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 42 of 60.
“<BR /> <BR />I remind all Members, whether they would like to accept the fact or not, that it will only be through the formation of a Government at Westminster that we will have any finance to be able to run any Department in Northern Ireland, because we are totally dependent on the block grant and the money that comes from Her Majesty's Treasury in London.”
“The Member knows, as I trust that Members of this House know, that I will expend whatever time and effort that can be used in order to get an agreement on this issue. I am open to having discussions on this matter on a daily basis. However, I think that we need to face up to reality. As the First Minister indicated earlier, it is highly unlikely that we will get any further meaningful discussion on welfare until we have elections to the national Parliament on 7 May and have the formation of a Government at Westminster on which we are totally dependent.”
“The way in which they have treated their own community and the rest of Northern Ireland is shameful and needs to be highlighted on a day and daily basis. Northern Ireland is losing out, and that is because there was no agreement by one party to the Stormont Castle agreement and the Stormont House Agreement.”
“It has also been argued and agreed that any proposed changes to the Stormont Castle agreement would have to be agreed at the five party leaders' forum, of which, I understand and know, the Member is a part. Sinn Féin had particular concerns about the detail of the supplementary payment scheme. The discussions that were taking place were to identify whether there were solutions within the parameters of the Stormont Castle agreement that could address its issues <BR /> <BR />As someone who has been involved in this process since we had what we believed was an agreement, it is extremely frustrating to be treated in the way that the House, and, more importantly, the people of Northern Ireland, have been treated by those parties, namely Sinn Féin, on this issue.”
“I thank the Member for his supplementary question. Of course, the Member should not fall into a trap when considering the document that was produced by Sinn Féin, which, ironically, is called 'Welfare: The Facts'. Careful reading of some of the content and innuendo in that document will clearly indicate that it is nothing near the facts. I advise the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party to be very careful about believing everything he reads that comes from that particular organisation. <BR /> <BR />Mechanisms already exist through the normal consultation process by which any proposals which are to be put before the Executive will be consulted upon with the other Executive parties.”
“Preparatory work started in January 2015, and my officials started to share the detail on the schemes with Sinn Féin representatives from early February. <BR /> <BR />From the beginning of March 2015, the level of engagement with Sinn Féin representatives increased from weekly meetings to a period during that month when discussions on welfare reform were taking place on a daily basis. I was involved in a large number of those discussions, along with my officials, who have been providing technical support to the First Minister and deputy First Minister in seeking to identify solutions with regard to the supplementary payment scheme. Whilst discussions have continued during April, the level of engagement between myself and my officials and Sinn Féin representatives has reduced significantly.”
“In the weeks immediately following the Stormont Castle agreement on welfare reform on 19 December 2014, the focus of my work and that of my officials was on the development of an Executive paper which set out the main terms of the agreement and the associated costs. Sinn Féin representatives were consulted on the content of the draft Executive paper as part of the normal consultation process. That paper was subsequently agreed at the Executive meeting on 22 January 2015. <BR /> <BR />The Stormont Castle agreement committed the Executive parties to a package of support measures, including the development of a number of agreed schemes. The schemes were intended to provide the details of how the different measures would be implemented by the Social Security Agency.”
“I thank the Chair of the Social Development Committee and its members for the consideration that they gave to the matter and for the positive way in which they dealt with the order. As on previous occasions, I have taken note of why RPI is no longer used and why we now use CPI. I have no doubt that it is an issue that will continue to be raised in the future, but, as the Member knows, the outgoing coalition Government's view is that the consumer price index is the most appropriate measure for price inflation for this purpose. Therefore, it remains an issue that is in the domain of the national Government at Westminster. <BR /> <BR />I am certain that there will be a general welcome for the increases in the rates of benefits provided for by the uprating order, and I commend the motion to the House.”
“Other benefits have been increased by 1%. As a result of the uprating order, we will be spending an additional £94 million on social security in 2015-16 — money that will go into the local community and the local economy. I appreciate that many of us would like to do more, but, as I already stated, my Department is empowered to increase the rates of benefits only to the same extent as those payable in Great Britain. <BR /> <BR />I am sure that all Members will wish to ensure that people in Northern Ireland, including some of the most vulnerable in our society, can continue to receive the new increased rates of benefit. Therefore, I ask them to join me in supporting the order.”
