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 33 of 36.
“I believe that last year's National Insurance Contributions Act has already restored what was being proposed. So, we, too, believe that the clause is unnecessary. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 53 from the SDLP is sensible, and the Ulster Unionist Party will be happy to support it. That issue has always been one of our concerns, not least since the end of 2012 when the then Minister shamefully tried to steamroller the GB Bill through the Assembly. Thankfully, his attempts at scaremongering were ignored, and we now have the potential of a much improved Bill that, to a greater extent, acknowledges and mitigates some of the worst aspects for the victims and survivors of the Troubles. However, we will just add some caution to the amendment.”
“I believe that there is generally a strong emphasis on accuracy. However, in cases where there is not and people receive more money than they are entitled to, they should reasonably expect to pay it back. <BR /> <BR />If someone who is working receives an overpayment, you can be sure that, in subsequent weeks, their employer will point out the mistake and draw the money back. Equally, if someone in receipt of benefits receives an overpayment, discussions should occur and it should be paid back. Again, I urge the Department to not go immediately to legal action in the first instance. A range of options is open, not least that to draw back any overpayment through a deduction in future benefits. <BR /> <BR />I note the Minister's opposition to clause 129.”
“<BR /> <BR />In drawing back overpayment, it is important that the Department is very sensitive, takes individual household circumstances into consideration and does so over a lengthy period so that undue hardship is not caused by that departmental error, but, nevertheless, potentially significant amounts may have been given to a household that was not entitled to it. I ask the Minister to address that issue. Regardless of whose fault it may be, it is public money, and I would expect nothing but the utmost caution and due regard to be shown by the Department. However, if a mistake has been made, it should be rectified, or other public services will suffer.”
“Given that our welfare system costs almost as much as our health service, even though that is a very small percentage, it may end up as a very significant number, perhaps north of £15 million. Again, where is the money coming from? Is Mr Agnew seriously suggesting that we simply forget about the amount of money each and every year? If we do not withdraw it from our block grant, we can be sure that fines or costs will be imposed. Again, what will be the cost to other public services like health and education?”
“I wish to proceed. <BR /> <BR />We will oppose amendment No 45. I understand that the proposer is coming at it from the angle of a claimant who has been at the receiving end of a departmental error. While fraud is deliberate, error is not. Unfortunately, it is probably inevitable that, given the scale of our welfare system, mistakes are sometimes made, maybe still too often. Yes, that is the case, but that is the reality. <BR /> <BR />It is useful to remember that there is quite a difference between customer fraud, customer error and official error. Customer fraud makes up 0·5%, customer error makes up 0·2%, and staff error makes up 0·4%. I assume that Mr Agnew's amendment seeks to address the 0·4% of staff error and maybe some of the 0·2% of customer error.”
“I look forward to hearing the Member’s contribution, and I hope that he will also explain where the money to fund all his amendments will come from. Other public services will be cut to finance them. There are real choices that could impact the health of some of the same individuals whom the Member might be trying to assist. There are choices and difficult decisions. That is what politics and government should be about. I look forward to hearing the Member's contribution and the Minister outlining what the costs may be.”
“We will oppose amendment No 44, which proposes to allow for payments in cases that are pending appeal. Were the amendment to go through, it would set quite a dangerous precedent and would also entail cost to the Executive. I have not heard any explanation as to why that additional cost should be borne. Many will be entitled to other benefits. Our intention is to oppose the amendment.”
“It is much safer if people have an account and are able to draw off as they need. <BR /> <BR />Having a bank account, a building society account or a credit union account does provide some level of security. I am also aware that, at present, when claimants do not have any of those accounts, arrangements are made for them to be paid using a Post Office card account. If that is not possible, payments can be issued through the simple payment service, so there are mechanisms to deal with very difficult situations when immediate payment may be necessary. I will listen to Mr Agnew to hear his rationale for amendment No 43, but, at this stage, the Ulster Unionist Party is inclined to oppose it for some of the reasons that I have just mentioned.”
