Paula Bradley
North Belfast · Democratic Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“I am especially grateful to all the women who, especially in my first mandate here, were a constant support and encouragement to me as a new MLA. Nothing ever prepares you for this role, but many inside and outside this Building are the glue that holds it all together.”
“I thank them for their support, especially over the last week, with the phone calls, emails, cards and flowers, but, most of all, for allowing me to be part of their lives, sometimes at the most difficult times. Secondly, I want to thank my party, of which I have been a member for 20 years.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will try my very best to get through these three minutes without tears in my eyes, though I doubt that that is going to happen. <BR /> <BR />I will begin by thanking you, Mr Speaker.”
“After much discussion with officials concerning the objectives of the Bill, the detail of an SMI loan, the process of registering and removing the statutory charge and how and when an SMI loan is repaid, the Committee was content with the Bill as drafted. <BR /> <BR />I welcome the Final Stage of the Bill.”
“I welcome the Final Stage of the Bill. It is probably the shortest Bill that the Committee considered, but it is no less important, as it aims to protect owner-occupiers in receipt of an income-related benefit from the threat of repossession.”
“I know that I have caused a few headaches over the past two years, but you have always delivered week in, week out and put the needs of the Committee first and foremost. You have made my role as Committee Chair so much easier. For all that you have done, I am truly thankful.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,102 lines we hold for Paula Bradley, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 23.
“If a code of practice is to be meaningful and taken seriously by the industry, any breaches must carry a sanction. The code of practice, as proposed in the Bill and outlined in draft to the Committee, falls woefully short of what is needed. The draft code contains no civil or criminal sanctions for any breach; it is merely an aspirational document. The draft code states:”
“<BR /> <BR />The gambling industry does not often lose, but a duty of care could shift the burden from the customer to the people who are causing the problem: the industry. That, of course, is only one small step. What is needed are improved affordability checks, self-exclusion that results in that person being able to walk away for good and staff who are trained to help people who clearly need to stop. Amendment No 4 will not deliver that. Clearly, a regulator and greater regulation are needed. One thing is clear: the industry is incapable of self-regulation. The amendment is merely a small step towards ensuring that people get some level of meaningful protection when they walk through the door of a bookmaker's shop. <BR /> <BR />On amendment No 5, it is vital that any code of practice, if it is to be of use, must have some teeth.”
“Do we really think that this is an industry that can regulate itself? Gambling companies want people's money; they want people to lose. John is far from alone. Figures from the Gambling Commission show that almost 10% of people who have self-excluded have been induced to bet again. If the code of practice carried a duty of care for customers to help actively to alleviate gambling harm, the duty would be enforceable in court. The losses suffered by people who tried to stop, who clearly cannot afford their gambling habit, may well be recoverable against the bookie. The amendment is potentially groundbreaking and will ensure that licence holders take the code seriously because a breach of the code could hit the bookie in the one place that they do not like to be hit: their pocket.”
“There was no account suspension, no check on his details to find out who he was and whether he had previously attempted to stop gambling. John continued to be given free bets, inducements to gamble, free tickets to sports events and all-expenses-paid trips. During all that time, John kept losing money. On 12 occasions, he triggered the internal warning indicators that the company had set up; on 12 occasions, the gambling company did nothing. John racked up losses, and the gambling company stood by and collected its profit.”
“A few weeks later, addiction got the better of him, and he opened his account using the same name, address and phone number as before — the very details he had used to self-exclude from the gambling company. He used a different username, and the gambling company stated that it was a new username and did not trigger in their system. For the gambling business, the reality is that John's return was good for business. Within a matter of weeks, John had lost £30,000. Rather than looking into the reasons for such a large and rapid loss, John, who wanted to self-exclude, was made a VIP customer. When John's losses hit £60,000, affordability measures were triggered. The measures consisted of an email being sent to him that simply asked whether he could afford his gambling.”
“He closed all his accounts and believed that he wanted to end his habit.”
“The reality is that the gambling industry has failed time and time again to regulate itself. The gambling industry is incapable of putting in place simple measures to protect customers from gambling harm. That is because the gambling industry needs people to lose. It is not in the interests of gambling companies to stop people betting. I fear that, without meaningful sanction, licence holders will not take their obligations seriously. <BR /> <BR />The journalist Aaron Rogan describes what the gambling industry does as "addictive by design". He has uncovered evidence that the gambling industry builds addiction into the service that it offers. The gambling industry knowingly structures itself to promote addiction. Aaron Rogan recounts the story of one punter, whom he calls "John". John decided to stop gambling and self-exclude.”