“Those facing additional costs because of a disability or those who may have less opportunity to increase their income through paid employment have seen their benefits rise by the increase in CPI. Therefore, disability living allowance, attendance allowance, carer’s allowance and the main rate of incapacity benefit have all risen by 1·2%, as did the employment and support allowance support group component and those disability-related premiums that are paid with pension credit and working-age benefits.”
“Whenever the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions makes an uprating order under section 150 or 150A of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 or an order under the 2013 Act, my Department is empowered to make a corresponding order. There is no power to increase benefits by a different or greater percentage to that provided for in the orders made by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. <BR /> <BR />Basic state pension is increased by 2·5% to £115·95, which is an increase of £2·85 a week, and the minimum guarantee in state pension credit is increased by the same amount, taking a single person’s weekly income to £151·20. For couples, the increase is £4·35, taking their new total to £230·85 a week.”
“<BR /> <BR />There has been some debate in the past about whether the CPI or the retail prices index (RPI) should be used as the measure; some people argue that using CPI will cost less. It is clear that there is no perfect measure of inflation, but uprating by CPI ensures that, at the very least, benefit levels maintain their value against inflation. In addition, some commentators consider that it better reflects the inflation experience of pensioners and benefit recipients. <BR /> <BR />In 2013, because of the national economic situation pertaining at that time, the Westminster Government brought forward the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Act 2013, which limits the increase in the majority of working-age benefits and statutory payments in Great Britain for 2014-15 and 2015-16 to 1%.”
“The uprating order is an annual order that sets out the rates of contributory and non-contributory benefits, together with the various allowances and premiums, that make up income-related benefits. Generally, the annual amounts from April each year are based on the increases in the general level of prices over the 12 months ending the previous September, measured using the consumer prices index (CPI), which is the measure of price inflation the Westminster Government consider most appropriate for this purpose. <BR /> <BR />At the end of September 2014, the CPI showed an increase of 1·2%. According to the latest data published by the Office for National Statistics (ONS), by February this year, that figure had fallen to zero and again remained at zero last month.”
“<BR /> <BR />I had a very productive meeting with Dr Tony Stevens and with Valerie Watts. We need to keep our focus very clearly on the provision of services. At the heart of it is the community that the hospital serves. <BR /> <BR />I commend the Member for securing the debate. Let us collectively, as politicians, work with the Minister, the trust and the board to ensure that the Causeway Hospital continues to provide for our community in the way that it has done.”
“There is a tension there, and you only have to speak to staff to realise that there is sometimes that concern. <BR /> <BR />I look forward to the trust setting out its vision in what I trust will be a very short time. Politicians can then collectively give their support to ensuring that we continue to see the provision of services such as A&E. I have been lobbying the trust for some time to provide dialysis services in the Causeway, and I welcome the fact that it is now considering the provision of those services very seriously. That will bring its own challenges and opportunities. We have to look a bit wider at what a service can bring to an area and the implications that it could have, and I am well aware that the provision of dialysis services would raise concerns about the number of medical beds.”
“The Minister will probably have something to say about this, but let us remember that Simon Stevens, who took up the position of chief executive of the NHS in England in April, said that small hospitals were vital in meeting the needs of an ageing population and would provide focus for the community services that have become "too complicated and too fragmented". In many respects, that is a reflection of what we see being provided at the Causeway. <BR /> <BR />The trust has a responsibility to ensure that its sets out its vision for services in the entire area. Despite all that we can say that is positive — there is a lot to be said that is positive — there is still a concern about what happens between the Causeway and the Antrim Area Hospital sites.”
“He expressed his appreciation of the fact that, after all the years of transition from the Route to the Causeway, people have bought into the Causeway Hospital as their local service. We need to give Fred Mullan and his staff credit; some comments were made about the staff. Fred Mullan has done an exceptional job since taking up his post and needs to be given all possible support.”
“Just the other day, I called into see Dr John Robb, someone we all have known for many years.”
“Let us be quite blunt and honest: some of those concerns were hyped up by politicians, who, for their own ends, wanted to use an issue such as the Causeway Hospital for cheap political point scoring. I am glad that what we have heard so far has been not been in that vein, having heard scare stories in the past that the hospital was closing and coming to an end. <BR /> <BR />Let us remember that I come from a town that knows what it is like to lose a hospital. The Causeway Hospital came into existence as a result of the closure of the Route. It took a long time for the people in my part of the North Antrim constituency to become accustomed to the fact that the new hospital was down the road in Coleraine, but they now look upon it as their local hospital and have bought into it.”
