Steven Agnew
North Down · Green Party · Northern Ireland
“We need an independent, open and transparent process for investigating Ministers. I have always failed to understand the opposition to that from some in the House. Given recent events, if the Assembly was to oppose it again today, there would be public anger.”
“This process would involve one commissioner and one independent investigation, rather than a political investigation that, I have no doubt, some at the time called a witch-hunt, as is often said when people are defending their Minister.”
“I am delighted to make a winding-up speech on this debate, which has been the first-ever sole Green Party private Member's motion. Thanks to the election of my colleague, Clare Bailey, we have two Green MLAs, which has increased our ability to use the Assembly privileges to put such suggestions forward.”
“I absolutely agree, Mr Beggs. <BR /> <BR />Another point I will make is about the idea of the distinction between the Minister and the Department. When I was drafting my private Member's Bill, I asked, "Should that say 'Minister' or 'Department'?". The legal advice that I was given was that they are one and the same.”
“If an MLA is alleged to have breached the code, a member of the public can write to the standards commissioner and have their complaint investigated in an independent manner. The result of any investigation is published and can, if required, lead to a debate in the Assembly so that all the issues can be aired.”
“I would argue that it serves neither the Minister nor the public well that we do not have such a process. An individual who seeks to complain will be left frustrated if they feel that their concerns are ignored by those in office, who are supposed to act on their behalf.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,353 lines we hold for Steven Agnew, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 20 of 28.
“The Department and the Executive have a clear policy intent in introducing the Welfare Reform Bill. It should be an outside body that reports on its impact, its effectiveness and its implementation. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 25, tabled by the SDLP, proposes that the joint standards committee monitor the standards and quality of decision-making on sanctions. I think that the amendment is sound. I will wait to hear the rationale from the proposer and the Minister's response, but, at this time, I am minded to support it. <BR /> <BR />I think that I am right in saying that the only other amendment is amendment No 12, which seems to be a simple rewording.”
“As the Minister mentioned in the debate on the previous group, we had discussions on the duty to report. I welcome the fact that the Minister has tabled an amendment. The single difference between the two amendments is the word "independent", and we had a similar debate on the previous group. I welcome the Minister's commitment to reviewing the Welfare Reform Act three years after it receives Royal Assent, but it is my view that the review should be independent. At the previous stage, I tabled an amendment that gave more detail on what I would like to be in such a report. In seeking to meet the Minister halfway, I have removed the "vulnerable groups" stipulation, and I leave the terms of reference to the Department, but I feel that it is important to keep the word "independent".”
“As the Minister said at the previous stage, that is not the usual convention for social security payments, but, given the significant changes, it is important that the regulations come before the House before being implemented. Not only would it give the Assembly an opportunity to debate them before their introduction but it would be difficult, should they be introduced prior to confirmation by the Assembly, to remove them. My question to the Minister is this: if the Assembly did not agree to the regulations under the confirmatory procedure, how would that leave the application of universal credit? It is my view that they should be agreed in advance and not be subject to confirmative resolution after regulations have been made and, indeed, implemented. <BR /> <BR />I will move on to amendment Nos 19 and 24.”
“Amendment Nos 5, 6 and 7 should be taken together, and I urge Members, if they are to support them, to do so as a whole as they rely on each other to achieve the objective. Amendment No 7 lists the regulations as they relate to universal credit: standard allowance; children and young persons element; housing cost element; claimants subject to no work-related requirements; sanctions; and hardship payments. The intention of the amendments is to ensure that, for each of those key aspects of universal credit, draft legislation is laid before the Assembly and debated before being implemented. <BR /> <BR />Collectively, the amendments would remove the current confirmatory arrangement and replace it with a draft affirmative one.”
“<BR /> <BR />I conclude simply by saying that I continue to believe in the amendments that I have tabled. The only way to stop the bedroom tax, as some have promised to do, is to support amendment Nos 11 and 21.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. The bedroom tax is very much under our control. The Member earlier tried to undermine me and my knowledge of the benefits system. I accept that I used an inaccurate term, but he suggested that I had a weak knowledge of the benefits system because I am not on the Committee and have not worked on it for as long as he has. Given his vast experience on the Social Development Committee and as a welfare worker prior to being an MLA, how embarrassing it must have been that someone with as little knowledge as me had to correct him and his party by restating the Minister's statement on how the bedroom tax will be implemented, despite the assurances from him and his party and his contradiction of me on that point.”
