Official Report: Tuesday 10 February 2015

Mr Speaker: The motion will be treated as a business motion and therefore there will be no debate.

Mr Speaker: As the next three motions relate to amendments to Standing Orders, I propose to conduct the debate as follows. I propose to group the three motions as detailed on the Order Paper and conduct a single debate. I will ask the Clerk to read the first motion in the group and then call the Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures to move it. Debate will then take place on all three motions in the group. When all who wish to speak have done so, I will put the Question on the motion relating to Standing Order 20A(4). I will then ask the Chairperson to move formally the motions relating to Standing Order 4 and Standing Order 6, and I will put the Question on each of those motions without further debate. I remind the House that cross-community support will be required. If that is clear, I shall proceed.

Mr G Kelly (The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures): Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I beg to move

On behalf of the Committee on Procedures, I am pleased to bring these motions to amend Standing Orders to the House today. The first relates to topical questions; the other two relate to the election of a Speaker during a mandate. This may seem a strange combination, but it is purely for the sake of expediency, rather than any link between them.

The first motion relates to Standing Order 20A(4). On 9 December 2014, the Assembly approved the Committee's report on the review of topical questions. One of the recommendations in the report was that, as for listed oral questions, the first topical question may not be from a Member of the same party as the Minister. Today's motion will give effect to that recommendation by amending Standing Orders accordingly.

The other two motions relate to the election of a Speaker during a mandate. Standing Order 4 currently sets out the procedure for the election of a Speaker at a meeting of a new Assembly but is silent on the procedure to be followed if a Speaker indicates his intention to resign during an Assembly term. The proposed amendment will insert a new Standing Order 4A to address this, by describing how the Speaker resigns and clarifying the procedures for the election of a new Speaker during an Assembly term. The proposed amendment also commits the outgoing Speaker to take the Chair for the proceedings to elect a successor.

The final motion relates to Standing Order 6, which already sets out the procedure to be followed if the office of Speaker becomes vacant during an Assembly term, but does not specify who would take the Chair for the purposes of that election. The proposed amendment will insert additional text into Standing Order 6 to make it clear that an Acting Speaker takes the Chair in these circumstances. The amendments to Standing Orders 4 and 6 will address the gaps in Standing Orders and clarify the procedures for the election of a Speaker during a mandate.

In closing, a Cheann Comhairle, Mr Speaker, the three motions before the House are straightforward — famous last words — and on behalf of the Committee on Procedures, I commend them to the House.

Mr Clarke (The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures): Given that there have been no other contributors, I see no need to wind on the debate.

Mr Speaker: Before we proceed to the Question, I remind Members that the motions require cross-community support.

Mr Maskey (The Chairperson of the Committee for Social Development): Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I beg to move

The Committee Stage of the Regeneration Bill began on 24 January 2015 and is due to conclude on 3 March. The Committee issued a call for evidence on 23 January, and this is due to end on 16 February. The Committee received a pre-legislative briefing from the Department on 8 January, and issues were raised at an early stage. The Committee must give those issues closer scrutiny with the Department and the stakeholders. The Committee will endeavour, of course, to complete the Bill in as short a time frame as possible. However, an extension will allow for the possibility of any delays due to conflicting Committee business, such as the Pensions Bill and other ongoing work. The Committee expects a greater response to the call for evidence for the Bill, given the nature of the content. Building in some extra time would ensure that it can give due consideration to any evidence received. As the House will know, it is, of course, vital that the Committee scrutinise the Bill effectively to a standard that the House would consider adequate and the public would expect.

There is no way of knowing how many responses from stakeholders will be received before 16 February or how many sessions will be required to hear oral evidence from witnesses on the basis of that. With all that in mind, the Committee agreed that it was important to build in sufficient time to address those various unknowns. The Committee, therefore, agreed to ask the Assembly for an extension to the Committee Stage until 28 May 2015. On behalf of the Committee, I ask the House to support the motion. However, the Committee makes it clear to the House that we will endeavour to complete our work before that date. Go raibh maith agat.

Mr Speaker: Members should briefly take their ease while we get the Bill's folder organised.

Mr Speaker: I call the Minister for Social Development, Mr Mervyn Storey, to move the Consideration Stage of the Welfare Reform Bill.

Mr Speaker: Members will have a copy of the Marshalled List of amendments detailing the order for consideration. The amendments have been grouped for debate in the provisional grouping of amendments selected list. There are five groups of amendments, and we will debate the amendments in each group in turn.

The first debate will be on group 1, which contains 23 amendments and oppositions to two clauses stand part. The group deals with duties on the Department, administration and assessments. The second debate will be on group 2, which contains 14 amendments and oppositions to nine clauses stand part. The group deals with entitlements. The third debate will be on group 3, which contains seven amendments and oppositions to six clauses stand part. The group deals with sanctions. The fourth debate will be on group 4, which contains eight amendments. The group deals with reports, reviews, pilot schemes and information sharing. The fifth debate will be on group 5, which contains 26 amendments. The group deals with Assembly control, commencement and technical issues.

Valid petitions of concern have been tabled in relation to amendment Nos 1 to 13, 15 to 22, 24, 26 to 29, 36 to 45, 48 to 50, 53 to 57 and 73 to 75. Each will, therefore, require a cross-community vote. I remind Members intending to speak that, during the debates on the five groups of amendments, they should address all the amendments in each group on which they wish to comment. Once the debate on each group is completed, any further amendments in the group will be moved formally as we go through the Bill, and Questions on each will be put without further debate. The Questions on stand part will be taken at the appropriate points in the Bill. If that is clear, we shall proceed.

No amendments have been tabled to clauses 1 to 3. I propose, by leave of the Assembly, to group these clauses for the Question on stand part.

Mr Speaker: We now come to the first group of amendments for debate, which contains 23 amendments and opposition to two clauses. These amendments deal with duties on the Department, administration and assessments, and include amendments on matters such as the claimant commitment, frequency of payment and the taking account of relevant medical evidence.

Members will note that amendment No 1 is mutually exclusive with amendment No 3. Amendment No 13 is consequential to amendment No 12. Amendment Nos 18 and 19 are mutually exclusive. Amendment Nos 35 and 36 are also mutually exclusive. Amendment No 39 is consequential to amendment No 38. Amendment No 57 is consequential to amendment No 10 and amendment No 37.

Members will note that valid petitions of concern have been received in relation to amendment Nos 1, 3 and 4, 8 to 13, 17 to 19, 36 to 39, 43 to 45, 53, 57 and 74. Therefore, they will require cross-community support.

I call Mr Roy Beggs to move amendment No 1 and to address the other amendments in the group.

Mr Beggs: I beg to move amendment No 1:

Mr Beggs: I welcome this long overdue opportunity to open the debate on this next stage of the Welfare Reform Bill. It has been the most contentious and drawn out yet probably the most important legislation that this Assembly has ever considered. To date, we have had about £100 million of fines imposed upon us in reductions in the block grant. That has meant £100 million of reductions in public services. There have been clawbacks during this financial year, mid-year. Indeed, I suspect that has contributed to the lack of funding that would have been available to health.

In 2015, £114 million would have been set aside in potential fines, again from the block grant. However, you would not think that today is as important as it really is by observing the shameful actions of the DUP last night in tabling multiple copies of their pre-prepared petitions of concern against every single amendment that has been put forward, other than by their Minister. They have effectively killed off discussion and the decision-making process in this Assembly. Disgraceful. They are attempting to steamroller the Bill through as they would wish it to be. They are attempting to prevent this Assembly from having its say. They have single-handedly potentially blocked almost 50 amendments, including well over 20 in this group alone.

Mr Storey (The Minister for Social Development): Will the Member give way?

Mr Beggs: I wish to continue; I may give way later on. There is nothing that can be argued about what I just said. It is very factual. They have displayed the undemocratic nature of their attitudes as MLAs and as a party, which, of course, has the word "democratic" in its name. The other country that springs to mind that has the word "democratic" in its name was the Democratic Republic of East Germany, as it was at one time. Of course, that was a totalitarian state. It would appear that the DUP are much more akin with that attitude than that of normal Western society. That, unfortunately, sums up how they approach the whole issue of welfare reform. It is embarrassing enough how they tried to bring a copy and paste of the GB Bill across to Northern Ireland. They now, apparently, have no shame in preventing what limited amendments could have been made to the Bill by this Assembly. Their mechanism is making it virtually impossible for amendments to succeed. I look forward to hearing a shameful explanation from DUP Members who, presumably, all signed it and all have a responsibility in how they have, effectively, removed the democratic and more normal working of this Assembly.

Why should we not have the ability to debate the Bill, its individual clauses, and make amendments?

It appears to be their way or no way.

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.

Mr P Robinson: Will the Member give way?

Mr Beggs: I wish to proceed.

Mr P Robinson: Is the Member afraid to give way?

Mr Beggs: I will give way later on.

Mr P Robinson: Is the Member so sure he is accurate in what he is saying that he will not give way?

Mr Beggs: Of course. However, I have to ask whether this petition — [Interruption.]

I obviously have touched a raw nerve — [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. All remarks should be addressed through the Speaker. If the Member wishes not to take interventions, that should be accepted by other Members because there are no restrictions on the debate at all. Everyone will have their opportunity to make a contribution.

Mr P Robinson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can we have some assistance from the Chair? When a person who is speaking in this House also has the title of being a Deputy Speaker, is it right that he shows such inane inability to understand the rules of this House that he would seek to mislead the House into believing that they do not have the right to put down amendments and to vote on those amendments and that anyone who puts down a petition of concern can decide which way they vote on any amendment?

Mr Nesbitt: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: I have a point of order to respond to. The point that I made in my earlier intervention should provide the guidance. There is no restriction on debate, nor is there any restriction on people's ability to contribute to the debate. There were opportunities, quite clearly, for all parties and all Members to put down amendments if they so wished. Reference was made in some of the opening remarks about discussions on clauses being prevented. I make it clear that there are no such restrictions. If Members are prepared, they can wait their turn and they will be called if they so indicate. Let us have a measured debate. There is no point in starting cross-chatting; the election is not for several months, so let us deal with this very important piece of legislation.

I will take the second point of order.

Mr Nesbitt: Thank you, Mr Speaker. If I heard the Member for East Belfast correctly, there was an accusation that Mr Beggs was misleading the House. Will you review that, please?

Mr Speaker: My advice is this: let us not get into words. I could have challenged some of the earlier comments but decided not to. If someone is a Deputy Speaker they are still entitled to be a Member, to act like a Member and to contribute on behalf of themselves and their party, and that is exactly what is happening. Mr Roy Beggs will be a contributor to this debate and he will not preside over any aspect of it. Your point about the language that was used, I would give as a general health warning to every contributor, but some of the opening remarks could have had the effect of saying, perhaps completely unintended, that some aspects of the Bill are not up for discussion at all. Every aspect of it is, and every Member will have an equal opportunity if they so wish. If they decide not to, that is their decision. It will not be the Speaker who will prevent that level of contribution or discussion. Let us resume the debate.

Mr Beggs: 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.

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.

Mr Speaker: I have given you a considerable amount of laxity to set the context. You should not attempt to go back over the process. We are where we are; there is an Order Paper in front of us, and there is a Bill folder that we have all had access to. I am waiting on you to start to address the amendments that are down, not the ones that are not. Thank you.

Mr Beggs: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was coming to that in the next section of my comments.

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.

I will deal firstly with amendment No 1, which is on joint claims. 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.

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? 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.

Mr Wilson: I thank the Member for giving way. Does he accept that, as the law stands, which the Bill supports, where someone is incapable of making that commitment, provision is made for them? Does he recognise that the difficultly with his amendment is that it opens the door for those who choose to not make any commitment to seek a job? Under the shelter of his amendment, they may hide behind their family or their family's vulnerability so that they do not have to live up to the requirements that anyone would expect of someone who is claiming benefits?

Mr Beggs: 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.

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. 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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

Mr Wilson: Will the Member give way on that point?

Mr Beggs: Certainly.

Mr Wilson: Is the Member not arguing against the point that he made earlier? He indicated that, if one partner was not prepared to give a commitment, the answer was to remove the benefit and punish that person rather than the rest of the family. Now he is telling us that the potential is for the non-committing partner to stay in the house and still benefit from the housing benefit that will be paid to keep a roof over the family's heads, so, according to the Member's logic, there is no punishment.

Mr Beggs: There will be punishment, because there will be a lack of funds to the household. The individual will face a degree of pressure.

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.

It is a sensible alternative. We are instructing the Department to allow certain cases to be considered carefully. 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.

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. 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.

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. 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.

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. 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.

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 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.

Mr Dickson: Will the Member give way?

Mr Beggs: Yes, I will.

Mr Dickson: I am interested in his engagement with members of the community. Would Mr Beggs also tell them that his party's 2010 manifesto, which is identical to that of the Tories, is the unmitigated Bill that is presented to the House today and that it is the mitigations that are being presented to the House today that will actually deal with the issues that he is talking about?

Mr Beggs: 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 — [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Beggs: — that we would not have petitions of concern, in order that the Assembly can make its decisions in a responsible manner.

Mr Dickson: Will the Member give way?

Mr Beggs: I wish to proceed.

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.

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.

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 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.

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. 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.

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.

There are few more difficult cases to assess on the day than those involving claimants who present with mental health difficulties. 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.

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. 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.

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. It makes far more sense to have that evidence, usually medical reports, available at an earlier stage during an earlier assessment.

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.

I am sure that every other party has concerns with the current arrangements, so it is clearly something that needs to be addressed. 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.

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. 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.

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. 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.

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. 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.

Mr Campbell: Will the Member give way?

Mr Beggs: Yes, I will.

Mr P Robinson: Why did you not give way to me?

Mr Campbell: I do not know.

The Member is going through a series of amendments, not just his party's amendments but the SDLP's. Has he given any thought to the cost of the amendments if they were carried? Will he elaborate on those costs at some point in his speech?

Mr Beggs: 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 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.

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 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.

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.

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. 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.

Mr Agnew: I thank the Member for giving way. In the past, such assessments were carried out by in-house medical professionals. One way or another, we have to pay for those professionals, and, one way or another, we have to train them through our universities. It is simply a question of oversight and accountability. The record of Atos in England suggests to me that that oversight and accountability was not sufficient.

Mr Beggs: 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.

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, 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.

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. 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.

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. 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.

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. Again, this would be raising an issue of unfairness across the UK.

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? Regardless of the amendment, I welcome the fact that terminally ill claimants will be exempt from this test.

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. It is much safer if people have an account and are able to draw off as they need.

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.

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.

Mr Agnew: Will the Member give way?

Mr Beggs: Certainly.

Mr Agnew: On a couple of occasions, the Member referred to cost — rightly so — and of course we have to take it into consideration. There is a top-up payment in the budget. My argument is that we should decide as an Assembly where those top-up payments should be in the legislation rather than relying on what comes from the Executive to decide how that money is spent. My proposal is that a top-up payment is budgeted for. I am putting forward amendments, some of which cost money, but the top-up payment should be used to cover them.

Mr Beggs: 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. [Interruption.]

I wish to proceed.

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.

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. 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?

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.

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.

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.

I note the Minister's opposition to clause 129. 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.

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. 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.

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.

Mr A Maginness: I thank the Member for giving way. I am sorry if I have interrupted his train of thought —

Mr Campbell: You did not.

Mr A Maginness: He is doing very well and making very valid points, and I hope that Members will listen to them. I believe that amendment No 53 is very important. It puts victims of the Troubles and people who have suffered grievously, through either physical or mental problems as a result of the Troubles, at the very centre of the welfare system. Does the Member agree with the general thrust of the amendment? Does he agree with me that it would be a terrible shame for the House to reject the amendment, particularly through a petition of concern? That would do a grave disservice to all those who have suffered as a result of the Troubles.

Mr Beggs: 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. 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.

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. 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.

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.

Mr Agnew: I thank the Member for giving way. I understand his argument. I have worked with people with addictions, so I know the problems. The problem is when we license supermarkets to sell alcohol. You give people food vouchers, but they can still use them on premises that sell alcohol.

Mr Beggs: 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.

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.

Mr Maskey (The Chairperson of the Committee for Social Development): Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.

The Assembly will be aware that the Committee for Social Development produced a report on the Welfare Reform Bill two years ago in February 2013. The Committee held 22 meetings to consider the Bill. We received written submissions from 55 organisations and individuals and took oral evidence from 31 of those organisations. The Committee therefore gave the Bill extensive consideration and made a number of recommendations on foot of the evidence that it received. In doing so, it also opposed a number of clauses, one of which, clause 99, is in this group. I will come to that in just a moment.

It is fair to say that during the Committee Stage, the Committee was unanimous in its views regarding the potential impact of the Bill. It is important to restate that obviously these concerns about the impact were shared across the political spectrum. There was deep concern across the parties in the Committee for Social Development at the time. That concern, which was shared by the wide range of stakeholders who gave evidence to the Committee, was that this radical reform of the welfare system, if left unchecked, could seriously impact on the most vulnerable groups in society: children, the sick, lone parents, persons with a disability and so on. The Committee was also very sympathetic to the arguments that were made around access by claimants to independent advice.

