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 45 of 60.
“<BR /> <BR />As I am sure that you are aware, the advice sector currently uses the blue volumes and the decision makers' guide in answering claimants' concerns, and it will continue to avail itself of those resources for the new benefits under the Welfare Reform Act. That information will be available in advance of the implementation of the benefits. <BR /> <BR />I value the work carried out by the advice sector. I have endeavoured, since coming into office, to continue to build on the working relationship with the consortium and all those involved in the advice sector. Members will be aware of what we said previously in relation to the use of the term "independence". I could say a whole lot about that word, but I am going to resist putting it on the record of the House — and it has nothing to do with welfare reform.”
“I think Mr Swann raised the concern about young people who are more affected by the sanctions. Through the provision of advice to those young people and their active involvement in the claimant commitment process, we will endeavour to ensure that they understand the conditions for receiving benefit. Therefore, I trust that they will avoid the possibility of unwarranted and avoidable sanctions. It is only right that we place that on record in the House in response to the comments made by Mr Swann. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 17 introduces clause 120A. That, in effect, does the same as the amendments I have tabled. However, it also requires guidance to be produced within three months, in consultation with the Northern Ireland Advice Services Consortium.”
“<BR /> <BR />I will address amendment Nos 17, 18 and 23 together as they all relate to advice. My proposed amendment No 23 will insert new clause 132B, which creates a duty on the Department to ensure the availability of advice and assistance to anyone making a claim under the Act in connection with that claim. Clause 121 already requires the Social Security Agency to report on the standards of decision-making and payment accuracy and on the operation of sanctions for universal credit, jobseeker's allowance, income support and employment and support allowance. <BR /> <BR />My proposed amendment No 18 adds a requirement to report on the standards of advice and assistance provided under section 132B in the annual report that is endorsed by the social security joint standards committee. I have also spoken to Members about their concerns.”
“During Consideration Stage, Members will recall that I was reluctant to accept the need for advice to be enshrined in legislation. I said then that I believed that the Department currently has effective mechanisms to ensure that appropriate advice is available. However, I have had time to reflect on the issues discussed during the debate and to discuss the concerns of Members opposite who spoke to me on the subject. Taking all those matters into account, I have tabled an amendment that I hope will provide additional assurance to the Assembly on reporting on advice in the context of the provisions contained in the Act. <BR /> <BR />I will take a couple of minutes to deal with amendment Nos 17, 18 and 23. I will then come back to the issue of the independent advice sector and make some comment in relation to that.”
“When you think of what we have done in regards to the uptake benefit programme, it equates to 47% of the three-year financial target and 43% of the three-year claimant target being met in the first year. This gives some indication of the progress being made. We need to go even further in terms of how we use that programme.”
“It is still the situation that we make information available in other languages. We make every effort to ensure that the benefit uptake programme reflects the diverse needs of our community. We can always revisit that and do more, but I think that what we do at the moment through Maximising Incomes and Outcomes is sufficient. <BR /> <BR />I bring you to a figure that I think is helpful to Members. Mr Lyttle referred to targets and where we were.”
“Members will know that Maximising Incomes and Outcomes is a three-year plan to improve the uptake of benefits with a high-level target to secure at least £30 million in additional benefits for a minimum of 10,000 people by 2016. The final evaluation of the year 1 programme for 2013-14 is now complete, and the high-level outcomes are very positive, with £14·2 million awarded in additional benefits and 4,266 people benefiting.”
“Members will no doubt remember the debate we had at Consideration Stage on the provision of advice to claimants on making a claim under the Act. There were several issues raised in relation to advice. I gave assurances that I would give the matter further thought in advance of today's Further Consideration Stage. <BR /> <BR />During that debate, Mr Lyttle, who, unfortunately, is not present in the Chamber, inquired what progress the Social Security Agency was making towards its targets for benefit uptake. He made reference to that again today. I am pleased to report that we are well on the way to achieving the targets.”