“I will give way in one second. <BR /> <BR />My argument is that I could not tell anyone that they will not be worse off under the Bill. The bedroom tax, which we have discussed, will impact on a number of people. We will see how many. I also believe that the transition mechanism and the fund for supplementary payments are insufficient to guarantee that no one will be worse off.”
“I will take the Deputy Speaker's advice. With his indulgence, I will try to finish the point. It relates to amendment No 22, which is about enabling the Department to make supplementary payments and the impact of those supplementary payments.”
“I will give way in a second. I had to tell them that I disagreed for two reasons. First, because of the transition itself, and we have seen from PIP payments in GB that delays could result in people going without during that transition. Secondly, I said that I did not believe that the £565 million over six years was enough. Sinn Féin, before the Stormont House Agreement, did not use the Minister's figure of £115 million for the cost of welfare cuts, let alone the figure of £90 million. In fact, until quite late in the day, it was using the figure of £560 million, on which Mr Maskey was challenged by Stephen Nolan.”
“Mr Brady and I met a group of people with disabilities, and he told them that no one would be worse off. After he left, they asked me whether I agreed; I had to tell them that I did not.”
“At one point, the First Minister said that, if we did not implement welfare reform, the impact would be up to £1 billion a year. I never knew where that figure came from. That, however, was the range of figures. Now we are told to accept that £94 million a year is enough to ensure that no one is worse off, and, as Mr Beggs correctly highlighted, that is before we take into account the administration of the supplementary payment scheme. How much will that take out of the £94 million a year on average? How can we make the commitment that no one will be worse off and everyone will receive transition payments to bring them back to the level that they would have been at had we not implemented welfare reform? <BR /> <BR />That bring me — I have gone in reverse order — to Mickey Brady's contribution. This is where I got annoyed in the debate.”
“<BR /> <BR />Another interesting point raised, I think by Mr Beggs, concerned how much of the £565 million would be spent on administration. Undoubtedly, the supplementary scheme, however it is implemented and whoever receives the benefit of it, will have to be administered. <BR /> <BR />I was coming to the figures anyway, but this is a good point at which to address them. Those who have said that no one will be worse off under welfare reform have either ignored the figures or the figures have changed in ways that I cannot understand. I have not heard anything to help me understand them. Before the Stormont House Agreement, the lower estimate of the impact of the welfare cuts, which came from the Minister for Social Development, was £115 million. The higher estimate was £250 million, and that figure came from NICVA.”
“I thought that a reasonable amendment at Consideration Stage would have been to give people the opportunity to get back on their feet and to find work or accommodation that they deem suitable. I disagree fundamentally with the principle of the bedroom tax. Others just disagree with the practical application, given the lack of one- and two-bedroom houses, but I disagree with uprooting people because they have become unemployed or their relationship has broken down, and I disagree that we should just look at the size of the unit that they occupy. It is a home, and ultimately the solution is better investment in public housing, not simply moving those in public housing around to fit a perceived public good.”
“I do not know the circumstances of the individual. I do not think that it would be reasonable for such a person, who could be working, to lose their job. At the previous stage, when I proposed an amendment that people be given a year to find work rather than being uprooted from their home, Mr Attwood made a point about the difference between a house and a home. I do not know whether that individual would have to move out of the community to accept suitable accommodation. The issue could be that they have lost their job. Another possible change of circumstance is a relationship break-up. If someone's partner and children leave, and they are left alone in a large house, should they be kicked further by having to move out?”
“I apologise if I offend the Member by suggesting that he would be anything other than honest. He spelt out his party's views on the bedroom tax and said that his party's issue with it is in cases where there is no suitable accommodation. I think that people have seen that the bedroom tax is unpopular and said that it will not be implemented when, in reality, it will. He supports the agreed position that it will be phased in. I disagree with him, and, in an ideal world, we would have been debating the merits of the bedroom tax.”
