Roy Beggs
East Antrim · Ulster Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“I declare an interest as owner of 25 acres of agricultural land; also, my parents run a small agricultural business. <BR /> <BR />There is a shortage of fertiliser, and the Minister has referred to the present difficulties in Ukraine that are contributing to that. That shortage exists even at the exorbitant cost of £1,000 per ton.”
“of public bodies in Northern Ireland. That is vital in order to reassure the public that money is being spent appropriately. That is to be done independently.”
“There has been a very close working relationship and a close partnership. Where issues needed highlighted and where the Assembly, through its scrutiny mechanisms, needed to dig deeper to get better value and better accountability, that occurred.”
“<BR /> <BR />I also want to reflect on the close working relationship that there has been between the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Northern Ireland Audit Office, which the C&AG oversees and manages, and the Assembly, particularly the Public Accounts Committee.”
“As we consider this motion to nominate a new Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland, it is important that we reflect on the importance that the role has in any democracy. The C&AG in Northern Ireland is the head of the Northern Ireland Audit Office.”
“P&O has brutally cast its workforce aside in a Dickensian fashion. There was no consultation or notice, and the company delivered a live message by video link. Will the Minister clarify whether the P&O redundancy announcement is covered by maritime law, Northern Ireland employment law or GB employment law?”
The complete record
Every one of 1,772 lines we hold for Roy Beggs, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 32 of 36.
“It is certainly a much more affordable proposal, especially as the Department previously told the Assembly that a scan of ESA live loads two years ago revealed that, of the 28 contribution-based ESA cases, 16 were in support group and that, therefore, many would be unaffected by the changes. There is, however, a wider fairness issue, not least consideration of the fact that, so far as I know, no other contributory benefit forfeits its criteria based on the age of claimants. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 29 requires clarification. I believe that limited capability for work is already a key criterion for ESA. I trust that Mr Agnew will detail exactly what his proposed amendment would do to either supplement or improve what is already the case.”
“I wish to make some progress, please. <BR /> <BR />Will the Minister tell us what level of support will be offered to people affected by time-limiting ESA? Will support be offered to former claimants who then do not qualify for income-related ESA? What level of support will be available to them? Will it be 100%, 75% or 50%? Nevertheless, and even in the absence of this crucial information from the Department, the Ulster Unionist Party will not be in a position to support this amendment proposed by the SDLP. As I asked before: what will the cost be and where will the money come from? <BR /> <BR />There are other amendments. I turn to amendment No 28, which has regard to ESA youth claimants.”
“The top-up fund is a wonderful line but you will find that there are many calls on it and I am fearful that there may not be enough money left. Probably, if you were to add up the cost of the Member's individual amendments, it may well exceed the top-up fund; so, perhaps the Member should carry out that exercise.”
“The challenge to the Members who wish to support this amendment is this: how much money will be required to fund this, and where will it come from?”
“If additional money is to be made available for this, and I have sympathy and see the benefit of that, then money will have to be taken away from elsewhere. It would be very helpful if we could have some idea of what the cost would be so that we could put a number on it and then, perhaps, a more accurate assessment could be made of the cost in terms of the loss to other services. <BR /> <BR />As I said, I am so aware of how much our health service is struggling at the moment. I am fearful of some sort of top-slicing. Already, there are huge pressures, particularly in Health, but there are also pressures in a range of other Departments. Let us acknowledge that there is a wide range of pressures in virtually every Department where quite significant cuts have had to be implemented. The outworkings of that are yet to be fully seen.”
“It would be very nice if we had a pot of funding that we could set aside to do that, but that is not my experience of how public service expenditure is currently operating. I understand that every Department is under severe pressure.”
“One of the core principles, I understand, of the universal credit process is that work will pay, so even someone who has just started work should immediately be financially better off than when they were receiving benefits. Even though they will be required to make a contribution towards their housing costs, they should nevertheless certainly still be better off than they would have been had they not commenced employment.”
“I am fearful, particularly as a former member of the Health Committee, of more and more additional costs, which would have to be held from our limited block grant and which would badly impinge on some of the most vulnerable in society, who are ill or need treatment from our health service.”
“The Member raises an interesting dilemma, but the choice that we have today is whether to take money out of other Departments, the health budget or somewhere else in order to carry out his proposed amendments. Certainly, from my own perspective, I think that it is good if we can achieve the ability to determine corporation tax levels at some point in the future. That should be grasped and cherished because it could bring about significant benefit. However, as yet, I am not aware of discussions on timing, amounts and commitments. When it comes to that, equally, we will all have to carefully assess what the costs and benefits would be. At present, I am looking at this legislation, the amendments that the Member is proposing, what the costs would be and what the benefits would be.”