“Current procedures require a party to the proceedings to be given 14 days' notice of the time and place of the appeal hearing unless that person agrees otherwise. The appeal having to be lodged, scheduled for hearing and determined within four weeks would not only put immense pressure on the Appeals Service but would be detrimental to other appeals in the system and make it almost impossible for them to be dealt with. For those reasons, I urge Members to reject the amendment. <BR /> <BR />I turn to amendment Nos 17 and 23, which propose new clauses, and amendment No 18 to clause 121 and deal with the duty to ensure the availability of advice and assistance. I know that this has given rise to considerable debate. I want to work our way through this, and I trust that I will be of help to Members as to how we get to an agreed position.”
“The amendment would add article 15A to the Social Security (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 to provide for a claimant to be entitled to an appeal hearing within four weeks of the notice of a sanction being issued and for benefit not to be reduced before the appeal is decided. Should a reduction not be applied and the benefit payments continued in full, the claimant may never have reason to appeal the decision. That, in effect, would remove my Department's ability to reduce a person's benefit as a consequence of a failure on their part that would otherwise be sanctionable under the Act. The time within which an appeal is to be made is one month. A claimant could therefore appeal the decision after the expiry of the four-week period during which the amendment requires an appeal tribunal hearing to take place.”
“That allows a degree of flexibility to revise the target if necessary, depending on circumstances that may impact on the evidence-gathering, assessment and decision-making processes. An appropriate clearance target for processing personal independence payment claims will be set in due course. For those reasons, it would be not be appropriate to set a maximum timescale in legislation for processing a claim for personal independence payment, and I therefore urge members to reject amendment No 15. <BR /> <BR />I now turn to amendment No 16, a new clause that covers appeals in connection with sanctions. The amendment proposes to insert new clause 103A on appeal in connection with sanctions.”
“<BR /> <BR />Many factors need to be taken into account to determine the individual personal independence payment journey for each claimant, such as how quickly after the initial data-gathering stage claimants return their PIP part 2 form; whether or not they need extra time for the completion of that form; and whether or not the decision-maker needs to request additional medical evidence as part of the further medical evidence flexibility, which is applicable only in Northern Ireland. Although timescales are in place for parts of that process, some flexibility has to be built in to support claimants throughout their customer journey. Therefore, it would be highly unusual to specify an operational clearance target in legislation. Such an objective is usually spelt out in the Social Security Agency's balanced scorecard.”
“Targets for benefit clearance times are an operational matter, and it would not be appropriate or practical to legislate for that in statute, given the individual nature of each case and the evidence requirements necessary to determine claims. In addition, within the personal independence payment, customer journey claimants need to be allowed time to complete the forms and/or gather evidence that they wish to submit in support of their application, and consultations may need to be rearranged at the claimant's request.”
“The clause provides that a payment of personal independence payment cannot be backdated beyond the date on which a claim is made or treated as made; that awards of personal independence payment will normally be for a specified fixed period, after which a new claim must be made; and that information gathered in the process of determining a claim to personal independence payment is to be treated as information relating to social security. Amendment No 15 would place a requirement on the Department to ensure that, where a person is entitled to personal independence payment, the award will be received no later than 16 weeks from the date of claim. <BR /> <BR />The amendment is unworkable for a number of reasons.”
“I will endeavour to have it before I conclude. I will ask my officials to make the information available. Members will sometimes have to accept that I do not have all the answers. I am happy to say that we will get you that answer before we conclude, and that can inform how you vote when you go through the Lobby. That is probably the best way in which to deal with it. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 15 is to clause 89, "Claims, awards and information". The amendment would set a maximum timescale for processing a claim to personal independence payment, and perhaps it will assist the House if I take a step back and reiterate what clause 89 does. Clause 89 sets out conditions for claims, awards and information for personal independence payment.”
“As I said, the existing clause 81(3)(c) needs to be restricted to prescribing matters other than medical evidence. I am happy to give the Member a more detailed answer when I have consulted my colleagues in the Department. <BR /> <BR />There was a technical reason behind feeling that it was necessary when we amended the clause at Consideration Stage, and we felt that it was relevant for us to ensure that we got consistency in how we dealt with the regulations. I am happy to give the Member further information following today's debate, if he is content with that. I would —”
“— that relevant medical evidence will be taken into account in assessing a person for personal independence payment.”