“Indeed, I have been vindicated today by the Minister's statement, which repeated what he said at Consideration Stage. In that regard, my truck is certainly not with the Minister. Whilst I disagree that it is at the heart of democracy, I do so with the respect and honesty that he has also shown, and with integrity. <BR /> <BR />Stewart Dickson's view is that his party is one of the parties sticking responsibly to the Stormont House Agreement. This goes back to the debate and the arguing between the signatories to that agreement. I cannot comment beyond referencing Mr Dickson's comments that he feels that the SDLP has done a U-turn. That is between those two parties and the other signatories to the agreement. <BR /> <BR />I pay tribute to Roy Beggs, in that I thought that he made an honest contribution.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I thank the Minister for his intervention. I hope that, throughout the debate, I have never challenged his sincerity. He has put his view on public record and debated the amendments, and I do not think that, at any time, he has tried to speak out of two sides of his mouth or anything like that. He has played it straight, and I respect him for that. Undoubtedly, we disagree on some of the amendments, and there will be Divisions, but we will have had an honest and open debate. I have objected when people made promises that they did not keep, in which case they should explain why, or made statements. I was attacked, albeit on social media, by Sinn Féin Members and supporters for saying that the bedroom tax would be implemented. I stand by that.”
“It has no staff whatsoever, other than the staff whom I employ to do my work and to serve my constituents. I have sought as best I can to amend the Bill and to work on it. Indeed, my legislative team — that is, Ross Brown — has worked tirelessly throughout the Bill to bring forward our amendments. I am proud of the work that we have done. <BR /> <BR />Sinn Féin is the party in power here, along with the DUP. If it can stand over what is here today, that is fine, and it is for them to do so, but to tell people that they have stopped the bedroom tax, when we hear today that it is to be phased in, is misleading at best. I think that Sinn Féin should stand over what it has done rather than what it said it was going to do, because the two things are ultimately not the same.”
“We will have to agree to disagree on that one, because my recollection is that we discussed a number of amendments and, indeed, if I remember rightly, possibly nine petitions of concern. We did not progress those. As I said, the Member's party made it clear that the Bill was going nowhere. <BR /> <BR />The Member asked whether I went to the Committee. I know that I am good, I am not a bad MLA, I put in amendments, and I try my best. I am on the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment and the Standards and Privileges Committee. I am one representative for my party. My party is a voluntary-run organisation. It does not have the wealth of Sinn Féin. It does not have research companies working on its behalf. It has a single Member.”
“I will give way in a second. I agreed to sign petitions of concern on the bedroom tax. At no point did I ever refuse or was I unwilling to sign a petition of concern to bring down the Bill. The negotiations between our two parties stopped when Sinn Féin made it clear that the Welfare Reform Bill was going nowhere. I continued to work on amendments on my own, but the simple fact was that Sinn Féin gave a commitment that the Welfare Reform Bill was not going to pass through the House. The Stormont House Agreement changed that. As soon as the Stormont House Agreement was passed, and it was clear that we were coming back to the Bill, I went back to working on those amendments and sought to make the best of the Bill. I will give way to Mr Brady.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. One thing that I have learned is, if I go into a meeting with Alex Maskey, to bring a tape recorder. The simple fact is that that is an inaccurate summary, and Mr Maskey gave it before. To be fair, that is who I had the meeting with.”
“I know that I do not like the Stormont House Agreement, and I know that I put forward amendments to this Bill on the basis of the Welfare Reform Bill alone and the impact that I believe it will have. I ask that Members judge the amendments in their own right, but I recognise that Members will vote according to agreements that were negotiated as part of the Stormont House Agreement.”
“I think that they give the wrong impression as to what will be passed through the House if and when the Welfare Reform Bill passes its Final Stage. <BR /> <BR />Fra McCann said that his contribution would be short, and he spelt it out. This was a deal done on the Stormont House Agreement. He said that he believes that it should be adhered to, and, as I said, there is conflict between the signatory parties to the Stormont House Agreement. He went on to attack the SDLP. I will let those parties have that debate. I was not involved in those negotiations; I did not sign up to the agreement. I do not know who said what, who signed what or when they signed it.”
“Undoubtedly, there will be some people — we do not know how many — who will be affected by this Bill and affected by the bedroom tax in Northern Ireland who will be worse off under these proposals. <BR /> <BR />There could have been, and, arguably, there should have been, the opportunity for the parties that negotiated the £565 million mitigation to celebrate that and, indeed, for the likes of me to welcome that mitigation, but they went further and said that no one would be worse off under this Bill and said that they had stopped the bedroom tax. It is my duty, as one of the few Members on the opposition Benches and who represents a party outside of the Executive to point out the inaccuracy, at best, of those statements. I do not believe that they serve the people of Northern Ireland well.”
