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 51 of 60.
“We referred to the following issues: the frequency of universal credit payment; split universal credit payment; direct payments; and we could go down a list of things that have been addressed and are in the public domain. There are, for example, issues in relation to the social sector size criteria. There is still further work to be done and further papers to be brought to the Executive, but I have to say that I was disappointed — and with this point I will conclude — to see headlines in the newspapers which read:”
“<BR /> <BR />I want to conclude, and to dispel the myth and the mist that somehow there was something that took place prior to Christmas in the Stormont Castle agreement and Stormont House Agreement that was done behind closed doors and that people do not know all about it. I can assure you, as someone who was there for a considerable part of those discussions before Christmas and saw all the media out in the grounds of this estate, that it was not secretive. I have no intentions of joining any secret organisation. <BR /> <BR />There is an Executive paper that sets out the package of measures which was previously agreed, and you heard me refer to them.”
“The Department does not issue food vouchers and, I have to say, has no plans so to do. This was an issue raised by Mr Beggs and others. So, there is ongoing work in relation to the issue and I will be open to further discussion. It will be interesting to hear the comments of the Committee in relation to this particular issue as we do further work in regard to it. <BR /> <BR />To accept amendment No 74 would result in the Department being unable to make a hardship payment by voucher which, in some limited circumstances, may be the optimum way to meet the family's needs. For that reason, I urge Members to reject amendment No 74.”
“If a claimant finds that they are experiencing financial difficulties and have immediate needs as a result of a sanction, they can apply for a hardship payment. With the launch of universal credit, hardship payments will be paid as any other universal credit payments but, in the future, consideration will be given to alternative methods of payment, such as by voucher. That means of support will ensure that payment is spent on the needs of the family. <BR /> <BR />Work is ongoing on developing an approach to the use of vouchers. I recognise the sensitivities around the provision and the use of vouchers, and I would like to assure the House that, where vouchers or a voucher-type system are being considered, the focus will be very much on the dignity and choice of the claimant.”
“I will reflect on the Member's comments in conjunction with comments that I made following my discussions with victims and survivors. I told them that it would not be a one-off meeting. I do not want to name the member of my staff who was there, but it was not the one who was named earlier. It is someone who is highly respected for the way in which they deal with these issues. I will consider the comments that the Member has made in the House tonight and reflect on what I have said in relation to how I will deal with issues in relation to victims and survivors. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 74 relates to paragraph 6 of schedule 1, which gives the Department power to make regulations to pay all or part of an award by voucher.”
“I give a personal commitment to ensure that it is looked after and dealt with in a way that I believe reflects the point that was made to me. I will leave it here: there is a sense amongst that group that they have been forgotten; I want to ensure that they are not forgotten. <BR /> <BR />For those reasons, I ask Members to reject amendment No 53.”
“I had what I would describe as a difficult meeting. It was not difficult in the sense that those who came to see me were in any way awkward or difficult to deal with; it was difficult in the sense that it was a reminder to us all of those in our society who still, to this day, bear scars that none of us can begin to comprehend. I recently met those victims to discuss the progress of work jointly commissioned by my predecessor and the Victims' Commissioner to avoid victims being further traumatised by the experience of being assessed for PIP. <BR /> <BR />Officials are also working with the commission on a range of issues including the PIP claimant journey. I will continue to ensure that the commission is consulted on a wide range of welfare issues. A number of Members raised that issue.”
“Any proposed change in policy or new policy is subject to equality screening with the focus of identifying any adverse impact on the equality of opportunity of any section 75 group. The Department also considers any mitigating measures that may be necessary to alleviate that impact. In screening the proposed policy, account is taken of evidence and information obtained, where necessary, from relevant stakeholders, such as the Equality Commission, Citizens Advice and the Northern Ireland Commission for Victims and Survivors. <BR /> <BR />I am very aware of the particular sensitivities around the Northern Ireland Commission for Victims and Survivors. My Department is working with the commission, particularly on the impact that the introduction of PIP may have on the most seriously injured victims.”
“As you can see, all categories of persons accommodate not only victims and survivors but all particular groups of individuals, such as cancer patients.”
