any real loss. <BR /> <BR />Members can look at their phones and try to be dismissive, but that is what you are rejecting tonight. I do not want to hear, tomorrow, all these claims about protecting the vulnerable and defending the poor when, in this House tonight, it would seem that there are Members who are quite happy to vote against a Bill that was intended to do that very thing.”
“They suggested that all those claimants would be financially impacted and that we in the Assembly needed to think about the impact that that would have on those groups. Let me say this: the supplementary payments scheme would have provided full protection for all current claimants in each of those groups. It is recorded in Hansard; it is on the Floor of the House; it is a fact. No individual would have suffered any financial loss as a result of the Bill that the two parties opposite are going to vote against. That protection would have initially lasted for three years, and future claimants in each of the groups would also have been able to access financial support when they were facing a financial crisis in their lives.”
“It is a piece of enabling legislation, and all the parties have been well aware of the schemes, plans and regulations that would be brought in over time to bring into existence the welfare changes. It seems that that is all to be lost because two parties have decided, tonight, that they want to bring it to an end. <BR /> <BR />I do not intend to rehearse all that has been said by others, you will be glad to know, but I want to make a few comments as I conclude. Let me turn to comments made by Mr Maskey and by the Agriculture Minister. Earlier, they referred to the financial losses that different claimant groups would incur as a consequence of the changes to the welfare system. They quoted figures from my Department for families with children, adults and children with disabilities, and ESA customers.”
“All the comments have been made, and it is now up to the Members of this House to determine whether they want to have a Bill that has in it mitigations and measures to help alleviate and support those families and communities — we have all been told about them tonight — that we have concern for, or whether they are prepared to allow others to bring about a situation that will introduce another Bill, because welfare reform will come to Northern Ireland, but it will not be this Bill that will introduce it. I want to mention something that was touched on by the Finance Minister. There seems to be a misunderstanding, either deliberate or inadvertent, of what this Bill is about.”
“Let us be under no illusion, and let it be said on the Floor of the House tonight, that there has been no contrived crisis; there has been no choreography to bring about a situation that we hoped would not really transpire. We are facing the reality of the circumstances that we find ourselves in. <BR /> <BR />So, all the talking has been done for tonight.”
“First, I thank those Members who joined in numerous comments in relation to the health of the First Minister. I thank them for their best wishes, and we are glad that we have a First Minister who has given us such time and effort, as I said earlier, in regard even to the issues that we are discussing. We thank Members who expressed their best wishes, one and all. <BR /> <BR />That is where the goodwill seemed to end. It gives me no joy, as Minister for Social Development, to realise that there are two parties that, despite all that has been said and done, and all the progress made, are prepared, by what they have already done with the petition of concern, to consign the Welfare Reform Bill to the bin. My colleague the Finance Minister set the debate in its factual context.”
“Just to clarify, so that Members are clear on the point, it was suggested by the SDLP, in its contribution to the debate in the succeeding days from Wednesday through to the end of the week, that we look at the issue of sanctions, which we have debated in the House on numerous occasions, and that we set up an all-party Committee of the House to deal with the issue of welfare. That was the sum and substance of the amendments that it brought to the table.”
“Is it not time for Members in the House to realise what the real agenda is here and put the facts about what happens in Scotland rather than create a smokescreen over the real situation?”
“I have listened to Members talking today about Nicola Sturgeon and what is going on in Scotland. Let us remind ourselves of the reality in Scotland. Back in 2014, when Nicola Sturgeon was the deputy leader of the Scottish National Party she said:”
“Is there a bright light shining in your eyes?”
“I thank the Member for giving way and appreciate that he is being generous in doing so, but this is important. He talks about us being very clever, but if all of what he says is right — the Member is always prophesying doom — will he answer one simple question? Where does the money come from? We can try in the House — as others supported in the past — robbing banks to pay for certain things. We can try to wish money into existence, but, in reality, where will the money come from? Will he answer that, or will we just go back to the British Exchequer with a big begging bowl and say, "The poor people of Northern Ireland require more money, so write us a blank cheque". Those days are over.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I omitted to say earlier that our thoughts and prayers are with him and his family on their recent bereavement. He knows that we have been thinking about them at this time. <BR /> <BR />Does the Member forget that we had a five-party agreement? We sweated it out, had the discussions at Christmas and had the detail, despite what Sinn Féin says about not having the information and the papers. We did all of that and still, when we had got a five-party agreement, parties in the House could not honour the commitments and keep their word. Now, because of the budgetary issues, we are in the crisis that we are in. It is not because I arbitrarily decided to move the Bill's Final Stage today.”