“Regardless of the amendment, I welcome the fact that terminally ill claimants will be exempt from this test. <BR /> <BR />I turn to amendment No 43, which proposes ensuring that the Department will issue entitlements in cash in cases where the claimant has no access to a bank account. I have concerns about this, as I believe that, in such cases, the priority of the Department and the advice agencies should continue to be to encourage the claimant to open an account, whether that is through a Post Office card or, indeed, a bank account. Without one, how are they realistically expected to budget and manage their outgoings from one month to the other? There are also benefits in not having people being over-reliant on carrying all their earthly belongings, potentially, in their back pocket.”
“Again, this would be raising an issue of unfairness across the UK. <BR /> <BR />In some cases, no doubt, it is very difficult to predict whether a claimant's condition is likely to improve within nine months, so maybe six months would lead to more accurate assessments, but I do have to ask this: what will be the additional costs in administration? The Assembly is likely to bear those additional costs. Again, I look forward to what the Minister may have to say on the issue so that we may all come to a judgement on it. I go back to what I said early in my contribution: we have the responsibility to assess the need and the benefit that will come from change but also what the cost will be and whether that cost is proportionate to the issue?”
“Even the most objective observer would struggle to see what the difference really is between them. I fully expect mental ill health to be covered by the reference to medical evidence that we make. They each propose doing exactly the same thing; the important thing is to make sure that the issue is addressed. <BR /> <BR />I turn to amendment Nos 38 and 39 from Mr Agnew, who moved the debate into something new. He is proposing changing the prospective test and the length of time for which the personal independence payment claims are likely to continue in the future to meet disability conditions from nine months to six months. We must be conscious that it would be a fairly fundamental breach of parity if we were to accept this, and there is grave uncertainty about what the cost would be.”
“If we decide that it should be for the Social Development Minister supported by DEL and the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, it is better to give them the 18-month time frame, as stated in the amendment. If, however, this amendment has been tabled without the knowledge of the Health Department, the Department for Social Development or DEL, I have to question whether it really was the most appropriate time to make the proposal, not least because I suspect that its more natural home would be in the Health Department. Again, I will listen to the contribution of others on this issue. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 19 and 36 from the SDLP are fairly similar to those that we tabled previously and which also appear on today's Marshalled List.”
“<BR /> <BR />On amendment No 17, I first ask for clarification from Mr Ramsey, perhaps later on, who I thought had been previously assured by the Health Minister that the independent living fund in Northern Ireland was going to be retained in some form after June 2015. If that is the case, I welcome it as it would allow some 600 disabled people here who are receiving support from it to continue to lead their own independent lives in the community. However, given the almost inevitable ending of the scheme across the water later this year, I understand that ours, even if it was retained, would probably undergo some reform.”
“However, and it is a big however, as the Members who will later propose the amendment will likely be already aware, there is currently no formal definition of hate incidents; some will be easily understood, but very many others may not just be as clear. I suspect that that is why the Members have passed the responsibility for categorising such incidents to the Department under clause 24(9)(b) of their amendment. Our concern is that, without the definition, we are potentially opening up a can of worms that the Department will face constant challenge on; perhaps, again, legal costs and delays. I trust that the Minister has sought the advice of suitably qualified legal minds in this regard, so I look forward to hearing what he has to say on this issue.”
“I agree that they have to be paid, but why do they have to be employed by the trust? They could be employed by the Department or by an agent of the Department. The Member has been very prescriptive in what he proposes. <BR /> <BR />At face value, the Ulster Unionist Party agrees with amendment Nos 12 and 13. People subjected to domestic violence have rightly been given additional protection in the Bill, and now we are being asked to expand that to incidents motivated by hate. Of course, Northern Ireland is only too well versed, sadly, in such incidents, in terms of religion, sectarianism and race, so, yes, we are open for them to be included in the Bill.”