“<BR /> <BR />To be consistent with the structure of that clause, I have tabled the amendments to revise the wording so that the regulations must provide for medical evidence to be taken into account in assessing a person for personal independence payment. The existing clause 81(3)(c) then needs to be restricted to prescribing matters other than medical evidence. I hope that that gives some explanation to Mr Beggs and, I think, Mr Swann. I trust that they are content that the changes are in keeping with the intention of their original amendment —”
“I have now tabled amendment Nos 13 and 14, which are mainly technical, but they are required so that the clause is still workable. Let me explain the rationale. The structure of clause 81 is that all questions are to be determined in accordance with regulations. Subsection (3) requires those questions to be determined on the basis of an assessment and the matters to be taken into account in that assessment to be prescribed. The new provision that account must be taken of medical evidence in that process contradicts the general provision in subsection (1) and, more specifically, subsection (3)(c), which states that the matters to be taken into account in making the assessment will be set out in regulations.”
“The Member has answered his own question: it is all in the term "suitable accommodation". We will not go out to create a situation in order to find people in circumstances that enable us to justify what we are doing; we will work in a pragmatic, practical way. Let us remember that the line is "suitable accommodation". If we have not found suitable accommodation, there will be no requirement or need for us to remove the benefit. <BR /> <BR />Let me move on to amendment Nos 13 and 14, which relate to clause 81, "Ability to carry out daily living activities or mobility activities". Clause 81 was amended at Consideration Stage to ensure that relevant medical evidence was taken account of during an assessment for personal independence payment.”
“What I can say is that this is the remit that we have been given to implement the scheme, and every effort will be made to ensure that, when we bring the scheme to the Executive, we will have endeavoured to cover all those issues in a way that meets the policy intent. I have set it out and made it very clear that the policy intent is that, as far as the scheme is concerned, the fund will mitigate the impact of the measure by protecting existing and future tenants. I cannot be any clearer than that.”
“If the Member was listening to what I said earlier, he heard that we have agreed to create a separate fund that will mitigate the impact of this measure by protecting existing and future tenants from any reduction in their housing benefit. I have said that repeatedly, and it will be in Hansard. <BR /> <BR />The other difficulty that we have in all of this is this: I have no doubt that, because of the unique nature of their creation, there will be some difficult circumstances. I cannot stand here and say that it will happen in every set of circumstances, because you could bring me a raft of different circumstances.”
“Under the terms of the Stormont House Agreement, my Department is working on the detail of this mitigation measure, and the scheme details will be brought to the Executive in the very near future. I trust that that gives some reassurance to Members. <BR /> <BR />A Member mentioned the scheme regulations that will flow from the enabling clause and asked what they will be subject to in the House. They will be subject to the draft affirmative process, which means that the regulations will be laid in draft and cannot be made unless agreed to by the Assembly: in other words, they will be subject to debate in the House. That needs to be underscored and underlined.”
“Let me outline the sequencing of how it is envisaged that the mitigation scheme will be implemented. Maybe that will give Members some reassurance and a bit more information. Once the social size criteria restriction is introduced and the claimant residing in either a Housing Executive or housing association property is identified as underoccupying that property, the amount of housing benefit that has been made in payment will be reduced. The mitigation measures will, however, ensure that claimants do not see any difference in the amount of financial assistance that they receive to meet their housing costs. It will be only after that point that an offer of suitable alternative accommodation will be made and only when an appropriate-sized dwelling becomes available.”
“It is not just a simple matter that this brings in the bedroom tax by the front door but that it somehow brings in the bedroom tax in by the back door. Serious consideration was given to the removal of clause 69, but it was believed that that could not be done. Given that it could not be done, we have had to resort to what we have agreed is the way to deal with it. <BR /> <BR />The point that has been made that we are dealing with homes is not lost on me. There is a difference between dealing with homes and dealing with houses. We are dealing with homes, and I trust that, as we work through the scheme and the way in which it will be operated, we will ensure that it deals with homes as opposed to houses.”