“<BR /> <BR />He also spoke on the bedroom tax and, again, teased out with the Minister the example in which someone's personal circumstances change and they are deemed to be in underoccupancy. He asked whether the bedroom tax would apply where suitable alternative accommodation was available. I think that the Minister gave a clear answer, and we are left in no doubt that, where suitable alternative accommodation exists, the bedroom tax will kick in at that stage. In my view — I cannot see how you can perceive it any differently — somebody who is required to either take a reduction in their benefits or move house to smaller accommodation is worse off under this Bill.”
“However, I welcome the Minister's commitment to the independent advice sector, to further conversation on how it can be sustained, and to discussion with Members who have raised concerns on how those concerns can be addressed. <BR /> <BR />Mr Attwood spoke at length about the importance of the contribution of the Human Rights Commission and its submission to the House on welfare reform. I would not hope to paraphrase his contribution. He was explicit in his support for the Human Rights Commission and, to use the term that he used, the weight that it lent to this debate and, indeed, to the amendments that were tabled by the Green Party and by the SDLP.”
“<BR /> <BR />In his contribution, Mr Lyttle focused on the importance of free, and indeed, independent, advice, using the East Belfast Independent Advice Centre as his example. He was certainly interested to hear from the Minister whether he would be reassured by the Minister's amendment or the amendment tabled by the SDLP and countersigned by the Green Party. I am encouraged that the Minister has given his commitment to the independent advice sector, but what I did not hear in his contribution was any reason to object to amendment No 17, tabled in the name of the SDLP and the Green Party. For that reason, I certainly intend to favour it over the Minister's amendment.”
“<BR /> <BR />If those Members believe that our benefits system is too generous, let them tell me which benefit is too generous. Unfortunately, they are not here. However, I ask them to come back and say which benefit is too generous. Is it DLA, or PIP as it will become; jobseeker's allowance, or universal credit as it will become; or is it housing benefit? That is how they should tackle this issue. To impose an artificial cap says that, even where there is need, we will deny families subsistence because we want to implement this artificial cap that could leave families in need and existing below subsistence level. That is, if we take the avenue that those Members propose.”
“That couple will still be entitled to child benefit if they have children and, if they have children with disabilities, they will rightly still be entitled to DLA, so it is not a fair comparison. If we compare a family in work that has children with disabilities with similar families out of work, that is a fair comparison. However, to say that two individuals working, who may not have children, will have one income; whereas people on benefits, who may have four or five children — we do not know their personal circumstances — where each child has a disability, have another income is not fair. We assess based on need; that is a fundamental principle that we should stick to. To place an artificial cap on benefits is the wrong way to go about it.”
“Is it that each individual benefit is too much? Whether it is housing benefit, DLA, JSA or ESA, presumably the claimants are assessed for each of those benefits and, cumulatively, what they require for subsistence amounts to the sums mentioned. Six thousand six hundred people receive sums over the benefit cap. However, the Minister corrected those Members and said that the benefits cap would apply to a much smaller figure once we took out the exemptions. Do those Members disagree with the exemptions that have been agreed? Do they disagree with the nature of our benefits system, the assumption that people receive benefits based on their need? <BR /> <BR />Mr McCallister gave the example of a couple both of whom earn £19,000.”
“<BR /> <BR />To go back to the Stormont House Agreement, those who, despite agreeing to the phased introduction of the bedroom tax, said that they had stopped it, said that it would not be introduced and said that nobody would be worse off under the Welfare Reform Bill, that was irresponsible, because it has no basis in fact. <BR /> <BR />There was considerable debate by Mr Allister and Mr McCallister — neither of whom is in his place — about the proposed benefit cap. They are anguished that we are not to impose a benefit cap in Northern Ireland or, at least, that those affected by it will receive the transition payments through the supplementary payments. I hope that I have used that term correctly for Mr Brady. I ask those Members: what is their objection to those who receive that level of benefit?”
“There were those who, after the last stage of the debate, called me a scaremonger and said that it was irresponsible of me to suggest that the bedroom tax would be implemented in Northern Ireland. I believe that I was responsible. I said that it would be phased. I said that there would be mitigation measures, but I put in the public domain — certainly circulated further and wider — the Minister's statement that he made under the circumstances in which the bedroom tax would be applied. I said that it would be a phased agreement, and the Minister appears to be in agreement with that. For those who said that the bedroom tax will not and would not be applied in Northern Ireland, I think that that assertion has been shown to be false.”