Indeed, Members may recall that the Committee was sufficiently concerned that it agreed a motion under Standing Order 35 to refer the Bill to an Ad Hoc Committee on conformity with human rights and equality requirements. However, the Committee was also acutely aware of the potential cost implications of making changes to the Bill, although it must be said that Committee members were never truly convinced that they had received definitive figures from the Department. It is important to note that the Committee adopted a flexible position, if you like, on the best approach to address the financial cost of possible mitigation measures.

The Committee recognised the fact that the Department for Social Development could not fund those measures from its own budget. The Committee therefore agreed that any recommendations that had costs associated with them would have to be discussed and agreed by the Executive and all the parties represented on it. Therefore, where the Committee made recommendations that had associated costs, members agreed to oppose those related clauses, without prejudice to the outcome of the Minister’s discussions and individual positions that may be taken by members at a later stage of the Bill process. The Committee felt that that allowed the Minister the flexibility to engage with his Executive colleagues on the potential to fund its recommendations and, therefore, offered the best possibility for adoption of a range of mitigation measures to address the Committee’s concerns and those of stakeholders.

I do not think that any of us would have guessed that those discussions would only be finalised two years after the Committee published its report, but I believe that the outcome of the Stormont House negotiations has in many ways superseded the concerns highlighted by the Committee in its report. Indeed, the Committee met yesterday and was briefed by the Department on the Minister’s amendments. The Committee noted those. The Committee agreed yesterday that, given the time that has elapsed since the publication of its report and, more importantly, the fact that we have the five-party Stormont House Agreement, which has addressed many of the concerns relating to welfare reform, the Committee is content that it is for individual members to consider their position in relation to the Committee’s opposition to clauses, referred to in the Marshalled List of amendments.

I highlight to the House that the Committee opposed 10 clauses in total. In this group of amendments, the Committee opposes clause 99, which deals with payments to joint claimants. There will, obviously, be more detailed discussion of all those matters in the course of the debate. The Committee’s concern at the time related to the flexibility that could be applied to payments in terms of the regularity of payments and the splitting of payments. It favoured an approach where the payment would be made twice a month, with an option for a payment to be split between claimants in a household, rather than a single payment per household. In that latter instance, the Committee shared the concerns of stakeholders that having to nominate a member of the household to receive the payment could have a negative impact on the financial independence of women in particular and, therefore, a potentially negative impact on children, given that, in our society, it is still largely the case that women tend to be the main carer and/or the second earner in the family. However, there has undoubtedly been significant progress on this matter and others relating to the Committee’s opposition to clauses, which I will come to as the debate develops.

Therefore, as I noted, I leave Committee members to decide for themselves regarding the current position vis à vis that taken by the Committee two years ago. In other words, and very simply, given the fact that the Committee expressed opposition to a number of the Bill's clauses, it took the view that, in the light of the Stormont House Agreement, most — if not all — of those concerns have been addressed in one way or another. Whatever about the precise arguments around the legislation, either by way of legislation and amendments tabled by the Minister and/or the mitigation measures, most of the concerns of members have been met. On that basis, the Committee has mandated me, as Chair, to record to the House that it will not be formally recording opposition to any of the clauses during today's debate.

Let me place on record my thanks to the Committee for the very extensive deliberation it gave to the Bill at that time. An exhaustive amount of work was carried out to make sure that all aspects of the Bill were considered and appropriate recommendations made to the Minister on the basis of those discussions. I thank in particular all the stakeholders who came and gave evidence. I remind Members that that included people from the church and faith-based organisations, the community and voluntary sector, the advice sector, ethnic minority organisations, the Human Rights Commission, the Equality Commission and trade unions. A whole range of organisations made considered submissions, written and oral, to the Committee. It is important to record that the members unanimously agreed a report, which I have addressed in the last few minutes. Therefore, I thank all the people who participated and, in my view, helped to shape the debate from that time. Even though two years have elapsed, all of us will be very pleased to acknowledge that there has been considerable progress made against all the concerns expressed by the stakeholders and the Committee. There is no doubt that much work yet needs to be done.

The Committee and others will remain vigilant as to the effects of welfare reform as it progresses through the Assembly in the time ahead, after the Bill is dealt with and disposed of.

Mr Speaker, with your indulgence, I would also like to make a few remarks as an individual MLA on behalf of my party. Go raibh maith agat for that. I will be brief. I want to make a couple of points in relation to the remarks made by Mr Roy Beggs of the Ulster Unionist Party, who was the first to speak on this group. The remarks of the Member in the House this morning beggar belief. He is a Member representing a party that was joined at the hip with the Tory Government in London as UCUNF (Ulster Conservatives and Unionists - New Force), which promoted the policy and the pledge that has had the effect of imposing swingeing cuts, not only in terms of welfare but to public services, that people right across our community have had to endure. I am delighted to be able to say that other parties, standing against Ulster Unionist commitments at that time, addressed a lot of those concerns.

I want to place something on the record because it is important that the public are aware of all this. During the Committee deliberations on the matter, I conducted a number of bilaterals with all the parties represented in the House, including the Ulster Unionist Party. During those bilaterals, the Ulster Unionist Party never made one single commitment to address any of those issues. I personally had to go to Mr Mike Nesbitt and ask him to give support to his party colleague Michael Copeland, the Member on the Social Development Committee, who told us in the Committee that he was not allowed by the party to make any commitment in relation to the Welfare Reform Bill.

I stand and accuse the Ulster Unionist leader and his party of an absolute abject failure of integrity on that matter. That party stood on a pledge to slash public funding and slash welfare benefits to the most vulnerable people out there and was not prepared to make one single commitment to address it. In fact, only in the last number of weeks, the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party was telling everybody, "We could not get any more money. There was nothing more that we could do. We had a good deal as it was". Unfortunately for the Ulster Unionist Party, which, in grandstanding —

Mr Beggs: 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.

Mr Speaker: It is a question of the cut and thrust of debate. The Member may well, in his remarks, simply be reflecting frustration at the lack of progress at particular times. That is his entitlement, as you were quite forthright in some of your commentary. It is cut and thrust. This is meant to be a debate. I think that we should try to avoid the practice of naming Members across the Floor because it is not conducive to good temper and moderate discussion.

Mr Maskey: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I concur with your remarks. I had wanted to come here this morning in a position to welcome the fact that an agreement was reached by all the parties, in the days before Christmas, that represents a far better deal for the people who we collectively, as parties, represent. That deal allows an awful lot more money to be retained by the people who we represent, and that would not otherwise have been available except for the hard work that was carried out. I would have much preferred to have been coming into the Chamber this morning to give a very clear, positive and constructive message to the wider public that we collectively represent that we have managed to broker a deal that is far above anything anywhere else on these islands and that I am glad that we have been a very important part of that. Unfortunately, because others want to grandstand and, rather than look after the most vulnerable, want to promote themselves, I have departed from what I had wanted to do. As I say, all Members will have the opportunity to address all the issues today. I wanted to place on record the behaviour, attitude of and role that was played by the Ulster Unionist Party, which is leading the debate on this group this morning.

Ms P Bradley: I, too, welcome the opportunity to speak on the group 1 amendments at Consideration Stage. I join the Chair in thanking the Committee staff, departmental officials and all those who gave written responses and oral evidence.

Throughout the many hours of the Committee scrutiny of the Welfare Reform Bill, there was, as the Chair said, a consensus across all parties that the Bill required certain changes to meet the needs of our constituents in Northern Ireland. I also recall the many events and panel debates I attended, some of which I would like to forget, usually alongside those sitting opposite. At those debates we heard genuine concerns, not only from voluntary and community groups, but from individuals and the public across Northern Ireland.

Mr Speaker, in this group we address the duties of the Department, administration and assessments. Having studied the fairly lengthy list of amendments, I am drawn to the conclusion that many are either not required or will be dealt with in the regulations. Indeed, Mr Speaker, if some proposers of the amendments had been members of the Committee for Social Development when we were scrutinising the Bill, they would have known that much of the detail will be dealt with in regulations rather than through amendments to the Bill. You will be glad to hear that I do not intend to speak on all the amendments — and I will keep the rest of my speech brief — but I want to address two of them.

First, I draw your attention to amendment No 4, tabled by members of the SDLP, which sets out a new clause where a claimant is unable to provide the documentation required to progress a claim. This was a concern raised in the Committee during initial scrutiny, particularly how it might affect the vulnerable and claimants who were homeless or living in temporary accommodation. As most of us know, from dealing with benefit claimants through our constituency offices, third-party verification is accepted under current claims and payment regulations. As we also know, this is being transferred over to universal credit claims and payment regulations, and it will allow for third-party verification to continue as it is at present. Mr Speaker, this is just one example of an amendment in group 1 that is not required.

I now turn to amendment No 8. This is another new clause, put forward this time by the Ulster Unionist Party, and relates to the frequency of payment of universal credit. Again, this was an issue about which there was great concern in the Committee and in both written and oral responses. There was grave concern that under the proposed monthly payments claimants would face financial hardship, which would ultimately be borne by the children in those families. It was also well-documented in the written submissions that, instead of having enforced frequency of payment, claimants should have the freedom to choose. Notably, Advice NI commented that the frequency of payment, whether weekly, fortnightly or monthly, should be geared towards meeting the needs of the person and not the system.

As most of us should be aware — and I do find it rather strange that the Ulster Unionist Party is not aware of this — payment frequency was agreed as one of the package of measures by the previous Minister, Nelson McCausland, with the Department for Work and Pensions some time ago. The current Minister went one step further last October by proposing that the default position be twice-monthly.

This is just one of the many amendments that should be dealt with in regulations rather than through amendments to the Bill. As we know, regulations will allow for greater flexibility and, therefore, the right place for much of what is listed in these amendments is in the regulations. Mr Speaker, these are just two examples —

Mr Beggs: Will the Member give way?

Ms P Bradley: Yes.

Mr Beggs: 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?

Ms P Bradley: I thank the Member for his intervention. Flexibility allows us to make changes, as we all know and as you have also stated. For some people, two-weekly payments may not be what is required: we may want to change that, but we cannot do so if it is under primary legislation. It is therefore better to deal with it in regulations in case we need to make changes.

Mr Speaker, I look forward to hearing the rationale for the tabled amendments from all the proposers and, of course, how they propose to pay for some of the changes.
I am happy to support amendment No 35 and the opposition to clause 129 standing part, but I will not be supporting any other amendments in group 1.

Mrs D Kelly: I am pleased to speak on behalf of the SDLP in relation to the amendments that our party has tabled. Members are, quite rightly, outraged at the petitions of concern against all the amendments. It is an attack on democracy; it is an attack on the House's opportunity to scrutinise fully the implications of the Bill. It is certainly not the reason for which petitions of concern were intended. We all know that petitions of concern were to be deployed only if it was felt that one community would suffer an adverse impact over another.

We all know that the sufferers under welfare reform as proposed by the Tories will be the poorest and most vulnerable in our society. In that regard, one part of our community is going to suffer more of an adverse impact than those who are relatively well off, but, of course, they will be right across the community. It appears that there are now more Tories in the DUP ranks than ever before. I know that a number of them were previously card-carrying members of the Tory party. I deplore the use of petitions of concern in relation to this matter. One might make the reasonable assumption that the late notice of petitions of concern was to save the blushes of the party to my right, which claims that it was stalling on welfare reform in order to get more money from the British Treasury. That money did not come; it is going to come from the other public sectors.

It is ironic that, on the day that we are discussing the Welfare Reform Bill, the media are full of stories about the tax avoidance used by the world's wealthiest companies and individuals in GB society. Last night, we saw the sorry spectacle of many of the wealthiest people tripping into one of the big Tory dinner dances. The Tories have looked after their interests, but they have failed to look after the interests of the poorest. Only four or five weeks ago Oxfam, in preparing for a summit of world leaders, made the case that over 50% of the world's wealth is now held by 1% of the world's population. Many commentators, including, more recently, Pope Francis, have stated that growing wealth inequality is bad for economic development and bad for good governance and is surely morally wrong.

With that backdrop, the SDLP has not been shy about the necessity of welfare reform and improvements to how the system operates; we have put forward amendments in the various groups with the intent of improving the lot of the people who require help through the welfare system. There is no shame in that; it is our responsibility. It has always been our stated intention in relation to the Welfare Reform Bill.

I also note that some Members' remarks and contributions referred to the Stormont House Agreement. The Stormont House Agreement contains no more than six lines on welfare reform, the introduction of the legislation and the flexibilities. At yesterday's Committee meeting, when officials explained the Minister's amendments, we learnt that agreement on how some of the mitigating measures are to be introduced has not yet been reached by the Executive, so we are operating in somewhat of a vacuum in relation to the Bill. It would have been much more useful, and we probably would not have been so sceptical, if we had the two in tandem before the House today. We could have spoken with greater information before us.

We are going to listen carefully to the Minister's commitments in relation to some of the amendments that we have tabled. We will see whether or not he will commit to bring forward regulations that will allay some of our concerns in relation to the new clauses that we are tabling today.

I will address our party's proposed clauses. Mr Beggs quite rightly said, in relation to amendment No 1 to clause 4, that the SDLP had a similar amendment. We are happy to support that amendment, which will help when there is a breakdown in a family relationship or a lack of cooperation so that one family member will not suffer.

I will move to amendment No 3, which proposes a new clause after clause 6. It is similar to the amendment that Roy Beggs proposed. We just felt that ours was in a different place in the Bill; it is more just a question of where it is positioned rather than any of the policy intention.

Amendment No 4 proposes a new clause that would allow third parties to obtain documents necessary for a claim where claimants cannot obtain it themselves. I think that is fairly self-explanatory. I note that there is also a petition of concern on that; you would have to ask why that is, other than that regulations might deal with it. We will wait to hear what the Minister has to say. Amendment No 4 inserts a new clause on the provision of claimant documentation when making a claim for universal credit. It provides that, where a person cannot provide all the required documentation to make a claim, there is provision made for third-party verification in lieu of required documentation, including identity documents, so that the claim can be made. As Ms Bradley said, this was something that the Committee had similar concerns about when it, some two years ago, scrutinised the Bill. Again, we will wait to hear how the Minister is going to deal with that issue.

We think that it is important to table amendments so that we can hear from the Minister and get commitments on the Floor of the House in relation to how we move forward.

Amendment No 9 relates to preparing claimant commitments and states that the Department must have due regard for the claimant's skills, experience, caring responsibilities and physical and mental ill health. This is important because we all, across our constituency offices, have concerns in relation to the types of jobs that people are being expected to undertake, where the skills and experience do not match the work that people are being asked to take up. I do not think that there are many people who would not express some difficulty and require retraining. We are seeing this against a backdrop of savage cuts to the DEL budget and to employment and training. Of course, given the number of redundancies that some people are experiencing, not least in north Antrim, where 800 people are set to lose their jobs, there is an obvious need to spend money on retraining. We have concerns that opportunities are not going to be there for people. We also have concerns about zero-hours contracts, which are on the increase. I think that they are totally immoral. We see an increase in temporary, part-time, low-paid jobs.

I think that the vast majority of people who find themselves unemployed want to get back into the workplace but for some who are in their 40s or 50s, it is difficult. I believe that there should be greater opportunities and that cognisance should be given to their life experience and job experience. The Government and Departments should be in a position to help people to retrain and prepare themselves for a different workplace.

I just want to make one other general point. We do not yet have a robust childcare strategy in place. Over recent weeks, we have heard about the soaring costs of childcare. It is all right for people who have never experienced unemployment to make assumptions about people being work-shy, but that is not so in the vast majority of cases. The majority of people want to get out to work because they think that it is better for their self-esteem and self-confidence, and it provides a better role model for their family. If family income is reduced to such a level that there are increasing levels of poverty and more children in the North of Ireland living in poverty, I can understand why people have to make the choice about whether or not they take up a job and how that impacts on their family.

The Tories' agenda of making work pay has not been accompanied by more robust measures for tackling some of the loopholes that employers use in the provision of terms and conditions for such employment. It is a matter of regret that the Executive have not yet got their head around providing good, affordable childcare to enable people to go back into the workplace.

I will now turn my attention to amendment No 8, which introduces the default position of an award of universal credit being paid twice monthly unless a claimant or joint claimants opt to be paid monthly. I heard what Ms Bradley said, and I hope that the Minister will address this. We will listen carefully to that and make a judgement later in the day as the debate continues.

Amendment No 9 is about the Department's regard for a claimant's skills when completing a claimant commitment. We need to be assured that people have the right help at the right time, because we all know how complicated many of these forms are. In our constituency offices, we can hardly keep up because of the changing nature of such forms. It is true to say that, while a lot of welfare reform has to be agreed by the House, it is also the case that other welfare reform comes from Westminster. Some childcare and tax vouchers, for example, are non-devolved matters, so there is already a very changed landscape, and it is difficult for professionals to keep up, never mind people who find themselves being in circumstances in which they first have to enter that system and have never been unemployed before.

In amendment No 11, we ask the Department to:

I heard what others said about how that is currently the case, but, given the track record of Atos in particular, it is very clear to me in my constituency work and representational role that quite a bit of evidence is set aside. There are different interpretations by a number of health-care professionals who have medical evidence before them but disregard it.