“The Executive have already agreed to create a separate fund, which will mitigate the impact of this measure by protecting existing and future tenants from any reduction in their housing benefit, unless there is a significant change in their personal circumstances or they are offered suitable alternative accommodation. It is the same as I said before; my terminologies have not changed. The Member wanted me to clarify that. I consider this to be the best way forward for our citizens who will be impacted by the measure. <BR /> <BR />I think it should also be noted that there was also a technical necessity to have clause 69. It is so that we can make the calculation of the payments that will be made. That also has to be borne in mind.”
“As Members are now aware, clause 70 introduces the size criteria into the calculation of the housing benefit for working-age tenants in the social housing sector. Members will also be aware that we dedicated a lot of time to this particular measure during Consideration Stage. I consider it worth repeating that I fully recognise that this measure represents a major change for social-sector tenants. However, in protecting people and communities from the worst aspects of the social size criteria, I need to ensure that we make best use of our limited social housing stock and that we do not take any action that may hinder or even discourage mobility.”
“Yes, I am aware that is the case. I want to reassure Members on that issue. The Member is always worried that, lurking somewhere in the dark cupboard that I came out of as the new broom, is DWP, which is pulling my strings and telling me what I should do and not do. That is not the case. However, I reassure the Member that I have a good working relationship with DWP. Indeed, I was in London last week to further enhance that relationship, and I continue to work with our colleagues in DWP. <BR /> <BR />So, on the basis of what I have said, I trust that that gives some reassurance to Members in regard to my comments about amendment No 4. It is not necessary, and therefore I ask Members not to accept it. <BR /> <BR />I turn to amendment No 11, which is on clause 70.”
“In relation to the first question, yes, I am quite happy to place that in the Library. On your second question, the Member knows that the chief legal adviser to the Executive, the Attorney General, has seen the provisions of the Bill, and therefore my answer is yes, we have legal advice. Sorry, I did not get the third question that the Member asked; does he want to ask me again?”
“I am well aware of the comments in relation to human rights, and I have no intention of, in any way, trying to create a situation whereby this Bill gives some powers to contractors or people out there that would not be compliant with the Convention on Human Rights, as I have already stated. <BR /> <BR />The Member wants me to give way. I said that I was not going to do that, but I will.”
“I wish to point out that delegation and contracting-out functions do not apply to the sanctioning and hardship payment decisions. Those decisions will be taken by staff in the Social Security Agency. <BR /> <BR />A point was made earlier about the Ad Hoc Committee. We need to remind ourselves that the Assembly established the Ad Hoc Committee specifically to examine human rights aspects of the Bill. The report of the Committee failed to identify any specific breaches of human rights with the Bill as it was then introduced. It should also be noted that, prior to the Bill's being introduced, it has to be compliant with all the other elements of legislation. I do not find it frustrating; it is part of the job, but I have to keep repeating the same thing over and over again.”
“<BR /> <BR />I also add that, during the parliamentary debate on the passage of the Human Rights Act in 1998, statements by the then Home Secretary and the then Lord Chancellor made it clear that persons or bodies delivering privatised or contracted-out public services were intended to be brought within the scope of the Act by the "public function" provision in section 6(3)(b). It is not considered necessary to include the proposed amendment to clause 30 to specify that a person authorised under this clause is exercising the functions of a public nature and that section 6 of the Human Rights Act will apply to those persons. In a case where it is alleged that a contractor has acted contrary to the Human Rights Act, a person may bring a claim against the Department.”
“<BR /> <BR />In reliance on clause 30, the Steps to Work programme or the Into Employment programme providers will be authorised to carry out the functions of the Department or of DEL under clauses 13 to 25 that relate to work-related and connected requirements. These functions are of a public nature, and that applies whether they are exercised by the Department or by an authorised person. An authorised person would be required to provide the service in a way that is compatible with the convention rights as set out in section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998.”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment No 4 relates to clause 30 — delegation and contracting out. This issue has exercised a number of Members and, therefore, it is right for me to spend some time dealing with it. This clause allows for the contracted providers in the private and voluntary sectors to exercise functions of the Department, or of the Department for Employment and Learning, in the area of work-related requirements. These providers should be acting as agents of the Department or of DEL. The Department, using the power to impose work preparation requirements under clause 16, may require claimants to participate in the work programmes, such as the Steps to Work or the Into Employment programmes. It is envisaged that contracted providers will be permitted to exercise such functions so as to deliver work programmes such as these.”