“The amendment covers the whole of the code of practice, and, if it is passed, a licence holder would be not just morally but legally responsible for the harm that they cause. The amendment would place a duty on the licence or permit holder to ensure that they follow the code. <BR /> <BR />The draft code, as published by the Department at Committee Stage, outlines good practice for customer care. The code requires that training be provided to staff to identify customers who may be addicted, that licence holders take steps to ensure that affordability checks are in place and that people are able to self-exclude. On the face of it, the code seems to be good advice on how a bookmaker's business should operate, but the code has one fatal flaw. Without meaningful sanction, the code leaves the gambling industry to regulate itself.”
“All shops owe a duty of care to people who come to their premises to buy services or goods, but a bookmaker's shop is not like any other premises on the high street. The service that is sold on such premises is proven to be addictive and dangerous and to cause real and lasting harm to people's lives. That is why the duty of care owed by the gambling industry to its customers should be set at a higher standard. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 4 proposes a statutory duty of care. The amendment elevates the code of practice from being a regulatory manual for the gambling industry to a document that must be followed by the industry, and, if it is not adhered to, it creates a potential civil case for damages on the part of the person harmed.”
“A code of practice cannot be just a document that outlines what the Department deems to be best practice for the gambling industry; it needs to have robust statutory underpinning that brings with it meaningful sanction. Unfortunately, the draft code of practice presented to the Committee falls woefully short of what is required. Amendment No 4 is short, but it could provide a means to hold the gambling industry to account. The amendment is designed to elevate the code of practice from being simply a good practice guide to a document that, if breached in a serious or significant way, could lead to civil action on the part of the person harmed. <BR /> <BR />A bookmaker owes a general duty of care to all its customers. That general duty of care is the same one as is owed by any business.”
“<BR /> <BR />On behalf of the Committee, I record our sincere thanks to all those who provided evidence to the Committee and express gratitude to the young people who participated in a Zoom focus group for taking the time to engage with us at a busy time in their academic year. Thanks must also go to the departmental officials, who worked well with us to ensure a flow of timely information to allow the Committee to meet its tight deadline for reporting. Finally, thanks should go to the Bill Office staff and the Committee office team, who have all worked so diligently to get this to the Chamber today. <BR /> <BR />Mr Deputy Speaker, you will be glad to hear that I will now speak on amendment Nos 4 and 5. <BR /> <BR />On amendment No 4, if a code of practice is to have any value, it needs to be enforceable.”
“Members wished it to be clear that companies can include Northern Ireland residents in such draws and competitions. Agreement was reached with the Department to enhance the EFM and schedule with fuller explanations of the intentions of the law and general examples, and a leaflet will be compiled on prize draws to set out more detailed worked examples, as part of the provision of additional material with clearly worked examples. <BR /> <BR />The Committee would wish to have seen a more ambitious Bill in this mandate, but we are also keen to see the outcome of reviews of gambling legislation in neighbouring jurisdictions to see what the impacts will be for Northern Ireland and to inform the second phase of reforms here.”
“<BR /> <BR />Before I finish my remarks on this part, I highlight the fact that the Committee also deliberated at length on clauses 8 and 11 and the connected schedule. We focused on the two key issues of promotional prize draws and prize competitions.”
“Depending on the nature of the complaint, the Department will write to the operator enclosing a copy of the code and reminding them of their responsibilities. In exceptional or persistent cases, the Department will lodge an objection to the licence. The Committee also recommended that the legislation regarding fixed-odds betting terminals be reviewed thoroughly by the Department in preparation for phase 2 reforms, and, in the meantime, that the code or codes of practice deal with that matter as fully as possible. <BR /> <BR />I note that amendment No 6 proposes a new clause 15A and a ban on the use of credit cards. During its deliberations, the Committee considered a ban on the use of credit cards. However, after discussion with officials, it was felt that that was better placed in the code of practice.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee deliberated on a number of other issues that we concluded were best dealt with in the code or codes, including spending limits in gambling premises, self-exclusion and affordability checks. Including such issues in the Bill might have a detrimental effect, pushing people into illegal gambling or enabling problem gamblers to go undetected by visiting numerous bookmakers. <BR /> <BR />I note that amendment No 5 deals with breaches to the code. On breaches and compliance, the Committee has requested that the codes and the Department's website highlight an email address to which members of the public can send complaints. If a criminal offence is being alleged, the Department will refer it to the PSNI.”