“I apologise, Mr Speaker. It is amendment No 53. Thank you for paying due regard and diligence to that. Apologies for that. <BR /> <BR />Section 75 requires public authorities designated for the purposes of the Bill to comply with two statutory duties. One is the equality of opportunity duty, which requires public authorities, in carrying out their functions relating to Northern Ireland, to have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity between the nine equality categories, which are persons of different religious belief, political opinion, racial group, age, marital status or sexual orientation; men and women generally; persons with a disability and persons without; and persons with dependants and persons without.”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment No 54 proposes to insert a new clause to provide that regulations under the Bill are prepared in consultation with the Northern Ireland Commission for Victims and Survivors to ensure that due regard is given to survivors of the past. When considering any new social security policy, or change in that policy, like any other Department or public body, the Department is mandated by section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to consider an equality impact assessment on the proposed policy.”
“The circumstances in which action will be taken to recover overpayments will be governed by a code of practice in order to ensure consistent and considered decision-making. Members need to remember that the money being recovered is public money and a cost to the public purse, which the Department has a responsibility to protect. I therefore urge Members to reject amendment No 45. <BR /> <BR />The purpose of clause 129 was to amend section 165 of the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 to correct a flaw in the legislation. Owing to the delay in the progress of this Bill, the National Insurance Contributions Act 2014 carried the required amendment and corrected that flaw. Therefore, clause 129 is no longer required. I therefore urge Members to accept that position.”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment No 45 proposes to amend clause 103, which sets out when and how overpayments of benefit, payments on account and certain hardship payments can be recovered even where there has been no misrepresentation or failure to disclose on the part of the person from whom recovery is being sought. Where the Department makes a mistake, claimants should not expect to have the right to keep taxpayers' money to which they are not entitled. Although most overpayments of universal credit, jobseeker's allowance and employment and support allowance will be deemed recoverable in certain circumstances, the Department may decide that the overpayment, or part of it, does not have to be repaid.”
“I wish to reassure Members that the provisions in the Bill do not alter the position on the payment of employment and support allowance at the assessment-phase rate, pending the outcome of an appeal of the work capability assessment. <BR /> <BR />For those claimants who will be in receipt of universal credit when it replaces income-related ESA, where similar circumstances apply, in that a claimant does not satisfy the work capability assessment, provision for payment of universal credit pending appeal is not required, as the claimant can continue to receive universal credit under one of the other conditionality provisions. <BR /> <BR />For those reasons, I urge Members to reject amendment No 44.”
“Perhaps it will be helpful if I explain that section 5 of the Administration Act contains the enabling provisions for claims and payments of benefit that apply generally to the majority of social security benefits. Other than in certain employment and support allowance cases, it has never been the case that benefit is paid pending the outcome of an appeal. <BR /> <BR />The cost of paying benefit to all appellants during the appeal process would be hugely expensive and an additional burden on the Northern Ireland block grant. In addition, consideration would have to be given to recouping the amount paid during the appeal period where the tribunal upholds the original decision, thereby increasing my Department’s administrative costs. That issue was raised by my colleague Mr Wilson.”
“The amendment would add a provision to section 5 of the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 for regulations to provide for the making of a payment pending appeal.”
“The simple payment service can also be used to make emergency and one-off payments where necessary. That method of payment provides a safe, secure and efficient means of allowing people to access their payments at a convenient local outlet, without the need to use a PIN and PIN pads, and provides the flexibility required by those who rely on someone else to collect their money for them. Currently, almost 1,500 claimants are paid by that modern, secure and efficient method of payment. The new clause is therefore not required, and I urge Members to reject the proposed amendment. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 44 would insert a new clause 101A on payments pending appeal.”
“Opposition to clause 99 would remove the clause from the Bill, and that would limit any flexibility to determine which of the persons should be paid in a joint award situation. That would reverse the flexibilities in payment options that have been secured. I therefore urge Members to reject the opposition. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 43 proposes to insert a new clause 100A on payment of awards in cash. I advise Members that the simple payment service, which I alluded to earlier, was introduced in October 2012 for those claimants who cannot get their benefit paid into a bank, building society, credit union or Post Office card account. It is provided by Citibank, working in partnership with PayPoint, and was a replacement for payment of benefits and pensions by cheque.”