“Does the Member not understand the parliamentary process? The petition of concern kills this Bill. It will not come back for six months. That is the period of time during which it cannot be brought back. It could be 18 months before we get another Bill like this through the doors of the Chamber. That is the reality.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Obviously, he believes that I work for DWP and not for the Assembly. Does he not argue against his own point? If the case is as he sets out, it puts the onus on the parties that signed the petition of concern, his own party included. If that had not happened, we would have been able to implement the changes and mitigating measures that we had agreed, and which would have taken off the table the worst elements of what we fear in relation to the current process. What you have done is ensure that what is coming down the road is the GB version, and there will be no mitigating measures.”
“Yet, in a Department in which it had control, the Education Minister made a decision without reference to anybody else — and I see the Education Minister is in the House this afternoon — and £1·7 million was taken out of the early years fund. Who has that affected? Who has that punished? That was deliberately a target towards families that are now in a very dire situation. So, when it has the control and the power, it attacks the vulnerable, and that is the accusation that it is making against the rest of us.”
“The Member will recall, I am sure, a document that was published by Sinn Féin, ironically called "Sinn Féin Welfare Reform: The Facts". That is a contradiction in terms. In that document, Sinn Féin said:”
“If the narrative that the Member is painting to the House and to the public is the case, then why did her party, along with the four other parties, sign the Stormont Castle agreement? Let us be very clear: all the information was available to everybody in the room. I ensured that the most senior civil servants were available: the head of the Northern Ireland Civil Service was there; the head of the Social Security Agency was there; and all the relevant information was there. Why did we have an agreement and why, today, does that agreement lie in tatters?”
“I pay tribute to my officials, who have worked extensively before Christmas, during Christmas, after Christmas and up until today to ensure that we got an agreement. Others need to ask why that was not enough. I move the Bill.”
“<BR /> <BR />I say to those Members who signed the petition of concern: you will have to explain to the people whom you represent why you have failed to ensure that you protected their best interests and that their welfare was at the heart of your actions. I believe that my party colleagues and I, with those who support the Bill, can justify that we have endeavoured in all good faith. <BR /> <BR />In conclusion, I want to say that I am disappointed by the allegations made by the party opposite that, somehow, I misled the House and withheld papers and that my officials were involved in some sort of clandestine operation. I want to make it very clear, without any equivocation, that I have expended every effort, all avenues and all possibilities.”
“<BR /> <BR />A tremendous responsibility rests on the House today. It is a question of choice: either we adopt the Bill and secure the real additional benefits associated with our proposals for the most vulnerable in our society, or we do not and instead give way to what will be an immensely worse outcome for those whom we serve. <BR /> <BR />I place on record my gratitude to the Chair and members of the Social Development Committee for their work. To Members of the House, I say this: we have disagreed, debated and negotiated, but there has been in-depth scrutiny of the Bill, much of which has been positive. Much has been achieved, which involved hard work.”
“Over the next three years, our proposals will mean that those in need will receive over £200 million more than they would have received under the GB scheme. In UK terms, that is the equivalent of £6 billion. That demonstrates how far we have gone to offset the harsher effects of the UK Government’s reforms. That demonstrates how we have ensured that we have negotiated what we believe is best for Northern Ireland. However, there is only so much that we can reasonably do. We need to strike a balance between welfare and other services on which we all, including those receiving benefits, rely. We cannot and should not focus on the welfare system without taking into account the impact on other services, including our health service, our education service and services for our children and young people.”
“The welfare reform system that the Bill will bring in is not that of the UK Government. It is distinctly different: it is made in Northern Ireland. Contrary to what is being said, it provides much greater support for adults with disabilities, for children with disabilities, for families with children and for those who are long-term sick. It not only protects existing claimants but ensures that support is available for future claimants covered by the supplementary payment scheme for suffering financial crisis, which is a direct consequence of the changes. It also protects current and future tenants from the financial impact of the bedroom tax. <BR /> <BR />This is not simply an aspiration. We are putting substantial resources into this.”