I will give you one particular example as to why I am concerned. I represent a lady who has an arthritic condition called ankylosing spondylitis, which is a degenerative chronic condition. It means that she was not able to continue in her job as a home help, as it used to be known. The health-care professional who made the assessment was a qualified nurse, but she turned the lady down and gave her nil points for that disability. When I represented the lady at appeal, the GP on the panel was disgusted and absolutely shocked and could not believe that this level of medical evidence and knowledge was set aside. It would seem that some of the very energetic members of Atos, in their attempts to refuse people —

Mr F McCann: Will the Member give way?

Mrs D Kelly: I will, yes.

Mr F McCann: I understand what you are saying, but I find it rather strange, given that it was your Minister who introduced the legislation that brought Atos into power. When it was appointed, there was the privatisation of medical support services, and, in the first year, from June 2011 to 2012, 13,740 claimants were removed by Atos. It was your Minister who brought it in, yet you are standing here today crying crocodile tears over it.

Mrs D Kelly: I do not see any crocodile tears in evidence. I am merely stating fact. I do not think that my colleague sent out a job description that asked all those healthcare professionals who would disregard the evidence and turn people down to apply. We certainly acknowledge that a job of work is required to be done, and we expect the highest professional standards in carrying it out.

The SDLP has not, in any shape or form, defended Atos's track record. I believe that the contract has now been awarded to Capita. Mr McCann's blushes will be saved somewhat later today by the DUP's petition of concern when he goes through whatever Lobby he chooses. So, I think that you have more questions to ask of your party colleagues.

The system has always been that people put forward medical evidence. We are asking that there is acknowledgement of evidence of mental ill health. I have represented people at appeal who have chronic and enduring mental health conditions for which there is no cure. Those people have management regimes that usually involve medication. I believe that there should be greater cognisance of that and that a greater onus of responsibility should be placed on the assessors. Some of them behave as though they are the red coats who run around doing parking tickets as though there is some sort of reward voucher scheme for turning people down.

I think that over 40% of appeals have been won. People are talking about the cost, but if we get it right and put the right people in to do the right assessments to get the right outcomes, costs can be reduced for appeals. More importantly, the people who are at the other end of those appeals will not have to suffer the stress and anxiety that goes with them. The number of people who I have had to take aside so that they can dry their tears before they even go in to the appeal is very humbling. Those are not occasions that anyone looks forward to, and we should not be robbing people of their basic human dignity. We should be there to support them. That is what the welfare state was created for. It was created to give human dignity to people and to put people at the centre of a society where they are treated more fairly and equally. It was not created to reduce them to snivelling wrecks as they go to an appeal to get what they are rightly due. That is why we are looking for tighter regulations, but if the Minister has something to say, we will listen carefully.

Amendment No 12 looks at, as Mr Beggs referred to, victims of hate incidents and at allowing some leeway in observing claimant commitment. We looked particularly at domestic violence in that context. Only yesterday, I had a victim of domestic violence having to go for repeat ESA interviews. I advised them that, as I understand, there is a commitment from Minister Storey's predecessor to victims of domestic violence. Given the huge rise in the number of domestic violence incidents that are coming to our police service's attention, the House should address and take seriously that vulnerable group's needs. I ask Members to think carefully about that.

I also ask that this amendment not be subject to a petition of concern. I think that that would be a very good statement from the House about our commitment to those people who suffer from such attacks. I remind Members that a person who comes forward to the police for help or to make a complaint will usually have suffered a minimum of 35 incidents of attack or assault. So, we are talking about people who are in crisis and at a very vulnerable time in their life. I ask Members to reflect carefully on that.

Amendment No 13 deals with similar issues.

In amendment No 17, we are asking the Department to bring in a replacement to the independent living fund within 18 months of the Bill's commencement. I note Mr Beggs's comments about commitments that my colleague Mr Ramsey got. Mr Ramsey will address that amendment later. I think that he had some discussions with the Health Minister about that. We will check that out, and Mr Ramsey will hopefully inform the House of where that commitment is and of how satisfied he was by what the Minister said.

Amendment No 19 deals with evidence of mental ill health. In a society coming out of conflict, there has to be recognition that instances of mental ill health are on the rise. People are suffering. A lot of workplace absenteeism is now noted as being as a result of stress and anxiety, so mental ill health is a cause for concern to me and, hopefully, to the House.

I have touched on victims in another amendment. A difficulty for some families who were victims of the conflict and who I have represented is having to relive and open their wounds again as they have to tell another person why they should get support. It really is opening up that emotive, raw state for them. That is one of the reasons why we want sensitivity in the Department in relation to these amendments. As a former occupational therapist who worked in a psychiatric unit about 14 years ago, I recall vividly a senior psychiatrist remarking on the numbers who were presenting at that time with mental ill health as a consequence of the Troubles, so we are only starting to see that pattern emerging. Her words were prophetic, and I think that has been on the increase.

You have to look to young people in particular and the level of suicides, so we have to take proper recognition of mental ill health. It is not something that someone glibly puts down who wants to be pigeonholed. I hope that the Department takes greater awareness and cognisance of any medical evidence in relation to mental ill health.

Amendment No 36 is similar and deals with the same subject as amendment No 19. We will listen carefully to what Mr Agnew says about amendment Nos 37, 38 and 39 in relation to the assessments and why he believes they should be carried out by a trust or GP. Some Members said that they already will be and that it might be some sort of agreement with the various trusts in relation to the release of health-care professionals. After speaking to Mr Agnew yesterday, I believe that some of the intent of the amendments was around accountability. I look forward to hearing further from him during the course of today's debate.

I met Mr Agnew also in relation to amendment Nos 43 and 44. Amendment No 43 is "cash" in its broadest terms. It is around the bank Giro cheque and the Post Office account. We all know that there has been a crackdown by the banks on people opening accounts and moving money about. They have to give greater explanation to their bank, and a minimum requirement is two utility bills. For people who find themselves homeless or in sheltered or hostel-type accommodation, that proves to be an onerous task. I believe that Mr Agnew will refer further to that. It is an amendment that we are minded to support in relation to the difficulties that people find themselves in when opening bank accounts. Again, we will listen carefully to Mr Agnew's contribution on amendment Nos 44 and 45 and the policy intent behind them.

Amendment No 53 is the one that I referred to a few moments ago in relation to taking account of victims and survivors. We have, over many years, given various commitments as a society to the victims of the conflict. Sadly, not very many of them have materialised. This would be an important statement by the House that special recognition is given by the Assembly to people who continue to suffer the trauma of the past. I ask the DUP not to deploy the petition of concern on this clause. I ask it not to deploy a petition of concern against any of the clauses, but, in particular, I ask for some recognition to be given to the sensitivities of this clause.

Amendment Nos 57 and 74 are from Mr Agnew, and we, as a party, give a commitment to hear him on the matter.

That ends my contribution on the first group of amendments. We, as a party, have shown responsibility and concern for the most vulnerable. We have done what we said we would do in the tabling of these amendments.

Mr Dickson: I will just take some time to welcome the long-awaited return of the Welfare Reform Bill to the House, two long years after its original introduction. In that intervening period, we have had nothing but crisis and deep anxiety across the community over this key piece of legislation: crisis from an Executive seemingly failing to reach agreement and putting the power-sharing institutions at risk of collapse, at not insubstantial cost to the community and certainly in excess of £100 million; and, as a result of scaremongering, a pervasive and unwarranted anxiety amongst the people who we represent, many of whom are the most vulnerable in our society.

It is for those two reasons that I commend the agreement reached at Stormont Castle and Stormont House to move this key piece of legislation forward. It is time to end the crisis and anxiety and to implement welfare reform alongside the concessions and the mitigation measures that were won and agreed. Those are agreed mitigation measures, yet, listening to some of the debate today, one would wonder whether anybody was ever at the game when the agreement was being made.

These concessions will protect the most vulnerable from the most unjust and harshest measures passed by a Conservative-led Westminster Government. For the record and for Mr Nesbitt, I am not, nor have I ever been, a member of the Liberal Democrat party. I am a proud member of the Alliance Party. Those are the two feet that I am standing on in the Chamber. I also wish to state for the record that our Member of Parliament sits in opposition to that Conservative Government at Westminster. She voted in opposition to that legislation.

The Alliance Party considers that the Stormont House Agreement was a reasonable and honourable attempt to reach compromise. It was a five-party agreement, unless I hear disagreement in the Chamber today. We expect to see the whole agreement put in place. It is an entire process, and it is important that it is put back on track. I accept and understand that some of the agreement was made behind closed doors. The exceptional nature of the problems that are faced required exceptional responses. However, I have to call out the cynical attempts today of those using this legislation to do nothing but electioneer. Some who nodded this compromise through when the agreement was made have now decided to play politics in order to gain what they see as an electoral advantage or perhaps a chance to launch personal political ambitions; maybe there are a few leadership bids under way in the Chamber.

I wish to place on record my and my party's dislike of the unilateral use of petitions of concern, particularly by the DUP. Use of a petition of concern as a negotiating tactic is not what they were intended for, and I consider it unacceptable. Such actions could ultimately unravel the agreement and the hard-won concessions that neither Scotland or Wales have been able to secure. Nevertheless, I recognise the contribution of others in the debate and those who were not party to the Stormont Castle or Stormont House agreements. I have some sympathy for the proposals made by Mr Agnew, and I will listen to what he has to say. I think that a great many of the amendments proposed today can and will be dealt with by the Minister in his response to the House, but it is important that every one of them is costed.

On the amendments, the Alliance Party will honour the Stormont House Agreement. We made an agreement. We are an honourable party and will stick to our agreements. We can and will today support those amendments that are agreed, because to do otherwise would be to undermine an agreement that all party leaders accepted and signed up to. We also point out that many of the amendments relate to making regulatory powers for things that are already done or will soon be done. We are sympathetic to many of those amendments, but we expect the Minister to allow all-party input to them through regulations that will come to the Committee. We will listen to what he has to say. For Alliance, implementing this legislation in a way that protects the vulnerable, without stopping the legislation, will be done when the regulations are produced.

I turn to the group 1 amendments, specifically, the proposed amendments pertaining to the Department, the administration and assessments. During the Committee Stage of the Bill, the frequency of payments was often cited by those in the social sector as a serious cause of concern. It was stated that the proposed monthly payment arrangements, as implemented in the rest of the UK, would likely cause undue budgeting pressures on society's most vulnerable. The Department has taken that on board, and will apply a default fortnightly payment schedule for welfare recipients. A requirement, therefore, is not a necessary part of the Bill and contradicts the mechanisms agreed by the Executive parties. I am satisfied that progress has been made on this issue.

With regard to amendment No 12, the Alliance Party has been one of the stronger proponents of the more comprehensive support for people affected by hate crime. Sadly, hate crime is on the rise in Northern Ireland and has a serious and pervasive effect on the lives and families of those affected, many of whom require rehousing and a period of recovery. Therefore, not only are measures in our welfare system to accommodate hate-crime victims appropriate and just, it is important that we avoid inflicting further trauma as a result of welfare sanctions. The Department has indicated that such mechanisms will exist through good cause, a clause contained in the Bill. I am content to support this; however, it is only appropriate that we keep the operation of this under close scrutiny to ensure that it functions as intended and supports victims through their period of recovery.

Another issue that was highlighted repeatedly in welfare reform in the rest of the UK is the need for a solid medical basis on which to make assessments. We will therefore support the amendment No 35 proposed by the Ulster Unionists in that regard. This will ensure that the relevant medical evidence is taken into account when assessing a person's ability to carry out daily living or mobility activities. However, that raises the question of how the medical evidence is obtained, at what cost and how qualified is the assessor in interpreting the medical documentation. I believe that these questions are yet to be fully answered, but I think those matters will be dealt with through regulation.

To ensure a system that is fit for purpose, I call upon the Minister and the Committee to investigate these issues in depth and establish that appropriate and fair measures are put in place. In concluding on this section, it is vital that I highlight the mitigating measures in regard to such issues that have been agreed with Treasury. Anything else that is uncosted is not likely to proceed in the House today and would cause a further burden on an already over-stressed and stretched Budget. Furthermore, the terms of agreement are much more favourable than those presented in the rest of the United Kingdom. We must support the structures as agreed or face losing these concessions and returning to the crises, anxiety and inaction of the previous two years.

Mr Speaker: The Business Committee has arranged to immediately after the lunchtime suspension. I propose, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. The first item of business when we return will be Question Time.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): We will start with listed questions.

Mrs Foster (The Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment): My Department works closely with Belfast International Airport to encourage new transatlantic routes with business and inbound tourism potential. That support is provided in a number of ways. For example, Tourism Ireland cooperative marketing support is available for transatlantic services. We also provide practical support for Belfast International Airport and our other airports by taking a stand at the annual World Routes conference. Another important factor in encouraging transatlantic connectivity has been the decisive action by the Executive to eliminate air passenger duty (APD) on direct long-haul flights.

Mr Ó Muilleoir: Go raibh maith agat a Aire. Thank you, Minister. I recently spoke to the chief executive of Belfast International Airport. I also met the owners of the airport in Toronto and I met Massport, which owns Logan Airport in Boston. There is definitely interest in a transatlantic flight, but we are falling down at the minute because there are none out of Belfast.

Does the Minister agree that now is the time for a concerted and united push by the new owners of the airport, Tourism Ireland, Belfast International Airport and our many ambassadors to try to bring in the number of transatlantic visitors that we would like? That is especially the case given the success of Dublin Airport. As the Minister knows, the road is a big help, but it goes both ways.

Mrs Foster: I thank the Member for his question. In his supplementary question, he acknowledged the importance of connectivity for us in Northern Ireland and the fact that we need more international flights. We are pleased that the Newark flight continues to be a success, although we were disappointed last year, when the flight was dropped to 10 months a year from 12.

I acknowledge that much work needs to be done, and I hope to meet representatives of some Canadian airlines again later this year. However, we are in direct competition with Dublin Airport. It now has four direct flights to Canada, and that is causing us difficulties in trying to achieve more connectivity, particularly with North America.

I welcome the increased connectivity with Europe and, if things go according to plan, that will increase again this year. I am very pleased about that, but we need to increase the connectivity with North America, in particular, and I would welcome any offers of help that would help us try to achieve that.

Mr Kinahan: When will the Minister, or will she, use her influence in the Executive to help create the enterprise zone at the international airport, with the tax incentives and infrastructure, and help make that airport not just the lead airport in Northern Ireland but possibly, one day, the lead airport in the whole of Ireland?

Mrs Foster: I thank the Member for his question. Of course, he is referring to the new chief executive's ambitious plans, which I welcome, for the land in and around the international airport. He has talked about creating an enterprise zone, but, as yet, only one area here has been designated by Her Majesty's Treasury as an enterprise zone and that, of course, is in Coleraine. No other areas have been designated as enterprise zones yet. We are very happy to work with Graham and his team at the international airport to market the opportunities for having such close proximity to an international airport, and we will continue to do that.

We will also continue to work with Graham and the other airports to look at the opportunities that have been presented by the Department for Transport fund that has been made available for regional connectivity throughout Europe. The House will know that there have been quite stringent guidelines in relation to helping airports develop their routes. This has been slightly relaxed, and we are looking forward to encouraging the airports and airlines to bid into that Department for Transport fund and try to bring some of that money to Northern Ireland.

Mr D McIlveen: I thank the Minister for her answers so far. She will, of course, not be surprised that I entirely support the Member of South Belfast's sentiments and his call for greater transatlantic connectivity. However, we would perhaps struggle to encourage direct connectivity to areas like China, India and Russia that we are seeking to do business with. Would the Minister support the proposed expansion of Heathrow Airport, and would she see it as having a long-term benefit to Northern Ireland's economy, as well as to the south-east of England?

Mrs Foster: I do think that the expansion of Heathrow will bring greater benefits for Northern Ireland because it is the hub for us in the UK; it is important for us. I welcome the fact that the British Airways flight from Belfast goes into terminal 5, because that allows easier connectivity for travellers. Indeed, I flew into terminal 5 for the first time last week since the changeover, and it was very smooth and easy, even if it was a point-to-point access to London. I have written to the airport's commission. Sir Howard Davies came over and met the Minister for Regional Development and me in 2013. I have written to him again to stress the importance of Northern Ireland's connectivity into that UK hub, because, of course, he is absolutely right to stress that we will not have a direct link into those onward international travel destinations, so we need to be able to access those in as easy a way as possible.

Dr McDonnell: I thank the Minister for her comments so far. I, too, recognise the importance of transatlantic flights. What recent discussions has she had, if any, with the British Government in London on reducing APD rates on short-haul flights? While long-haul flights are important, short-haul flights are doubly so, as a lot more people use them, and the cost of those flights is prohibitive in some cases.

Mrs Foster: I thank the Member for his question. He will, of course, know that the Executive were successful in devolving APD for long-haul flights. We have a zero rate for long-haul flights, so the flight to America does not attract any air passenger duty. I have had meetings with two airlines in the past two days, and each of them raised the issue of APD and the fact that it is a barrier to growth in UK markets. I say to them, as I say to you, that I absolutely support them in their campaign to have air passenger duty abolished across the United Kingdom, because it is having a disproportionate impact on regional airports outside London. London will always have the throughput of traffic, regardless of air passenger duty. However, it presents a problem for those of us in regional airports, and, therefore, we need to continue to push. I welcome the Member's support to continue to push against air passenger duty, and I will certainly raise it with the Government in future.