“The exception is joint claimants of jobseeker’s allowance, where partners can decide between them who receives the payment. <BR /> <BR />Universal credit policy is that couples living in the same household will make a joint claim for benefit, with the universal credit payment normally paid into one bank account. That is the default position in the rest of Great Britain, with any different arrangement only available in exceptional circumstances. Flexibilities secured for Northern Ireland will mean that no default position will be applied here. There will be several options available, including split payments paid into separate bank accounts. That is something that is to be welcomed and something that had been raised as a concern. <BR /> <BR />Clause 99 as drafted ensures enough flexibility to pay as frequently as required.”
“The required-period condition will therefore continue to establish long-term disability within the context of a cash benefit paid to contribute towards the extra costs of disability. For those reasons, Members, I urge the rejection of amendment Nos 38 and 39. <BR /> <BR />I now turn to opposition to clause 99. Clause 99 clarifies that the existing power in the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 to decide who should be paid benefits includes the power for the Department to determine which of the persons should be paid in a joint award situation. Currently, payments of benefits are normally made to the claimant. For couples, ordinarily only one partner will make the claim, with their partner’s income and capital taken into account, and rates paid accordingly.”
“That will mean that terminally ill people will be able to get immediate payment of the enhanced rate of the daily living component without having to demonstrate that they have severely limited ability to carry out any daily living activities. Immediate entitlement to either rate of the mobility component will also be available, subject to someone having the necessary limitations on their ability to carry out the mobility activities. <BR /> <BR />To summarise, the combined effects of the three-month qualifying period and the nine-month prospective test in PIP will better align the definition of long-term disability with that generally used for the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and its associated guidance.”
“<BR /> <BR />Therefore, to ensure that support goes to those with the greatest need, the personal independence payment will be available only to those with a long-term health condition or impairment rather than short-term conditions, where other financial and in-kind support mechanisms already exist. The impact of most health conditions and disabilities can fluctuate over time. Taking a view of ability over a longer period helps to iron out fluctuations and presents a more coherent picture of disabling effects. <BR /> <BR />The consultation document also made clear that we will bring forward into personal independence payment the existing provisions that allow for exemption from the qualifying period and prospective test for people who are terminally ill.”
“The objective is to avoid the current situation where a specified impairment or diagnosis leads to automatic entitlement. In this way, we would endeavour to ensure that benefit is better targeted towards those with assessed long-term needs. <BR /> <BR />In the DLA reform consultation, the Government set out their proposals to restructure the existing qualifying period and prospective tests for PIP so that the overall period covered by the tests more closely aligns with the general definition of long-term disability used in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and the associated guidance. It is felt that a three-month qualifying period and a nine-month prospective test offers the fairest solution, both to claimants and to the sound administration of the benefit.”
“That is measured from when the benefit can first become payable, and this prospective period is passed if someone is likely to meet those conditions of entitlement for a further six months. Although the criteria for establishing that a disability is likely to be long term operate slightly differently for attendance allowance and DLA, they both serve the same purpose, which is to ensure that support is focused on those who face the greatest challenges to taking part in everyday life. <BR /> <BR />I underscore that key to the reform of DLA is that entitlement to the personal independence payment should be on an individual-based approach rather than by labelling people according to their disability or their particular impairment.”
“Amendment No 38 proposes changing the prospective test period to six months. Amendment No 39 is consequential on amendment No 38 and defines when the six-month period commences. <BR /> <BR />The current mechanisms in attendance allowance and DLA to establish that a condition is likely to be long term are through the operation of a qualifying period, during which no benefit can be paid, and a prospective test. For attendance allowance, a person needs to meet the six-month qualifying period. For DLA, a person must meet a three-month qualifying period and a six-month prospective test. The qualifying period is passed if someone has established that they would have met the conditions of entitlement to attendance allowance or either of the component parts of DLA in the previous three or six months.”
