Stewart Dickson
East Antrim · Alliance Party · Northern Ireland
“Thank you, Minister, for your answer. Minister, you will have noted that the Government recently announced a VAT cut for some family expenses for a range of activities over the summer. That is perhaps a change.”
“Many do not know how to apply; others do not even realise that the opportunities exist. If the process itself is a barrier to participation, it is really not open to all.”
“I was born in 1950 in Thorndale House, which was one of the homes that is named in the legislation. I was born to married parents, and Thorndale House was a maternity home. It was where you went to have your baby in 1950 on the Antrim Road. My mum and dad went there, I was born and, a few days later, I left with loving parents.”
“I agree with Mr Brett: amendment No 6 is important because it will deal with persons who refuse to provide information or evidence to the inquiry. Amendment No 8 to clause 20 is a tidying-up amendment that will allow the Committee to make interim reports, which will be of benefit to the inquiry process.”
“That is why I want the inquiry to succeed and why it is vital that it succeeds. That is why it is important for us to see that cruelty in the full glare of a public inquiry. That is why it is important that the scheme goes through without further delay. <BR /> <BR />Finally, I place on record my thanks to the Committee Chair.”
“The Assembly faces stark choices, and agreeing the draft Budget as it stands is not a silver bullet, nor is it sustainable for us to continue in the absence of a Budget. It is vital, therefore, that we break the cycle of crisis and collapse that has been destroying our public finances.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,188 lines we hold for Stewart Dickson, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 41 of 44.
“What I am hearing from Mr McCallister and Mr Allister is that they would like us to push people over the edge into the most brutal area of Tory cuts. That makes the difference between Mr Attwood and me in the debate that we had this afternoon pale into insignificance. At least we are both agreed on the sum that should be spent. The disagreement is over how it might be spent, and what we should do with it in future. We have at least flushed out two Members who simply want to push everybody over the edge into incredible poverty. <BR /> <BR />Mr McCallister referred to how we might get people into employment and the type of learning and training that we should provide.”
“That has also come about as a result of compromise and consultation on the basis set forward by the Stormont House and Stormont Castle agreements. It is in stark contrast to the methods of others. <BR /> <BR />In many regards, the Department has a mammoth task in front of it to implement the reforms. We must now move towards bringing the regulations forward. That is where the real meat will be in how we can actually deliver on the agreement. We have agreed to that. We have got mitigating measures. It is now time to stop the grandstanding and move on.”
“This question has to be asked: if it cannot make agreements with other parties, what chances are there for it keeping promises to the electorate? <BR /> <BR />Turning to the amendments that the Department has put forward, I am pleased to see that further mitigation measures are being brought forward on the basis on which the Executive have agreed. Amendment No 22 will allow for payments to those suffering disadvantage as a result of the reforms. Furthermore, without being over-prescriptive, the amendment provides the means for regulations in an area, as well as safeguards, to ensure that the spirit of protection for the most vulnerable is upheld in the final product. <BR /> <BR />I welcome amendment No 23, which will ensure that advice and assistance is made available free of charge to prospective claimants in connection with their claim.”
“<BR /> <BR />This is the same party that, today, has brought forward another raft of amendments upon which they will build an electioneering platform, but one on which the foundation is very shaky indeed. Meanwhile, other more responsible parties such as ours must do, and have done, the heavy lifting in what is neither a popular nor a thankful task but a necessary one to move things forward not only in relation to welfare reform mitigated but also to move Northern Ireland forward. <BR /> <BR />Bit by bit, the SDLP and others are seeking to add cost and weight to the Bill, which they know cannot be afforded, and make promises that cannot be kept. The SDLP U-turn is further accompanied by its own congratulatory fanfare in which it is a party that is protecting the vulnerable against a supposed heartless Executive.”
“To undermine the mitigated welfare reform agreement is to undermine the process and the progress that is being made in Northern Ireland as a whole. Therefore, throughout this difficult process, my party has kept its discipline and kept its word to the spirit of those agreements because we know that it is the responsible thing to do. It causes me a great deal of dismay to see the opposite from the SDLP; a party that seems to be melting like snow off a ditch in front of our eyes, with dispute after dispute. It is a party with a leader who is incapable of exercising authority, whether it is over local councillors or those who sign up to agreements and then seem to want to amend them, and amend them, and amend them, and amend them.”
“The agreement has also meant that Northern Ireland has been able to secure welfare reform with mitigating measures that Wales or Scotland have not. <BR /> <BR />We must also remember that the agreement was not just about welfare reform but included other issues that have been stalling progress, many that are still to be worked through and resolved. We are moving to deal with issues like the legacy of the Troubles, flags and corporation tax.”