“Had that been the case, we would have had less opportunity for the post-agreement bickering that we have seen during the debate today. I am proud to say that my party did not sign up to the Stormont House Agreement and to the commitment to cut 20,000 public-sector jobs, and we did not do so for the promise of cutting corporation tax, which will result in a further cut to public spending that, we believe, will do harm to the people of Northern Ireland and to the public services that we rely on. <BR /> <BR />The Minister spoke at length and in detail on each of the amendments. I will not comment on each of them, except to say that I feel vindicated by the Minister's response in relation to the bedroom tax.”
“It has obviously been quite a long debate on this group, and I will do my best to paraphrase the debate rather than cover each individual point. I will try to do so as speedily as I can. <BR /> <BR />I will make a general point. A couple of references were made throughout the discussions about my and the Green Party's entitlement to bring forward amendments as we were not signatories to the Stormont House Agreement. There is obviously disagreement among the parties that were signatories to it, but I will let those parties fight that out and make no comment on each of the individual party statements to it, except to say that, from my party's point of view, we did not sign the Stormont House Agreement and, indeed, from the outset, we were very clear that it should have been a public process, not a private behind-closed-doors one.”
“I thank the Minister for giving way. He has repeated his words from the previous stage, and I am grateful to him for doing so because I have quoted them. I have paraphrased what he said as being a phased introduction of the bedroom tax, which will apply only when suitable alternative accommodation is available or there is a significant change in circumstances. Will he confirm that that is an accurate paraphrasing of what is happening? Will he also speak to the exemptions that were proposed, which were supposedly negotiated under the previous Minister? Will they be included or are they now gone?”
“Is the family with two workers on £19,000 a year receiving child benefit or support for childcare through working tax credit or childcare vouchers?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. He will be aware that two amendments are tabled: amendment No 17 was tabled by the SDLP and countersigned by the Green Party, and there is an amendment from the Minister. For me, the essential difference between the two is that the Minister's amendment does not cite independent advice, which the Member has mentioned a number of times in his contribution. Is he concerned about the Minister's amendment?”
“I appreciate the Member giving way. Does that apply to all the amendments? For example, does it apply to the amendment that proposes having draft affirmative instead of confirmatory? In my opinion, that would not have costs, nor even would the 16-week time limit on giving the decision on a PIP claim, presuming that the systems are in place.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. He may point out my failings and that is fine; it is certainly not the first time that I have stated my opposition to the cuts. I have done it consistently and, indeed, it was in my election manifesto and election leaflet. The Member spoke about my failings, but is he saying, then, that there are no possible circumstances whereby there will be suitable accommodation and where the bedroom tax will be implemented? Is he saying that there is nowhere in Northern Ireland where that will happen and that the Minister's words are, effectively, meaningless and that the bedroom tax will not be implemented and no one will suffer from it?”
“Can the Member be clear, then, whether his position is that he does not support the bedroom tax where there is no suitable accommodation or that he does not support it at all? If it is simply that he does not support it where there is no suitable accommodation, then he is saying that people on benefits — if they become unemployed and are in a three-bedroom house and are deemed to need only one — should pay more or move to suitable alternative accommodation. Which is it?”
“They will be mitigated by the £565 million, but they will certainly not be negated. We are yet to see the detail of who will be worse off in Northern Ireland. That is where my concerns lie. <BR /> <BR />I have addressed amendment No 23, which concerns the Department's duty to ensure free, but not independent, advice. Amendment No 26 relates to Royal Assent for amendments should they be passed by the Assembly today. <BR /> <BR />I conclude on this group of amendments. I look forward to hearing the debate on each of the amendments. I hope that it can be a more open debate than that at Consideration Stage, which was closed from the outset because of the many petitions of concern.”