“Mr Speaker, I am trying to work my way to a conclusion on these. Amendment Nos 38 and 39 relate to clause 80 and the prospective test for the personal independence payment. Perhaps this will assist the House, and I am sure that you all want to have this information imparted to you so that you will all be better informed on this issue. I will take a step back and reiterate what clause 80 does. Clause 80 is linked with clauses 77 to 79 and makes provision related to what constitutes "the required period condition" for entitlement to either component of the personal independence payment. To qualify for help, claimants must, first, have needed help for three months or more — this is known as the qualifying period — or, secondly, be likely to need help for the next nine months. This is known as the prospective test period.”
“This role differs from the therapeutic role of health professionals in the health and social care trusts and general practitioners, whose primary role is to reach a diagnosis and/or plan treatment. Therefore, it clearly would be inappropriate to enable health professionals employed by the health and social care trusts or general practitioners to undertake assessment in respect of the personal independence payment as, for the most part, they will lack the necessary training and skills to undertake this specialised role. For these reasons, I urge Members to reject amendment Nos 36, 37 and 57.”
“The health professionals have to complete an accredited training programme before being approved by the Social Security Agency’s health assessment adviser and receive specialist training in assessing the impact of disability.”
“It is important that the PIP functional assessment is carried out by a professional with the appropriate training to complete the assessment. I have a responsibility to ensure that the service is provided efficiently and to ensure proper use of public funds. It is my view that the identity of the employer is not the primary concern of the assessment. <BR /> <BR />Health professionals undertaking PIP assessments must also meet the same requirements for those undertaking the work capability assessment, which I highlighted earlier in the debate. They must, for example, be an occupational therapist, a nurse, a physiotherapist, a paramedic or a doctor, and they must be fully registered with the relevant licensing body.”
“It is about ensuring that the evidence is there. It is not that someone is questioning an individual, but, when you are a decision maker and are going through this process, it is very good — in fact, I would say that it is essential — to ensure that that information is there and is given due regard. <BR /> <BR />The Department or the assessment providers on its behalf will seek further evidence by phone or by issuing one of the standard pro forma requests in cases in which they feel that it is appropriate — for example, when they feel that further evidence would allow them to offer robust advice without the need for a face-to-face consultation, or when they consider that a consultation is still likely to be needed but further evidence would improve the quality of the advice that they provide to the Department.”
“<BR /> <BR />The intention behind the assessment is that it is more evidence-based, so additional evidence will cover a broad range of areas, including medical and other forms of evidence that may not be seen as medical — for example, a care plan or a report from any other professional involved in supporting the claimant, such as social workers, key workers, care coordinators or something else that would not be condition-specific but would provide relevant information to help the Department to determine whether the individual has a difficulty with daily living or mobility activities and to what extent. <BR /> <BR />Let us go back to the 30% that were successful on the basis of additional evidence, which is the issue that we need to underscore. We sometimes fail our constituents when we do not give them that piece of good advice.”
“I thank the Member for raising that issue, and I assure her that I am quite happy for her to write to me or that we take up her comments. As we prepare the regulations and guidance, we need to be made aware of examples like that. This is always going to be the challenge for us. I have said a huge amount in the 23 pages that I have gone through, and I still go back to the point that I made at the very beginning, which is that this is about people. If we can incorporate those things in the regulations and guidance, I assure the Member that I will look at that and come back to her.”
“I think that we need to emphasise that entitlement is to be determined not by the specific disability or health condition but by the impact of the condition on the individual's ability to carry out a number of key everyday activities. <BR /> <BR />The Department will set out in regulations and guidance the actual processes for how the assessment should operate in practice, including when and how additional information will be sought. Again, I remind Members that that will be for the Assembly to consider.”
“Indeed, it could be argued that, by making such provision in the Bill, mental ill health could be given an elevated status over other medical conditions. That would go against the core principles that are the foundation of PIP. Entitlement is to be determined not by a specific disability or health condition but by the impact that that condition has on the individual's ability to carry out a number of key everyday activities. I have personal experience of attending many DLA appeals, and I think that that is an issue that Members repeatedly have to go back to. It is not about the person's condition; it is about the implications of how it affects them.”
