Alex Maskey
West Belfast · Sinn Féin · Northern Ireland
“First, I thank the Minister for making an absolute pledge of non-interference by him as the Minister of Finance. I note that he has asked others to do likewise.”
“I think that it has been made very clear that you can legislate, set up institutions and all the rest of it within a particular framework, but, if people chose and choose not to embrace the principles and concepts, it will not work.”
“I appreciate that the Member was not here last February, so she had no role in the last discussions, but she needs to be aware that her party voted against the proposal to close the scheme in February 2016. That is the reality; that is a fact.”
“Over the last number of years, we have all been challenged in the things that we had to do and in the agreements that we had to reach and were challenged to adhere to. Nevertheless, when people have worked in the spirit of partnership and sharing power, this place and this and previous Executives have produced much better work.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I really did not want to interrupt, because I know that he is passionate about the points that he is making. If I remember correctly, the Ulster Unionist Party leader said a couple of months ago that, if the Good Friday Agreement was up for debate now, the party would not support it.”
“A Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle, I also wish you well in the time ahead as a republican activist. <BR /> <BR />It is fairly ironic in its own way that, in the last hours of this Assembly, we are debating the principles and values of the Good Friday Agreement.”
The complete record
Every one of 704 lines we hold for Alex Maskey, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 11 of 15.
“There was one in 2007, and that enabled other measures to be introduced in the House that Members have had to suck up, so to speak, on behalf of the people out there we all represent. In recent years, all the parties in the Chamber have had to accept statutory regulations coming through the Assembly that they could not prevent or stop and that were detrimental to the people we represent. Sinn Féin was struck very hard by that, and we focused on that when we had any discussion on the Welfare Reform Bill and the welfare cuts agenda. We are very clear that we are opposed to those cuts and have resolutely opposed them. <BR /> <BR />At the end of the day, we went into the negotiations before Christmas, and I am very pleased that we had what you would call a five-party agreement.”
“Welfare has to be a system that is compassionate and caring and supports people who fall foul of illness or have the problem of not being able to get a job. <BR /> <BR />Every Member knows full well that there are a lot of people in our society who are on a low income. We all know about the zero-hour contracts and the people who are vulnerable out there who are ill, sick or long-term unemployed. We know all about that. Those who want to want to support people in that category want to try to make sure that we have the best welfare system that we can get. That is what we are trying to do here. <BR /> <BR />Are we starting off with the best welfare system today? No, we are certainly not. There has been an ongoing attack on the welfare system for several years. This is not the first Welfare Reform Bill that has gone through the Assembly.”
“Often, we did that when we were being slated by others who were telling us that there was nothing more that we could do, that we could not get another penny, that the benefits system is generous enough and that we could not do anything for these people because we would be taking it from somebody else's budget. <BR /> <BR />I make it very clear on behalf of Sinn Féin again in the Chamber that we see the key pillars of any society that is compassionate and wants to look after the most vulnerable as being health, education and welfare. They have to be the cornerstones of a system that looks after the people out there who need good health and who need a good education to make themselves the most productive contributors to our society that they can be and help their human well-being.”
“We have tried with others, and we certainly are not on our own in that. I would argue and make it very clear that this party stands on a solid record of campaigning and lobbying very hard. We mobilised, marshalled opinion and engaged with all the sectors, from the Churches right through to the community and voluntary sector and everybody else in between. We went to London and met Lord Freud. Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams along with others, including the First Minister, raised the matter directly with David Cameron in Downing Street. As I said, we have put tens of thousands of leaflets and bulletins around every one of our constituencies to highlight the issue.”
“The Minister, Mervyn Storey, has already made it very clear that there are elements of the welfare programme over which the Executive and the Assembly have absolutely no control or authority. That is the first thing that has to be said. There are things for which no one in the House can be held responsible, such as tax credits and so on and so forth. No matter how they vote, no Members or parties can be accused of deliberately misleading the public or the House. There are aspects of welfare legislation that are outside the control and authority of the Assembly and the Executive. It is important that people have the honesty to acknowledge that.”
“What we have tried to do in our deliberations is adhere to the key concept of supporting the most vulnerable in our society and protecting the people out there in that category whom, as I said, all the parties in the House represent to some degree or other. <BR /> <BR />We have sought a package and a deal that gives us belt and braces to protect those most vulnerable people. For the record, no one in Sinn Féin ever said that no one would ever lose out as the result of the Welfare Reform Bill. There are aspects of the welfare agenda that are with us today, even before this Bill becomes an Act. There will be people who will fall foul of aspects of the legislation, because it comes from Westminster.”