“Is that really where we wish to spend some of our limited funds? We have choices to make. I question such a choice.”
“If someone finds new employment, it is appropriate that they should contribute. Amendment No 7 is the other housing-related amendment. It allows people to continue to claim their housing element for up to four weeks after they find employment. I will listen to what the Member has to say. However, I must tell him that, at the moment, it is my intention to oppose it. I note that he has passed the powers to the Department, and it is a "may" instead of a "shall". Nevertheless, if a claimant starts taking home an income that lifts him out of the category requiring support, I believe that the person will, in most circumstances, understand why they have had an element of support removed from them. Again, I highlight that this additional cost, were it to be borne, would have to come out of our limited funds.”
“There is a huge unknown cost and a lack of clarity as to what will be lost as a result. <BR /> <BR />If we were to look at the overall budget and if top-slicing were to occur, we could expect half that cost to come off the health budget potentially. It has to come from somewhere. I believe that the battle for the issue should be at Westminster. If it were changed at a national UK level, there would not be corresponding implications for our limited budget here. <BR /> <BR />Moving on to amendment Nos 6 and 7 from Mr Agnew, which both relate to the housing element of universal credit, the first suggests that people be afforded a year's grace before any reduction. We will be opposing that, not least on the grounds that contributing to rent is appropriate when one can afford it.”
“That has to be welcomed. I am aware that the previous high-level exercises carried out by the Department have indicated that there have been more losers than winners, with 6,000 children likely to receive more but 7,500 who would have received less but for the built-in protection. If we take those 7,500 young people and carry them over to claims at some point in the future, I estimate that that might well be £7 million or £8 million. That is something that has to be calculated into any decision. It may well be more than that, and, again, it would be welcome if someone could put some estimate of costs on that. Of course there will be additional associated costs for administration, which will also have to be catered for. Subsequently, the Ulster Unionist Party will not be able to support the amendment.”
“By moving to a two-tier system as opposed to a three-tier system, it is likely that some families with a disabled child will see a reduction in their support. That is of concern. However, there are a number of points to make in respect of that. First, I expect that families will be fully protected within the transitional support for universal credit, so, in actual fact, they would see no reduction. I ask the Minister to confirm that that would be the case due to that protection. <BR /> <BR />Importantly, however, as has been said, whilst families, such as those with new claims, would be left worse off, many would also see an increase through the higher-rate child addition. I understand that universal credit rate payment to severely disabled children will be very slightly higher than the current child tax credit equivalent.”
“There would be an immediate additional administrative burden on the Department, which is forced into the position of having to process a greater number of very short-term claims. It would also have financial implications for the Executive, as I very much doubt if DFP will simply foot the bill for our issuing additional short-term claims. What will be the additional administrative costs? What will be the additional cost in benefits? We could expect those additional costs to come off the block grant. What will be the cost of the services that will be lost in return? <BR /> <BR />In amendment No 5, Mr Agnew again touches on an issue that I feel the Social Development Committee has spent a great deal of time considering.”
“I welcome the opportunity to speak on the second group, despite the sheer arrogance demonstrated by the DUP in effectively potentially killing off 12 of the 14 possible amendments in the group. Amendment No 2 seeks to reduce the prescribed period from seven days to three. I am not convinced of the merits of such a change, not least because having a period of seven days will make sense in many circumstances. I understand that, for some claimants, the week-long hiatus may cause some difficulty, but wages and salaries are normally paid monthly or perhaps weekly, so there can be a delay when you work and when you receive payment. However, we must be conscious of the implications if we were to propose reducing it to only a few days.”
“I hope that other Members will see the validity of the amendments and will support us in bringing about improvements to the Bill and ensuring that we deliver the best welfare reform legislation that we are able to within the financial means that are available to us.”
“As an Assembly, if we look at how those issues are being dealt with, we see that they are being dealt with differently from what was originally proposed, and I am pleased with the progress that we are making. <BR /> <BR />I have indicated that I do not intend to move amendment No 8 in my name, which is to do with frequency of payments. We had an explanation from the Minister regarding amendment No 18. I would have viewed it as a probing amendment. It is worthwhile having openness and discussion around it. It is also my intention not to move amendment No 18. However, we will continue to support amendment Nos 1 and 35 in my name and that of Robin Swann.”
