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 4 of 23.
“That is being done through the relevant Budget Act, including the allocation of £42·88 million in the 2021-22 Budget to continue paying welfare mitigation schemes, such as the bedroom tax and the benefit cap, until 31 March 2022.”
“The Committee considered the statutory rule on 27 January and understands that it is to be made under article 137(5) of the Welfare Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 2015. The Committee noted the need for the regulations, which amend a range of welfare supplementary payment regulations made in 2016. Those earlier regulations provided for supplementary payments to people affected by changes to the welfare system that were made by Westminster. <BR /> <BR />As we know, the 2016 regulations provided for a period of entitlement to supplementary payments, including that no payments were to be made after 31 March 2020. The House knows the recent history of those payments and that, since March 2020, the Northern Ireland Executive have committed to continue to provide financial support for those affected by the welfare changes.”
“The Committee noted that there was not time for that to happen in the current mandate and that the lack of clarity around GMP conversion would otherwise remain a barrier to equalising benefits between men and women. The Committee agreed to recommend that the provisions in the Westminster Bill, as outlined in the LCM, are extended to here. Therefore, on behalf of the Committee, I support the motion.”
“Members were advised by the Department that, if the Bill extends to Northern Ireland, it will allow the provisions to be enacted by pension schemes across the jurisdictions at the same time, thus providing legal clarity and certainty for schemes. Members were also assured that the LCM provides clarity that the legislation applies to survivors as well as earners; provides for a power to set out in regulations the conditions that must be met in relation to survivors' benefits; provides for a power to set out in regulations detail about who must consent to conversion; and removes the requirement to notify Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs. <BR /> <BR />Members asked officials what the impact on Northern Ireland would be if the LCM was not agreed and were advised that it would be necessary to take forward a separate Assembly Bill.”
“The Committee heard that the Bill makes provision for the amendment of pension schemes to provide for the conversion of rights to a guaranteed minimum pension. GMPs that accrued to individuals contracted out between 6 April 1978 and 5 April 1997 created inequalities between men and women in the overall pension that they receive, largely due to state pension ages for men and women being different at that time. From 17 May 1990, pension schemes have been required to pay equal pensions to men and women for accruals. Therefore, schemes have to equalise overall pensions for the effect of inequalities caused by GMPs from that date. <BR /> <BR />The Committee heard that the pensions industry has expressed concern that the operation of certain provisions of the conversion legislation are unclear and should be amended.”
“On behalf of the Committee, I thank the Minister for moving the motion. I am sure that Members have read the Committee's report on the LCM, so I do not intend to go into too much detail. <BR /> <BR />As the House knows, pensions are a devolved matter, but, in general, pension legislation here operates in line with corresponding provision in England, Scotland and Wales. The Pension Schemes (Conversion of Guaranteed Minimum Pensions) Bill is a private Member's Bill that is before Parliament. The Bill includes provisions on devolved matters. It was introduced on 16 June 2021 and is expected to progress quickly through Parliament early this year. <BR /> <BR />On 2 December 2021, the Committee was briefed by officials on the need for the LCM, which stems from that Bill.”
“I remember explaining to many patients and their families on their receiving a new diagnosis of cancer that I would be completing a DS1500 because they had less than three months to live. Those were some of the most difficult conversations that I ever had in my social work role. It is also difficult in many cases for clinicians to be definitive about a prognosis for many diseases and illnesses. <BR /> <BR />Everybody will be very glad to see the Bill complete its progress through the House today. It is very welcome, and it is welcomed by our party. Again, I thank the Minister for bringing forward the Bill. Thank you.”
“On behalf of my party, I very much welcome the Final Stage of the Social Security (Terminal Illness) Bill. My colleague Joanne Bunting, who chairs the all-party group on terminal illness, has taken a very keen interest in the Bill and has lobbied for this change. I join the Minister in thanking all the groups and charities that have lobbied hard over the past few years to bring it about. <BR /> <BR />As someone who once worked in a hospital social work team, I know at first hand the difficulties that the three-month rule posed. It posed difficulties for clinicians, social workers and, more importantly, for the families that were impacted on by a diagnosis.”