“The package that has been agreed and negotiated and that we are still working our way through is largely a measure of the fact that most of the parties in the Chamber want to do their best for the people we collectively represent. We recognise that there are a lot of people out there who are vulnerable and need support, and that is really what the Stormont House Agreement is all about. <BR /> <BR />One of the key issues for Sinn Féin was always around the enabling aspect of the Welfare Reform Bill. We always cited as one of our key objectives neutralising some of the worst aspects of the Bill, including some of the enabling aspects.”
“<BR /> <BR />The main point that I want to make is that, in all our discussions on the Welfare Reform Bill since it was introduced some time ago, one of Sinn Féin's most major and significant concerns has been the ideology behind it from the Tories in London. I think that "nasty agenda" was the terminology used by their coalition partners in Westminster. There is an ideologically driven agenda that is about slashing public services and targeting the most vulnerable in our society. I do not need to rehearse all those categories. <BR /> <BR />Some people subscribe to that ideology politically, but I think that most Members in the Chamber do not really.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Given the lateness of the hour and your encouragement to Members at the beginning of the debate on this group of amendments to stick to the amendments and to try not to speak for too long, I will make only a few remarks. <BR /> <BR />The second group concerns the issue of Assembly control over future regulations and so on, and the question of the reporting of the operation of the Act and how it is working out. The first three amendments are superfluous, given that the arrangements that will be put in place will enhance considerably and significantly the Assembly's control over the regulations in the time ahead. Obviously, some of the details of that have still to be worked out.”
“A LeasCheann Comhairle, I want to put it on the record, and I ask the Member to reflect on it, because it is very regrettable that he made that remark. It does not represent anything that I have ever said about the Member.”
“That remains his position, and that is fair enough. At no other point in any of the bilateral meetings that I conducted with him and Mr Ross Brown did Mr Agnew feel able to commit to any other objection to the Bill. He said that he would consider a range of matters, but at no time did he make any commitment other than the one on the bedroom tax. I have never suggested anything different. I have made it clear that that was the one commitment he made —”
“On a point of order, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I had to leave the Chamber a few minutes ago at the end of the last section. I heard Mr Agnew — I think that I quote him accurately — saying that the next time that we go to a meeting with Alex Maskey, we need "to bring a tape recorder". I find that deeply personally offensive. I ask the Member to reflect on that remark. It does no justice to the Member, and it certainly does no justice to me. For the record, let me make it clear that at no time have I sought to misrepresent Mr Agnew. <BR /> <BR />I made it clear on a number of occasions that, in the bilateral meetings that I conducted, I led on behalf of Sinn Féin, with Mr Agnew along with other parties. The only commitment that Mr Agnew was able to make, to his credit, was to support a POC on the bedroom tax.”
“Do you acknowledge that those were the comments from the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party at that meeting, which acknowledged the paper that he seems to be disabusing here?”
“I thank the Minister for giving way, because I know that he is about to finish. He has already taken an intervention from the Ulster Unionist Party leader, Mr Mike Nesbitt. I am not sure whether Mr Nesbitt was saying that he did or did not make an agreement, but you mentioned the specific reference to the welfare agreement that was reached at Stormont Castle and found its way into the Stormont House Agreement. We heard an appalling intervention that seemed to suggest something entirely different from the reality. At the round-table meeting with the Secretary of State and Minister Flanagan, Mr Nesbitt, in his winding-up remarks, made a very clear response to the final paper, which was tabled to all the parties. Mr Nesbitt made the point that the paper, which you referred to and which contained the welfare changes:”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Will he not accept that the rate of drawdown of benefits is completely commensurate with the levels of deprivation and the unemployment statistics that are available for each constituency? Rather than singling one constituency out, the converse of your argument is, in my opinion, that we should create more investment and give more jobs and support to people on benefits. The more support we can give to those communities and individuals, the less likely they are to need to avail themselves of benefits, especially if we create employment for them in those constituencies — it is not just West Belfast; it is every constituency — commensurate with the levels of deprivation and unemployment.”
“If the Member wants to keep referring to Hansard, he should recall all of Hansard. We should move on to the legislation that we are currently dealing with.”