“It is important to see that progress has been made in the past few weeks after what can only be described as two and a half years of deadlock, meaning that we can finally move towards the passing of legislation that will deliver the mitigation and move forward with that Stormont House Agreement. It is an agreement that was hard-won after negotiations between five parties, whether at Stormont Castle or at Stormont House. It is an agreement that meant serious compromise between those who have signs saying "No Tory Tax Cuts" in their widows and those who have tea and buns in the back garden of 10 Downing Street. That is the reality. That is where the compromise is, and that is where we have moved in relation to this Bill.”
“We await to hear what the Minister has to say about the cost effects of all the proposals that have been made today, either by Mr Agnew or by the SDLP. Certainly, I am prepared to give and accept a degree of latitude in terms of what Mr Agnew is saying by comparison with those who, whether or not they made a signature on a piece of paper, can well be described as being signed up to a five-leader agreement. <BR /> <BR />I think that we do have to support the passage of this Bill through Further Consideration Stage and support the agreed amendments tabled by the Department.”
“Once again, I start by recognising the concerns raised by Mr Agnew earlier today in the debate. It is understandable that he did so, because he was not party to that five-party agreement. Indeed, the Minister has explained to us, at least in part, that it was worked through in exceptional detail and costed. I think that that is the challenge to Mr Agnew and the amendments that he is proposing. They remain not costed, and, therefore, they have to, in my view, fall outside today's consideration.”
“I thank the Minister for her answer. The reality is that, in having the lowest per capita arts funding in the United Kingdom, you are failing to deliver that positive image for Northern Ireland through the opportunities given by culture, the arts and other mediums.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I appreciate the importance of the point about other EU nationals. Does he accept that, during the three years in which the legislation has been in place in the rest of the United Kingdom, there has been neither a legal challenge nor any research indicating that that is a problem and that the amendment is therefore unnecessary?”
“Would the Minister agree with me that the type of measures he is taking, which are similar to those proposed by his colleague the Minister for Employment and Learning for public finances, need to be taken by all Executive Ministers to meet the public service requirements under this current Budget?”
“Minister, thank you for your statement. I welcome and recognise your point that you cannot make those changes or make them sustainably without finding a source of additional funding. So I will turn to the additional funding and the suggestion that there may be a £20 or £25 charge. The previous prescription-charging regime was a shambles, and more of the income went on administration than on what the job was supposed to be about: paying for drugs. We are talking about very specialist drugs, and that is very welcome. Will the Minister assure the House that the administration of any future prescription regime will be effective and efficient? From my £25, I expect only a few pence, if even that, to go on administration.”
“Amendment No 46 is largely technical, and the addition of the Department of Justice to the list of qualifying persons with whom information can be shared is indeed eminently sensible. There is also adequate need to report on the impact of the implementation of welfare reform, as with all other legislation, and there are a number of competing amendments. Again, the group party agreements led to the monitoring regime which is laid out in amendment No 47. To me and to the Alliance Party, this represents a sensible way of monitoring the implementation, and we will be supporting that as well.”
“This group, as Members know, largely concerns preparations for monitoring the implementation of the Bill. The Ulster Unionist amendment relating to the pilot scheme for the implementation of PIP has merit. As the administration of welfare reform in Northern Ireland is very different from that in the rest of the United Kingdom, and would be more so following the implementation of the mitigations agreed by the parties and the Government, a separate pilot scheme is needed to flesh out the problems that could arise, compared to those that will not arise in England. Crucially, as this amendment was agreed by the five parties, we will be supporting it. <BR /> <BR />We will also support the two ministerial amendments, because they are sensible amendments.”
“For too long, Northern Ireland has failed people through a lack of jobs, education and skills. Now is the time to address that and to provide the safety net for those who need it but to encourage those who can work to do so and contribute economically. We must develop this society into a fair, free and open place where all should have the opportunity to work if that is what they wish to do, and where those who cannot work are supported by a welfare and benefits system that is there at the point of need.”
“That is what was agreed but it seems that, in regard to much of this, as in many other areas of the Bill, there are those who are far more concerned about their popularity than their responsibilities. They, like the Alliance Party, agreed to bring forward the Welfare Reform Bill on the basis of Executive agreement. However, from those parties, we see a raft of amendments that contradicts that position. We intend to keep to our word; others appear to wish to do otherwise. <BR /> <BR />Finally, the welfare state as envisaged under Beveridge and that which I and many in this room have grown up under is perceived as a system of social insurance to guard against the social challenges that face us in life. That is unsustainable unless those who are fit actually work.”