“I hope that it is content that the Bill will now, hopefully, make rapid progress and come into effect as soon as possible. <BR /> <BR />At the start of my remarks, I highlighted the numerous letters from the Committee to the Department, the Minister and the Executive Office on this issue. It has been a long, winding and frustrating road, and I know that there is more legislation to come on the issue. On behalf of the Committee, however, I welcome this Bill and support its principles.”
“<BR /> <BR />We also heard that families unable to claim universal credit for a third or additional child would lose out on over £2,700 per child per year and that Northern Ireland would be disproportionately affected by the universal credit two-child limit, given the region's larger than average family sizes in comparison with those in GB. <BR /> <BR />We heard that cuts to housing benefit in the private rented sector over the past decade have made it increasingly difficult for low-income private renters to find and keep their homes and that, in Northern Ireland, there are significantly more households at risk of poverty after housing costs in the private rented sector than in the social sector. The coalition has consistently called for the introduction of welfare reform legislation to address those issues.”
“It is therefore essential that this legislation is passed as soon as possible to ensure that there is no negative impact on those households. <BR /> <BR />I mentioned earlier that the Committee has taken a particularly keen interest in this issue, and, as part of that, we were briefed by the Cliff Edge Coalition. It was a sobering session. When you hear that the five-week wait before people receive their first universal credit payment has led to hardship, debt and increased reliance on food banks and that participants in the Joseph Rowntree Foundation study of Northern Ireland associated the early stage of universal credit claim with financial hardship and unusual debt, you know that action needs to be taken.”
“The Committee welcomes the fact that the Bill will require the Department for Communities to conduct a review and to report on welfare supplementary payment schemes, to inform future decisions on a further extension of the schemes beyond 31 March 2025. <BR /> <BR />All Members will be aware of the disparity between the size and type of social housing required to avoid social size criteria deductions and the profile of our existing housing stock. There is a dearth of smaller dwellings, which could mean that many people will be unable to move to another property, leading, in turn, to a reduction in their benefit entitlement. Figures show that failure to extend the mitigation scheme will have a direct impact on about 36,000 households.”
“The Bill will substitute a new end date of 31 March 2025 for the mitigation payments for the social sector size criteria. I have no doubt that other Members will comment on the 2025 date and the need for the period to be longer or, potentially, indefinite. They may also make remarks in relation to the danger of another cliff edge at that time. On behalf of the Committee, I respect what they might say, but we have waited a long time to get to this stage. We now have time to consider the issue in greater detail, in order, hopefully, to ensure that we do not come to another cliff edge. <BR /> <BR />Through the Bill, the Committee hopes that we can start to reduce the worries of many vulnerable households and the organisations that support them.”
“As I mentioned in my speech on the accelerated passage motion, the Committee has taken a particular interest in welfare reform mitigations. I could give a long list, starting from early in 2020, of the number of times that the Committee has discussed the issue, written to the Minister and, indeed, sent letters to the Executive in support of the Minister. It is more productive, however, to focus on the here and now. It is good to see that the Bill has finally made it through the Executive to this stage. <BR /> <BR />On behalf of the Committee for Communities, I welcome the principles of the Bill. As we are all aware, the legislation to make the existing welfare supplementary payments came to an end on 31 March 2020, and the Department has continued to make payments under the authority of the relevant Budget Act.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Minister acknowledged at the Committee meeting that this is not her preferred way of handling legislation, and, whilst members would also prefer the opportunity to scrutinise the Bill in greater detail, the Committee supports the motion to allow accelerated passage as there is no time to delay and too much time has already passed, causing too much worry to too many vulnerable households.”