“<BR /> <BR />In response to those issues, the Committee sought and got agreement from the Department to enhance the current draft code in a range of areas, including the use of higher-stakes gaming machines by under-18s; amendment of the draft code to ensure that it states that a notice should be placed on the machine if possible or, if not, as close to the machine as possible, stating that it is for the use of over-18s only; inclusion of advice for premises with gaming machines in the draft code of practice; and a review of its gaming machines leaflet and draft code of practice with a view to enhancing safety for under-18s regarding signage on doors, machines, the situation of machines etc, and encouraging premises owners to be responsible and think 21.”
“<BR />The Minister is well aware that the Committee was not at all satisfied with being asked to agree that enabling clause for a mandatory code or codes of practice before such codes are even close to being finalised. The Committee Stage was completed before the six-week focused consultation on the first draft code was complete. The first consultation is then to be followed by a longer consultation and the finalised draft codes of practice. The Committee deliberated at length on a range of concerns that were brought to its attention generally by stakeholders on the first draft of the code, and we sought assurances on a range of issues pertaining to the codes and the consultation process.”
“<BR /> <BR />To further bolster clause 14, the Department agreed to the Committee's request to enhance the explanatory and financial memorandum concerning reference to the levy's being used for education, research and treatment. With regard to the design of the levy, the model in New Zealand was highlighted to the Committee as good practice. In our report, we recommended that research and consultation be carried out by the Department with regard to how the levy is to be calculated and administered. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 4 and 5 focus on clause 15. The Committee did not seek any amendments to clause 15 and, therefore, has no Committee position on the amendments proposed. However, it is worth highlighting the discussions and agreements that the Committee sought on the code or codes of practice.”
“The Committee supports such a levy that would go towards addressing the issue of problem gambling to further provide a better-funded treatment programme, including debt and money management coaching. However, members were concerned about the wording of the clause around which groups would be consulted on the levy and requested an amendment, which was accepted by the Minister. The amendment will ensure that the Department consults persons who have suffered from or been affected by addiction to gambling or other forms of harm or exploitation associated with gambling; persons who have experience or knowledge of issues that relate to such addiction, harm or exploitation; and also the gambling industry.”
“It was highlighted to the Committee that a levy on the gambling industry is considered international best practice to fund problem gambling, prevention, treatment, education and research.”
“However, members were reassured that the 1985 Order contains existing powers in article 137 to vary the frequency of lotteries and the power to amend amounts, if needed, to prohibit societies from running too many draws with tickets at, or close to, the upper limit of the proposed £100. In their submissions to the Committee, sports clubs and charities highlighted that they rely on the income that is generated from the sale of such tickets, and stated that the removal of the £1 ticket price was welcome. The Chartered Institute of Fundraising highlighted that society lotteries raised much-needed income for good causes. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 2 and 3 focus on the industry levy.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee supports amendment No 1, the Minister's amendment to clause 9, which concerns rules for society lotteries. Based on the evidence that it received in relation to the ticket price limit for society lotteries, the Committee requested that the Minister increase that to a suitable level. The Minister proposed to increase the maximum ticket price from £1 to £100. The Committee supports that amendment. <BR /> <BR />The Committee had been somewhat concerned that societies may attempt to run fewer, highly priced lotteries that would exclude those with less money to spend.”
“The divisions were due to concerns around the public health advice that had been received by the Committee relating to providing any additional hours for gambling. Members who supported the clauses also expressed concern regarding the public health evidence but supported the clauses from the viewpoint of dealing with the current imbalance between land-based and online gambling and bingo, which can operate 24/7, 365 days a year, and bringing those premises into line with counterpart secure operating at Sunday fixtures, dog tracks and racecourses. The rights of workers who have to work in those premises was considered. Officials assured the Committee that the Minister had the agreement of the then Economy Minister that those workers will receive the same rights as those already in post at racetracks or amusement arcades on a Sunday.”