Mrs Foster: Ultimately, it will be for the Northern Ireland Executive to agree on what any new rate should be set at. The push for the devolution of corporation tax powers has tended to be viewed with a perceived move to a rate of 12·5%. As a result, discussions on the block grant adjustment for a reduced rate have also tended to focus on the public finance consequences of moving to a 12·5% rate. An even lower rate of corporation tax would require a bigger adjustment to public finances but would also be more attractive to investors.

Mr McGlone: Mo bhuíochas leis an Aire chomh maith. My thanks to the Minister as well. Given that the Minister had introduced the notion of the reduction to 10%, what costing was made around that as to what the further reduction might cost in monetary terms and its potential impact on the block grant as a consequence?

Mrs Foster: I am very pleased to hear that the Member thinks that I introduced the concept of a 10% rate. It was not me; I would like to take the credit for that, but it was not me who introduced it. That has been DUP party policy on the rate of corporation tax for quite some time, because we believe that we should undercut our nearest competitor instead of going to the same level as it. However, I am a realist, and I understand that the Executive take the decision on corporate tax. If you were to ask me where I think it will settle, I understand that it will settle in and around 12·5%. The lower rate, of course, would bring us more potential for jobs, but it would cost more to the public finances; there is no point in saying otherwise. That has to be taken into consideration as well. I believe that we will settle in and around 12·5%, but, of course, that is a matter for the Executive.

Mr Dunne: I think that it is right that we welcome the Minister back from her travels, where she was selling Northern Ireland to Dubai. I think that we all recognise the excellent work that she does and the energy and commitment that she puts into it. As there is no doubt that the rate of corporation tax will be an added incentive to attract new companies into Northern Ireland, does the Minister believe that companies will be attracted in advance of the rate being reduced?

Mrs Foster: Some of the work that has been carried out by the Northern Ireland Centre for Economic Policy points to the fact that we will see a benefit, albeit a small benefit, before the rate is reduced. That is because, once the rate has been settled by the Northern Ireland Executive and the date for implementation has been settled, Invest Northern Ireland will start competing for those new types of jobs. It may be the case that some of those companies might like to relocate or set up a new business in Northern Ireland before the rate kicks in. That is because business plans and investments are normally set two to three years in advance. We should have a clear view on which companies will come in that first year if we get out and start selling the rate and the date in the near future.

Mr Flanagan: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a freagraí go dtí seo. Is the Minister advocating a proposition similar to that of the Smith commission in Scotland, which talks about the local retention of any increased tax take as a result of a change in local policy on corporation tax?

Mrs Foster: Of course we are going to gain from the corporate tax take because we are paying for it through our block grant. We will gain the benefit from whatever increase in corporation tax we get. Obviously, there will be a cost initially, and that will not come all in one year. That cost will be tapered up to 2020. That is why we need to get out and start getting the benefits of a lower rate of corporation tax as soon as possible.

Mrs Overend: Does the Minister recognise that the issue is not just about matching or undercutting the Republic's rate? Rather, does the Minister agree that there is a need to ensure that Northern Ireland has a full basket of measures to accompany the lower rate of corporation tax, including a super-skilled workforce and a major expansion of A-grade office accommodation?

Mrs Foster: I thank the Member for her question. I have never indicated that it is corporate tax alone that will bring a more sustainable economy and give us the growth of 10% to 12% that we will believe will happen if we have a lower rate of corporation tax. That will only happen if we have the correct infrastructure in place, be that telecoms, hard infrastructure — road infrastructure, in other words — or the softer infrastructure that we need, by which I mean skills. We also need to have the appropriate messaging going out as well because we want to send out a very positive message about Northern Ireland as a place to invest in and to do business in. Whilst we have always had a very talented workforce here in Northern Ireland, as I said on many occasions, we now have the tax proposition as well, so we have tax and talent. We must concentrate on that messaging and get it out across the world.

Mrs Foster: Ultimately, it will be for the Northern Ireland Executive to agree on what any new rate should be set at. Research to date has focused on moving to a reduced rate of 12·5% and demonstrates the significant economic benefits that this can bring, not just in encouraging foreign investment but investment from local firms. An even lower rate of corporation tax would likely be more attractive to investors but would also require a bigger adjustment to the public finances.

Mr Attwood: In answer to the previous question, you rightly referred to the talent of our people in terms of their skills. That point was recognised last week by one of our entrepreneurs, who acknowledged that, because of the skills in Belfast, it has now become a digital capital. Does the Minister recognise that, on the far side of any reduction in corporation tax, there is a risk that regional imbalance will be compounded as businesses are attracted to Belfast because of the cluster of talent in Belfast, which may not exist in other parts of Northern Ireland? Do you recognise that as a risk that is proven by international experience, and will you outline how that risk might be mitigated?

Mrs Foster: I thank the Member for raising that issue. He will know that capital cities are always different to the regions. That is recognised in the Republic of Ireland and in the rest of the United Kingdom as well. He mentioned the risks about skills, which is why we must have strong further and higher education colleges across Northern Ireland and for them to be aware of their skills base, what they need to grow their skills base and how they can develop a unique selling point for their regional area.

I do not think that every regional area should go after the same types of job, because it will then become a race to the bottom. It is important, therefore, that everybody identifies their unique selling point. We are starting to have that discussion in the Executive subcommittee on regional opportunities, which has met for the first time. Since that meeting, I have had a very good engagement with Londonderry Chamber of Commerce and many other players in the north-west to try to find out what they feel their unique selling point is. I hope that that will be replicated around Northern Ireland so that we can have differences across Northern Ireland but strongly send out a message of talent and tax.

Mr G Robinson: I thank the Minister for her answers so far. Does she believe that we have sufficient skills in the Northern Ireland workforce, especially in my East Londonderry constituency, to attract more foreign direct investment into Northern Ireland?

Mrs Foster: Skills are vital to attracting high-value foreign direct investment. Our workforce is a key part of that and is what makes us a very successful story for foreign direct investment in the United Kingdom. Now that we have, or will have, corporation tax as a tool in our box, we need to further implement that tax and talent message. That will happen not just in East Londonderry but right across Northern Ireland.

It is a collaborative effort that needs to be taken on not just by Invest Northern Ireland but by other members of the Executive to look at the whole picture of what a constituency has to offer and to work with the super-councils. Invest Northern Ireland is now working more proactively with the new chief executives of the super-councils. It is certainly down to the fact that, for example, regional support initiatives are being devolved to the councils, so there will also be more economic powers for the councils. It is a collaborative effort, and I look forward to working with councils across Northern Ireland.

Ms Sugden: I did not intend to quote the Minister's response, but here goes. Does she agree that, along with corporation tax, Project Kelvin and the imminent enterprise zone will create a global unique selling point for Northern Ireland, which happens to be in my constituency in Coleraine?

Mrs Foster: Yes, and I hope that the lower rate of corporation tax will make local areas look at what they have to offer, how they can package that together and market it, and how they can make it better. The Member is right to mention Project Kelvin, because it is an absolutely fabulous story to tell, particularly to our American counterparts, so that they know that information can leave Northern Ireland and get to the east coast of America more quickly than it can go from the east coast to the west coast of America. That is a fabulous story, so I hope that that is the sort of collaborative thinking that will go on across Northern Ireland.

Mrs Foster: Invest Northern Ireland continues to support job creation, business growth and investment in North Antrim. Between 1 April 2011 and 30 March 2013, it made 661 offers of support to companies in North Antrim, offering £14 million of assistance, which contributed to total investment in the constituency of over £70 million. That has led to the promotion of 848 new jobs in the area. Invest collaborates with local stakeholders to review the features and benefits of North Antrim to maximise opportunities to secure additional jobs.

Mr McKay: I thank the Minister for her answer. Does she agree that Invest NI could do a lot better for North Antrim, especially in comparison with constituencies around Belfast? Will she also agree that, to arrest the decline, North Antrim and, indeed, Ballymena should be prioritised, given the jobs that have gone at the Patton Group and the jobs that will go at Gallaher. Does she agree that North Antrim needs to be a priority area for investment?

Mrs Foster: I hope that every area is a priority area for Invest Northern Ireland. Indeed, when the Member and other colleagues look at the figures for economic activity in their area, I implore them to look not just at the jobs created through foreign direct investment but at those created through local indigenous companies and, indeed, at start-ups in their own area. North Antrim has had a huge number of start-ups — 1,554 — over time. That is 178 indigenous start-ups per 10,000 of the population. That shows a very entrepreneurial spirit in North Antrim. The unemployment rate is one of the lower rates in Northern Ireland, sitting at 3·6%, as opposed to the Northern Ireland rate of 5·7%. So, I am sure that the Member will want to be positive about his constituency and what it has to offer.

Mr Allister: Can I quote the Minister some other figures that came from her in answer to Assembly questions? In the last five years, North Antrim has had eight foreign direct investment visits. In the latest figures, which are for 2014, North Antrim had one of the lowest levels of Invest NI contribution, at 1·9% of the whole of what was invested in Northern Ireland. In the last three years, North Antrim has had —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): Sorry, can the Member please come to a question?

Mr Allister: — 574 new jobs compared with 1,310 in the Minister's constituency. Why is she not playing fair by North Antrim?

Mrs Foster: Again, I say to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that Members need to look at the whole picture when they are looking at their own areas and should not pick out statistics that suit their negative agenda. It is disappointing that Members do not want to be positive about their own area, because when foreign direct investors look at an area, they look at what its representatives are saying about it. That is true not just for North Antrim but, indeed, for other areas in Northern Ireland. So, if a negativity is coming out of that particular area, they will know that the people are not pro-business, that they do not want to move ahead and that they are looking at the negative points in their constituency. The Member needs to look at all the statistics on North Antrim, not just some.

Mr Allister: Eight visits.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): Order, please. I remind Members on both sides and at the back of the House not to make remarks from a sedentary position.

Mr Frew: Whilst other representatives of North Antrim play the area down, I most certainly will play the area up. We have some great indigenous companies in North Antrim and throughout County Antrim, which benefits all our constituents. What is the Minister doing to help those companies to grow and to find new export markets?

Mrs Foster: I think that the emphasis should be on looking to those new export markets for our indigenous companies. That is why we spend a lot of our time looking for new markets and bringing companies through to new markets. Just today, SDC Trailers announced that it was doing significant business in Saudi Arabia. Whilst that is not a company from County Antrim, it is from not too far away. That is a very good pointer to other firms that they need to get out and to sell into those markets, because that brings jobs to the local area. I have seen that happen with Wrightbus, obviously, which is a stellar company in the Member's constituency. I have also seen it with Randox next door in South Antrim, which recently announced 540 new jobs for the area. That is not just for the town of Antrim, of course, although it will very much welcome it; it is for the wider area as well. So, there is some very good news about indigenous companies in Northern Ireland.

Mrs Foster: International events such as the Irish Open and Giro d'Italia attract large numbers of visitors, showcase Northern Ireland on a global stage and give us the opportunity to drive further visitor numbers through the positive perception that they create. Tourism Northern Ireland has successfully used major events to profile Northern Ireland as a visitor destination through award-winning marketing campaigns.

However, marketing and promotion is just one aspect. To grow visitor numbers and, more importantly, visitor spend, we need to ensure that we invest in the product offering, develop visitor-inspired experiences and increase the capacity and competitiveness of our tourism industry. These are key work streams for Tourism Northern Ireland, which will continue to successfully use global iconic events as a catalyst for tourism development and growth.

Mr Campbell: There is nothing like being prepared. The Minister will be aware that the Open is due to come to Royal Portrush in the next few years. Hopefully it will be a very successful event for all of Northern Ireland. Will she plan not just for the preparation for the Open, which I know is well under way, but for the success that would follow such a magnificent event?

Mrs Foster: Yes, absolutely. It is appropriate, when the Member asks me a question, that I mark today the passing of one of tourism's great ambassadors in Northern Ireland, Martin McCrossan. Let me pass on my deepest sympathy to Martin's wife Sharon and his family. He was a great ambassador in the Member's city and brought many tours around the city's walls. We will miss him dreadfully from tourism in Northern Ireland.

Work has already begun on the infrastructure for the Open. Indeed, some money is set aside in the budget this year for infrastructure works. That will continue, and then we will look to build on that. I hope that it is not a one-off, Mr Campbell. I hope that it is the start of our being on the rota for a good number of years. I have every confidence that Royal Portrush will be able to deliver that.

Mrs McKevitt: As the Minister well knows, when you are trying on an all-island basis to attract the likes of sporting tourism etc into areas, particularly around south Down, where a fine example will happen now in May, the lack of available bed space to attract major events is a huge problem. What will Invest NI do to try to open up investment to those who are looking to bring extra bed space to the likes of south Down in particular?

Mrs Foster: As the Member knows, Invest Northern Ireland deals with tourist accommodation grants. Of course, it is ready and willing to work with any private sector company that comes forward with a tourist accommodation programme. Unfortunately, there have not been any to date. I did notice that my ministerial colleague has been doing some work in and around Portrush on tourist accommodation. I have not had the opportunity to speak to him on whether he intends to look elsewhere as well. Maybe that is something that the Member would like to follow up with him.

Mrs Foster: The G8 summit provided Northern Ireland with the opportunity to reach a new and diverse global audience with an entirely new message about Northern Ireland and its people, landscape and economy. The benefits associated with an event such as the G8 summit are focused on the increased investment, tourism and trade opportunities that the global exposure might present.

Northern Ireland immediately capitalised on the exposure generated by the G8 summit by hosting a very successful investment conference in October 2013. I was also encouraged to note in the final evaluation report that 71% of the Northern Ireland tourism industry believe that the G8 will impact positively on the future growth of tourism in Northern Ireland.

Mr Elliott: I thank the Minister for that update. Prior to the G8's coming to Fermanagh, was the Minister given any assurances about improvements to mobile telecommunications? If so, was that borne out after the G8 was over?

Mrs Foster: We were given the assurance during the event that there would be the appropriate telecoms in place to deal with such a major event, because one thing that we wanted to ensure was that people did not leave the event feeling that they were in a backwater and were not able to use the telecoms there. That worked very well indeed, through BT and other providers. I have been somewhat disappointed by the level of infrastructure that was left after the G8 summit. I am hoping that the mobile infrastructure project, which of course is a national project, will enhance that coverage again. We will keep a very close eye on that project to ensure that it delivers for us.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): That ends the period for listed questions. We will now move on to topical questions.

Mrs Foster: I thank the Member for his question and for letting me know that he wanted to address this issue. It is important that I give the House an update on the broadband improvement project. The project is being delivered in eight phases with the objective of providing basic fixed-line broadband services of at least 2 megabits per second, in areas that previously have had no service, and improvements in the availability of superfast fixed-line broadband as well. By 31 December 2014, over 17,500 premises had benefited from the improvements being delivered. The project is on track to deliver benefits for 30,000 premises by 31 March this year, and we anticipate that in excess of 45,000 premises will have benefited by the completion, as of 31 December 2015. It has been a good intervention to try to help those people who have not, to date, been able to access the appropriate level of broadband support.

Mr Craig: I thank the Minister very much for that answer. The project has been very successful. I can testify that I have had a 148 fourfold increase in my own internet speed, so thank you Minister.

What impact does the Minister believe that this will have on rural businesses in particular?

Mr Wilson: We still use pigeons in east Antrim. [Laughter.]

Mr Craig: I am aware of five businesses in my locality that are now doing international business because of that connection. Do you feel that this will have a benefit for other businesses in other rural localities?

Mrs Foster: Such as east Antrim? Yes. Obviously, we pride ourselves on being able to do business across the world, but to be able to do that we have to have a presence online. I have been to many small businesses that are growing at a very fast rate and that is down to their telecoms infrastructure. When I talk about infrastructure and the need for good infrastructure across Northern Ireland, I do not just talk about roads infrastructure, although that is of course critical; I talk also about telecoms infrastructure, because it is important that we communicate with the rest of the world, and we are hoping that this will enable many businesses to do so.

Mrs Foster: Let me send my congratulations, first of all, to those behind 'Boogaloo and Graham'. From what I have seen of the two chickens, I very much want to see the rest of the film, which had such success at the BAFTA awards for best short film on Sunday. It was a tremendous endorsement of the creative industries here in Northern Ireland, and I understand that the short film has also been nominated for an Oscar at the Academy awards. Just today, we learn that Sixteen South, which is a Belfast-based animation company, has won a television award as well for its preschool children's series, 'Lily's Driftwood Bay'. It took the best preschool programme category in the American broadcast awards this week. So there has been a tremendous international endorsement of our creative industries in Northern Ireland.

Mr Spratt: I thank the Minister for that answer. Will you continue to work with the industry to make sure that there is continued success in that area?

Mrs Foster: Absolutely, because, of course, 'Boogaloo and Graham' was funded by Northern Ireland Screen. Invest Northern Ireland is the single largest funder of Northern Ireland Screen. The Member is probably aware of the fact that, last March, we launched the Opening Doors strategy for Northern Ireland Screen, and, through that, we intend to continue to grow our creative industries, for the sector itself and also for the tourism benefits that we receive from the creative sector. I will, of course, mention the impact of 'Game of Thrones' on the tourism sector. That continues to grow month on month, and I very much welcome that.