“However, I wonder whether we want to go down the road of having to direct so many of our already overstretched GPs or experienced nurses to carry out those tests. I am not opposed to health-care professionals approved by the Department carrying out assessments as long as they take into account available medical records and they are suitably qualified to make medical judgements. Making sure that we have the right competence of assessors should be an absolute priority right now; not necessarily who their employer is. Nevertheless, I will listen to what the Member has to say on that issue, not least in regard to how he believes his amendments would be delivered within the existing pressures facing our GPs and trust staff.”
“I am, however, aware that the Department has already confirmed that guidance will cover the acceptance of documents from third parties, something that I believe is already accepted practice. Again, I look forward to hearing what the Minister will say on that issue. <BR /> <BR />In regard to amendment No 9, it makes sense on a practical level, so much so that I would be surprised if the Department did not already propose having due regard for them. <BR /> <BR />Mr Agnew's amendments, Nos 10, 37 and 57, are, no doubt, well intentioned, but, unfortunately, I believe they also undermine themselves. There has long been concern about the work-focused, health-related assessments and those coming down the line for the personal independence payments (PIP). In our amendment Nos 18 and 35, we are opening up the debate on medical evidence.”
“It is right that we consider how we can improve, and, as I said some time ago, it is also important that we have an understanding of any costs that may flow from amendments. Some of us will decide that some amendments are worth paying that money for; others may take a different approach, and that is their right. Certainly, it should be the decision, ultimately, of a vote in the Assembly to determine what goes on. <BR /> <BR />I wish to move on to amendment No 4 in relation to the documents through third parties. Again, we will listen with interest to how the Minister responds to the proposal. Our opinion is that charities, social workers and housing associations would be in a trustworthy position to provide required documentation.”
“I will listen very careful to the Minister. We have carefully calculated some areas as best we can, but, ultimately, the Minister and the Department will have much more accurate information. That is why we have built a degree of flexibility into our amendment. That will allow the Minister to use the information that he and others do not have to make adjustments and try to address real need without the need for potentially bureaucratic costs to be loaded in.”
“It was agreed by all parties, including the SDLP, that flexibility through guidance was the preferred way forward. I ask Members from all parties, irrespective of the petition of concern, to support the general intent of what is proposed in amendment No 1, which stands in the names of Robin Swann and me.”
“However, I ask the Minister to provide an update on the preliminary discussions between his Department and the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety about the shaping of GP contracts in future to include medical reports. Of course, that would apply equally to work capability assessments and personal independent payments. <BR /> <BR />I now move on to a few of the other amendments that have been tabled. Amendment No 3 deals with joint claims and was tabled by the SDLP. I think that it is unnecessary given what we have proposed. There is a subtle but important difference between their amendment and ours. The Ulster Unionist Party amendment proposes to allow the Department to show some flexibility to assess those types of cases on an individual basis, whereas the SDLP's amendment is much wider.”
“The transition from disability living allowance (DLA) to PIP will be an enormous task, so I welcome the decision to set up a fund that will, hopefully, allow for the required medical reports without imposing huge additional costs on those with vulnerabilities who may have difficulties paying for them. <BR /> <BR />I also have concerns about the wider issue of having to pay several million pounds to GPs for what many people believe they should already be doing. When you think that the average GP is on £94,000, it would not be an unreasonable task for them to take part of that responsibility on board. I fully appreciate the issues that our GPs face at the moment and that they are under pressure.”
“I and my colleagues will listen carefully to the Minister's response. I hope that he accepts the problems attached to work capability assessments and that he will lay out exactly what we are likely to see in the future with the universal credit proposals. <BR /> <BR />Our amendment should be fairly self-explanatory, yet it is hugely important. I trust that it will be accepted. Not only does it make perfect sense to have the right medical reports but it also appears that it is an idea that each of the main parties have suggested they would support. I welcome that.”