“There is a need to build on the recommendations of the all-party group on gambling-related harm, and we are concerned about the advertising of gambling. <BR /> <BR />In terms of a gambling regulator for Northern Ireland, the Committee, after consideration, stopped short of pursuing an enabling clause in the Bill. However, we recommended that, for the second phase of reforms, the Department should revisit all possible options on the roles and functions of such regulators in other jurisdictions. <BR /> <BR />I now turn to the opposition that clauses 2 and 6 stand part of the Bill, and the other amendments. The majority of the Committee supports clauses 2 and 6 standing part of the Bill. The Committee divided on both clauses, the results being five Ayes and three Noes.”
“<BR /> <BR />Given the limited scope of this Bill, the Committee was very keen to consider, as far as possible, the wider and long-term issues that were highlighted to us in written and oral evidence. Many of those issues were pertinent to the second phase of reforms or touched on reserved matters, and so we made a substantial number of comments and recommendations in our report on the Bill. I am sure that you have all read those, but it is worth highlighting a few today. <BR /> <BR />We are concerned about the lack of substantial data gathering on the gambling industry and its impact on the economy, public health, and children and young people. We are also concerned that the school curriculum lacks sufficient education on, and awareness raising of, gambling and its harms.”
“Phase 1 of the reform is the Bill that is before us. It will, among other things, amend certain aspects of the Order, including the opening days of licensed bookmakers and bingo halls; the rules on society lotteries; the granting of certain licences; the operation of promotional prize competitions; the definition of "cheating"; and the enforceability of gambling contracts. The Bill also enables a financial levy to be imposed on the gambling industry, and the issuing of mandatory codes of practice. We know that phase 2 will be a much larger piece of work; it will revamp the law completely. A future Bill will likely be the largest Bill ever to come before the Assembly and will consider the issues of regulation, online gambling, and wider protections for children and young people.”
“We also requested significant amendments to the explanatory and financial memorandum (EFM) in relation to clauses 8 and 11 and the schedule to ensure better explanation of the forms of payment and of what does or does not constitute payment to participate in a prize draw or competition. We also requested amendments to the draft code of practice, and I will come to those in more detail shortly. <BR /> <BR />We all know that the Bill is limited in its scope and that a much wider overhaul of regulatory controls on gambling is long overdue, as the Betting, Gaming, Lotteries and Amusements (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 has remained largely unchanged, even though gambling habits and access to gambling have drastically changed.”
“We held 12 oral evidence sessions and considered the Bill at 11 meetings, concluding with formal clause-by-clause consideration on 25 January 2022. <BR /> <BR />We explored the range of issues raised in the written and oral evidence with departmental officials through oral briefings and written responses. The Committee also held a Zoom event, organised by the Assembly's Engagement team, with an invited group of under-18s to discuss the potential impact of the Bill on young people. We found the views expressed to be very informative. <BR /> <BR />As a result of its deliberations, the Committee requested amendments to clauses 9 and 14, and we thank the Minister for taking them forward.”
“I will make some remarks on behalf of the Committee before going on to talk about amendment Nos 4 and 5 on behalf of myself and my party colleagues. <BR /> <BR />On behalf of the Committee for Communities, I welcome the Consideration Stage of the Bill. With your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, before I turn to the amendments, I will say a few words about the Committee's scrutiny of the Bill and some of the wider issues that we considered. <BR /> <BR />The Committee received 51 responses to its call for evidence from a diverse range of organisations, businesses, government bodies, researchers and individuals. Responses were received from bookmakers, bingo halls, public health bodies, the PSNI, Church representatives, charities, the all-party group on reducing harm related to gambling and sports associations.”
“I support the people who are in receipt of the mitigations, and my party supports them. Thank you for your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker. I look forward to the rest of the debate.”
“I would say that 70% of my workload in North Belfast is around housing and housing stress: people who cannot get the housing that they need. We need these mitigations to cover the bedroom tax until we have that housing in place. <BR /> <BR />I get it and I agree with it. Even if the will of the House had been to leave 2025 as the end date, it would have gone beyond that: there is no doubt that the mitigations would not have stopped then. We need to compel whoever the next Minister is to look at a whole raft of mitigations, because we may need to add to them or to do things differently. <BR /> <BR />In return for not splitting the House, I ask that a date is put down. Maybe that will come forward at the Further Consideration Stage. We will not divide the House.”