“Let us remember that those were the criteria that were set out by the First Minister. That was the challenge that was given to the parties over the last number of days. If they had any suggestions, ideas, amendments or proposals, those would have to be within the parameters of what was set out as being legal, affordable and deliverable. It is for others to reflect on the impact of their proposals on the rest of Northern Ireland's public services. <BR /> <BR />We have come a long way. When we set out on this journey, people said that we could not change things. My predecessor Nelson McCausland negotiated a package of measures, which were the envy of many other jurisdictions. I have heard that said in conferences and in discussions with other persons from the rest of the United Kingdom. <BR /> <BR />We have now gone further.”
“Generalisations often miss the facts and cover the reality of what goes on daily to provide help and support for our many vulnerable and disadvantaged people <BR /> <BR />The issue is what we can afford and what is deliverable for people who do not currently claim social security benefits. In those cases, we have offered financial support to claimant groups that can show that they are in financial crisis. I believe that our approach has been fair, legal, affordable and deliverable.”
“We will also ensure that universal credit payments are made to the main carer in cases where there is concern about the impact of single payments to households. <BR /> <BR />Finally, I turn to the supplementary payment scheme, which has, in some way, led to today’s position. This scheme provides all claimant commitments with full protection. These claimants are families with children, the long-term sick and adults and children with disabilities. It is not accurate for some to claim that my party and I do not support providing protection for those groups. As Members proceed in the debate, I ask them always to be very mindful of the words that they use and the impact that they create on those whom they claim to support and defend.”
“The scheme will also offer victims and survivors who do not qualify for PIP the opportunity to make a claim for a similar payment. <BR /> <BR />For all benefit claimants and families on low working income, there will be a new system of financial help when they have a financial crisis. This will be related to the levels of minimum wage, and the Executive have agreed to maintain the funding for this service. <BR /> <BR />For people who might be impacted by the bedroom tax, now or in the future, there will be full protection from any cuts in housing benefit. <BR /> <BR />For all working-age families receiving universal credit, there will be flexibility in how frequently they receive their benefit and in making direct payments to social landlords.”
“The schemes agreed between the five main parties of the Assembly will offer additional protections to many. There have been a lot of negative comments about claimant groups not being protected and the marginalised being ignored. <BR /> <BR />Let us reflect on what was proposed in the Stormont Castle Agreement. For disabled people, a disability protection scheme is proposed to help them to transition from disability living allowance (DLA) to the new personal independence payment (PIP). This will provide for a payment equivalent to up to one year’s full DLA payment for people who are unsuccessful in claiming PIP, and it will also guarantee claimants who will receive less under PIP 75% of the shortfall for up to four years.”
“Let me also put on record my commitment, my party’s commitment and that of my party leader to make the necessary resources available to fund the package of measures that the five parties agreed at Stormont Castle. Let us remember that it was a five-party agreement. I have been disappointed in some in the House who want now, almost like Pontius Pilate, to wring their hands and almost to cleanse their conscience as though, somehow, they had not signed on the dotted line. Today, the people of Northern Ireland need to understand very clearly that it was a five-party agreement. <BR /> <BR />Members will be aware of the subsequent debate on the detail of the mitigating schemes. I reiterate to Members that I believe that we have now attained the balance between what, in an ideal world, we would like to do and what we can afford to do.”
“Those talks resulted in an agreement to fund a package of mitigating measures to alleviate some of the harsher impacts of various welfare reform provisions.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Executive recognise that I also have to balance protecting claimants from any negative aspects of the bedroom tax with ensuring the best use of the social housing stock in Northern Ireland and have agreed that I should develop a scheme that protects existing and future tenants from any reduction in housing benefits for their tenancies unless there is a significant change in their personal circumstances or they are offered suitable alternative accommodation. <BR /> <BR />At Consideration Stage and, again, at Further Consideration Stage, Members may recall there was also a great deal of discussion around the outworkings of the five-party talks held at Stormont Castle in December.”