“It is an issue that has been of particular concern to the Committee and one that, on a number of occasions, we have spoken about in Committee, taken evidence on and written to the Department about. I will touch on that in greater detail in my Second Stage speech. We do not want vulnerable families to lose out and certainly do not want to see a situation where families that need the mitigations most are plunged into increased rent arrears or further hardship.”
“The Committee was previously briefed by the Minister on the reasons why the Bill is required to proceed under accelerated passage. Members heard that one of the Minister's priorities was to extend the current mitigations, particularly around the bedroom tax, because of the impact that it would have and to ensure that there was no break in payments to the people who would be affected. The Minister further informed us that she had secured the support of her Executive colleagues to use the accelerated passage procedure. <BR /> <BR />The Committee is acutely aware of the impact on nearly 40,000 households and families, should the legislation not be passed as soon as possible.”
“We are now content that the public and stakeholders will have sufficient opportunity to share with the Department their concerns and opinions about the first scheme of delegation.”
“The Committee thanks her for doing so, as it means that the making of orders under section 37 is included in clause 2. The amendment will increase public confidence in actions taken by our charitable bodies. The Committee is pleased to support amendment No 3. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 4 also relates to clause 2 and was requested by the Committee. It refers to the making of the first scheme of delegation. The amendment stipulates that the Department must complete a public consultation before making the first scheme of delegation. The Committee felt that that was clearly an omission from the Bill, if one of its aims is to restore confidence in the sector. The Committee thanks the Minister for tabling amendment No 4 and is pleased to support it.”
“The Committee felt that, if clause 2 is about ensuring public confidence, the Bill should not be limited to sections 33 to 36. During our evidence sessions, we were concerned to learn that, if section 37 were not included in the Bill, one member of staff in a charity could take the decision to remove property from a person. We strongly highlighted our concerns that we would prefer that section 37 decisions were not made by one person. The Committee understood the Department's explanation that, as the scheme of delegation will be subject to public consultation, it is by no means a given that anything that is not in the Bill would be delegated to staff. However, we still felt that the inclusion of section 37 was the safest way in which to proceed. The Minister agreed to take forward the amendment that we have before us.”
“I speak in support of amendment Nos 3 and 4 on behalf of the Committee for Communities. <BR /> <BR />I turn first to amendment No 3. From early in its deliberations on clause 2, the Committee was concerned as to why the Bill is limited to sections 33 to 36 in 9A(2) and felt that it should include decisions taken under section 37:”
“DFC officials worked with Committee for Justice officials to look at that matter. I thank the officials of the Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service who patiently briefed the Committee on those legal matters. The outcome was that this could not happen through this Bill. However, the Committee accepted a ministerial assurance that officials would continue to work with DOJ officials with a view to a possible future amendment to the tribunal rules.”
“Regarding the fresh appeal rights in the Bill, the Committee was concerned that 42 days was not long enough for charities impacted by the Bill, as it became clear that the Charity Commission would not have contact details for all charities affected. The Minister determined that there was justification for extending the time frame for appeals arising from the Bill, and she has proposed amendment No 2, which the Committee therefore supports. <BR /> <BR />The Committee also requested consideration of the extension of the time frame for all appeals to the Charity Tribunal from 42 days to 91 days, either by amending clause 1 or through a consequential amendment to the Bill.”
“The Minister therefore determined that references to sections 22(3) and 23(1) should be added to clause 1(5), in keeping with her stated policy that the Bill should do nothing that could impinge on the rights of individuals under the ECHR. <BR /> <BR />In addition, the Minister advised the Committee that the administering of an oath or the requirement to make and subscribe to a declaration of truth under section 22(4) of the 2008 Act should also be included in clause 1(5). The Committee is pleased to support amendment No 1. <BR /> <BR />I will turn to amendment No 2, which is also proposed to amend clause 1. The Committee sought to extend the time frame for appeals arising from the Bill to the Charity Tribunal from 42 days to 91 days.”