“It needs to be clearly stated — I would like the former Minister to acknowledge this — that the Sinn Féin members of the Social Development Committee at the time — Fra McCann, Carál Ní Chuilín and Mickey Brady — were very vociferous in their opposition to key aspects of the welfare reform legislation that was being put through. They expressly placed their objections on the record, both in the Chamber and in Committee. <BR /> <BR />When the previous Minister put the legislation through by way of accelerated passage, we did not have the requisite numbers to table a petition of concern, as the Member knows. Hansard shows that Minister Ritchie and her party colleagues were very clear that accelerated passage was needed to make sure that the legislation was put forward in the interests of maintaining the principle of parity.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. It is unfortunate that we should end up spending half of the day talking about what happened a number of years ago, but it is important to put on record what happened. The Member referred to Sinn Féin's position in a previous mandate, when he was involved with welfare legislation, as his predecessor had been. That is fair enough. I always understand the difficulties that all Ministers will occasionally find themselves in, but, if the Member wants to quote Hansard, it is important to quote all of it.”
“I urge Mrs Kelly, even at this late stage, to go back to the drawing board with the five party leaders, who, it was agreed, formed the implementation group for the Stormont House Agreement. You cannot have your cake and eat it, which, unfortunately, that party is actually doing.”
“<BR /> <BR />Is it not rather inconsistent for the Member to come forward now with amendments criticising the deal that was reached and that her party leader endorsed on 19 December, having endorsed a further, weaker deal on 17 December? I confirm, from Mickey Brady's point of view, that the Welfare Reform Bill is addressed through a range of mitigation mechanisms, which all the parties agreed in one shape or form to have in place. Those are being put in place, and I look forward to listening to the Minister this afternoon when he addresses all those amendments. I am confident that the Minister's message will be positive and will put further meat on the bones of the deal that was reached.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I know that she has a lot of ground to cover, but I will ask her this again. Is it not rather inconsistent, to say the least, particularly in the context of the Member's party agreeing this, that since last week the Member has been levelling criticism against the package that all the parties agreed on 19 December? I appreciate that the Member was not there, but her party leader was and other colleagues who are sitting in the Chamber now were with him when the party endorsed a four-party agreement. That made no reference whatsoever to a supplementary payment scheme or to a specific mechanism to address the issues on disabilities. They then signed on for a two-year sanction regime.”
“The Committee acknowledged that the amendments benefit women and, therefore, welcomed the rule. On behalf of the Committee for Social Development, I ask that the Assembly confirms the regulations.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. The Committee for Social Development considered the SL1 pertaining to this legislation at its meeting on 11 September 2014 and subsequently officially recorded its support for the regulations at its meeting of 25 September 2014. As the Minister indicated, the rule came into operation on 16 September 2014, and the Assembly is being asked to confirm it. Following consideration and the report by the Examiner of Statutory Rules, the Committee recommends that the rule be confirmed by the Assembly. <BR /> <BR />As the Minister outlined, the rule made consequential amendments to the jobseeker's allowance regulations following the introduction of a 14-week maternity allowance for pregnant women who participate in their self-employed spouse’s or civil partner’s business but receive no income from doing so.”
“A lot of that has been reflected in the Committee's views. The Committee produced a unanimous report expressing a range of concerns, most of which have been addressed in the last day or two. From my experience and in the view of the Committee, whatever about the precise means of addressing the issues, they have all been addressed to some extent or another as a result of the discussions amongst the parties and the British Government and, more importantly, the Stormont House Agreement, which is a five-party agreement. On that basis, I conclude my remarks as the Chair of the Social Development Committee.”
“Thank you for that ruling, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I very much support, as I always will, your ruling on this matter. As the Committee Chair, I am not here to debate with the Member. He has had ample opportunity to say what he wants to say about the Bill. He made no interventions to the Committee when we were involved in the deliberations on the Bill, which he could have done at any time. He has not made any interventions since the debate started yesterday morning. I am not giving way to him because, in my opinion, he is just trying to make a point at somebody else's expense. I do not have the time to waste on his frivolous approach. <BR /> <BR />I want to thank all those who have worked for and with the members of the Committee, its officials and the stakeholders from wider civic society who gave their valuable time and experience.”
“I will not give way, a LeasCheann Comhairle. The Member has had ample opportunity to contribute to the debate. It is my understanding that he has not made one scintilla of an intervention in the last 36 hours or whatever, except to intervene on the Minister and me. The short answer is that I am not giving way.”