“I sometimes get concerned when Members come to the House and almost paint a picture of the Social Security Agency having no heart, having no thought, being uncaring and simply wanting to follow a very dry process; that the agency is all about the system and not about the individual. I want to ensure that that is not what we have in the Social Security Agency. I do not believe that that is what we have. However, do I think that everything is perfect and that, in every situation and in every circumstance, we always get it right? No, I do not, but I do not accept, nor do I recognise, the picture being painted of the system as it currently is. I hope that I have reassured Members that amendment Nos 2, 3, 8, 9 and 10 are not necessary and, for those reasons, should be rejected.”
“If a sanction becomes appropriate, the claimant will also be given notification that it is to be applied. <BR /> <BR />The benefit regime has to work with a wide range of claimants, and the documentation that is made available to them is continually under review. The Social Security Agency is committed to ensuring that claimants have as much information as possible before any sanction is applied. That is to ensure that claimants understand the reasons for the sanction and so that the claimant can provide any relevant information before the sanction is applied. We also want to ensure that the information is in a format that makes it easy for the claimant to understand.”
“The proposed amendments that relate to clauses 26, 27 and 47 are to do with providing the claimant with explanatory documentation on sanctions prior to imposing those sanctions. As part of their claimant commitment, claimants will be made aware of how and when sanctions will be applied. The claimant commitment is a record of a claimant's responsibilities and sets out the conditions an individual must comply with, as well as the consequences of non-compliance. Where the consequences of non-compliance are a sanction, the claimant commitment will set out clearly what the sanction will be. Claimants will be required to sign their claimant commitment, and they will be given a copy of the signed document. The claimant, therefore, has explanatory documentation on sanctions from the outset.”
“The policy intent is to create a simple, streamlined system and to realign arrangements for disabled children when they reach the age of 18 with those of disabled adults. That is not a savings exercise but a reorganisation of what is there. The money released as a result of those adjustments will be reinvested in support for the most severely disabled people. To accept that amendment would reduce the amount of money available for the more severely disabled people and would, I think, be a clear breach of parity. I think that there would be potential consequences with that. We have rehearsed those in the past as far as the breach of parity is concerned. For those reasons, I urge Members to reject amendment No 1. <BR /> <BR />I will turn now to amendment Nos 2, 3, 8, 9 and 10 to clauses 26, 27 and 47, dealing with sanctions.”
“We, other than those who are looking for cheap publicity and a cheap headline in the 'Belfast Telegraph', need to keep that in mind when we are dealing with this issue. <BR /> <BR />There are other provisions in the universal credit, which we outlined. Existing claimants moving on to universal credit will have their award protected by the transitional protection. That will ensure that current benefit claimants will not receive less as a result of their move to universal credit where circumstances remain the same. <BR /> <BR />The amendment on the different rates — the lower rate should be no less than two thirds of the higher rate — seeks to retain the current position under tax credits where the disabled child element equates to two thirds of the severely disabled child element.”
“The universal credit rate payable to severely disabled children will be higher than the current child tax credit equivalent, but the lower rate of universal credit disabled child element will be less than the lower rate of child tax credits. There are, however, other provisions within the universal credit that complement that policy intention. There is, for example, a higher earnings disregard for those working parents who are in receipt of a disabled child element. Any household in receipt of disability living allowance or working tax credits will be excluded from the benefit cap. We know that there is a range of exclusions from the benefit cap. So, while it is easy to quote the 6,500 who are in receipt of the benefit cap, let us remember that it equates to 470 households. That is how many are affected.”
“I also explained that universal credit is a simplification of the current benefit system and will, therefore, not replicate the range of complex premiums that are currently paid to disabled adults and children. The money saved from abolishing the three premiums will be recycled and used to target support to those disabled people with the greatest need.”