“I welcome this opportunity to discuss again what I believe is, as other Members have said, a vital service in our local community. I speak on a personal basis, given that my father has had to avail himself of the services of the Causeway Hospital for the last three weeks, following a small heart attack. I know that I speak with my father's endorsement when I say that the care that he has received, not only in the Causeway, but in Altnagelvin for a short time — Mr Dallat made reference to the working relationship between the two hospitals — was exemplary. Certainly, on a personal basis, as a family, we have nothing but the highest praise for the provision in the Causeway Hospital. <BR /> <BR />Comment has been made about where we were and concerns and fears.”
“<BR /> <BR />Those are all the comments that I want to make about the matters that have been raised by Members. I thank Members for their help and indulgence and I also want to place on record my appreciation of my officials for the work that they have done, particularly for the extensive work that they did — it was mentioned by the Chair of the Committee for Social Development — when the Bill was being considered at Committee Stage. A lot of this is technical and very detailed, and I appreciate all the work that my officials did to inform the Committee and, subsequently, the House.”
“It avoids the unnecessary complexity of a phased approach in which the value of the new state pension qualifying years could differ from the different cohorts. <BR /> <BR />By the mid-2030s, 80% of people reaching state pension age will get the full new state pension. In 2020, around 90% of males and 80% of females under the new state pension will have 35 or more qualifying years. This is true both at state pension age in 2020 and for all pensioners under the new state pension in 2020, so no one will be disadvantaged by the increase to the 35 years. Under the current scheme, 30 qualifying years provides a full state pension entitlement of £115·95 from April 2015. Under the new scheme, 30 qualifying years will provide a state pension entitlement of £129·64. I trust that that helps Members and places that on the record.”
“He made reference to the issues that were raised about the bereavement support payment, and, as I said in response to the Chair, we are considering the recommendations that flowed from the Committee's report, and we will be, very soon I trust, in a position to respond, at which point Members will be able to see the detail of that response. <BR /> <BR />He also made reference to the question of the 35 qualifying years. It might be useful to give some context to that issue. We are merging the two schemes; the 30 qualifying years required for the full basic state pension and up to 52 years for the state second pension. It strikes a balance between enabling the majority of people who contribute to achieve a full state pension and retaining the contributory principle.”
“I do not believe that by creating some other subset — of course there is, maybe, one way that it could be done. If the Committee for Communities or whatever new Committee is established, were to decide to establish an ad hoc Committee, as it did for the Welfare Reform Bill, then that would be up to that Committee, but I believe that that is there responsibility and duty to hold me, as Minister for Social Development, and whoever is the Minister for Communities in 2016 to account. <BR /> <BR />I move on to comments made by Mr McCarthy. I recognise that, unfortunately, some Members who contribute to the Social Development Committee have other duties and cannot be with us. I appreciate that he was speaking on behalf of his colleague.”
“The Member makes a valid point. Post-2016, we will have nine new Departments, all of which will have been enhanced and enlarged and have taken on considerably different responsibilities and emphases and new roles, but I still believe that the Committees that would then be created to mirror the nine Departments need to be able to continue the work that has been done. I do not think that any Member in this House questions the validity and the value of the work that is carried out by existing Committees. It is one of the best elements in what goes on here. A lot of work is done by our Committees that sometimes does not get the credit it deserves. If you start to do a trawl of the Committees in this House, you would see the extensive work that they do.”
“Of course, we have already referred to the future, and we look forward to the outcome of our national election. We will deal with the consequences and outcomes of that in the weeks and months that lie before us.”
“He also referred, in the debate on the Welfare Reform Bill, to the special committee for what is now welfare and pensions and to a very successful visit by NICVA to Scotland to see how they deal with operational matters. I have to say, as I said then, that the primary responsibility for the scrutiny of legislation belongs to the statutory Committees established in and by this House. The Social Development Committee did a very good piece of work on the Bill before us. I have a particular bias as former Chair of the Education Committee, but I think that the work of our Committees in scrutinising issues, gathering evidence and listening in an impartial, open and transparent way to the arguments is the way in which it should be done. That is where those issues should rest.”
“There is merit in the Member raising those issues. I am quite happy to seek clarification from the Finance Minister and will come back to him.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker and, at the risk of being named, as has happened already this week, I think we will try and make progress on this issue. <BR /> <BR />Let me come to the point that the Member raised about the public-service pensions, and he made reference to a number of other categories. Public-service pensions are not a matter for my Department and, as I think he said, they fall to DFP and other sponsoring Departments.”