“However, having had an amendment for over two years, my colleagues and I would disagree. We believe that that could be implemented in a reasonable fashion. Let us just allow the democratic process to continue and to decide the issue. <BR /> <BR />There were accusations that Ulster Unionists were grandstanding. I remind Members that, on 10 April 2013, a wide range of amendments was tabled by my colleagues Robin Swann and Michael Copeland, covering split payments, frequency of payments, the relevance of medical evidence and bedroom tax, all of which have turned out to be the key issues. I have to give them credit for having the foresight to identify those issues two years ago.”
“I hope that it does. He asked why the DUP and Sinn Féin, with their numbers, needed the petition of concern. I suspect that he just needs to watch what will perhaps unfold in the minutes following the closure of the debate when the votes occur. <BR /> <BR />Minister Storey indicated that he was tasked with delivering a safe and secure welfare system for Northern Ireland. It is important that we provide that. He also highlighted the still ongoing penalty that hangs over us if we fail to implement it and incur additional costs that are not being incurred elsewhere. <BR /> <BR />As I said earlier on amendment No 1, I picked up that the Minister seemed to express a preference for his way of doing it with his officials through regulation rather than making amendment No 1 to the Bill.”
“We will all await the votes on the amendments to see what way the petition of concern works. Everyone may have a better understanding of what is occurring at that point. <BR /> <BR />Mr Wilson also supported my view on amendment No 74: the voucher system should be retained as an option. Obviously, guidance and regulation will need to be developed, but it would be premature to exclude the possible use of a voucher system without at least investigating it further and considering it. I acknowledge that guidance will be required so that it is not abused. I definitely cannot support Mr Agnew's amendment No 79. <BR /> <BR />John McCallister supported the general principle that work should pay. I hope that all of us would agree with that and acknowledge that that is one of the factors that should come out of the welfare reform process.”
“I may, but I want to finish this. <BR /> <BR />It would be possible for the Department to determine the regulations. I noticed that, when I pressed the Minister, he used the word "preference" for it being dealt with in regulations. However, that did not preclude amendment No 1, which would empower him to make such regulations. Therefore, it is a difference of opinion about how it should arise. I refer to the important fact that, two years ago, the Ulster Unionists tabled an amendment on the issue. We have not come to the issue lately as a result of the Stormont Castle and Stormont House discussions; it was identified two years ago as a key issue in what was being worked on.”
“If it were simply top-sliced, perhaps half of that additional money would be taken from our Health Department, which is already struggling. I will have that at the back of my mind when deciding on some of his ideas, and I will not be able to support them. <BR /> <BR />Sammy Wilson highlighted the bedroom tax that was introduced several years ago, along with private sector involvement in assessment. He defended the DUP abuse of the petition of concern. He failed to acknowledge that, in the Ulster Unionists' amendment No 1, it would be possible —”
“I am pleased that that dialogue occurred and will continue to occur to address the issue. <BR /> <BR />Whilst I referred to the former eastern European country of the German Democratic Republic, Steven Agnew added the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the Democratic Republic of Congo on top of the Democratic Unionist Party. He agreed with my view that care should be taken when the word "democratic" comes first in any title because of what we have seen here today and the abuse of the petition of concern. He spoke against many of the welfare reform proposals and supported many proposals that I have concerns about as being costly. I remind the Member that there are choices to be made. If we add additional costs that are not built in, they will have to come out of the block grant and will result in further reduced public services.”
“The Member has strayed far away from the legislation, and I do not wish to draw myself to the attention of the Deputy Speaker by following her lead. I will try to concentrate on the Bill. <BR /> <BR />Mr O'Dowd highlighted, like others, the continuing role of the Committee, the Assembly and the Executive; I certainly do not disagree with that. <BR /> <BR />Pat Ramsey spoke about the importance of the independent living fund, and there was good dialogue on that. The fund has enabled many to continue to live in their home. With that coming to an end, there is real concern among some individuals and families about what will become of them in the future. Unless something is put in its place, they may be forced to leave their home and go into a residential home or a nursing home.”
“He said that all of us would have to scrutinise the issue. This is only the start of it; there will be much more work to be done. That aspect is right. There will be much detailed work to be done, and, as a recent appointee to the Social Development Committee, I hope to play my part in that. <BR /> <BR />John O'Dowd noted that welfare reform almost brought the Assembly down. That should not be forgotten.”