“Our amendment No 18 would ensure that any assessment of a person's capability for work or work-related activity would take relevant medical evidence into account. Whilst the issue of medical evidence has been settled for personal independence payment (PIP), no such understanding has been found for the transition to universal credit. I accept that the financial implications of our amendment may be significant and, given the costs encountered with the rest of the mitigation measures in the Assembly, we need to reflect on whether we should pass those additional costs to the Department. As the Minister has been made aware, the amendment was designed so that we can have that debate. <BR /> <BR />I am sure that every other party has concerns with the current arrangements, so it is clearly something that needs to be addressed.”
“It makes far more sense to have that evidence, usually medical reports, available at an earlier stage during an earlier assessment.”
“Remember that an appeal does not benefit genuine claimants or the Department. The delay in receiving benefits and the huge administration costs involved with appeals can cause problems for both parties. I do not doubt that, on the day, the Department does its best to make a fully informed decision that accurately reflects a customer's circumstances. However, without crucial documents, such as psychology reports, it is well-nigh impossible to make accurate assessments. <BR /> <BR />There is a real problem in fresh evidence supporting an appeal being becoming available only on the day of appeal. The Department states that, in four out of five appeals that were upheld in favour of the customer, new supporting evidence is produced by the customer that was not available to inform the Department's original decision.”
“The Northern Ireland epidemic of mental health problems is connected to the legacy of our Troubles, so there is a real issue in our community of presenting on this. Is it any wonder that we have the world's highest rate of post-traumatic stress disorder? Such facts, however, are not reflected in ESA assessments. The Ulster Unionist Party's concern is that that will continually fail to be reflected in future limited-capability assessments for universal credit. <BR /> <BR />The absence of medical records will inevitably lead to wrong decisions being made and too many appeals going against the Department. Why can medical evidence not be reviewed before the formal appeal? I believe that, were that medical evidence available earlier, the need for the applicant to present at the formal appeal process would be abated.”
“The concept of being happy with making a third of decisions wrong is not what most normal businesses would operate under, and it clearly needs to be improved. <BR /> <BR />Of course, when incorrect decisions are made, additional costs are associated with appeals, and we also have to pay for those. We all have experiences, through our offices, of what looks like a rather rational claim being rejected. The problem is that a person can present a different image during a so-called medical assessment rather than the realty that we know from having spent time talking to and observing them, perhaps more time than is available in the assessment. <BR /> <BR />There are few more difficult cases to assess on the day than those involving claimants who present with mental health difficulties.”
“I will go further and say that the system is not fit for purpose. I accept that assessing claims based on whether health conditions or disability restricts the applicant's ability to work is an enormous task for the Department and its agency. However, it is a system that unquestionably needs to be improved. The transition from incapacity benefit to employment and support allowance (ESA) was chaotic and simply did not work. Many problems arose. <BR /> <BR />I have heard the Department boast that 67% of all appeals heard on ESA decisions were upheld, but that misses the point, which is that a third of its decisions were wrong. I came from the world of industry, where you should try to get it right first time.”
“In recent days, my party has received some assurances that we previously sought on this. In part, we welcome the offering of choice to claimants of how regularly they wish to receive payments. I simply ask the Minister to, in place of our putting the question, reaffirm his commitment to default to twice-monthly payments. Not only that, I expect him to show the Social Development Committee the respect that it is due as soon as possible as regards any future proposed policy changes, so that its views can be taken on board. <BR /> <BR />I turn now to amendment No 18, on medical evidence for work-related activity. As Members are only too well aware, at present there are major problems with the system of assessing those who have limited work capability and, therefore, their entitlement to employment and support allowance.”
“I wish to proceed. <BR /> <BR />Fortunately, Ministers, both past and present, appear now to have accepted the proposal for twice-monthly payments as the default position. I welcome that, but I want the Minister to give clarity on the issue. It is important that we avoid using a criterion-based approach. That would undoubtedly save on administration costs in the short and long term, but, as I said, there are dangers in just ticking boxes and someone potentially not seeing a common-sense approach. Importantly, I understand that some households may prefer monthly payments, which is why my party wants to allow that to be an option. Opting out of twice-monthly payments and moving to a single payment, if that is what individuals wish, would minimise administration costs.”