Mrs Foster: I am sorry to tell the Member that I do not have the total amount here, but I will, of course, write to him with the total amount that we have funded because, over my time, we have made a number of interventions in the telecoms infrastructure and the broadband infrastructure. I know that he is frustrated about some of the areas in East Antrim, but the Northern Ireland broadband infrastructure project will roll out across East Antrim as well. It may not be in the early stages of the project, but, as I indicated, there are eight phases to the project and, therefore, his area may be in a later stage.

Mr Wilson: When she is looking at how the programme will roll out in the future, will the Minister be cognisant that there are eight industrial areas in Northern Ireland — enterprise estates etc — that do not have access to fibre-optic broadband and, indeed, many rural industries and firms that do not have access and that that prevents their expansion? Will she ensure that BT gives some priority to those kinds of areas and activities?

Mrs Foster: I cannot force BT to acknowledge that because it is a commercial organisation, but, in the contract under which it operates for government funding, yes, we can certainly encourage it to look at those areas. The Member is right to mention the industrial parks, because we need to look at our industrial parks to make sure that we have the correct telecoms and roads infrastructure. Electricity infrastructure in our industrial parks is another area that I think we very much need to look at because — this is a big issue — if an area does not have the appropriate level of electricity supply, that can very much put somebody off investing in that area. We need to look at that, and I have been talking to Invest Northern Ireland about how we can bring all those issues together and try to address them.

Mrs Foster: Often through Members addressing me in the House in relation to their constituents reflecting that they do not have the appropriate level. We have come a long way with broadband in Northern Ireland. We are often held out as an exemplar region in the UK for how broadband has been rolled out. As we reach those harder-to-reach areas, it will become more and more difficult to provide the service that those people want. I had an instance in my constituency where a business was located very close to the motorway but, because it was attached to a different cabinet than the cabinet just up the road, it was not getting the appropriate speed. A re-engineering solution is often needed, specifically to ask BT which cabinet the customer is connected to. Again, I am happy to have any conversations or receive any representations in respect of that.

Mrs D Kelly: I welcome the Minister's commitment to hearing our concerns. Could she outline how the contract is monitored and whether or not any penalties are to be incurred by the successful contractor, which I believe is BT?

Mrs Foster: It has to provide the appropriate level of Internet speed to a certain number of houses. It is a black-and-white issue. It has to supply Internet speeds at that level. That is why I talked about figures in my answer to Mr Craig and outlined the number of houses and businesses that will be connected. That is how it is monitored. I can accept that the Member is frustrated about pockets in her constituency, but, as I say, I am happy to discuss those with her.

Mrs Foster: I believe that there is still room, as does the market. A number of developers are looking at hotel opportunities in the Belfast area. There are currently 29 hotels in the Belfast City Council area — there are probably more in greater Belfast — providing over 6,500 rooms. We would like to encourage more hotel space. Obviously, we have benefited from not having the over-provision that there was in the Republic of Ireland. That is good, because, now that we are in a more stable environment, we can have sustainable growth. I certainly hope that that is what is happening.

Mr Newton: Will the Minister confirm whether there is still general interest in the iconic building in which the Titanic was designed, known as the Harland and Wolff drawing offices, and whether there is potential to convert it into a hotel?

Mrs Foster: I understand that there is still potential and that an application has been made to the Heritage Lottery Fund for £5 million towards the restoration of the historic building and its conversion into a boutique hotel. Negotiations are under way with the private sector regarding the remainder of the money. That would really open up the building, because, unfortunately, it is accessible at the moment only as part of a walking tour or organised event. It would be marvellous to see that building opened up to the public so that we could benefit from the fabulous heritage and, indeed, architecture.

Mrs Foster: The chief executive was following up on a very successful visit that I made to the city a couple of weeks beforehand, when I met with business leaders. I was very impressed with their very positive approach to developing the region. They, of course, welcomed the fact that we had set up an Executive subcommittee to look at regional opportunities. It is going to be a good vehicle, not just for Invest Northern Ireland and my Department but for a number of other Departments, particularly when it comes to infrastructure and skills.

Mr McCartney: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as an fhreagra sin. I thank the Minister for her answer. We all recognise the importance of the ministerial subgroup. Does she believe that a subregional approach is the best way in which to tackle regional disparity?

Mrs Foster: The super-councils will provide us with an opportunity to look at the 11 parts of Northern Ireland and their plans. Obviously, how they wish to see their area develop economically will be part of their new community plans, and, because of that, there will be more collaboration with Invest Northern Ireland. I plead again with Members to work proactively with their council and Invest Northern Ireland to find a unique selling point for their area, which we can then sell across the world and use to bring in inward investors.

Mrs Foster: The trade mission was a hugely successful one. We had a number of companies out with us for Arab Health, which is a very large trade promotion from the health industry. We were also with Queen's University when it signed an important contract with Dubai Healthcare City that allows Queen's to develop the Dubai Healthcare City campus. That is going to be really fundamental for that area. We also took the opportunity to work with some other sectors, such as food and, as I already indicated, manufacturing, through SDC Trailers. It was a hugely successful trip, and I was very pleased with the number of people on it.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): I am afraid that time is up. We must now move on to questions to the Minister of the Environment.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): Questions 4, 10 and 15 have been withdrawn.

Mr Durkan (The Minister of the Environment): In December 2009, DOE published the 2009-15 'North Eastern River Basin Management Plan', which identifies where the water environment needs to be protected or improved, the time frame to make those improvements and how that can be achieved. As the first 2009-15 cycle is drawing to a close, a second cycle management plan will be published in December this year, and the draft is available on the DOE website.

The plan is implemented at a local level through a Lagan local management area action plan, which covers the Connswater, Knock and Loop rivers. Those rivers are contained in the Connswater river water body, which has been modified due to extensive flood-risk management. The water quality is classified as poor, and the objective is to improve it to moderate by 2021.

The Belfast and Lagan catchment stakeholder group provides a public forum for stakeholders, such as the East Belfast Partnership, to discuss water management issues and work in partnership with government agencies to address them. My officials have been involved with the partnership, Rivers Agency and Belfast City Council on improvements in the Victoria and Orangefield parks and on the Knock river, such as the realignment of the river channel, introducing natural meanders, bank projection and marginal planting to help to improve water quality. My Department is also working with Rivers Agency to help to ensure that the Connswater Community Greenway flood-alleviation scheme delivers maximum benefits to water quality.

I am pleased that, through my Department's challenge fund and support, the Connswater Community Greenway team and the Field Studies Council have been able to develop outdoor classroom materials for schools and community groups to access.

Mr Douglas: I thank the Minister for his answer and extend to him an invitation to visit the Connswater Community Greenway. I know that he tried to get there before, but there was bad weather. Does the Minister have any other measures planned to improve the water quality of the three rivers that he outlined?

Mr Durkan: I thank Mr Douglas for his question and supplementary. He is quite right: I intended to visit Mrs Wendy Langham, the programme manager of the East Belfast Partnership, last month, but the visit was cancelled due to snow. However, I will endeavour to get back out there as soon as it warms up a bit.

As for other measures that we have planned to improve water quality, my officials will continue to support the local communities by following up on and investigating pollution problems in the area. My officials will continue to liaise with the East Belfast Partnership to include the pollution hotline number on interpretive signage in the area. River catchment investigations will continue to be carried out by my officials to monitor the impact of agricultural practices and industrial discharges. Information leaflets have been distributed at events in East Belfast to help householders to improve the water quality in their area.

Mr Durkan: My Department determines planning applications for all renewable energy developments on a case-by-case basis against the provisions of planning policy statement 18 on renewable energy, its supplementary best practice guidance and all other material considerations. PPS 18 provides for the evaluation of all development that seeks to harness energy from renewables, including energy derived from solar. It aims to facilitate the siting of renewable energy generating facilities in appropriate locations in the built and natural environment.

The best practice guidance for PPS 18 also provides background information and guidance on active and thermal solar technology. I am aware of the benefits of solar energy. The sun is a natural energy source; it does not require the burning of fossil fuels and the associated air emissions. The energy produced from the sun does not deplete any natural resources. Therefore, it is considered to be environmentally friendly. Active solar photovoltaic technology can generate electricity from daylight. It can be freestanding, roof-mounted or used as a building material in its own right. My Department's policy and guidance ensures that, while the wider environmental, economic and social benefits of renewable energy developments will be given significant weight in determining whether planning permission should be granted, the environmental, landscape, visual and amenity impacts associated with such developments also need to be assessed.

I am aware that large-scale solar energy development is a matter of growing concern and it is my intention to ensure that the final strategic planning policy statement (SPPS) provides an appropriate level of strategic direction in relation to solar energy development.

I have also recently instructed officials to prepare practice notes for planning staff in relation to the handling of renewable energy proposals, including wind and solar developments. That will greatly assist in dealing with these proposals.

Mr Allister: Does the Minister, therefore, accept that PPS 18 is not fit for purpose when it comes to dealing with large-scale solar farm applications such as the intended 250-acre application at Kells? In light of that, and the fact that he speaks of the need for further guidance, would it not be appropriate now to impose a moratorium on considering such applications until an adequate policy is in place?

Mr Durkan: I thank the Member for the question and the supplementary. The application to which he refers is, to my knowledge, not yet an application. We have, however, received indications of a forthcoming application. When or if it arrives, it will be assessed by my Department using PPS 18 or its successor in the SPPS. My Department is currently finalising the strategic planning policy statement for Northern Ireland, which seeks to shape clear and concise planning policy, setting out the purpose of planning and core principles for the new two-tier reformed planning system.

As I said in my initial answer, large-scale solar energy development is a matter of growing concern, and I intend to provide an appropriate level of strategic direction for solar energy in the final SPPS. Hopefully, that will be published within the next six weeks. It remains my intention to finalise the SPPS, as I said, in the very near future. As I have also previously indicated, I have instructed officials to prepare practice notes for planning staff in relation to the handling of solar energy proposals.

Mr McGlone: Go raibh math agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Mo bhuíochas leis an Aire chomh maith as a fhreagraí go dtí seo. Can the Minister give us any indication as to the time frame for the Minister's review and the production of the SPPS? Can he also tell us if measures are going to be built into it around renewables and the context of how policy may apply in protected areas or areas of outstanding natural beauty?

Mr Durkan: As I already outlined, it is my intention to finalise the SPPS prior to the transfer of functions in April. We have most of the work done. There are still bits of it that need tweaked — in my opinion, improved — and one of those areas is around PPS 18. Of course, the issues that the Member raises around sensitive and special landscapes are taken very seriously by my Department. That will be reflected in the final SPPS in how we deal with current applications on renewable energy and how councils will be expected to deal with renewable energy applications in the future.

Ms Lo: As the Minister knows, most renewable energy comes from wind turbines. What measures is he taking to encourage alternative sources so that there is a mix of different renewable energy potentials?

Mr Durkan: I thank the Chair of the Committee for her question. She is quite right to identify that the majority of our renewable energy comes from wind. Currently, of the energy produced in Northern Ireland, 19·6% comes from renewable sources, and the vast majority of that is from wind. As for what I am doing as Minister of the Environment to encourage alternative sources, I believe that I can do that through planning policy and guidance. While we encourage, and we all should embrace, renewable technology, it is vital that, in planning policy statements and guidance issued by my officials and me, we protect the natural environment as well as recognising the wider environmental and economic benefits of renewable energy.
Incentives are offered by another Department for various renewable energy initiatives, and questions as to exactly how that is done would probably be better directed towards Minister Foster.

Mr McKay: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I speak as a supporter of solar energy; however, there is a remarkable lack of regulation for these applications. There are applications in the system for Rasharkin, and there is a forthcoming application for Kells as well. Can the Minister give an assurance that they will not be considered under PPS 18 alone, and will the views of the residents in those areas be fed into the publications that you will put out in the next six weeks?

Mr Durkan: I would like to think that the views of residents, objectors and stakeholders across the North have already been factored into the SPPS; it was subject to extensive consultation and attracted over 700 responses. Of the applications to which the Member refers, one has been made, and the other is yet to arrive. I know that the Member had sought a meeting with me on that project, which I was not able to grant, given that there is no existing application. However, if an application comes in I will be more than happy to meet the Member and, indeed, the local people whose concerns he believes should be taken on board. As well as visual amenity impacts and landscape issues, the views of objectors and supporters are all material considerations when dealing with any planning application. Planning applications for renewable energy are no different in that regard.

Mr Frew: As one who sees the potential of solar farms, particularly on an industrial scale, I want to know whether the Minister is assured that there is expertise in his Department and the Planning Service to deal with these applications. Can he tell the House that there will be specific measures in the new SPPS on proximity to homes and a measurement for that? In addition, has he done any calculations on what large-scale solar farms will mean for the bills that industry has to pay?

Mr Durkan: I thank the Member for his questions and welcome his support for solar energy. The issues that he raises, such as separation distances and so forth will, obviously, be incorporated as they are currently for wind energy. People in the Chamber and outside it have different views on whether the separation distances enshrined in that policy are sufficient. However, the SPPS has given us an opportunity to review those matters, and we will have to wait and see what the outcome of those deliberations is in the next six weeks. I am hopeful that my answers on this subject have shed some light on the issue, and I look forward to discussing it further upon the publication of the SPPS. The issues raised by Members today will be taken on board in the finalisation of that document.

Mr Durkan: A series of training events was rolled out across councils from early September 2014 to late January 2015. The sessions covered an overview of planning for councillors; development plans and working with the community; practical planning and propriety; and outcomes for the code of conduct. The training was facilitated and delivered by senior planning staff, staff from other Departments and outside bodies, including the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, and representatives from other jurisdictions with knowledge and experience of similar planning systems. The training programme was developed to help to prepare those attending to understand the new planning system, the processes involved in making planning decisions, and the need to comply with ethical standards.

At a local level, the Department continues to work closely with the new councils to provide training and guidance through, for example, working with the shadow planning committees or facilitating mock planning committee meetings, which planning staff and councillors have attended.

The area planning managers are also taking responsibility for preparing, training and educating their staff for the change. Ongoing training for planners on the new two-tier planning system will continue to be delivered over the coming months to ensure that all involved in the new system have the necessary skills and competence to ensure the system is delivered effectively from day 1. Locally, each new council has developed a training plan and has been allocated £100,000 to meet the needs identified in that plan. That will provide training to cover new councillor induction and governance arrangements as well as organisational design.

As well as the training given by councils and planning headquarters, regional training continues, covering areas such as community planning, via a contract with Community Places, and the new councillor code of conduct. Funding has also supported community planning workshops for all stakeholders involved in the process. Added to that, funding has been made available for developing a communications strategy in preparation for the transfer.

Ms Boyle: Go raibh maith agat. I thank the Minister for his answer. Can he outline how councillors are being trained and skilled to specifically address issues of flexibility that may or will affect rural councillors and will apply to rural councils when adjudicating on applications from non-farming dwellers?

Mr Durkan: I thank the Member for the question and the supplementary. Obviously, there will be different needs in different council areas and for different councillors. Until now, the training has focused on the core ethics of planning and the basic knowledge that councillors, particularly those on the planning committees, will require to discharge their new responsibilities.

I am very aware of the issue that Ms Boyle raised. I notice that Mr McElduff is sat beside her; he probably gave her a kick to ask about non-farming dwellers. Flexibility will be afforded to councils in the formation and formulation of their new local development plans so that they can reflect very specific local needs in those final plans.

Mr Campbell: How confident is the Minister that a level of maturity exists within the local councils to reach planning decisions that will affect the entire community? I ask that, given the level of immaturity that has been displayed in some councils in trying to arrive at the name of the council. I am particularly thinking of the nationalist councillors who seem to 100% oppose unionism in Londonderry and Strabane, and in one or two other councils.

Mr Durkan: I very much welcome a question on immaturity from an expert on it. [Laughter.]

I am confident that, through the guidance issued by my Department, the ongoing training — training that I am sure councils will be willing to continue after the transfer of functions — and through the establishment of and adherence to the code of conduct, the councillors will adhere to that and make their planning judgements based on planning policy and planning guidance. Should they not, they will be leaving themselves open to legal challenge.

I do not anticipate the transition being easy. As someone who has recently enough made the transition from lobbying on planning issues to making planning decisions, I recognise that a huge degree of growing up is required.

Mr Kinahan: I thank the Minister for his answers so far. I imagine that he is not satisfied with how all the training is going, because in the comments we are getting from councillors, particularly about DETI and DSD, there is concern that little powers are being transferred because there is little contact between those Departments and the councillors. Will the Minister work with his Executive colleagues to make sure that more training happens and that it is all up to scratch?

Mr Durkan: I thank the Member for the question, which is very pertinent. A lot of focus has been on planning as a transferring function, but there are other functions that are transferring. Last week, I chaired the second meeting of the partnership panel, which allows for political discussion between elected members of the 11 new councils and Ministers.

They had and will continue to have a lot of questions on other transferring functions, one of which is the transfer of off-street car parking. In a lot of instances, the councils are not overly enamoured with the funding that comes with that function. From a DOE perspective, however, I have ring-fenced the planning budget to transfer with that function, so it has not been subject to the cuts imposed throughout the year in monitoring rounds and budgetary cuts and has actually had a detrimental effect on the rest of my departmental spend.