“I look forward to the Committee diligently doing its work in the time ahead to reflect on the various pieces of secondary legislation, statutory rules and so on that will come forward to it. As has been said —”
“Suffice it to say that I place on record my thanks to the Committee officials for helping me, as Chair, to do my best to reflect the Committee's views and concerns. In a special meeting on Monday, the Committee took a briefing from departmental officials to consider the Minister's amendments and other developments, particularly the Stormont House Agreement. In view of that, neither the Committee nor I, on behalf of the Committee, will press that opposition as we move to the votes later today. I thank all those who helped the Committee in its deliberations. I look forward to the time ahead. There is at least one new member: Roy Beggs has been appointed to the Committee.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Very briefly, the Committee considered clauses 26, 109 and 110. Resulting from discussions with a range of stakeholders, it was particularly concerned about the potential for a claimant to lose universal credit for up to three years. Again, the Minister has, I think, very eloquently and comprehensively dealt with that. <BR /> <BR />The Minister has just concluded his remarks on clauses 109 and 110. The Committee expressed particular concerns on those clauses. The Minister has addressed those in the last few minutes. <BR /> <BR />In my capacity as Chair of the Social Development Committee, I will not make any further remarks this afternoon in the debate after we close on group 3.”
“Since yesterday, I have not heard one Member being critical in any way about the way in which this has been dealt with. I have not heard one Member saying anything other than that they are happy enough about having made the choice to protect the most vulnerable and, if that has to come out of the block grant, then that is what will happen. We had a bit of a political set-to yesterday and this morning, which is regrettable, because the news has to go out to the people out there who are most vulnerable and are more worried about where they get their rent or their disability premium from than whether there was a POC, an amendment or a four- or five-party agreement. The message has to go from the Chamber that we are delivering a better system than that envisaged by the Tories in London. For that, we are grateful.”
“People are legitimately raising concerns, and it is our job as an Assembly to make sure we address all those concerns to the point where we resolve them satisfactorily. <BR /> <BR />This is the message that people should hear from the Chamber: from the evidence that we have heard so far, the welfare legislation is going through. It will take some time, not only for the completion of the Bill but for the secondary legislation to be processed and the various schemes to be devised, but this is a far, far better scheme than was ever envisaged by the Tory Government in London. I am not going to say we should be grateful for that, and it has come at a cost. It created a lot of political instability, and it will cost the block grant, but people make choices.”
“<BR /> <BR />It is unfortunate that we have had a certain amount of acrimony in the last day or so. People have quoted cases in their constituencies: I was dealing with a cancer victim last evening who, in the fog of the debate, was very concerned about what was likely to happen to him and his family. Were they going to lose money? Did the DUP "strangle all the amendments" — his words, not mine? Are other parties not being allowed to change the Bill? Are we just going to have all of what was imposed from London imposed on us? I had to assure him last night that that was not the case and tell him what the intention of the Bill was, despite the politicking that is going on, some of which is fair enough and some of which is not.”
“The good thing is that, against a very difficult backdrop where we had legislation being imposed by London, whatever about the time it has taken to address this and the means by which we get there, people who would otherwise have been out of pocket — those who are described as "the most vulnerable" by all of us — due to a welfare reform Bill will have that problem addressed by the Stormont House Agreement. The Minister has addressed all the concerns that were raised by the Committee. The Committee will continue to have that important statutory role of scrutinising and working with the Department to ensure that the agreement continues to work out for the benefit of the people we collectively represent, including those who we tend to call "the most vulnerable".”
“<BR /> <BR />We should remind ourselves that it is a five-party agreement, so the parties have all agreed to this. Even though there are different opinions on how you might continue to address some of these matters, I have not heard one Member — I am glad that this is the case — saying that people will be worse off as a result of the Stormont House Agreement and how it is unfolding. It will continue to be rolled out by way of regulations and further public consultation.”
“OK. I am making my concluding remarks. <BR /> <BR />Without fear of contradiction, notwithstanding the views expressed across the Chamber since yesterday and the number of amendments that have been tabled and will be debated throughout the rest of the afternoon — I respect the right of everybody to table amendments, debate them and express their concerns — reflecting on the views of the Committee, as determined two years ago, I am very satisfied that, even with all the comments that have been made, which I take in good faith or otherwise, by any yardstick all of the concerns that were raised by the Social Development Committee have been addressed by the Stormont House Agreement. The Minister has continued to outline the ways in which that has been done.”