“No claimant will have an adverse decision made against their claim for PIP without the decision maker considering a report from either the claimant's GP or consultant. That is another issue that is in the light, not in the dark. I know that it has taken a long time to get to the point where you wanted to hear me say that I was accepting something, but for those reasons, I urge Members to accept amendment No 35. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 36 would make a similar provision to amendment No 35 but has a particular emphasis on taking evidence of mental ill health into account. Similar to my arguments on earlier amendments, accepting amendment No 36 would give a degree of prominence in the assessment process to evidence of mental ill health.”
“This amendment and amendment No 36, which I will come to shortly, mirrors earlier amendments on assessments to determine entitlement to universal credit. I argued against accepting the earlier amendments on medical evidence, which was on the basis that one of a health-care professional's primary roles is to take account of the relevant medical evidence, including any mental ill health issues, when carrying out an assessment. Therefore, I did not think that that needed to be addressed in the Bill. <BR /> <BR />However, given that PIP's distinct purpose is to help with the extra costs of long-term illness or disability, I am content to accept amendment No 35. Indeed, to ensure that medical evidence is available when needed, the Executive have agreed to establish a fund to provide additional funding for medical reports.”
“Mr Beggs referred to that. <BR /> <BR />Amending the Bill in this way could suggest that this type of evidence is more important or carries more weight than other available evidence. For those reasons, I urge Members to reject amendment Nos 18 and 19. <BR /> <BR />We are making slow but, I trust, steady progress as we make our way through the amendments, so I will address my comments to amendment Nos 35, 36, 37 and 57. They all relate to the requirements for the assessment process for personal independence payment as set out in clause 79, so I will address them together. Amendment No 35 would insert a new provision to clause 79 that says that, when assessing an individual's ability to carry out daily living or mobility activities to determine entitlement to personal independence payment, the Department must:”
“Amendment Nos 18 and 19 are not required, as the role of the health-care professional is to take account of relevant medical evidence when carrying out an assessment, including any mental ill health. <BR /> <BR />Roy Beggs asked for an update on discussions between my Department and the Department of Health on medical evidence and GP contracts. The GP contract has been raised with Department of Health colleagues, but we have been unable to move the issue forward, due to a lack of agreement on the Welfare Reform Bill. Officials will now be taking forward this piece of work, and I trust that I will be in a position to give a more detailed assessment as to the outcome of that issue. The GP contract has also been tabled with Dr Litchfield, who referred to it in his most recent report on the operation of ESA in Northern Ireland.”
“I have previously highlighted the role of the health-care professional, which includes considering the evidence when assessing the impact of the claimant’s health condition or disability on their ability to provide for themselves through work. They also provide advice to the decision maker on the likely functional implications of any medical evidence provided to enable the decision maker to reach an informed, appropriate decision on entitlement to benefit. I have also highlighted the primary role of the GP or hospital doctor: to carry out a medical assessment. They do not as a matter of course always consider the disabling effects or the restrictions of the claimant’s medical condition.”
“This will include a work preparation requirement, which may specifically include taking part in a work-focused health-related assessment. The scope of the work-focused health-related assessment is about the extent to which the person’s capability for work may be improved by taking steps in relation to their physical or mental condition. <BR /> <BR />Amendment 18 seeks to make it a legislative requirement for health-care professionals to take account of relevant medical evidence when carrying out a work capability assessment. Amendment 19 mirrors this, but expands it to include "evidence of mental ill health".”
“<BR /> <BR />The work capability assessment assesses individuals’ functional ability for work, rather than assuming that a health condition or disability is an automatic barrier to work. Many disabled people, and others with health conditions, play a full and active role in the labour market, and there is evidence that work is exceptionally beneficial for people’s physical and mental well-being. Whilst we remain committed to supporting those who cannot work, we want to help as many people as possible to return to suitable work. No one should be written off or consigned to a life on benefits simply because of a disability. <BR /> <BR />It is intended that a version of the work capability assessment will be used to decide the level of support that a disabled person receives under universal credit.”
“I move on, Mr Speaker, to amendment Nos 18 and 19. They refer to clause 38, which allows us to continue to use the work capability assessment when determining whether a claimant has limited capability for work and, if so, whether they also have limited capability for work-related activity. Determination of a claimant’s capability for work following a work capability assessment clarifies a claimant’s work-related requirements and their eligibility, or not, for an additional element in a universal credit award. Those who are unable to work because of the effects of a disability or health condition will be entitled to a higher amount of universal credit based on their capability for work. As in the current system, they will be allocated either to the work-related activity group or the support group.”