“— that we would not have petitions of concern, in order that the Assembly can make its decisions in a responsible manner.”
“I believe that the Member's sister party also had a hand in the origin of this Bill, so I find his comments very strange. Let me make it very clear that this is a devolved Assembly. We are Assembly Members, and we are accountable for our actions. I hoped —”
“I particularly welcome the engagement in my area of Christians Against Poverty, which works with some of the food banks to try to empower people to live within their budget and avoid the necessity to seek emergency aid.”
“They found that such a default system would have the potential to cause major difficulties for claimants, especially in being able to budget appropriately for their outgoings. Individuals already come to my office occasionally looking for emergency support and perhaps have to be referred to food banks. <BR /> <BR />There are good things happening in the community and voluntary sector. However, if we were to move to monthly payments flat out and with no variation, there would be a huge danger that the community and voluntary sector, given the good work that it is doing in assisting vulnerable people, would be absolutely swamped because many do not yet have the skills to budget beyond a relatively short period. We have to ensure that there is support to try to increase those skills.”
“I remind him and the Department that my party has shown good faith by slightly revising the amendment from what was originally tabled to try to ensure the existence of something that is practicable and deliverable. I hope that he and his colleagues will not knock it out with one of their petitions of concern or allow anyone else to knock it out. Everyone in the House should be able to support this reasonable amendment. <BR /> <BR />I turn now to amendment No 8. The frequency of payments is another major touchstone issue that dominated the earlier Assembly discussion on welfare reform. I welcome the SDLP's decision to sign our amendment. As the Minister will be fully aware, his predecessor asked a number of voluntary organisations to investigate the proposal to move to monthly payments.”
“That line of thought complements what is already in paragraph 1 of schedule 1 to the Bill, but it makes it more explicit and clear, and removes any uncertainty that there may be. <BR /> <BR />The Department accepted my party's request for that in the Stormont House talks, so the amendment is simply reflecting that. I will listen carefully to what the Minister and others say. Can he assure me publicly in the House that he will honour, through guidance, what our amendment proposes? If he is able to do that, we will have to reflect further. It is important that this issue is aired and addressed, and it is for that reason that I moved the amendment.”
“In other words, assessors will have the flexibility to allow a claim to go ahead if it is for the benefit of the remaining members of the household, rather than it being rejected outright by another automated system or a computer. As it stands, staff do not have an ability to be flexible. They will be ticking boxes, and the system will tell them what is to happen, and, as a result, children will potentially be put out on the street. <BR /> <BR />Under our amendment, people refusing to sign the commitment will, of course, still not be entitled to support. Importantly, it means that their selfish, pig-headed approach will no longer prevent the rest of the household from receiving support.”
“There will be punishment, because there will be a lack of funds to the household. The individual will face a degree of pressure. <BR /> <BR />The Member needs to reflect on whether he wants that individual's partner and vulnerable children out on the street. Is that the punishment that he wishes for? There needs to be balance and careful thought in all that we do. Whilst the numbers affected in that type of scenario may be relatively small, there will potentially be a huge impact on vulnerable individuals. Therefore, there is merit in what is being proposed in our amendment. <BR /> <BR />It is a sensible alternative. We are instructing the Department to allow certain cases to be considered carefully.”
“Will the benefit then start from the date of issue of the new claim? Will that leave a period in which no housing benefit will be paid into that household? There are grey areas that need clarifying. <BR /> <BR />The Bill also fails to address the fundamental problem of what happens if the stubborn party does not leave the household. There are complications on which I want to hear certainty that vulnerable members of our community will not face difficulties. Social security offices and independent advice centres up and down the country will agree that, although that may sound improbable, it does happen.”