“He highlighted that this is an abuse of the Assembly. He found it unacceptable that Peter Robinson expected that no amendments should be made unless approved in Room 106. This is a democratic Assembly. We all have responsibilities for what we do, but we all should have freedom of thought and be accountable for our actions. I concur with Mr Attwood. <BR /> <BR />Jim Allister criticised the secret agreement and the failure of the First Minister to publish the Stormont Castle agreement. He agreed with my view that the DUP petition of concern was actually designed to help its partners. There was a bit of joint working going on here, I suspect. He highlighted the importance of the welfare cap to encourage some back to work and to help energise the local economy. He also sought clarity on the forthcoming regulations.”
“I am pleased that the Minister has indicated his support for amendment No 35. It is right that there should be a clear mechanism for providing medical evidence, and, as I said over two years ago, this is an issue that was flagged up. When it comes to personal independence payments, the bottom line is that clear medical evidence must be provided, and, when it is, it is usually the clinching factor in determining whether an application or appeal is won or lost. If we allow a process to continue where that medical evidence only comes in right at the very end, there is, of course, cost involved. It is right that the issue of medical evidence should be in the Bill, and I am pleased that others have seen fit to support that. <BR /> <BR />Alex Attwood said that he had never seen such abuse of petitions of concern before, rightly so.”
“Nothing would surprise me. I almost thought he wanted me to thank him for permitting the Assembly to decide on the two issues on which he did not lodge a petition of concern. I detected arrogance from the leader of the DUP. What is wrong with the Assembly deciding on issues, especially when, as I said, some of the amendments have, I believe, no cost implications or none that have not already been catered for? I refer to amendment No 1, which I will come back to later, and to amendment No 35.”
“I am afraid I failed to get it. Almost 50 petitions of concern are an abuse of this Assembly and its process, which was certainly not designed to operate like that.”
“<BR /> <BR />Peter Robinson, who spoke as leader of the DUP, expressed opposition to almost any amendment that might cost any additional money. He was satisfied with the multiple misuse of the petition of concern. He did not seem to recognise that some of the amendments might have no or minimal cost implications or that costs have been built in for some of the amendments. He also seemed to take exception to me referring to almost 50 petitions of concern rather than saying 48, and that was somehow a very important issue.”
“I made that decision because of that and the Minister's commitment to go for twice-monthly payments but to leave open the option that some people may require more frequent payments. <BR /> <BR />Dolores Kelly explained her wish to deliver a wide range of additional proposals to augment the Bill. However, I did not hear how additional payments will be funded and what public services would have to be cut to fund them. When you change the legislation, there will be undoubted cuts. That concerns me. <BR /> <BR />Stewart Dickson criticised the delays of over two years, commented on the agreement made at Stormont House and suggested that welfare reform should be enacted with the mitigating proposals that have been included. I think that most people will agree that that is a sensible way forward.”
“I thank the Member for reminding us all of that. It is right that that should be held on record. <BR /> <BR />Paula Bradley argued that amendments were not needed as change could be made through regulations. I am pleased that the Minister has accepted at least one amendment that has a constructive role, even though Ms Bradley appears to have disagreed. However, she indicated her support for twice-monthly payments as a default mechanism. She also pointed out that some individuals may require weekly payments because of personal circumstances. I have to admit that I was struck by that important point. I have to acknowledge that it is valid, and, as a result, I do not intend to move amendment No 8.”
“He did not acknowledge that the Ulster Unionist Party tabled several amendments over two years ago on issues such as joint claims, frequency of payments, bedroom tax and medical investigations. I refer him to the Assembly website and the section on primary legislation and current Bills, where he will see the clear evidence that that occurred.”
“This is significant legislation that will affect individuals and families for perhaps decades to come, and so it is right that we have spent the time that we have on it, even on the first group of amendments. The abuse of the petition of concern, which was widely recognised by all Members — other than those from the DUP and Sinn Féin — should have not happened. <BR /> <BR />Alex Maskey, Chair of the Social Development Committee, referred to the Stormont House Agreement and a recent briefing to the Committee by the Department and explained that, as a result of time and recent agreements, the collective Committee opposition to many clauses no longer stood. He then wrongly accused the Ulster Unionist Party of failing to make any commitment to alter the Bill over two years ago.”
“It empowers you to write regulations. Would the Minister not accept that it would be possible to write into those regulations guidance preventing what he just has reported as abuse?”
“I go back to the wording in the amendment. It states that the claim "may be considered". There will be an opportunity for regulations to stipulate when it may be considered. The Member is painting a very black and white picture, when the wording of the amendment is "may".”