“<BR /> <BR />I want to move on to the substantive issues in front of us: the amendments and the Further Consideration Stage of the Welfare Reform Bill. Amendment No 1 deals with the responsibility for children and young persons. Clause 10 provides for an amount to be included in the calculation of a universal credit award for claimants who are responsible for children or qualifying young people. An additional amount will be paid if the dependent child or qualifying young person is disabled, which is consistent with universal credit's objectives of simplicity and affordability. <BR /> <BR />At Consideration Stage, we discussed how that element of universal credit will replace child tax credit and take over its role as the main source of extra support for children in low-income families that are in and out of work.”
“I will not accuse those in my constituency who are in receipt of benefits above the £26,000 of doing anything less than making application to the system as it exists, because that is something they are entitled to do. However, I would also say this: let us remember that, over the last 10 years, my Department has proactively moved on the issue of benefit fraud. Let us remember that, 10 years ago, benefit fraud was running at somewhere in the region of 2% or £61 million a year, and the last figures show us that that has now been reduced to 0·3%. If anybody thinks that the Department and the welfare system are some sort of easy touches, I think that they also need to realise that this is action that we are taking as a Department in conjunction with Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs.”
“<BR /> <BR />It would be easy to be populist and pick on particular statistics and certain figures, highlight them, not be completely accurate in how we highlight them and to say all of that. That is all very easy to do, but is more difficult when you have to deal with the day-to-day issues that I have been given in my responsibilities to govern and lead on the introduction of welfare reform. <BR /> <BR />I make those comments, but I want to say something else. I return to the point — we can so easily miss it; and I repeat it because I believe it — that, in all that I do and am endeavouring to do, I always, every day, keep in my mind that this is still about people. It is very easy to use statistics about this constituency and that constituency.”
“I would like to be standing here as a Minister in a Government of which my party had absolute and total control, and that it was a party in government that was making decisions so that, on every occasion and in every policy we brought to the House, there was a opportunity to have a clear focus and no tension between any of the policies. The political reality for me and for us all is to be found in the current arrangements in Northern Ireland. I can assure the Member that if he thinks it is difficult and challenging to find agreement within NI21, he can try finding agreement between five parties in a mandatory coalition. That has been the challenge and the difficulty.”
“I will endeavour to make progress in responding to much of what has been said in the House this afternoon. If I am not responsive to Members, I will come back to them with more information. Reference was made earlier to a new broom in the cupboard. It looks as though it may still be dusty. I have heard of Dusty Bin. I do not know whether I am Dusty Storey. Clearly, I have some work to do to convince the Member that we can make any difference and do not just accept what is given to us by others and implement it. <BR /> <BR />I want to comment on what was said by the last Member who spoke. What he has to remember, and what we all, unfortunately, have to face up to, are not just the economic realities we face but the political realities.”
“In fact, when those discussions were going on, a huge amount of time was spent on getting figures and looking at different scenarios. Included in those discussions was his party leader. We then came to an agreement. At what point does the Member recognise that we either have a deal and so move on or we unpick that deal, say, "No, we did a bad deal" and do something else?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I have listened to what he has said. Is it not the case that, at some point, you have to make a decision? On the one hand, the Member says that it is a good investment to deal with the issue of medical reports, yet, on the other hand, he says that the money would be better spent on doing other things. I refer to what a number of Members have said, not only in this debate but in previous ones, which is that there was a five-party, five-leader agreement. Had the Member spoken to him, his party leader would have been able to tell him that considerable time was spent on this. <BR /> <BR />The Member has also asked why we do not see the regulations. My staff have spent hours and hours of work on what happened prior to, during and after the Stormont House discussions.”
“Is it about ensuring that the independent advice sector is put on a statutory basis that gives it a position in a legislative framework, or is the Member saying that he is not happy with the advice that the independent advice sector is giving, or is it all about getting more resources into the independent advice sector? I sometimes fail to see where it all fits in with what we are being asked to provide.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I have listened to this argument over a number of weeks, and I have to say that I do not see what the Member is painting as an issue. On the one hand, we are being told that, if we were to put all this on a statutory basis, everything would be well, but the Member has already said that it is an issue about whether we will have adequate resources in the independent sector to give advice because of the changes that are being implemented as a result of welfare reform, so what is at the heart of this?”