DRD is transferring. DETI is transferring an important function in local economic development and tourism, and I believe that councillors also require further training in that field. However, the best training that anyone can get for any job is to do it. I have every confidence that what councillors do not know on 1 April, they will not be long finding out.

Mr Durkan: As Members will be aware, my predecessor secured a commitment from the Executive of £30 million for a rates convergence scheme specifically to alleviate the impact on ratepayers who would have experienced a sudden increase in their rates as a result of the formation of the 11 new councils. In addition, my officials have been working closely with colleagues in DFP and local government to ensure that the immediate impact on ratepayers as a result of reform will be minimised. Last November, the Minister of Finance and Personnel announced the details of the scheme, which will provide direct support to domestic and non-domestic ratepayers who would otherwise have faced sudden and excessive increases in their rates bills because of the current differences between the rates set by the existing councils. It will be phased in over the next four-year term of the councils, with an 80% reduction in the increased portion of the next year's bills, followed by subsidies of 60%, 40% and 20% in the remaining years of the scheme. Upwards of 200,000 ratepayers will benefit, with discounts automatically applied.

Mr Elliott: I thank the Minister for that update. Has he any recent information or has he received an update on the difference between Fermanagh and Omagh councils? If so, does he have any idea how much finance will go into that area out of the £30 million this year?

Mr Durkan: I wonder did the Member wonder whether I had any further information since he asked me that during my last Question Time.

The rates convergence scheme will address only the increases in rates bills that are a direct result of the creation of the new, larger councils. Over the years, differences have built up in the district rates chargeable by Fermanagh District Council and Omagh District Council. The district rates chargeable by Omagh District Council have, as the Member is well aware, been higher than for Fermanagh District Council.

By the use of the funding increments that I outlined of 80%, 60%, 40% and 20% over the next four financial years, the rates convergence scheme is expected to benefit 30,000 Fermanagh ratepayers whose bills may experience a slight increase as a result of merging with Omagh council. In real terms, that will translate into a discount of £40 or £50 off their rates bills.

Mr Flanagan: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a fhreagra. I thank the Minister for his answers. Will he indicate when ratepayers in Fermanagh will know their final rates bill, given that the district rate has not yet been set and the Executive have not set their regional rate, so ratepayers will have to wait for the convergence fund to be rolled out? Does he have any indicative time when people will know exactly how much they will pay?

Mr Durkan: I thank the Member for that question. I am not sure when the councils intend to strike their rate. However, I have furnished them with any information that I can to allow them to do so before the 15 February deadline that is statutorily imposed on and expected from all councils. I have, therefore, told them what they will get from my Department by way of the rates support grant. It is regrettable that that has had to be cut by 15·1% this year. Again, that is an issue that quite a few council representatives on the partnership panel raised.

The striking of the regional rate is clearly an issue for the Minister of Finance and Personnel, but it is vital that we move quickly so that people can have that certainty as early as possible.

Mr A Maginness: Will the Minister indicate the impact of rates convergence and reductions in rates support for Derry City and Strabane District Council, given the brutal reduction in the Department of the Environment's funding?

Mr Durkan: I thank the Member for that question. I recently met and, indeed, regularly meet representatives of that immaturely named council. At my most recent meeting with them, they raised the impact of the revaluation of non-domestic properties, as well as rates convergence and the rates support grant that will be payable to Derry and Strabane in the next financial year. Subsequently, at my request, the council sent me a detailed case study setting out the specific details. There is a real anomaly in that area due to the rates revaluation that has seen a huge hike in Strabane's non-residential rates. That matter was also raised with the Finance Minister at the partnership panel meeting last week, and I believe that he is meeting a deputation from that council this afternoon.

As the revaluation of non-domestic properties and rates convergence are rating policy issues, I have written to the Finance Minister asking him to consider the details that the council has raised. I indicated to him that I would be receptive to any constructive proposals that he may have to resolve the matter.

Given the financial pressures that my Department faces — I know that, as a member of the Environment Committee, the Member is well aware of them — including a pressure of an estimated £3 million in payment of the de-rating grant, it has not been possible to protect the rates support grant from cuts. Therefore, the budget for rates support has been reduced to £15·5 million this year. That means that Derry and Strabane will be getting just over £3 million in real terms, but that is a reduction of over half a million pounds from what they were getting last year.

Mr Durkan: My Department has lead responsibility, working with our road safety partners, including the Department for Regional Development and the PSNI, for Northern Ireland’s road safety strategy to 2020. Action measures in the strategy for motorcyclist safety include establishing a motorcycle safety forum comprising representatives of relevant public-sector organisations and groups representing motorcyclists; researching the conspicuity and visibility of motorcyclists; improvements to training and awareness techniques; and consideration of technology to help improve safety.

I can report that my Department has convened the motorcycle safety forum, which is now working on the development of a motorcycling safety strategy. I am confident that, working with other statutory agencies and the motorcycling groups, we can make significant progress to address this important road safety issue. Action measures relevant to motorcycle safety that have already been implemented include compulsory basic training for new riders. Staged testing for new motorcycle riders dependent on their age was also implemented as part of the third EU directive on driver licences.

My Department is acutely aware of the rise in motorcyclist fatalities in recent years. There were four motorcyclist deaths in 2012, which is the lowest figure on record. Since then, there has been an increase, with 10 motorcyclists killed in 2013, rising to 13 riders and one pillion passenger last year. In the light of that increase, I commissioned a statistical review to determine early areas of intervention to address casualty levels. In addition, my Department commissioned research to support decisions on early interventions to improve motorcyclist safety. A range of possible interventions was explored. The outcome of the research was that campaign advertising, as an early intervention, was the best way to address the issue. I have therefore commissioned a new motorcylists' safety campaign.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): I am afraid, Mrs Cochrane, that we do not have time for a supplementary. We need to move on to topical questions.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Member for his question. We are blessed across the North to have so many beautiful beaches, and it is incumbent on us all to do what we can to keep them beautiful and, in many cases, make them more beautiful. Regarding the designation to which the Member referred, I am not sure why that is the case. I am personally familiar with the beautiful beaches of the Member's constituency, and I will establish the rationale behind those designations and why more awards have not been made in south Down. I am happy to meet the Member at a later date — or a sooner date — to discuss that with relevant officials.

Mr Hazzard: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his response. Of course, one reason why bathing status has not been granted is the unacceptable situation that raw sewage is still being pumped into some of the waters, especially around Ballyhornan. It is an indictment of the Department of the Environment that, in 2015, in a tourism-heavy area such as south Down, only one beach out of dozens on the Lecale coastline has that EU status. I would like to see a project of work from the Department of the Environment to bring this subject forward. Will the Minister be willing to do that?

Mr Durkan: I thank the Member for that supplementary. I am certainly prepared to do anything, as I said, to improve the standard of beaches and bathing water, not only in south Down but across the North. I am, indeed, aware of the issues regarding water quality to which the Member referred. My Department has been working on the issue. We have been working with many other partners, not least DRD and Northern Ireland Water, which have quite a bit to answer for regarding water quality or lack thereof in some of the areas to which the Member referred.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Member for his question. Having sat on the Social Development Committee with the Member for a couple of years, I am sure that he will be aware that I share his passion for social housing provision. The planning system, as the Member is aware, does not deliver social housing, which is largely a matter for DSD, the Housing Executive, the various housing associations and others. However, the planning system can assist by allocating land for social housing and development plans and by taking decisions on planning applications having regard to existing planning policy, such as Planning Policy Statement 12, 'Housing in Settlements'.

The Member has raised before the fact that he would like to have seen in, for example, the Belfast metropolitan area plan (BMAP), more land zoned for social housing. At that time, I referred to the fact that just because land is not specifically zoned for social housing but is zoned for general housing does not mean that it cannot or will not be used, ultimately, for social housing. If an application for social housing were to come forward on any of those zoned areas, it would be treated just the same as an application for general housing on those areas. It is our belief that, in BMAP, there is sufficient zoning for social housing, albeit that I am well aware of the demand for social housing, not least in the Member's constituency. It is a demand that is shared by my constituency.

Mr F McCann: I thank the Minister for his response. He will know that my constituency has the worst housing waiting list: over 3,000 people are waiting for housing. Hostels in and around the general Belfast area are packed with people from that constituency. It has the highest number of pensioners and young people waiting for houses, but it is continually squeezed by the lack of land.

It is a matter of urgency that the Minister and the Minister for Social Development sit down and look at ways —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): Will the Member come to a question?

Mr F McCann: — of bringing more land into use in that constituency. The Matthew stopline that was drawn up 30 years ago has been moved and no longer exists. I ask the Minister to consider that and move towards doing something about it.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Member for the supplementary question. I am well aware of the demand for social housing and the needs of those who require it. The Member referred to the need for more land to be zoned to address the problem. However, given that, in the Department's opinion, sufficient land is zoned, we would very much welcome and love to see further housing applications for the land that is already zoned.

Given the huge demand and need in the Member's area, I am sure that he will be pleased to know that, this morning, I issued an approval for a social housing scheme on the Glen Road in west Belfast. That scheme had been held up due to technical difficulties in the planning system.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Member for that question. I was delighted to be made aware of that fund, which is being run through the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF). I directed that a press release go out from me, as Environment Minister, to encourage people to take it up and at least to make them aware that the fund existed, particularly given the constraints on my budget and the fact that, in the last few months, I have been able to do so little on built heritage and its preservation, protection and promotion. I very much value all our built heritage, and we are blessed, if you pardon the terminology, to have so many places of worship that tick those heritage boxes. If the Member feels that we could or should do more to promote the scheme and encourage more applicants, I would be happy to hear his suggestions for how we should do that.

Mr Moutray: I thank the Minister for his response and appreciate that he has sent out a press release to encourage places of worship to avail themselves of the fund. Through his Department, will he look at ways of being more proactive so that churches can avail themselves of the fund, especially as many churches do not want to take money directly from the lottery fund?

Mr Durkan: I will certainly explore the options that are open to me and my Department to maximise the drawdown from the fund. I have alluded to the constraints on my budget and what we can do on built heritage, so I very much see that grant as an opportunity to supplement what we are doing, what we are trying to do and what we want to do. If the Member has any specific churches in mind, I would be happy to meet them to see what we can facilitate, even if that means the funding going through my Department to the church or churches in question.

Mr Durkan: Narrow Water Keep and, indeed, Dundrum Castle are two of over 190 monuments in state care that are managed by the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) on behalf of my Department. My Department has spent over £45,000 on the maintenance of the historic fabric of Narrow Water Keep since 2012, and I am committed to improving the presentation of the structure for its many visitors. That will not be easy as that particular building suffers from water ingress, possibly as the result of bomb damage in the past. My officials are investigating that issue and have been trialling solutions. The NIEA craft workforce plans to undertake a comprehensive grouting regime to the core of the walls, should the trials prove that that is required.

It will be a challenge to retain the opening of both those buildings and, indeed, other sites in the area, as it is challenging at present. NIEA officers met local councillors and council officials from Newry and Mourne District Council in December to discuss the opening of Narrow Water Keep in particular. The meeting considered the potential for working in partnership to open the site. My officials are continuing that positive dialogue with the aim of a proactive arrangement for opening and improved access in 2015 and beyond.

Mrs McKevitt: Will the Minister give his commitment to engage with the local stakeholders and the council on this?

Mr Durkan: I believe that local engagement is vital. To that effect, I have instructed my officials to explore new and different ways to develop increased access opportunities at all of our heritage sites. As I said, I believe that local engagement is the key to the partnerships that we require for the future at sites like Narrow Water Keep, Dundrum Castle and so many others across the North. Officials are keen to work with local stakeholders and community groups and to enlist support from local authorities in particular. Current partnerships with other local authorities, such as Derry, Fermanagh and Cookstown, exemplify how positive and beneficial for the local heritage that can be. I have asked the agency to progress with urgency the positive steps that it has begun with Newry and Mourne to deliver a secure and sustainable future for Narrow Water Keep and other sites in the area to increase its contribution to the area's heritage tourism potential.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Member for his question. I am aware of the Member's keen interest in road safety. I know that we will be debating his private Member's Bill next week on 20 mph speed limits in residential areas.

The Member quite rightly identifies the effectiveness of television advertising in promoting road safety and driving down the number of collisions that result in fatalities and serious injuries on our roads. However, it is with great regret that, due to budgetary constraints, the amount that we will be able to spend on that will be dramatically reduced this year.

Last year, £1·8 million was spent on television advertising. All the evidence is there to show that television advertising has proved to be very effective and has a huge impact on the viewer. However, this year, my discretionary spend across the Department is somewhere in the region of £1·5 million, which is less than we actually spent on road safety advertising last year. Therefore, it is imperative that we look at more creative ways of spending that money. I certainly will not be forgoing the television route altogether, but it is important that we are more creative in how we use that money and we continue to support television advertising with enhanced education programmes, better use of social media and enhanced work with our road safety partners, both in other statutory agencies and in the PSNI, and also in the voluntary and community sector, where we have very good working relationships with the likes of the GAA and the Ulster Farmers' Union.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): I call Mr Ramsey for a very quick supplementary question.

Mr Ramsey: Given that there has been a low level of deaths on our roads this year, what other efforts is your Department making to try to reduce speed in residential areas and city centres where there are fatalities and serious injuries?

Mr Durkan: Last year actually saw an increase in road deaths. Fortunately, although it is very early this year, the awful start that we had to last year has not been mirrored. However, from the fatalities last year, we can see that speed remains the biggest single causation factor of fatalities on our roads, and, therefore, it is often at the centre of our advertising and information campaigns reminding people of the need to kill their speed before they kill someone.

Dr McDonnell: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for me to make a profound apology for my absence last week when I had a question down? I got tied up in an earlier meeting. I was not attentive enough to the clock and did not realise. I offer my profound apologies to you and the rest of the House.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): The Member's apology is noted, and I thank him for it.

Mrs Cameron: Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, it must be the time for apologies. May I apologise through you for missing my question yesterday to the Minister for Employment and Learning? I had taken ill yesterday afternoon.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): Again, The Member's apology is on the record and is very much appreciated. Members will take their ease while we change the Table.

Mr P Robinson: At the beginning, I should point out that I speak as leader of the party, as opposed to speaking in my capacity as First Minister. My colleague and good friend the Minister for Social Development will deal with all the Executive's issues relating to the Bill.

It is important at this stage to register the fact that the Assembly has much to be thankful for, in that we have reached the point at which this Bill can be brought before Members, hopefully for approval. Since the Ulster Unionist Party and the Conservative Party went forward in the 2010 election on a policy of cutting expenditure in Northern Ireland as elsewhere, and as they jointly went forward with a manifesto commitment that they would take an axe to welfare in the United Kingdom as a whole, it left those of us in government here and those of us in the Assembly with a conundrum: the desire to ensure that we did the very best that we could for those who are in need and genuinely require support on welfare issues and, at the same time, being able to provide the public services that are necessary in the context of the Budget that was constrained by the Ulster Unionist Party and Tory commitment to cut public spending.

That was the conundrum that we faced, and it was recognised, I think at an early stage, that, if we were to go off and set up our own welfare system, that would be massively costly and would take money away from areas in which it really could be beneficial. I do not want to go into what happened over that two-year period, although, if I were to do so, it would be much to the praise of my colleagues on how they handled the matter. It is sufficient to say that, when we got to the tail end of last year, some serious negotiations took place on how we would take this matter forward. In that context, it is worth pointing out that, at the end of last year, there were two agreements. There is the one that is publicly known and that people can go back to and find if they google it, and that is the Stormont House Agreement. However, there was a second agreement, and that agreement was the Stormont Castle agreement. That was an agreement reached by the five Executive parties, dealing with a wide range of financial issues, including a commitment to agree a Budget and issues relating to the reduction in the size of the public-service payroll. It dealt with matters such as corporation tax and, importantly, issues relating to welfare reform.

All five parties signed up to that. Not only did they sign up to the Stormont Castle agreement but the party leaders went down to meet the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and sold it to her as the way forward. That included, incidentally, a pitch for further funds and more flexibility.

After the Stormont House Agreement, some parties reserved their position in some way, but there was no reserving of position on the Stormont Castle agreement amongst the five Executive parties. All agreed to the specifics of welfare reform. We did that after very detailed discussions about how each element of change would be made and how much it would cost.

Mr Allister: Will the Member give way?

Mr P Robinson: I will, yes, happily.

Mr Allister: Will the Member clarify something? He refers to the Stormont Castle agreement. How does that compare on welfare with the agreement that the First Minister told us several months ago that he had previously reached with the deputy First Minister? Will he shed some light on that? Will he also shed some light on the claim from Sinn Féin that the agreement now reached amounts to £565 million over six years? Is that correct?

Mr P Robinson: Uncharacteristically, the Member is being mischievous. I am not in the business of rubbing anybody's nose in it or scoring party points on those issues. The architecture is exactly the same: it is the GB system plus enhancements. That is what we proposed 18 months to two years ago, and that is the outcome of the agreement that we now have. In the agreement that we offered 18 months to two years ago, we had a sum of money in addition to removing bedroom tax that we were prepared to look at in terms of how we could have enhancements. The Stormont Castle agreement defined how that money should be spent and looked at the individual areas where improvements could be made.