“I have always been very aware of the fiscal responsibility that we have in the Assembly. As I said, that is certainly something to look at in the next mandate. I want those guarantees, and I know that one of the amendments stipulates that a report has to be done prior to 2025. I welcome that, because that will be debated again by whoever comes back here after the next election; they will debate how we go forward with welfare reform and the mitigations. <BR /> <BR />Welfare reform was like my baby; I felt so passionately about it. I come from a working-class background and a working-class family. I know what it is like to have hard times, I know what it is like to do without and I know what it is like to struggle. I know my constituents and the struggles that they have.”
“Those are difficult decisions to make when we are trying to balance finances and work out whether to take finances from the Department of Health, the Department of Education or anywhere else. We have to pay for all these mitigations.”
“I feel so passionately about the entire subject, but I want to make sure that whoever takes on the portfolio in the next mandate has their feet held to the fire. <BR /> <BR />We cannot let the mitigations continue for ever and a day. I am not saying that because I think that we should stop them. I do not think that we should, because we do not have the housing or anything else in place to allow us take them away. Things need to happen, however. A review needs to take place, and we certainly need the results of the current review in order to see what else we can do, whether we are doing things right and whether we can put anything else in place. As time goes on, the House will have really serious decisions to make about how we can add further to welfare mitigations.”
“If anything can show us that the Assembly works, it is the welfare mitigations that were delivered by the parties that worked together, went over to Westminster and had the conversations to bring about what we have today. That shows just how well the Assembly works. <BR /> <BR />We have got to the stage that we have today. My party wanted to see an end date put on the mitigations for various reasons, including the fact that we do not know who will hold the Department for Communities portfolio in the next mandate. We do not know which Member from which party it will be. We will absolutely not divide the House on the matter today, however, because it is far too important. We are dealing with people's lives.”
“We sat and listened to the people who were affected directly by the cliff edge explain to us how it would affect them. I therefore understand, 100%, that we do not want to face another cliff edge. We do not want to put those people in jeopardy. <BR /> <BR />It has been and will be said in the Chamber that there will be uncertainty after the next Assembly election. I hope that that is not the case. I believe, with all my heart, that the best place in which to make legislation for Northern Ireland is this Chamber, because we are the people who know, at first hand, what the effects are on our constituents of anything that we discuss.”
“The three of us were like lambs to the slaughter at times, and sometimes it was very upsetting, so I am glad that we got to where we got to with the welfare mitigations. Other Members will talk about the mitigations and say how awful welfare reform in general is, and doing it was absolutely awful, but there was no other show in town. There was nothing. Nothing was costed by any other party in the Assembly to show how we should take forward welfare reform, or welfare benefits in general. We were left with it, and we are where we are. <BR /> <BR />I also know about the cliff edge. I sat in many hustings and debates with Members from various parties across the Assembly during the 2016 and 2017 elections and then while the Assembly was down.”
“I was a single parent from when my second child was very young, so I knew what it was like to struggle financially and to have to decide between heating my home and feeding my children. I remember all those struggles, so I was very clear that I wanted to see mitigations put in place. I was also very aware that I represent North Belfast, a constituency with really high deprivation, where people do struggle. We know that those struggles will only continue and increase, especially through fuel poverty. I absolutely get that. <BR /> <BR />I remember another thing: the many church halls, community centres and everywhere else that I went to back in 2015 to listen to people and hear about their experiences. I also remember that only two other Members ever attended those events with me: Mickey Brady and Fra McCann.”
“I remember speaking in that Committee on many occasions about how I felt that we were taking a step backwards, particularly with single payments, by taking money, especially child benefit, away from a female and paying it into the wallet instead of the purse. I thought, "We are going back in time here". That Bill was like a baby to me during that Assembly term, because it was the one Bill that I scrutinised from the very beginning until the very end. It was therefore precious to me. <BR /> <BR />I also remember that, when we saw the welfare reform mitigations, I lobbied Nelson McCausland, my party's Minister for Social Development at the time. I lobbied him greatly, because I put myself in the position of those people.”