“I understand those concerns, so their removal from the Bill is welcome and something that I support. During the Committee Stage of the Bill, stakeholders expressed serious concerns about the proposal for sanctions to cover a period of three years. Of course, such measures would cause, and have been documented as causing, unjust hardship and, indeed, breaches of human rights to some of the most vulnerable in our society. Therefore, instead of three years, as implemented at Westminster, I will be supporting the amendment to reduce the period to 18 months. That was agreed by the Executive parties as part of a compromise. Again, it represents more favourable treatment for Northern Ireland than for the other devolved regions.”
“Members and the Minister have referred to the use of petitions of concern. Once again, I register my concern about that, but we shall move on. <BR /> <BR />This is about putting sanctions in place, and we cannot shy away from that. Sanctions for those who are in receipt of benefits are not something that I take satisfaction from, but they form a functional part of the Bill by helping to ensure that claimants meet their obligations. They also encourage and support people back into work. It is important that claimants understand why there are sanctions, what those sanctions are and how they can avoid them by following the appropriate guidance and rules. <BR /> <BR />Once again, we have gained favourable terms. For example, the CAB expressed its concern about the incorporation of civil penalties in the Bill.”
“<BR /> <BR />In conclusion, I am content that the concessions that have been negotiated and agreed will ensure that Northern Ireland will not have the worst effects of that poorly thought-out and mean-spirited policy. I therefore support the amendments that have been agreed and brought forward by the Minister. I wish to place on record again my previous point with regard to skills, education and infrastructure. As representatives and legislators we must now get down to the job of building a united, shared and prosperous Northern Ireland fit for the 21st century that will deliver for everyone and protect the most vulnerable.”
“They are sitting to my right. In regard to the general issue of entitlements in the Bill, it is important that we have a clear vision of the Northern Ireland that we are seeking to build: a competitive Northern Ireland, less dependent on welfare, with investment in skills, education and infrastructure, and attraction for the jobs of the future; a more just Northern Ireland, where a fair day's work returns a fair day's pay, the state is no longer required to subsidise poverty wages and people are better off in work than they are on benefits; nevertheless, a Northern Ireland where the social security net supports victims of circumstances and, vitally, breaks the cycle of poverty in which so many find themselves trapped. That, crucially, involves the provision of good quality social housing.”
“I am nearly finished. The one-size-fits-all implementation in Britain is unsustainable, unjust and irrational. Therefore, I support the amendments brought forward by the Department with regard to the mitigation policy. Ultimately, the decision on the continuation or the abolition of the bedroom tax will be made at Westminster. That is where those decisions will be made, and I hope that a future Government will reverse that. The Alliance Party and our MP, Naomi Long, fought that unjust policy on the Floor of the House of Commons while others shirked their representative role and stood shouting from the sidelines.”
“<BR /> <BR />It is important that we allow the Department the flexibility to alleviate the effects of the bedroom tax in the context of the wider departmental resources, as agreed by — it bears repeating again — all of the Executive parties. The one-size-fits-all implementation in Britain —”
“To penalise the poorest in our society for the lack of long-term planning at the highest level of government is indeed perverse. <BR /> <BR />For Northern Ireland, however, the size, distribution and organisation of our housing stock only make that policy — which is designed for larger cities in the south of England — even more unworkable. It is therefore fortunate that we are able to implement meaningful mitigation measures in regard to that policy. We have agreed those special measures with Treasury, and we cannot and should not go back on those agreements, undermining concessions gained. In response to Mr Wilson, it is a pity that those concessions were not gained earlier on in all of those processes. That would be a betrayal of those who would otherwise be affected by those punitive measures.”
“Rent arrears are up by 26% as a result of the policy, alongside fuel and food poverty. The policy also ignored the need of many people with disabilities to have that extra space or extra room to store medical equipment, for their carers to sleep or for households reduced in size as a result of separation. <BR /> <BR />Furthermore, housing associations in England have reported that many people wish to downsize, but, to put it simply, smaller homes are not there. To illustrate that, 180,000 tenants were judged to be underoccupying two-bedroom homes, yet in the rest of the UK, only 85,000 smaller houses were available. That reflects the very crux of the matter. For years, Governments have sold off social housing stock but failed to reinvest the revenue in the construction of new social housing to replace that moving into the private sector.”
“I agree. The policy, cited as a means of dealing with the under-occupation of social housing, has resulted in the demonisation of those in receipt of housing benefits, 500,000 of whom across the UK are actually in work. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the tax has been a failure in England, with only 6% of those affected moving to a smaller home. In the meantime, a huge amount of undue distress, debt and punitive measures have been levied on the most vulnerable in society, alongside the extra cost to local authorities charged with housing.”