“Yes, and be assured that when my party's members return to the House on 8 May and thereafter, following what I trust will be a successful election for us, the DUP MPs will continue to ensure that the best interests of Northern Ireland are protected and put to the fore. <BR /> <BR />In relation to the public service —”
“With the previous Welfare Reform Bill, it was that I was working under subterfuge with DWP, who were pulling my strings. Now it is the case that we have an impending Tory Government, and all is going to come to an end. There is no doubt that, irrespective of the outcome of the general election, we will continue to face challenges in the weeks, months and years ahead. It does not matter whether it is a Labour Government, the sister party of Mr Attwood's. They will face the same challenges, but let us remember that it was that Administration that got us into the difficulties that necessitated the search for changes to the economic prosperity of our nation.”
“Suffice it to say that I will confirm, as the First Minister and Finance Minister have confirmed, that we are working within the financial envelope agreed by the parties in the Stormont House and Stormont Castle agreements. I am working, along with my colleagues, to ensure that that is what we deliver. It is time for others to make progress and come to a position where we can bring the Welfare Reform Bill back to the House and continue to make progress on the other issues, such as corporation tax and all the other financial benefits that flow from that agreement. <BR /> <BR />Returning to the Pensions Bill and to Mr Attwood's remarks. I have to say that he never fails. One thing about the Member is that he is consistent: the day of doom and gloom is coming.”
“I think that that is shameful; it is using people to score political points.”
“Thank you. On the point that the Member raised on the Welfare Reform Bill, I am, along with my colleagues, continuing to work extensively to ensure that, as far as my party and I are concerned, we deliver the deal that we agreed on. I have heard Members today talk about the fears and the worries of an incoming Tory Government, but they had no fears or no worries about an incoming Government when they signed the petition of concern. Obviously, if they were so concerned about protecting those whom they claim they want to protect, they would have allowed the progression of the Welfare Reform Bill when I stood in the House two weeks ago. Then we might not have had the crocodile tears that we have seen over the last number of days in trying to outdo others on an issue.”
“The new paragraph will amend clause 97(8) of the Welfare Reform Bill to provide that the new state pension cannot be caught by the benefits cap. This continues the agreed policy that the state pension cannot be included in the benefits cap. That leads us on to the question —”
“In reference to the tabling of amendments, the Pension Schemes Bill only completed its passage and received Royal Assent in early March, and the admissibility of amendments to the Welfare Reform Bill is a matter for the Speaker and for the House. I defer that issue to those authorities. <BR /> <BR />I will clarify one point. I can understand why the Member may have made the reference that he did. He referred to amendment No 6, but it actually is in reference to amendment No 2. It may have been that it has subsequently changed. What does amendment No 2 do? It inserts a paragraph into schedule 12 to the Pensions Bill, which deals with amendments consequential on the introduction of the new state pension.”
“I know that the Committee sent out an extensive trawl to get information, and I assure the Chair and the members of the Committee that the Department is giving detailed consideration to the Committee's recommendations that followed on from the report. Those were referenced by a number of Members, and we trust that we will be in a position to reply shortly to the issues that were raised in relation to the recommendations. <BR /> <BR />Mr Beggs raised the important issue of parity, which we always need to keep in mind when we deal with these issues. Of course, I can confirm that this is a parity measure, and it is a matter that has been addressed.”
“I thank the Members who took part in the debate. Mr Attwood referred to me as the new broom, and I think that one or two bristles of the new broom are starting to disappear because the last few weeks have been challenging. However, like others, I may need to declare an interest as I am now heading towards the category that becomes part of the outcome of the Pensions Bill. As one who turned the big five-0 recently, I have a vested interest. <BR /> <BR />I thank the Chair of the Committee, and, in his absence, I want to say how much we appreciate the detailed work carried out by the Committee on this issue.”
“It amends the Welfare Reform Bill to ensure that the agreed policy that the benefit cap should not apply to state pension continues when the new state pension scheme comes into operation. <BR /> <BR />In conclusion, I merely restate that these are minor technical and consequential amendments.”
“The definition of scheme rules in section 96B provides that references to scheme rules refer to the rules of the scheme except in so far as they are overridden by a relevant legislative provision. Scheme rules also include any relevant legislative provision not included in the scheme rules. I am sure that Members are following all that intensely. I am just checking that everybody is doing that. <BR /> <BR />The effect of amendment Nos 5 and 6 is to include provisions of schedules 17 and 18 to the Bill in the list of relevant legislative provisions in the definition of scheme rules in section 96B of the Pension Schemes (Northern Ireland) Act 1993. <BR /> <BR />I turn briefly to amendment No 2.”