“The Committee noted that there are no rights of appeal under section 22(3) and that the rights of appeal in respect of section 23(1) of the Act are limited to those who were served with the order to provide the information and do not extend to those whose information may have been disclosed. <BR /> <BR />The Minister took on board the fact that retrospective validation of those actions by the Charity Commission has the potential to engage a person's right, under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), to a private and family life, and, potentially, to remove a legality argument for third parties that they could have used to argue that processing of the data was unlawful as it did not have a statutory footing.”
“The Committee was pleased that its requests were taken forward as ministerial amendments to existing clauses, with one matter being dealt with through ministerial assurance. <BR /> <BR />I thank departmental officials, the Bill Office and the Committee secretariat for their help throughout Committee Stage. I highlight the good working relationship between the Committee secretariat and the officials. <BR /> <BR />I will turn to amendment No 1. The Committee sought the addition of references to sections 22(3) and 23(1) of the Charities Act (Northern Ireland) 2008 to clause 1(5) of the Bill, and I thank the Minister for taking that forward in the amendment. Based on evidence that the Committee received, it queried with officials the impact of the retrospective action on sections 22(3) and 23(1) of the 2008 Act.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee had to bear in mind the wider work, ongoing at the time, of the independent review of charity regulation. The Committee sincerely hoped that the report of the independent review panel would be published while the Committee was considering the Bill, as its work overlaps in places with several actions permitted by the Charities Bill. That was not the case, and the Committee wishes to put on record that its full consideration of the issue was hampered by the fact that it was able to hear from the panel only in closed session. <BR /> <BR />The Committee agreed, based on the evidence that it took and on its deliberations, to request that the Department make a number of amendments to clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill, and it agreed clauses 3 and 4 as drafted.”
“<BR /> <BR />With your indulgence, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, I will say a few words about the Committee's scrutiny of the Bill before I speak on the amendments. We aimed to scrutinise the Bill to ensure, as far as possible, that it protects charities and rights and restores the pillars of the regulatory framework for charities. The Committee focused throughout its scrutiny on potential unintended consequences, as retrospective legislation is an unusual course of action. <BR /> <BR />The Committee received 19 written submissions from interested organisations and individuals, and we held 12 oral evidence sessions. The Committee then considered and deliberated on the provisions of the Bill and the proposed amendments at three meetings, concluding with its formal clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill on 25 November 2021.”
“I will speak on behalf of the Committee for Communities in support of amendment Nos 1 and 2. <BR /> <BR />As I said during the debate at Second Stage, we all know that charities legislation here has a somewhat chequered history. Although the Charities Commission was established in 2008, it did not take on its regulatory powers until 2013. Although the Bill is short, the background that led to the need for it is complex and involves decisions that were taken over a number of years. It impacts on over 7,000 decisions taken by Charity Commission staff, which, at the end of a series of legal proceedings, were finally deemed unlawful by the Court of Appeal in February 2020, leaving many charities and their trustees, staff and financial supporters in confusion.”
“I thank the Minister for his statement. I absolutely agree that our message should be unified. We should be out there telling people to get vaccinated. I am due to get my booster after 6 December, and I will be there to get my booster. I also got my flu jab a few weeks ago. <BR /> <BR />Until Mr O'Toole decided to start on the subject, I was not going to bring this up, but will the Minister accept that his mixed messaging at the latter part of last week has led to a bit of confusion for some in our hospitality sector?”
“I thank the Minister for his answer. I will be brief. We know that many of our funding streams require match funding with EU funding. Have any scoping exercises been done to look at that match funding and at how the shortfall can be met, be that through match funding through the Executive or through other people not in government?”
“I assure the Minister that the Committee will not take longer than necessary, but members are not convinced that the Bill should leapfrog in front of the three important Bills that are already at Committee Stage with us. As I said, the Committee is supportive of the principles of the Bill and looks forward to considering it in further detail at Committee Stage.”