“The amendments before us in regard to entitlements relate to some of the most contentious parts of the Welfare Reform Bill, notably the so-called bedroom tax. This is perhaps the most well known and, indeed, galvanising element of this Bill. The removal of the spare room subsidy is one of the most cynical reforms made by the Conservative-led Government. The policy, cited as a means of dealing with the under-occupation of social housing —”
“While I appreciate the point that is being made, which was helpfully led off by the First Minister, we are tempting to run into a farce here again. This is a serious Bill that requires a serious debate.”
“Will the Member give way before Mrs Kelly intervenes?”
“The Alliance Party is delighted to do so. We are fully supportive of open and transparent government.”
“We must support the structures as agreed or face losing these concessions and returning to the crises, anxiety and inaction of the previous two years.”
“I believe that these questions are yet to be fully answered, but I think those matters will be dealt with through regulation. <BR /> <BR />To ensure a system that is fit for purpose, I call upon the Minister and the Committee to investigate these issues in depth and establish that appropriate and fair measures are put in place. In concluding on this section, it is vital that I highlight the mitigating measures in regard to such issues that have been agreed with Treasury. Anything else that is uncosted is not likely to proceed in the House today and would cause a further burden on an already over-stressed and stretched Budget. Furthermore, the terms of agreement are much more favourable than those presented in the rest of the United Kingdom.”
“I am content to support this; however, it is only appropriate that we keep the operation of this under close scrutiny to ensure that it functions as intended and supports victims through their period of recovery. <BR /> <BR />Another issue that was highlighted repeatedly in welfare reform in the rest of the UK is the need for a solid medical basis on which to make assessments. We will therefore support the amendment No 35 proposed by the Ulster Unionists in that regard. This will ensure that the relevant medical evidence is taken into account when assessing a person's ability to carry out daily living or mobility activities. However, that raises the question of how the medical evidence is obtained, at what cost and how qualified is the assessor in interpreting the medical documentation.”
“<BR /> <BR />With regard to amendment No 12, the Alliance Party has been one of the stronger proponents of the more comprehensive support for people affected by hate crime. Sadly, hate crime is on the rise in Northern Ireland and has a serious and pervasive effect on the lives and families of those affected, many of whom require rehousing and a period of recovery. Therefore, not only are measures in our welfare system to accommodate hate-crime victims appropriate and just, it is important that we avoid inflicting further trauma as a result of welfare sanctions. The Department has indicated that such mechanisms will exist through good cause, a clause contained in the Bill.”
“<BR /> <BR />I turn to the group 1 amendments, specifically, the proposed amendments pertaining to the Department, the administration and assessments. During the Committee Stage of the Bill, the frequency of payments was often cited by those in the social sector as a serious cause of concern. It was stated that the proposed monthly payment arrangements, as implemented in the rest of the UK, would likely cause undue budgeting pressures on society's most vulnerable. The Department has taken that on board, and will apply a default fortnightly payment schedule for welfare recipients. A requirement, therefore, is not a necessary part of the Bill and contradicts the mechanisms agreed by the Executive parties. I am satisfied that progress has been made on this issue.”
“On the amendments, the Alliance Party will honour the Stormont House Agreement. We made an agreement. We are an honourable party and will stick to our agreements. We can and will today support those amendments that are agreed, because to do otherwise would be to undermine an agreement that all party leaders accepted and signed up to. We also point out that many of the amendments relate to making regulatory powers for things that are already done or will soon be done. We are sympathetic to many of those amendments, but we expect the Minister to allow all-party input to them through regulations that will come to the Committee. We will listen to what he has to say. For Alliance, implementing this legislation in a way that protects the vulnerable, without stopping the legislation, will be done when the regulations are produced.”
“I have some sympathy for the proposals made by Mr Agnew, and I will listen to what he has to say. I think that a great many of the amendments proposed today can and will be dealt with by the Minister in his response to the House, but it is important that every one of them is costed.”
“Some who nodded this compromise through when the agreement was made have now decided to play politics in order to gain what they see as an electoral advantage or perhaps a chance to launch personal political ambitions; maybe there are a few leadership bids under way in the Chamber. <BR /> <BR />I wish to place on record my and my party's dislike of the unilateral use of petitions of concern, particularly by the DUP. Use of a petition of concern as a negotiating tactic is not what they were intended for, and I consider it unacceptable. Such actions could ultimately unravel the agreement and the hard-won concessions that neither Scotland or Wales have been able to secure. Nevertheless, I recognise the contribution of others in the debate and those who were not party to the Stormont Castle or Stormont House agreements.”