I do not have the paper with the overall figure in front of me, but there is no particular secrecy about the amounts, although anybody looking at the figures should be cautious, in that, unlike many other areas of government spending, welfare payments depend on those who apply. It is a demand-led cost, and, therefore, you can never be too accurate about what the cost may be.

DSD previously indicated that the cost would go up from £13 million to £87 million to £114 million in the next financial year. It then moved to £250 million and to over £370 million in the following year. Those would have been our penalties for moving away from the GB system. We have what roughly comes out as an average cost of £90 million a year over that six-year period, but many of us are hopeful that that will be reduced to an average of £70 million because, in my view, the bedroom tax issue will have to be resolved at a UK level, and there would be a saving of over £20 million to Northern Ireland if that came about.

I offer those figures only for openness. They do not particularly relate to the issue that I want to address, which arises out of the comments made by Mr Beggs. Regrettably, the Member obviously thought that he was on such weak ground that he was not prepared to give way. There are conventions, which are generally recognised in debating Chambers, that a Member should give way to someone on the Front Bench, but he chose not to because he recognised that he would have difficulty responding to any point made to him. It was noticeable that, when my friend, the Member for East Antrim Mr Wilson, asked him to give way on a different issue later, he was happy to do so, but he was not willing to give way on this issue because he recognised the weakness of his case.

It is particularly disturbing that someone who has responsibility as a Deputy Speaker in the House clearly does not understand — that is the best interpretation that I can put on it — the rules of the House on petitions of concern. I will come to that in a moment, but I think it is perhaps important, in the context of this group of amendments, that we understand the nature of the issues discussed yesterday at the implementation leaders group about the outcome of today's debate.

When we agreed at Stormont Castle a range of issues in relation to welfare and the cost that would be imposed, the Finance Minister, quite rightly, went off and prepared his Budget based on that. It was a Budget that was accepted by the Executive and which is now going through its various processes in the House. So, we have now set in stone, as it were, what the expenditure will be on each area of government.

For welfare issues, the cost for us in the next financial year is already set up in the Budget. Therefore, any changes that any Member brings forward by way of an amendment that have a cost attached to them will either not be fully implemented because of the lack of funds to do so or they will take money away from welfare payments elsewhere — or maybe somebody wants to take money out of the health service, the education service or elsewhere.

If Members stand up and put forward an amendment that costs money, as some of these amendments in this set do, they have a duty to tell us how much it is going to cost, because, presumably, nobody would be so rash as to bring forward an amendment on an issue like this without having it costed. I am sure that they have gone to officials in the Department and said, "Look, here is the amendment that we want to push. What will the cost be if that were to be implemented and how would it be paid for?" I hope that someone from the Ulster Unionist Benches or the SDLP Benches —

Mr Agnew: Will the Member give way?

Mr P Robinson: I will give way; just let me finish this sentence. I hope that someone from the Ulster Unionist Benches or the SDLP Benches who have put down these amendments will be able to tell us, at a later stage, precisely how much their amendments are going to cost and how they are going to be paid for.

Mr Agnew: I thank the Member for giving way. The Member outlined that the Stormont Castle agreement detailed how the top-up payments would be spent and what areas of welfare they would cover. To the best of my knowledge, that has not been made public. When Members come forward with amendments, we may well come forward with the top-ups proposed in the Stormont Castle agreement, but without sight of them, we cannot make that judgement. Will the Stormont Castle agreement be published?

Mr P Robinson: I completely forgive the Member. I do not expect him to be held by any of the agreements reached by five parties around the table that he was not a party to. He and other Members who were not party to that agreement will want to put forward amendments and improve the agreement.

I am not simply saying that we did an agreement at the end of last year and that, therefore, nothing but that agreement can go through this House. If there were improvements to be made, it was up to each of the parties to bring whatever improvements they thought could be made to the implementation body that was set up with all the leaders present in it and see whether they could get agreement from the other leaders around the table.

That was done, and, surprisingly, it was done by the Ulster Unionist Party. It had six amendments that it wanted to make to the Bill. Regarding the remarks made by the Member for East Antrim Mr Beggs, I will give him the benefit of the doubt and say that perhaps somebody wrote his speech. I noticed that he was reading, so I suspect that somebody wrote his speech and that he was reading out the research of somebody else. If he had actually read what he was going to say beforehand, he would know that it was inaccurate. I am sure that he, as a Deputy Speaker, read the petition of concern that went into the Speaker's Office, and I am sure that he saw that the two Ulster Unionist amendments — amendment Nos 34 and 35 — were not included in the petition of concern, yet he told the House that we had a petition of concern to block all amendments, which was not the case. We had agreed at the —

Mr Beggs: Will the Member give way?

Mr P Robinson: I will give the Member a bit more to answer to and then I will give way to him.

The leader of his party came forward with six amendments that were agreed during yesterday's meeting of the implementation group, in the full spirit of what I would have expected from him and from the Ulster Unionist Party that they would have the two amendments brought forward, which the rest of the group — the other four parties — agreed with and agreed that we would go through the Lobbies in support of, if it is necessary to do so if they are not agreed on a voice call, and that we would support those two amendments.

He considered the other four amendments that they had put down to be probing amendments, and I think that he is right. It is a strategy that is often used in other debating chambers where Members want to pin the Minister down to putting something in Hansard on how an issue will be handled. These were probing amendments on which the Minister was quite happy to give a satisfactory explanation, and he made that clear at yesterday's meeting. On that basis, the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party indicated that the party would withdraw or not move its amendment depending on where it was situated in a group.

All the issues raised by the Ulster Unionist Party were dealt with. I just cannot understand how a petition of concern affects that in any way, because a petition of concern that included an amendment that was going to be withdrawn or not moved would have no impact. If you do not have a vote on it, the petition of concern is not relevant. The two issues on which there was five-party agreement on the change are not included in the petition of concern, and therefore the comments that he made were totally inaccurate. I will give way to the honourable Member.

Mr Beggs: 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?

Mr P Robinson: No: I would not accept that that is what the Member was doing. I was here listening to the Member berate these Benches for being undemocratic and putting down a petition of concern against all the amendments. If the Member reads Hansard, he will see it.

Let us explore his argument that somehow each Member should be free to decide for himself what the outcome of any amendment should be . If we carried that to its logical conclusion, we would not have an agreement. My colleagues are asked to go through the Lobbies on things that, in short, they would prefer not to go through the Lobbies on — not on this Bill so much, but on other aspects of the Stormont House Agreement. The whole thing about an agreement is that you agree to give a bit in one area to take a lot in another. That is what agreement is about. If you put forward a proposition that somehow you have a Stormont House Agreement and then you have a free-for-all in the Assembly, you will not have an agreement. Who told us that best of all? Who was the one who spelled that out for us all? It was none other than the leader of his party.

He will remember — if he does not remember, I will remind him — that his leader berated Sinn Féin, the SDLP and everybody else and said that this is not a case of renegotiating these matters: if you try to renegotiate, it will unravel. Does the Member remember what his leader said? That is exactly what would happen if we put the agreement out for a free-for-all in the Assembly. What we are here to do is to honour the agreement that we reached with the other parties at Stormont Castle and later endorsed at Stormont House. I trust that the Member will be man enough to admit that his remarks were inaccurate and that it was nonsensical of him to put forward the free-for-all argument because you simply would not have an agreement.
I remind him that the consequences of not having this agreement are twofold. Number one is that it was tied in directly to the devolution of corporation tax. We had to get the Budget and welfare reform resolved. If one were to listen to the Member and some of his party on television, one would hear them claim to be in the vanguard and the promoters of corporation tax. Mind you, I can recall the leader of their party telling us that we had to move on to plan B and that corporation tax power was not coming to the devolved institution. That is what we were told. Here, very clearly, anybody who would vote against the Budget or welfare reform is voting against the introduction of corporation tax-setting powers for Northern Ireland.

The second impact that it would have is this: if Members cast their mind back to the period before the Stormont House negotiations, they will recall that this Assembly was going down. Make no mistake about it: the disagreements were such that they could not be resolved, and the financial cost of welfare would have been at such a level that we could not have sustained an Executive because such a significant sum of money would be being taken away from key front-line services.

Some Members might want to sit back — I perhaps direct this more at the SDLP than I do at others — and, à la carte, go through the Stormont House Agreement, saying, "We will have a bit of that, not so much of that and maybe a bit more of that would be nice". However, that is not the way that you honourably implement an agreement. Of course, if you are a smaller party and your votes are not required to get a majority from both sections of our community in the Lobbies, you can have that luxury of pretending to be in opposition when you know that nothing will come from your words. The truth of it is this: if people genuinely want to move forward in Northern Ireland, it is important that this legislation goes through; that parties uphold the agreements that all of us reached at Stormont Castle; and that we move forward on that basis, because, if I ever have to sit down to negotiate again, I will look at the people I am negotiating with on the basis of whether they delivered on the last occasion and whether they were prepared to implement the last agreement that we reached. I trust that Members take that seriously, even if they have their fling today by putting forward amendments. I hope that, when the final votes are taken, we will have all Members going through the Lobbies in support of this legislation and, hopefully, therefore, bolstering the position that we have with this Assembly.

I say to the SDLP that, for this set of amendments, I think that the Minister made a very powerful argument yesterday that, in terms of data protection and the flexibility that departmental guidance gives, it is a much better to go forward rather than the Minister having to work around rigid legislation. It does not obviate the need for them to stand up, argue their case and press the Minister as to whether he is going to deal with various issues.

I say to the Member who is now talking to his colleague that I have no difficulty in supporting that kind of Committee, though it is not a matter for this legislation. You do not set up an Assembly Committee through DSD legislation. I have no difficulty in having continual monitoring and observation of how the welfare reform proposals are working out, and that will inform any future decisions that we have to take. However, that is a matter for the Assembly, not one for this debate or legislation.

I hope that, when my colleague indicates, as he no doubt will, that the various amendments that are down in this category can be better dealt with in a different manner, Members will accept that, keep to the agreements that they reached, be honourable Members of the Assembly and stick to the deal that they have done.

Mr Attwood: I will start by touching on the last point of the DUP leader's contribution; it will be the first point in mine. We have had this conversation with the Minister, and it remains our approach that, based upon some of that conversation, and subject to him saying what I think he is minded to say in respect of some of the amendments, it may be that my party will not move some of them. There may be a second category of amendments that — if the Minister shows some better authority over the next number of hours, either to accept our amendments or indicate what might come forward at Further Consideration Stage or otherwise — we might not move.

However, there will be a third category of amendments, Mr Speaker. In passing, I congratulate you on your elevation. I am probably the last Member in the House to do so. However, I congratulate you, despite my concerns about how all that happened. Putting that aside, I think that, thus far, you have demonstrated good authority in your role and in your commitment to upholding the standards of the previous Speaker.

There will be a third category of amendments that I anticipate that we will not agree on, regardless of the Minister's words or reassurances, if any are forthcoming. We will adopt that approach, and we will do so because we are paid and elected to be Members of a legislative Assembly. That was denied to many generations of democrats in this part of Ireland over many's a long year, and we are all the worse because of the fact that a democratic Chamber did not exist here to answer the needs of our people.

Today, we are Members of a legislative Assembly. We are not Members of a limp Assembly, and that difference has to inform the debate. We are MLAs, and I hope that all of us in the Chamber live up to that standard today. We need to guard it jealously because what we secured in the institutions of the Good Friday Agreement and other agreements were won through hard democratic struggle and negotiation. We should value them at all times, not least given the circumstances around welfare and the ambitions of this Tory Government and the next Tory Government, if they are re-elected. We have to send out a message today to our people that this is not a theatre, a talking shop or a limp Assembly; it is a legislative Assembly, and nobody has the right to usurp the authority of any party or any Member.

Mr Speaker, when I heard that the DUP had tabled the petitions of concerns, I wondered whether it was Northern Ireland's GUBU moment. You and other Members will remember that acronym from politics elsewhere on this island. I concluded that it was not a GUBU moment but that what the DUP had chosen to do was just unbelievable and unprecedented. Whilst the First Minister — the DUP leader — is correct to say that not every amendment was petitioned, virtually every amendment was petitioned. It is unprecedented in the life of the Assembly for that sort of weapon to be deployed against that scale and volume of amendments.

A Member: Thanks for giving it to us.

Mr Attwood: From the Back Benches and from a sedentary position, the Member says, "Thanks for giving it to us." That is how they view the legislative authority of the Assembly. They think, "Thanks for giving Back-Bench DUP Members the power to block not just one or two amendments but to block virtually all the amendments". What state is Northern Ireland regional democracy in when a party thinks, "Thanks for giving it to us" about the power to ride a coach and horses through amendment after amendment? That is why it is unprecedented, although I note what the DUP leader said in his last remarks about where the debate might yet go and, as a consequence, I travel with a little bit more hope. Never before in the life of the Chamber has there been such a swingeing attempt through petitions of concern to shut down what might be good law for the people of this part of the world.

Mr Agnew: Will the Member give way?

Mr Attwood: I will.

Mr Agnew: Does the Member agree that the measure of a party is not the power that it has but how it uses it?

Mr Attwood: Even if the likes of us are reduced, First Minister and DUP leader, to what you indicated was — how did you refer to it? — a free-for-all or something of that nature, we are at least trying to live up to the democratic authority that the people gave to the Assembly when it was endorsed in the Good Friday Agreement, rather than deploying a weapon relentlessly against amendment after amendment after amendment.

Mr McKinney: Will the Member give way?

Mr Attwood: Yes.

Mr McKinney: Given the DUP's propensity for dotting i's and crossing t's, will the Member care to speculate what would have happened had the shoe been on the other foot?

Mr Attwood: I would like to think that it would have been different.

Some Members: Driving licences.

Mr Attwood: Let me confirm, because it seems to have been missed, that the decision on the driving licence was mine. I know that you have visited all that misery on my successor, but it was my decision. I did not believe that, in the context we were in at that time in this part of the world, a flag that size on a UK named driving licence was a proportionate response in the difficult politics that we would have expected.

Putting that aside, the unbelievable part of what the DUP has done in respect of the petitions of concern is that we have spent two years — all Members are right about this — getting to this point, and we owe it to those who have made representations to us, lobbied us, argued for mitigation and travelled this long journey with us. I think that it is unbelievable to them that petitions of concern would be deployed in this swingeing way. I normally do not play the man; I normally try to play the ball. I see that the DUP leader's speech was very much about playing the man, but, if I were to make a comment in that regard, it would be that, around 6.00 pm or 7.00 pm last night, Peter Robinson threw his toys out of the pram and did not even keep hold of his rattle. Let me make this absolutely clear. Although he might not agree with this, it seems to me that, even in his comments, the DUP leader is beginning to pull back from some of the contentions that he has made heretofore. He said:

I think he is right. Let me make this absolutely clear on behalf of the SDLP: the notion that the only amendments that can be moved on this Floor are those agreed as part of the Stormont negotiations in Room 106 in a corner of the Building is ludicrous and unacceptable. We will not live by that principle — I am coming to the Bill.

Mr Speaker: I am sure you are. I recognise and you will recognise that I have given you some latitude. You were responding to previous comments, which is fair enough. Today in the Assembly, we have certain agreed procedures. That may change in the future, but every petition of concern and every amendment was legitimate. They were compatible and in compliance with the arrangements that we have agreed at this time. It is time that we discussed the detail of the Bill, and that, for me, is about the present and the future. Possibly enough has been said about the past.

Mr Attwood: Can I just make this closing remark on that contribution? It is on the past. Members will know that one of our many points of dispute with the outcomes of the Stormont negotiations was the proposals on the past. The most acute of those was the proposal on how we should deal with themes, policies and practices of the past. We do not agree with the Stormont House Agreement on that. In our view, the vested interests in terror organisations and state organisations prevailed at Stormont House, ensuring that very little will happen on a proper interrogation of themes, policies and practices from the past, which are part of the narrative of the present and the future. That is our view.

The notion is that we can say to victims and survivors, individually or organisationally, that, if we cannot get a group of four people up in that room to agree to amendments in respect of that issue before it comes to the Chamber, we will just have to swallow it. We will not say that to victims and survivors, individually or organisationally.

Mr Humphrey: I am grateful to the Member for giving way. Having listened intently to what the leader of my party said and to what he has just said — his leader is sitting behind him — I ask the Member whether he is in the business of implementing the Stormont House Agreement. Does he distance himself from what my leader said about what his leader agreed to in relation to the Stormont Castle proposals?

Mr Attwood: The answer to that is the answer that we have given every time: we will implement, as fully and faithfully as we can, that which is strong in the Stormont negotiations. We will try to correct and rectify that which is less strong.

Mr Speaker: On that basis, can we return, please, to the Consideration Stage of the Welfare Reform Bill?

Mr Attwood: Somebody once demanded the right to dissent because there was much to dissent from. It seems that that maxim has been forgotten in our politics, even though generations who served this community well demanded the right to dissent because there was much to dissent from and were far the better for it.

In response to the comments made by the representative of the Alliance Party — this takes us back to the amendments, Mr Speaker —

Mr Speaker: I have already invited you twice to move on. I do not want to have to do it for a third time.