“<BR /> <BR />In response to a Committee query on the Bill, the Minister has confirmed that, since support for mortgage interest loans were first introduced in April 2018, out of the 1,645 loans paid out to date, there have been only four repossession cases. Three loans were written off due to insufficient equity, and one was successfully recovered. <BR /> <BR />The Committee does not wish to give itself extra work — believe me, we have enough already — but nor can we do a cursory Committee Stage, because we have already seen in every Bill that we have considered to date how any clause of any Bill can throw up unintended consequences.”
“If that loan agreement is as technical as the rationale for this short Bill, it is clear that the Committee needs to conduct a proper Committee Stage on the Bill in the absence of any prior consultation. That will allow relevant groups and individuals to comment on the proposals. The Committee will issue a call for evidence and views next week and seek a research briefing. It will be guided by the outcome of those to determine whether there are any key issues on which we need to take oral evidence. Thirdly, it is not of the Committee's making that we are considering the Bill only now. The provisions of the Loans for Mortgage Interest Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2017 came into operation over three years ago, and it has taken until November 2021 for the Bill to be introduced.”
“The Minister advised the Committee that the Executive supported an expedited Committee Stage that would, ideally, be completed within 15 working days. However, the Minister also wishes the Committee to provide valuable scrutiny of the Bill. <BR /> <BR />That brings me to a number of points that I will highlight to the House. First, the Committee has been advised by the Bill Office that there is no official expedited Committee Stage; there is only Committee Stage or accelerated passage. Secondly, the Department has not consulted on the Bill, for the reason that loan recipients have been notified of the possibility of the loan being secured by a statutory charge, which is contained in the support for mortgage interest loan agreement.”
“Of the 1,409 outstanding loans, 541 do not have the security of a legal charge. <BR /> <BR />The Committee understands that the Departmental Solicitor's Office has advised that a statutory charge would provide a more suitable form of security. In addition, a statutory charge would simplify the process of transferring a loan from one property to another and aid future proposed amendments to subordinate legislation to defer the recovery of the loan and allow the loan to transfer to another property. <BR /> <BR />It is a short Bill with only two clauses. As I have outlined, the Committee is fully aware of the background to it and the need for it. The Committee supports the principles of the Bill and looks forward to the scrutiny at Committee Stage.”
“The Minister highlighted to us the difficulties with the outworkings of the current legislation. Current law allows for that legal charge to be placed on properties, but the differences between land law in Britain and Northern Ireland mean that obtaining a similar level of security to consider recovery of the loans is difficult here. Also, legal charges can currently be placed against properties only where all of the legal owners are included in the benefit unit — meaning a single claimant and his or her partner, if any, or joint claimants — and that is only practicable to secure loans when the property is registered and appears on the title register in the Land Registry. We are advised that around 20% of properties are still catalogued in the Registry of Deeds, and those loans cannot be secured as it stands.”
“The repayment of such loans is, of course, limited to the available equity after prior charges on a property have been repaid; that means the available funds, once the mortgage and other relevant charges have been paid from the proceeds of the sale.”
“The provisions were replicated here in articles 13 to 16 of the Welfare Reform and Work (Northern Ireland) Order 2016. The Committee heard that the Bill will amend article 13 of the 2016 Order to allow a loan provided under that article to be charged on the property in respect of which that loan is made. It will also amend schedule 11 to the Land Registration Act (Northern Ireland) 1970 to enable a charge securing a loan provided under article 13 to be registered in the Statutory Charges Register. That is in line with the policy intention to ensure that a loan is recovered if there is available equity when it becomes repayable.”