“I welcome the opportunity to speak on the amendments at Consideration Stage. I think that I am right in saying that I am the only Member in the Chamber — I am certainly the only member of our Committee — who sat through the initial Welfare Reform Bill, as drafted, when it landed on the old Committee for Social Development. I remember the many hours, days and nights spent in the Chamber discussing the Welfare Reform Bill. I remember that, when that Bill landed on the table of the Committee for Social Development, I was horrified at some of the decisions that we were being asked to look at and agree.”
“The level of scrutiny that the Committee afforded the Bill shows that members were aware of its significance. <BR /> <BR />In conclusion, I welcome Final Stage, and I put on record our thanks to the officials and the Minister for their assistance in the Bill's scrutiny.”
“The Committee, throughout its deliberations, focused on potential unintended consequences, knowing that retrospective legislation is an unusual course of action. At Committee Stage, we wrote to the Minister to ask that a number of amendments be made to clauses 1 and 2, and we thank the Minister for agreeing to those. We feel that they make the Bill better: for example, we are pleased that the public and stakeholders will now have the opportunity to share their concerns and opinions with the Department through a consultation on the first scheme of delegation. Whilst this is only a small Bill, consisting of four clauses, it has major ramifications for dealing with over 7,000 decisions taken by Charity Commission staff in the past and for how charities here will operate in the future.”
“As I have said on a number of occasions during the passage of the Bill, we all know that charities legislation has a somewhat chequered history here. Although the Bill before us is a very short one, the background leading to the need for it was complex and involved decisions and legal judgements over a number of years.”
“On behalf of the Committee for Communities, I welcome the Final Stage of the Bill and the certainty that it will bring to the Charity Commission and the sector in Northern Ireland. We are all aware that the purpose of the Bill is to:”
“The Committee understands that, in practice, for the benefit cap, this means that if a person receives a welfare supplementary payment that is less than the amount of benefit lost from the application of the benefit cap, they will be entitled to an increase in welfare supplementary payment from the date on which the regulations come into operation. <BR /> <BR />The Committee agreed to recommend that the draft Welfare Supplementary Payment (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2022 be affirmed by the Assembly.”
“The regulations will amend the welfare mitigation scheme available to people affected by the benefit cap and the social sector size criteria to remove some of the existing restrictions on entitlement. They will provide that all families with children that are affected by the benefit cap will be eligible for a welfare supplementary payment equivalent to the loss of benefit. Similarly, any person affected by the social sector size criteria policy will be eligible for a welfare supplementary payment. The regulations will restore entitlement to welfare supplementary payments to people who have had their payments ended, so long as they satisfy the amended eligibility criteria.”
“The Committee considered the statutory rule on 3 February and understands that it is to be made under article 137(5) and article 137A(9) of the Welfare Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 2015. <BR /> <BR />The Committee noted the need for the regulations to augment the existing welfare mitigation scheme for the benefit cap and the social sector size criteria policies. It accepts that they are positive amendments that will enable the provision of increased support to the most vulnerable. The Committee recognises that, as of August 2021, 640 families with children were affected by the benefit cap and were not eligible for a welfare supplementary payment.”
“The Committee hopes that this three-year extension will be well used by the Assembly to ensure that we do not approach another cliff edge in three years' time. The Committee agreed to recommend that the Welfare Supplementary Payment (Extension) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2022 be affirmed by the Assembly.”
“A briefing from the Cliff Edge Coalition particularly highlighted the necessity for continued welfare mitigations given the hardship that many families face. <BR /> <BR />During the Committee's consideration of the Social Security Up-rating Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2022, last Thursday, the Committee again expressed concern that the utmost needs to be done to support those most in need. The dramatic increases in fuel and energy prices, combined with the highest rate of inflation for many years, mean that money is stretched more than ever before. <BR /> <BR />Members have frequently expressed concerns about the creation of further cliff edges. Whilst the Committee supports this SR, it is not without concern or hesitation by some members.”
“The Committee understands that the purpose of the statutory rule is to remove the expiry date of 31 March 2020 from each of the specified welfare mitigation schemes and to insert a new expiry date of 31 March 2025. That will have the effect of reinstating welfare supplementary payments for people who are affected. The rule will also make provision for the treatment of the period between 31 March 2020 and the date that the regulations come into operation. <BR /> <BR />The Committee has, on numerous occasions, considered the issues of welfare reform mitigations, since early in 2020 when the first cliff edge faced us. Through numerous evidence sessions, the Committee has heard from charities and organisations supporting those most in need of welfare mitigation payments.”