“Amendment Nos 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 make the necessary amendments. They do not denote new policy and, in line with the legislative consent motion, would have been carried in the Pension Schemes Act 2015 had the Pensions Bill been enacted. <BR /> <BR />Briefly, amendment No 1 updates a legislative reference. Amendment Nos 3 and 4 replace references to "applicable rules" with references to "scheme rules" as, following changes made by the Pension Schemes Act 2015, the term "applicable rules" is no longer used and is subsumed within the definition of "scheme rules" in section 96B of the Pension Schemes (Northern Ireland) Act 1993, as inserted by the Pension Schemes Act 2015.”
“The amendments are minor technical amendments. Amendment Nos 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are in consequence of the Pension Schemes Act 2015, which received Royal Assent on 3 March 2015. Members may recall that, on 26 January, the House agreed a legislative consent motion relating to the provisions of the then Westminster Pension Schemes Bill, including provisions in schedule 4 to the Bill relating to rights to transfer benefits. Schedule 4 to the new Pension Schemes Act makes consequential amendments to the Pensions Act 2014 and includes references to it in other legislation. <BR /> <BR />The Pensions Act 2014 is the Westminster equivalent of the Pensions Bill. As our Pensions Bill has not completed its passage through the Assembly, schedule 4 to the Pension Schemes Act 2015 could not make corresponding amendments for Northern Ireland.”
“First, Mr Speaker, may I apologise to the House for not being here on time?”
“I thank the Chair of the Social Development Committee for the positive way in which the Committee dealt with the regulation. I commend the motion to the House.”
“For example, the amount payable to a person aged 37 or under at diagnosis will be increased from £83,330 to £86,607, which is the same maximum that can be paid from April 2015 under the pneumoconiosis scheme. I am sure that all Members will warmly welcome that increase in the amounts payable, which will ensure that the compensation provided under the scheme maintains its value. I am sure Members across the House will support the regulations.”
“Many people who were previously not eligible for help — for example, those who are unable to pursue a civil claim or to claim a lump sum under the Pneumoconiosis, etc., (Workers' Compensation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 — have access to financial help for that terrible disease through the scheme. That means that sufferers of mesothelioma are eligible for a payment whether they were employees, were self-employed or, indeed, have never worked, provided that they have not already received a compensation payment from another source. <BR /> <BR />The regulations will increase the amounts payable under the mesothelioma scheme by 1·2%, in line with this year's uprating of industrial injuries benefits from April 2015.”
“The regulations are made under the Mesothelioma, etc., Act (Northern Ireland) 2008 and will increase the compensation payable under the Act to persons diagnosed with diffuse mesothelioma or, if persons have died, their dependants. The amounts payable are to be increased in line with the corresponding scheme operating in England, Scotland and Wales. <BR /> <BR />I will briefly outline the purpose of the scheme. The mesothelioma scheme provides financial support within a matter of weeks of diagnosis without the need to establish an occupational link or, indeed, any causal link.”
“I thank the House for the consensus of support for the regulations. I also thank the Committee for Social Development for the positive way in which it dealt with the regulations. That has been outlined by the Chair, and we thank him and the Committee for that. I am certain that we all want to ensure that the value of compensation payable under the 1979 Order is not eroded by inflation, and the regulations will make sure that that does not happen. I commend the motion to the House.”
“The regulations increase the amounts payable under the order by 1·2% in line with this year’s uprating of industrial injuries benefits and they ensure that payments are the same as those in the corresponding scheme operating in Great Britain. The maximum amount that can be paid under the scheme is increased to £86,607 for a person aged 37, or under, at diagnosis and will ensure that compensation provided under the Order maintains its value. <BR /> <BR />I am sure that we all agree that no amount of money can ever compensate individuals and families for the suffering and loss caused by these terrible diseases. I am also sure that Members across the Assembly will support the regulations to ensure that those who make a claim on or after 1 April 2015 will receive the higher amounts.”
“In order to receive a payment, a person must have been awarded industrial injuries disablement benefit. The lump sum payment under the Order is in addition to the weekly industrial injuries disablement benefit that is paid in relation to the same disease. A claim can also be made by dependants after the death of the sufferer. <BR /> <BR />The lump sum payment is based on the age of the sufferer and the level of disability, with higher amounts paid to people with higher levels of disability and whose disability arises at an early age. Lower amounts are payable to dependants who make a claim after the sufferer has died.”