“The word used is "may", so flexibility is built in. Why is there a need for a petition of concern? This is an area that has been of concern to Ulster Unionists for some time, and we tabled an amendment on it. It was not particularly new, so why does he use a petition of concern in an area that we have shown an interest in for some time and into which we have built the flexibility to enable something practicable to be delivered to meet people's needs?”
“Will the Member explain the language used in amendment No 1, which states:”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Will the Member not acknowledge that this is an important area and that there will be occasions on which vulnerable individuals could be caught out if there is not such a flexibility built in? Furthermore, has there not been some flexibility built in through split universal credit payments? Therefore, what we are asking for, which we asked for before it was granted, has been built into the proposals. Will he not acknowledge that? We would like to have it in the Bill. What is wrong with that?”
“I am all for open and transparent government.”
“The Member seems to be making it a big issue that instead of making 50 petitions of concern and blocking them into the Business Office, he actually made only 48. The point that I was making was that it is a ridiculous number of petitions of concern, which is preventing the House from coming to a decision and a conclusion. Had he been in and been listening to what I was saying, he would know that I always balanced that there is a cost and a benefit and pointed out that we cannot deliver everything that some people would wish. Does the Member not accept that?”
“Will the Member explain why flexibility over payment is needed? Why not put it in the Bill that the default position is twice-monthly? Why would you want to have flexibility to amend this at some point? Why would you not wish the option to go for the monthly basis to be nailed down in the Bill? Will the Member explain?”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Member is factually incorrect in what he is saying. I ask the Speaker to judge whether or not it is appropriate to say that the Ulster Unionist Party did nothing when, almost two years ago, amendments to the Bill were placed.”
“<BR /> <BR />Ultimately, it needs to be scrutinised and its outworkings followed, but I would much prefer that that option would remain to be considered by the Department and officials as a useful tool in dealing with some of the most vulnerable members of the community in order that some of the rest of their households, and maybe even they themselves, may be helped. I have certainly come across some constituents who have alcoholism and, I would say, are not making the best use of the support that is available to them and perhaps contributing to their addictions. I think that this should be left as an option for the Department to determine and for ourselves to scrutinise further down the line.”
“The Member has highlighted a problem. That is a problem which, in turn, passes to the Minister and the Department to get round. It is not a reason why vouchers should be excluded. You are talking about addiction to alcohol in particular — there are many supermarkets and mini-markets that do not sell alcohol. There are ways and means. Again, I say that it is wrong to exclude this as an option at this stage. I would much prefer that this be held to be considered as a tool in the departmental arsenal.”
“Surely that option should remain. If it is enacted and used in regulations, it is an area that needs to be carefully monitored and reviewed. At this stage, we are minded to oppose the amendment from the Member because we recognise that potentially this may have merits. <BR /> <BR />Again, I go back to the situation of vulnerable children in households where someone has an addiction. A voucher system could actually be beneficial to that family, ensuring that vulnerable individuals are not put excessively at risk. It is very complicated for social services to look at every case, to be there all the time and to try to look out for those in need. I certainly believe that vouchers ought to be considered as a tool. That may be reviewed with experience as time goes along, but I certainly think that it would be wrong to rule it out at this stage.”
“We have been suggesting that there needs to be early engagement with the Northern Ireland commission for victims as soon as possible so that, where there is very clear documented evidence, the whole approach can be looked at to try to mitigate and minimise the impact on victims of the Troubles in the assessment process, which they may be required to participate in to gain their benefits. <BR /> <BR />Finally, the last amendment in the group is amendment No 74, again from Mr Agnew. It proposes removing the power from the Department to issue payment in the form of vouchers. I have to say that vouchers may play a role, as they could assist someone who has an addiction. At this stage, we have not heard any compelling argument either politically or in public which makes us believe that this clause deserves to be taken out.”
“I agree with the Member. I am also very mindful that, when dealing with individuals in my constituency office, those victims who have been traumatised in the Troubles frequently feel that they almost have to relive some of their incidents and retell the horrors that they experienced to expose the damage that has been done physically and mentally to them so that they can receive the benefits that they are entitled to. That can set individuals back each time they relive that.”
“If, as we hope, it is made, we will request that the Department works as quickly and helpfully as possible with the Northern Ireland commission for victims. <BR /> <BR />Many of the regulations will be technical and often difficult to assess at first hand. Assessing every regulation, as the amendment suggests, will put major strain on the commission for victims. We trust that the Department will act constructively with the body and its staff, especially now as it continues to operate without a commissioner.”