“By any yardstick and In fairness to all the Members who have spoken since yesterday, every one of them, even though they might have fairly strong or passionate views on how certain aspects of how a matter was dealt with, whether it was dealt by legislation or mitigating measures, and I stand corrected if needs be —”
“I am trying to give a flavour and a synopsis of their concerns. They are concerns that have been shared by all parties and particularly by a wide range of stakeholders who engaged with the Committee during the Committee Stage. I have tried to reflect the concerns of the Committee against the commentary of some Members, reflecting amendments tabled by Members and how those sit against the views of the Committee and, more important, how they sit against the arrangements being discussed and delivered through the Stormont House Agreement. <BR /> <BR />When the Committee deliberated on this, it set its opposition to a number of clauses, and concern was expressed about them. There was a range of measures that the Committee was advocating. A number of those asked the Minister to review, consider and discuss with Executive colleagues.”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 73 and 75, tabled by Mr Agnew, relate to calculating capital income and work-related requirements. Mr Beggs had no hesitation in opposing them. Mr Sammy Wilson noted that amendment No 75 would remove the ability of the Department to apply the right to reside condition on prospective claimants. Mr Beggs suggested that the amendment might amount to the Assembly seeking a right to discriminate and he was fearful of the consequences if it was accepted. Mr Agnew also addressed the matter. <BR /> <BR />I am giving a flavour to some extent of the diverse opinions expressed by Members. Even if they agreed on the sentiment of an amendment, there was clear disparity in some cases in some of the points and opinions expressed. I hope, a Cheann Comhairle, that I have done justice to the Members I have quoted.”
“The Committee was informed on Monday that the social fund would continue until any discretionary support scheme came into operation. That is an important safeguard. Any draft regulation made under the new clause will have to be laid before the Assembly and approved by a resolution of it. I think that the Minister in his concluding remarks also referred to that in a satisfactory manner. <BR /> <BR />The Minister's amendment No 52, inserting new clause 130B, will establish an office known as a discretionary support commissioner; I will not elaborate on that because the Minister has dealt with it. It seemed to me from comments from a Member that he did not quite understand what the role of that person has been, which indicates to me that maybe he did not have a lot of experience dealing with cases. However, that is an opinion.”
“Several MLAs had experience of the sector over a number of years and understood clearly the need for an independent advice sector. Let us hope that the commitments given by the Minister and others are pursued in a way that makes sure that people have proper access to a well-resourced service. That is important, but I am satisfied from what I have heard that that will be the outworking of the agreement that we have. Chris Lyttle acknowledged the vital work of the independent advice sector, and those views have been taken on board. The Committee was very supportive of the concept and would want to support any measure that enhanced the support for that sector and, more important, the rights of claimants to have access to that advice. <BR /> <BR />The Minister outlined the requirement for a new clause that relates to discretionary support.”
“It is fair to say that there were different views on the Committee on the issue, and it is still one of contention between various parties. That is an ongoing situation with regard to the outworking of the Stormont House Agreement. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 48 and 50 would insert new clauses 120B and 120D. Those are in respect of claimants seeking independent advice on their claims. The SDLP has tabled an amendment, as has the Ulster Unionist Party. All those who commented valued the important role played by the independent advice sector and the support that it provides for claimants across the spectrum. The Minister has addressed that fully. It was an issue that the Committee was clear on when it deliberated on it. The Committee listened to the presentation by the people from the independent advice sector.”
“<BR /> <BR />Roy Beggs noted that, while he believed that the SDLP meant well in proposing the amendment, he felt that any change to the benefit cap should be made in Westminster for all of what he described as the UK. Sammy Wilson noted that he did not have any great sympathy with the amendment to remove the benefit cap. He believed that it was necessary to make work pay and there was a need to get the issue into perspective. Mr Attwood and Mr Agnew also made further comments in a similar vein in their opposition to a benefit cap. Again, the Minister has addressed that in other commentary in the last day or so and has said that the Stormont House Agreement would seek to address that matter. <BR /> <BR />In relation to clause 95, the Committee was advised that the number of households affected amounted to around 620.”
“Whatever about people's views of how it has been addressed, Members nevertheless acknowledged that the matter has been addressed at least to the point where people who would have been subject to the bedroom tax burden will not have to endure that as a result of the Stormont House Agreement. <BR /> <BR />The SDLP proposed amendment No 42 in relation to a benefit cap. Mrs Kelly noted her party's concern that the cap of £26,000 was likely to be reduced further. That is speculative but probably well informed. If a Conservative Government is elected in May, that figure may be reduced to a figure as low as £18,000. She obviously knows that that could affect thousands of families here, and her particular concern was about the potential impact on children.”