“It was because of the iniquitous implications of what was being proposed that the Ulster Unionist Party decided that that would be one of the areas that we wanted to change. Let us be clear: when you change an aspect of welfare reform, there are financial implications, and there will be costs to the block grant, but it is responsible that we discuss the issues and weigh up the costs and the benefits. There are areas in which costs may not be excessive but the benefits to members of our society may be considerable. Therefore, we should be open to amendments. <BR /> <BR />The Department had indicated that, in cases in which one claimant refused to sign a commitment and left the household, that person would be excluded from the claim and the household would have to submit a new claim. There are other issues around that.”
“So, not ensuring that there is adequate protection for the family of the irresponsible parent, adds huge misery to those who should not face it and huge cost to the public purse from emergency housing.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. I do not want vulnerable children to suffer because of an irresponsible parent or guardian. There is the potential for that individual to suffer by removing benefits that are going to him until he meets his requirements under the agreement. So, there still is the potential under what we are proposing for that individual to suffer, but his family, his partner and his children would not suffer. Society would be much fairer if it was done on that basis. <BR /> <BR />Were families to be ultimately made homeless by this, it would probably result in significant additional costs to the public through emergency housing, because vulnerable children would need to be looked after.”
“Unfortunately, there are households where that could happen. An adult, a parent or a partner who fails may put their own needs ahead of the needs of others, but surely their partner and children should not suffer. We must protect the most vulnerable from debt and the possibility of homelessness. Those are issues that would automatically follow if there was a complete end to the support and benefits available to a whole household. Debt would gather and housing costs would mount, with the possibility of landlords effecting eviction at some point in the future.”
“The coalition Government's policy is that couples living in the same household will make a joint claim for their benefit. I accept the rationale of a claimant commitment. We agree that, in order to receive universal credit, a person should have to sign a pledge that lays out exactly what is expected of them and, in return, what benefits and support will be provided. However, it was a mistake in the draft policy to allow a situation where, if one member of a household failed, for whatever reason, to sign their commitment, the rest of the household would be penalised. Potentially, no benefits would go into a household as a result of a failure by one individual. <BR /> <BR />Why should a family, perhaps with a number of dependent children, be left without support just because one of the parents failed to meet their commitments?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was coming to that in the next section of my comments. <BR /> <BR />The Ulster Unionist Party tabled its initial set of amendments almost two years ago. This is not something that we have thought about lightly or suddenly determined that we will take action on. We saw difficulties in what was being proposed by the Minister some years ago, and in this particular group, we have tabled amendment Nos 1, 8, 18 and 35. Some of the initial points that we made two years ago remain to be addressed. Members will probably not be surprised to see us raising the issues in our amendments in this group, as we have been highlighting them for months and years as being of concern. <BR /> <BR />I will deal firstly with amendment No 1, which is on joint claims.”
“<BR /> <BR />Given the amendments that have been presented in this group I am more surprised, perhaps, by the amendments that are not there. One would have thought that others who were very vocal in their comments some time ago might have put something down.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I obviously touched a very raw nerve there. I would have thought that what is happening is that rather than, perhaps, the normal warfare across the Benches there is a tag team happening. I would put that for others to consider. Is this tag team working in unison? Some put the petition of concern down and both will vote their separate ways, knowing the net result that will occur and knowing that some will be able to express their opinion and yet prevent the amendments going through. I simply ask Members to watch the rest of the debate, listen carefully to what everybody says, watch how people vote and watch the net effect of the petitions of concern which, I understand, have been signed by every member of the DUP Assembly party.”
“Of course. However, I have to ask whether this petition —”
“It appears to be their way or no way. <BR /> <BR />After two years of sitting in an abyss, after months of detailed Committee scrutiny of the proposals and after a huge level of engagement by organisations that deal with welfare issues on a day-to-day basis, the DUP has decided that it knows best. It appears to have its ears closed, certainly to other Assembly Members here and to this debate. No amendment is seemingly good enough for it, as it thinks it has the right to step in and determine what can and cannot be changed in the Bill.”