“She voted in opposition to that legislation. <BR /> <BR />The Alliance Party considers that the Stormont House Agreement was a reasonable and honourable attempt to reach compromise. It was a five-party agreement, unless I hear disagreement in the Chamber today. We expect to see the whole agreement put in place. It is an entire process, and it is important that it is put back on track. I accept and understand that some of the agreement was made behind closed doors. The exceptional nature of the problems that are faced required exceptional responses. However, I have to call out the cynical attempts today of those using this legislation to do nothing but electioneer.”
“It is time to end the crisis and anxiety and to implement welfare reform alongside the concessions and the mitigation measures that were won and agreed. Those are agreed mitigation measures, yet, listening to some of the debate today, one would wonder whether anybody was ever at the game when the agreement was being made. <BR /> <BR />These concessions will protect the most vulnerable from the most unjust and harshest measures passed by a Conservative-led Westminster Government. For the record and for Mr Nesbitt, I am not, nor have I ever been, a member of the Liberal Democrat party. I am a proud member of the Alliance Party. Those are the two feet that I am standing on in the Chamber. I also wish to state for the record that our Member of Parliament sits in opposition to that Conservative Government at Westminster.”
“I will just take some time to welcome the long-awaited return of the Welfare Reform Bill to the House, two long years after its original introduction. In that intervening period, we have had nothing but crisis and deep anxiety across the community over this key piece of legislation: crisis from an Executive seemingly failing to reach agreement and putting the power-sharing institutions at risk of collapse, at not insubstantial cost to the community and certainly in excess of £100 million; and, as a result of scaremongering, a pervasive and unwarranted anxiety amongst the people who we represent, many of whom are the most vulnerable in our society. <BR /> <BR />It is for those two reasons that I commend the agreement reached at Stormont Castle and Stormont House to move this key piece of legislation forward.”
“I am interested in his engagement with members of the community. Would Mr Beggs also tell them that his party's 2010 manifesto, which is identical to that of the Tories, is the unmitigated Bill that is presented to the House today and that it is the mitigations that are being presented to the House today that will actually deal with the issues that he is talking about?”
“Minister, thank you for your answers so far. But 110 scheduled operations have been cancelled since November in Musgrave Park. Patients have been left with nowhere to go because you were not able to provide care packages for them. Elective surgery has been cancelled again today in Belfast City Hospital. Is this simply not an indication of the abject failure of your predecessor? Your honeymoon period is over. What are you doing about it?”
“First of all, Mr Speaker, I offer my apologies for not being in my place for an earlier question.”
“However, it is a shame that we are debating it today and not six months ago, when it would have made a better impact and more difference and would have delivered to the new local government authorities.”
“<BR /> <BR />The requirement that a council produce a development plan is an important part of the legislation and will provide a formal framework from within which regeneration should take place. However, I make a comment of disappointment: there is no requirement to promote shared space as a part of that regeneration responsibility. Shared space and inclusive communities must be at the heart of regeneration. Otherwise, we could simply be building division or, indeed, further division into our society: the "one for me, one for you" mentality. I challenge the Minister to consider further the requirement to promote sharing in the Bill. <BR /> <BR />We will support the Bill today, because it represents a chance to improve the way in which we deliver regeneration policy.”
“That will enable local government to have a clear path to deal with regeneration. <BR /> <BR />This party supports the Bill's content. We have long championed the idea that responsible councils are the best place and are best positioned to deliver local regeneration, because they have the needs, the knowledge and the understanding of local communities. Indeed, evidence from around the United Kingdom and across Europe demonstrates that local government can lead effective and innovative regeneration programmes. I honestly believe that the result of the localisation of regeneration will have a substantive outcome for ordinary people and the communities in which they live.”
“Like many colleagues, I have to say that the Bill, sadly, is long overdue. I regret that it has taken the Department so long to produce it, the result being that local government will not be able, as of 1 April, to proceed with the local regeneration projects that had been hoped for. The Department and others need to take responsibility for that. We and the Minister have to deal with what I consider to be the uncertainty about funding plans, and we have to work with those partners. I encourage the Minister and the Department to work with partners in the private and voluntary sector to ensure continuity of regeneration works during this period. Today, I want the Minister to give a firm time and a firm timetable for the legislation so that we know exactly when it will be implemented and when the powers that will flow from it will be set up.”
“Minister, how, therefore, are you going to protect investment in front-line skills?”
“They are willing to forgo their bus passes. The reality is that this Minister is stripping jobs from DARD and from east Belfast.”