“She also mentioned that the Labour Party in Britain had said that it would abolish it if it is in government after the May elections. She made a number of other comments of a political nature that I do not really want to go into. <BR /> <BR />Stewart Dickson focused most of his comments on this issue and suggested that people on housing benefit had been demonised. He referred to the nature of accommodation here and the problems that that throws up and to the fact that the evidence in Britain shows that the policy has led to an increase in rent arrears. Again, I note that a range of special measures agreed with the British Government in the Stormont House Agreement have been taken on board to deal with the matter. <BR /> <BR />Mr Attwood also mentioned clause 69.”
“It noted that no new claims would be allowed when the clause came into operation and was particularly concerned, then, about the impact that that would have on young people with disabilities. I remind Members that the Department advised the Committee that almost 97% of the people to whom the provision currently applies would not be affected by the change and that new claimants may qualify for income-related ESA. This has also been dealt with, to a large extent, by way of the Stormont House Agreement arrangements. <BR /> <BR />Issues relating to housing are among the most contentious in the Bill, it would seem, and certainly have been some of the most talked about in the media. Mrs Kelly noted her party's opposition to clause 69 and welcomed the Green Party's support in opposing it.”
“<BR /> <BR />Clause 54 concerns a condition relating to youth. The SDLP and Mr Agnew have tabled, respectively, amendment Nos 28 and 29 to clause 54. Mrs Kelly indicated that she awaited the Minister's response with interest; hopefully, the Minister's response has satisfied that. Mr Wilson asked why young people should be treated differently from anyone else. He noted that the age that was specified was to encourage young people into work as opposed to going into the benefits system. Again, I believe that Mr Beggs was not supportive of the amendments and felt that they needed clarification by Mr Agnew. <BR /> <BR />The Committee considered clause 54 and had a number of concerns.”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment No 27 would amend clause 52 in relation to the period of entitlement to contributory allowance. It was supported by Mr Agnew and Mrs Kelly. Mrs Kelly said that she awaited the Minister's response on the possibility of an extension to the period. I believe that Mr Beggs indicated that his party would not support the amendment. Mr Brady referred to the potential of ongoing discussions to extend the period and, again, noted that under the Stormont House Agreement the period of ESA would be extended. Mr Agnew said that he wanted to hear from the Minister on the matter. As I said in my opening remarks, the Committee, in its report, asked the then Minister to explore the possibility of extending the period to more than 12 months, and that has been done, secured and agreed.”
“<BR /> <BR />Mrs Kelly voiced her support for Mr Agnew's amendment Nos 6 and 7 to clause 11. Mr Beggs opposed those amendments and stated that there are choices to be made in respect of what issues are deemed to be priorities and that that needs to be taken into account. Mr Agnew's amendments in relation to clause 11, which relates to housing, refer to the periods within which payments should be made to a claimant. Mr Agnew said that amendment No 7 will protect people who have been paying rent through housing benefit, and he noted that this was about making work pay. He also said that he believed that it was reasonable to have a transitional payment. Furthermore, he said that clause 11 potentially discriminates against young people, and that young persons should be given one year to address their unfortunate circumstances.”
“Mr Beggs, on the other hand, did not support the amendment and felt that there was a lack of clarity on the estimated costs associated with the amendment. He referred to transitional support that is already provided. Mr Agnew noted that there should be provision to protect families under the clause. He wanted to hear the Minister's views. Some of the comments that were made reflect the Committee's concerns about clause 10 when we considered it two years ago. The Committee, for example, had a particular concern about the child tax credit being reduced from £57 per week to £28 per week, which would impact on families with a disabled child. Of course, as we know, the Stormont House Agreement has made new arrangements. That concern, by and large, has been addressed by that agreement. The Minister also referred to aspects of that.”
“Roy Beggs, on the other hand, indicated that he was not convinced of the merits of such a change. He suggested that it would place an administrative and cost burden on the Department. Sammy Wilson made comparison with people who may have to work a lying week before they get their first week's wages. He was not in favour of the amendment. This is just to illustrate the variety of views. I point out that, when the Committee considered the issue, it had concerns that the clause might have an impact on passported benefits, but it was assured by the then Minister that the award notice would give claimants their underlying entitlement. The Committee was assured that those issues would also be addressed by way of regulations. <BR /> <BR />Mrs Kelly stated her party's support for amendment No 5 to clause 10.”