“On behalf of the Committee for Communities, I welcome the Second Stage of the Support for Mortgage Interest etc (Security for Loans) Bill. The Committee received a pre-introductory briefing from the Minister on 4 November, before the Bill's introduction to the Assembly on 8 November 2021. The Committee knows that the primary purpose of support for mortgage interest is to protect owner-occupiers receiving an income-related benefit from the threat of repossession and that the support is available also for corresponding sums under arrangements that do not involve the payment of interest. <BR /> <BR />The Minister highlighted to the Committee that, in April 2018, support for mortgage interest changed from a benefit to a loan in Northern Ireland. In Britain, that change was included as part of the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016.”
“The Department alerted the Committee to its intention to lay the code before the Assembly by way of a motion to be tabled in the week commencing 15 November, and the Committee considered the draft code in its correspondence at its meeting on 4 November. On behalf of the Committee, I support the motion that the draft Local Government Auditor's draft code of audit practice 2021 be approved.”
“and that it will then be subject to approval:”
“On behalf of the Committee, I thank the Minister for bringing the motion to the House. The Local Government Auditor's code of audit practice came into force on 1 April 2016. At that time, it was under the remit of the Department of the Environment and was therefore considered by the corresponding Committee. Since then, it has been transferred to the remit of the Department for Communities. The Committee for Communities understands that article 5(3) of the Local Government (Northern Ireland) Order 2005 provides that the draft code will not:”
“I thank the Minister for her answer. As someone who was born in the last week in June, I understand all too well how much that can affect you as the youngest person in your class the whole way through school. Minister, it is good to know that you want to get this passed before the end of the mandate. Will you highlight again how parents can get involved before the consultation closes?”
“I thank the Minister for his statement. Seeing the Department of Health getting that amount of money is very welcome. I know that difficult decisions had to be made, and I do not know whether anybody in the Chamber realistically thought that the £55 million for universal credit could have come out of the monitoring round. Something else needs to be done to address that. Did any money at all go to DFC? I note that it submitted a £7 million bid for councils and their income that was lost owing to COVID-19.”
“I thank the Minister for her answer. When we talk about health, we often hear about a postcode lottery, but we also have a postcode lottery in housing. I recently received figures for north Belfast. There are figures for "Belfast" and for "Newtownabbey 1", and people who live in Newtownabbey 1 wait twice as long for anything to do with rehousing. What can the Minister do to address the disparity not only across the country but within one constituency where housing can be so very different?”
“Minister, the need for insulation in our homes has been discussed several times. Without the work being done so that our homes have the necessary insulation, it does not matter how much money we give in payments for heating. It is not going to make a button of difference when homes are cold and damp.”
“As with the Private Tenancies Bill, Members raised many issues and matters of concern during the Second Stage debate for the Committee to consider. Widespread views were expressed, with some focusing on the Bill's shortcomings and the missed opportunities to do more. Others recognised it as a starting point for widespread reform in the next mandate. <BR /> <BR />It is very clear that the Committee has a tall order ahead of it with this Bill. I ask the House to allow the extension in order to provide the Committee additional time to scrutinise the Bill so that we can do our very best to ensure that the Bill achieves as much as it can. As always, we will not hesitate to seek clarifications and propose amendments if needed.”
“The Committee needs sufficient time and space to undertake thorough scrutiny of the Bill and to ensure that it achieves as much as it can. We know that we will likely be hearing as much about what is not in the Bill as what is in the Bill. We have all heard the Minister say that, as many of the challenges cannot be addressed through our present system of regulation, the Bill is about what is:”
“The Committee has already identified a number of key areas and stakeholders from which it wishes to take evidence to understand the impact of gambling-related harm and the impact of the Bill on the local gambling sector, local government, sports organisations and groups, local support organisations for gambling-related harm, and current treatment and prevention services. <BR /> <BR />I will not repeat everything that I said a few moments ago regarding the Private Tenancies Bill, but there is a need for this extension. First, as I said, in relation to logistics, we are currently in the Committee Stage of three Bills, and we are progressing all three at once in a planned process. We will be meeting twice a week from the start of November.”