“I will, I trust, be in a better place to inform the House of progress on this when we come back for Further Consideration Stage in a couple of weeks' time. As the Department of Health will have responsibility for the independent living fund (ILF) users following the closure of the fund, it is for those reasons that I urge Members to reject the amendment.”
“As I said earlier, that public consultation ended on 30 November 2014, and I understand that the Health Minister plans to announce his decision in early 2015. <BR /> <BR />I gave an assurance — and I reiterate that assurance — that I will discuss this issue with the Minister of Health when he returns. Following on from the debate, I will ensure that Mr Ramsey's comments and concern about the issue are conveyed to the Health Minister.”
“<BR /> <BR />The fund makes direct cash payments to severely disabled people with intensive care needs across the UK. The money is used to pay for agency care staff or for the recipient to employ a personal assistant. The support enables disabled people to choose to live in the community rather than in a residential care setting. <BR /> <BR />Due to escalating costs, the decision was taken in GB to close the fund permanently with effect from 30 June 2015. Following that decision, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety in Northern Ireland published a consultation document on 4 August 2014 to seek views on how Northern Ireland users of the fund could be supported from 1 July 2015.”
“I want to make a few more comments on that and underpin what I said to him. <BR /> <BR />It may be helpful if I provide some background to the independent living fund. It was created in 1988 as an executive non-departmental public body of the Department for Work and Pensions to provide financial support to disabled people throughout the United Kingdom. In Northern Ireland, my Department is only responsible for meeting the costs of Northern Ireland recipients of the fund and a share of the overall administration costs. However, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety currently has a policy interest in the fund given that the people supported are those with severe disabilities, most of whom are in receipt of a substantial care package from their local health and care trust.”
“It also gives flexibility on the time during which the easement on work search and work availability applies and does not tie it to the 13 weeks for victims of hate crime. <BR /> <BR />In responding to the proposed amendment, I assure the House that legal advice was sought. It confirmed that there is no legal definition of hate crime that could be incorporated into social security legislation. I think that that issue was raised by a number of Members. For these reasons, I urge members to reject amendment Nos 12 and 13. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 17 proposes that my Department is provided with powers to introduce a fund to replace the current independent living fund for Northern Ireland within 18 months of commencement of the Northern Ireland Welfare Reform Act. I appreciate that my colleague Mr Pat Ramsey referred to that issue earlier.”
“<BR /> <BR />The universal credit regulations, which will be subject to Assembly approval, will give work coaches the discretion not to impose or tailor a work search or work availability requirement temporarily for claimants who are dealing with a domestic emergency or temporary circumstances. Domestic emergencies or temporary circumstances are not prescribed in the guidance. This allows a work coach to make a decision based on an individual’s circumstances and on whether a work search or work availability requirement would be reasonable in those circumstances. A work coach would be able to consider a racist attack under that regulation. I trust that this will be helpful to the Member who raised that issue. This approach will support better decision-making by allowing staff to consider the merits of each individual case.”
“A specific example of this is included to allow claimants who have been victims of, or threatened with, domestic violence to be given a 13-week exemption from any work-related requirements, and this is a carry over from existing social security legislation. Amendment No 12 proposes to include victims of an incident motivated by hate in the 13-week exemption from any work-related requirement, and proposed amendment No 13 defines the meaning of an "incident motivated by hate". Domestic violence and hate crime are very different. Domestic violence is caused by a member of the household, whereas hate crime is usually associated with strangers. The two are therefore, correctly in my view, treated differently in social security legislation.”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 12 and 13 relate to clause 24. The Bill aims to give advisers broad discretion to impose requirements that they think give claimants the best chance of finding or preparing for work. However, there may be certain requirements or actions that are not and will never be appropriate. Clause 24 allows us to make regulations to put such matters beyond doubt, by setting out particular circumstances when requirements or specific actions must not be imposed. There may also be circumstances that justify claimants being exempt from having requirements imposed on them for short periods, such as a bereavement or a domestic emergency.”