“I want to be clear: the budget that has been set aside to mitigate welfare reform is to be welcomed. My problem is when people say that no one will be worse off when welfare reform is implemented in Northern Ireland because the figures do not stack up. <BR /> <BR />The Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action report estimated that welfare cuts, if implemented as in GB, would see a £250 million loss to people on benefits in Northern Ireland. The then Minister Nelson McCausland, in answer to me, stated that the figure was more in the region of £115 million. We are now being told that £90 million or thereabouts a year, or £565 million over six years, is sufficient to ensure that no one is worse off. My calculations cannot equate those figures. To me, it will still mean the implementation of welfare cuts in Northern Ireland.”
“Amendment Nos 13 and 14 provide for regulations to stipulate what other evidence besides medical evidence can be taken into account. I look forward to hearing the Minister's intention in proposing them. I certainly have no objections to them at this stage. Amendment No 18 provides for a report on standards of advice and assistance, and, again, I await the Minister's explanation. Amendment No 20 would have the effect of adding universal credit to the rate relief scheme. My understanding is that that would recognise the migration of housing benefit to universal credit, and I assume that it would ensure that the same standard of rates relief applied. <BR /> <BR />Obviously, amendment No 22 is key; it concerns the power for implementing the discretionary payments, and it details how that will operate. I welcome that.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. I do not know whether he is saying that he supports the provisions in the Bill. I expressed my disappointment that Anna Lo had taken her name off the amendment that she brought forward at Consideration Stage, leaving me as the signatory to speak to it. I do not know whether Anna Lo or the Alliance Party has changed its position on the issue. As I stated, it is an issue of fairness, and one that may have legal consequences. Of course, I do not want to see Northern Ireland subject to infraction penalties, and the best way to avoid that is to treat two workers in the same job who are made unemployed for the same reason equally and fairly and not to discriminate on the basis of nationality. <BR /> <BR />I move on to the Minister's amendments, which I will talk about briefly.”
“Amendment No 27 mirrors an amendment that I brought forward at Consideration Stage, which was petition-of-concerned, something that has not yet happened this time around. The amendment would ensure that workers are treated equally, regardless of whether they are UK citizens or EU workers. That is right in order to ensure fairness and equality but also to ensure that we do not implement a law that is contrary to EU regulations, thereby making us liable to significant infraction penalties.”
“It is important, where a private company carries out duties that would otherwise have been carried out by a public body and that essentially pertain to its role, that it should adhere to the same standards. I support amendment No 4 for that reason.”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment No 16 from the SDLP is on the continued payment of benefits while an appeal against a sanction is being heard. Again, I do not believe that people for whom, in some cases, it will be their only source of income should be punished because of mistakes by the Department. The continuation of the payment while an appeal is being heard would ensure that those who have been sanctioned incorrectly do not suffer a financial penalty, while those who have been sanctioned correctly under the rules would receive the same length of sanction and the principal sanction, to which I am opposed, under the current proposals. Therefore, as the proposals stand, those sanctions would still be applied. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 4 requires companies in the private sector to which work is outsourced to be human rights-complaint.”
“What we have is a commitment from the Minister to implement the bedroom tax where suitable alternative housing exists or personal circumstances change. At this stage, I am looking for the assurance that the bedroom tax will not be implemented, and the only way to get that solid assurance is to support amendment Nos 11 and 21. <BR /> <BR />I come now to the amendments tabled by the SDLP. Amendment Nos 2, 3, 8, 9 and 10 are on explanatory documents on sanctions. I regret that, at the last stage, the Assembly passed the maximum sanction of 18 months, but, given that, these are sound amendments from the SDLP. We have evidence that those who suffer sanctions do not always understand why or understand the nature of the sanctions, so any assistance is to be welcomed.”
“I certainly cannot find it. I thank the Member for raising the point. We were given all these assurances about the flexibilities of the bedroom tax. I remember that, when the previous Minister Mr McCausland was in post, I listed the various flexibilities that would be required to protect people with disabilities, carers, parents with caring responsibilities and, potentially, people in the armed forces who have children etc. I asked the Minister what, if we gave all those exemptions, would be the point of the bedroom tax and how much we would save by implementing it. Surely it would become just an ideologically driven mechanism to punish people for being on benefits. The Bill does not have the flexibilities that we were promised.”
“If Sinn Féin wants to stand up and say that it did not agree to the implementation of the bedroom tax, I will welcome that and will welcome its Members going through the Lobby to support amendment Nos 11 and 21, which will ensure that the bedroom tax is not implemented and that the legislation makes it clear that it cannot be implemented as proposed by the Minister at the previous stage.”