Mr Attwood: I am coming back to the core of the amendments. It is probably best to explain to the House that our amendments try to develop thinking and practice around three themes, some of which were touched on by the leader of the DUP in his concluding remarks. People in the welfare world — I concur with many of them — believe that, if the Tories are re-elected, universal credit will fall flat on its face. George Osborne, as Chancellor, will say, "Why have we spent all this time and money on failed IT in order to deliver a universal credit system that doesn't do what it's meant to do?". For the Tories and the high Tories in government in London, it is meant to reduce welfare baselines and increase penalties. That informs our amendments. They are about trying to protect the claimant on their journey through the system so that they are maxed out in terms of their benefit entitlement and so that, when it comes to penalties, they are minimised in that journey and all that is subject to appropriate oversight. Those are the themes that run through all of this.

We should caution ourselves when it comes to the amendments in group 1 and thereafter — this is where I am now going to talk directly to those amendments. Mr Dickson's opening remarks were that this was all scaremongering — he referred to much of this as scaremongering. I recommend that Mr Dickson and anybody else who has the time spends a little time reviewing the evidence that has emerged in respect of the roll-out of universal credit over not the last two years, 18 months or 12 months but the last five weeks. A Select Committee of the House of Commons has been taking evidence in respect of what is happening with welfare reform. Anybody who reads any of that would have to conclude that those who say to the House, to welfare claimants and to welfare organisations that this is scaremongering should hang their head in shame. They should read the Hansard record of what is happening at the Select Committee in London.

Matthew Oakley is the independent reviewer for sanctions appointed by DWP; he is DWP's man. He said to the Select Committee in the opening week of January this year that it would be wise for the Government to undertake a general stocktake of the system in view of the extent to which it has changed over the past two Parliaments. Their own insider is telling people, "Would you go off and have another look at it?". The weight of evidence is coming from people working in welfare offices, who are beginning to talk about how pressure is being applied to them to reach targets in order to impose penalties. Consider the fallout in terms of people who are disappearing out of the welfare system because the journey is too difficult for them and the penalties are too harsh, to the point that no one knows where they are going and so on. That is not scaremongering; that, Mr Dickson, is evidence to the House of Commons Select Committee, not just from individuals within the welfare system or from an insider who is employed by DWP to give best advice but even from those who are managing people in work programmes. They are all saying it.

Mr Wilson: Will the Member give way?

Mr Attwood: I will in a second, Mr Wilson.

The point is that, if that is what a Select Committee has been hearing at Westminster every week over the last number of weeks, should we not take time this week to apply our minds to anticipate the harshness of what will follow if the Tories are re-elected in further penalties, further punitive measures, further collapse of the benefit cap and so on?

Mr Wilson: Will the Member also accept that the other side of that evidence is that 50% of people who had languished on long-term unemployment, with all the consequences that that has for their income, families and everything else, are now being placed in work? That is the positive side of the changes.

Mr Attwood: I do not dispute that. I was implicitly criticised by one of the Sinn Féin Members this morning for being the Minister who brought in some welfare reform.

Mr F McCann: Sanctions.

Mr Attwood: Yes, that is right. I went off and read the debate over lunchtime. I urge you to read that debate as well and see everything that I put down in my commentary both on that welfare Bill in June 2010 and in the statement that I made to the House in November 2010 in respect — [Interruption.]

Let me deal with it. We do not dispute, Mr Wilson, that there is a need to simplify the welfare system and to intensify working with claimants in order to maximise their skills and job opportunities. You do not get any dispute on that, but do not pretend to me that that is what London is doing.

Six years on, the reputation of universal credit is in tatters. The integration of the six working-age benefits into universal credit is far behind schedule, with tens of millions of pounds of IT investment already written off and much more to come. The National Audit Office verdict has been damning, describing:

Ministers and civil servants have come in for severe criticism. External experts, many of whom supported the principles behind universal credit, are unsure whether the system can ever be made to work, even several years later. That is one commentary from an expert in welfare reform. I could read out — I will not — multiple ones, because you want me to get back to the Bill. The question is this: if that is the narrative and if this is a crash that the Tories fail to recognise — except, I think, the Chancellor — do we not owe it to everybody to take time today to get some more of this right? If we do not, we will repent at leisure as we see the full scale of what London intends to propose.

I turn to the amendments. I do not intend to make many comments about them, except to highlight a number of themes. I say to the Minister — I have had the conversation with him already — and to Mr Robinson that, if it had been left to me, you would not have known the scale of amendments that we would have had on the Table this morning and this afternoon. We were actually quite measured in that we recognised that there were cost consequences of amendments from us and other people to the point that, if you actually look at our amendments, you will see that very few of them have significant cost consequences. That is our view.

We tried to craft them in a different way, based on maximising support for the claimant, minimising penalties and maximising oversight on the far side of the claimant journey.

If we could just go to that point, that is why —

Mr Givan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Attwood: I will give way in a second. That is why we have put in a reference to the Department having:

The issue of mental ill health is a theme that is tracked through three or four of our amendments. We would say to the Minister that if he accepts that the profile of mental health in the North is as acute as it is — one in 10 of our people are on disability benefit and it is one in five in Britain — and if you are going to protect those people and those in the welfare system who are conducting the interviews and making the assessments, then one way of protecting everybody is to say to them, "You have a statutory responsibility to look at the issues of skills, experience, caring responsibilities and physical and mental ill health" and to say it to your own staff and for Mr O'Reilly to say it to his staff.

I know a lot of those staff. I apologise; I should not have mentioned an official, although I mentioned him positively. I apologise and withdraw that name. I was in the Minister's seat once, although only for a year. When I heard about people beating up on Social Security Agency (SSA) staff because they were off sick with stress, I remember what I said to some of the people who came out with that claim at that time. These people were on the front line with people in need, some of whom were going to be belligerent, and they needed our protection. They need to be protected, and if DWP starts looking over here to set targets and impose penalties and punishments on claimants, we need to protect our staff from the heavy hand from London.

If you want evidence to corroborate that argument, who would have thought a number of years ago that, when it came to welfare reform, London would suddenly decide that it was going to impose all these penalties to the point that Theresa Villiers was unable to answer the question as to why the penalties were £87 million at that time? If you want corroboration, look at the questions that Mark Durkan MP offered last week in London to a Treasury Minister at the Committee that is dealing with the Corporation Tax Bill. The Minister would not commit himself to say that he would not use the heavy hand of London again in order to ensure that, in the context of the devolution of corporation tax, we had a balanced Budget and a sustainable basis for the Budget. Go and read what a London Treasury Minister said or did not say to Mark Durkan MP in a House Committee just a week ago.

Let us not be naive. If London can, London will try to impose its will on our system. The best way of ensuring that it does not is to put into our law the protections for our staff and for our claimants that, in our view, would arise from having due regard for the claimant's skills, experience, caring responsibilities and physical and mental ill health.

It seems a long time ago now, but when we were negotiating the issue of the Police Ombudsman and trying to convince Maurice Hayes to go for a maximum position in relation to that post, Seamus Mallon made the point — it was not me, I was just in the margins — at a meeting in Cambridge, in September of whatever year it was, at the British-Irish Association conference, that a good system of police complaints was a sword against those who were on the wrong side of good practice and a shield for those who were on the right side of good practice. It is the exact same now. We can protect our claimants and our staff in the event that London should come seeking —

Mr P Robinson: Will the Member give way?

Mr Attwood: I will in a second.

Over and above all that, in the roll-out of universal credit, when it comes to assessments, including those of mental health, without giving any increased priority to due regard of mental health, there should be recognition of it as an issue that affects a lot of our claimants, in order to ensure that our staff in the SSA do all that they can when it comes to the assessments to make sure that that matter is taken into account.

Mr P Robinson: I am grateful to the Member for giving way. Will he explain to the House the narrative that us placing something in legislation puts some onus, responsibility or obligation on the United Kingdom Government not to touch us? It is a nonsense. If we put something in legislation, the only people who will be under an obligation will be those on the Executive here in Northern Ireland. Nobody else.

Mr Attwood: How do you send, Mr Robinson, a message to London that says, "Hands off our welfare system"?

Mr P Robinson: Pick up the telephone.

Mr Attwood: Oh, right. I was in the Social Security Agency — sorry, DSD — and one of my observations from my one year there was that, too often, DSD was more an outreach for DWP than it was the Department for Social Development of the Northern Ireland Executive. Let us not be naive about this: DWP is the shadow over all of DSD and the SSA. Although I have immense respect for our staff, the leadership and the management, including in children's services, where there are some extremely committed people, let us be very clear: we know to our cost how London tries to impose its will and will not face up to the particular circumstances in Northern Ireland. Is that not what the penalties are about? Is that not what London's failure to enter into negotiations in Stormont was about? The message was, "You will stand and deliver", and on the far side of the election there will be more "stand and deliver" if the Tories get re-elected. Why do we build maximum protections into our law? We do so because we need to legislate to ensure that we do it right here and to send a message to London that we are not going to do it in the way that it might choose.

If you accept the logic of Mr Robinson's argument, we should just put everything in guidance. Any advice that we are giving to the Social Security Agency, the child support sector and all the rest should just be put in guidance by that logic. We put it in the place of maximum protection, which is in primary law, not the primary law in the regulations. If the Minister can reassure on some of that later, we may be minded to not move some of our amendments.

I also want to deal with the thinking behind amendment No 13, which tries to broaden the provisions for domestic violence and incidents motivated by hate. The issue of incidents motivated by hate has an immense public profile, and it has had it over the past number of days. Look at the disgraceful attack on the Kingsmills memorial and other incidents. It has been a narrative over the past period. I say this without trying to open up another debate, but if you speak to people from the Rainbow Project, they will say that, because of recent publicity around certain issues of discrimination or alleged discrimination, there has been increased instances of attacks on people from the LGBT community.

Hate in our society is something that we need to try to broaden our thinking on, and that is the purpose of the amendment. We tried to draft a form of words, and I know that, at one stage, Sinn Féin tried to draft a form of words for how that provision might work, and it is very difficult. That is why we asked the Minister to put forward regulations to capture more than domestic violence and to be informed by the police and prosecuting authorities on what is the right shape in regulations for the issue of hate and how that is managed through the welfare system.

I move on to deal with amendment No 53. This is a moment in our history when we can send out messages of deep authority to sectors of our community that, for various reasons, are vulnerable. That is true of the provision that we proposed on hate and the provisions in new clause 130C, "Impact of Regulations on Victims and Survivors". This is another clause that we struggled to define in the best possible way because this is a contentious issue, and there are matters of dispute with definition. That is why we left it in the way that it is drafted so that, in consultation with the Victims' Commission, provisions could be put forward.

I believe that there is no dispute in the Chamber on the requirement to try to legislate or provide for victims and survivors in the best possible way. Let us take the opportunity to do that in the Bill and in that way send out a message to all sectors that, for whatever reasons, feel or are vulnerable, we will provide welfare protections.

I understand that Mr Ramsey will speak on amendment No 17, which is about bringing forward an independent living fund structure. The Minister will know that Scotland has an equivalent fund. On a cross-departmental basis, Scotland gathered £5·5 million of its devolved moneys, in addition to any moneys from London, to try to shape and work up an equivalent of an independent living fund. I ask the Minister to confirm whether the current provisions run out in 18 months. If so, what will happen, on the far side of that, to the independent living fund?

Mr Allister: This debate, particularly the spectrum that it has taken since 2012-13 to get to this point, is commentary in itself on the dysfunctional arrangements of this place. That a matter such as this, costing us money in the meantime, should and could have been dragged out in all those ways surprises even me.

Then we come to today's debate. From the First Minister's intervention, we discover that the House is being asked to debate at Consideration Stage a Bill that is far from the whole story. There are other, secret aspects, it seems, yet to be revealed. How and when? Further Consideration Stage? Regulations further down the road? Who knows?

The one thing that we now know — and others may well have known it more fully than me — is that there was the Stormont Castle agreement. Mr Agnew asked the First Minister if he would now publish the Stormont Castle agreement. He did not get an answer. Here we are debating the minutiae of the Welfare Reform Bill —

Mr P Robinson: Will the Member give way?

Mr Allister: Certainly.

Mr P Robinson: The only reason that the Member did not get an answer is that, if you have an agreement that is a five-party agreement, no one party can decide for itself that it is going to publish it. I am very happy that it is published, but you need the agreement of all five parties.

Mr Allister: The import of that is that it was a secret agreement between the parties that they were going to keep secret and that, to break the secrecy, we now have to get the consent of all the participants to the secret pact. There is the challenge to each of the five parties. I will give way to each one of them in turn if they wish to say on the public record to the First Minister that they have no objection to the publication of the secret Stormont Castle deal. I wait. I am inferring — perhaps I infer too much — that the First Minister was giving his consent to the publication.

Mr P Robinson: Yes.

Mr Allister: Right, so there is one. Four —

Mr Beggs: Will the Member give way?

Mr Allister: Yes.

Mr Beggs: I am all for open and transparent government.

Mr Allister: That is two. I am listening. I would like this on the record if it were possible.

Mr Dickson: Will the Member give way?

Mr Allister: Yes.

Mr Dickson: The Alliance Party is delighted to do so. We are fully supportive of open and transparent government.

Mr Allister: Three. We are doing very well.

Mrs D Kelly: Will the Member give way?

Mr Allister: Yes, I will certainly give way.

Mr Dickson: Will the Member give way before Mrs Kelly intervenes?

Mr Allister: Yes.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: I remind Members to address their remarks through the Chair.

Mr Dickson: While I appreciate the point that is being made, which was helpfully led off by the First Minister, we are tempting to run into a farce here again. This is a serious Bill that requires a serious debate.

Mr Allister: I agree entirely. I started on this point: how can we have serious debate if there is secrecy around some overarching deal that impacts on the Bill itself? I think that Mrs Kelly wanted to come in.

Mrs D Kelly: Our party has no difficulty. We are struggling to understand what was the secret deal. One secret deal that we are interested in, Mr Allister, is the one between Sinn Féin and the DUP, which has led to the departure of several senior members of Sinn Féin.

Mr Allister: Perhaps we will come to that. I must say that I am pleased that we have got to the point of four of the secret conspirators in the Stormont Castle deal agreeing to lift the veil of secrecy. It is noticeable that all that I am getting from the Sinn Féin Benches are blank stares. It seems that there is a reticence about taking off the wrappers from the secret deal. I wait, and I think that the silence is compelling.

Mr O'Dowd: There it is.

Mr Allister: I will give way to Mr O'Dowd if that is his request.

Mr O'Dowd: Mr Allister is looking for secret documents. Here it is here; there it is there. Read it, discuss it, debate it. That is your secret deal there.

Mr Allister: I think that what Mr O'Dowd was holding up was the Bill. Is he saying that the Welfare Reform Bill is the secret deal? Is this not the Welfare Reform Bill that was published two-and-a-half years ago? How could it be the secret deal to which the First Minister was referring? Perhaps the First Minister needs to explain to the House something more about the secret deal, or is Mr O'Dowd simply trying to avoid the issue? He certainly cannot say that the Bill is the secret deal.

If the Bill is what he calls the secret deal, there was no deal, because it predates the so-called Stormont Castle agreement by years. What is one to make of this? What is the public to make of it? What are we, as MLAs, to make of it? Four parties say that there was a secret deal that they are happy now to make unsecret, and one party says that there was not even a deal. Is that the truth, is there the hope and expectation, but, really, in truth, welfare reform is not sorted at all? Is that why it is cloaked in such mystery? Is that why it is information tomorrow, down the road in regulation? Is that because, in truth, there is not a deal? Is that why the First Minister was not really able to deal with the question of whether or not Sinn Féin is right when it says that the cheque that will have to be written out of the block grant is £565 million over six years? Is that why the First Minister was not able to be explicit and say whether that is right or not? Is it because this deal has not, even yet, been pulled together? It really is very discomfiting to find the First Minister, supported by three other parties, agreeing that there was a deal called the Stormont Castle agreement, while one of the supposedly participating parties apparently denies that.

Where do we stand on the Bill? Why is the House being asked to legislate in the dark? Are those unreasonable questions? I would have thought not. Is that the reason why we had the petitions of concern? I read amendment No 1 again this morning, which states:

I must say that I had the mischievous thought that maybe the petition of concern was all about one member of a couple giving cover to the other because they could not quite agree. The more this debate has unfolded, the more startling it appears to be in that regard.

There are then multiple issues on which any light has yet be shed. We have been told by some in the media about this £565 million. We have been told that no cap is to be applied to large numbers of people on benefits, and we know that 6,600 people get in excess of £26,000 a year in benefits. We know that that is a bill of £203·5 million: these are the Minister's figures. We know that the average received by families in excess of a cap is £30,500, which equates to a working person earning something like £40,000/£45,000. Yet 6,600 families in Northern Ireland receive, on average, benefits of that magnitude.

One of the motivations of welfare reform, regardless of what one thinks about it — whether good, bad or indifferent — was to encourage people into work, and one has to ask, if we are in a society and a situation where we are paying thousands of families in excess of an average of more than £30,000 a year in benefits, how do we ever hope to rebalance our economy? Yet, it seems that there are those in the House whose primary goal is to sustain that, to keep those people at the level to which they have become accustomed, and to do it out of the block grant. That is the really concerning part of where this welfare reform is going.

Mr Wilson: Will you give way?

Mr Allister: When I finish this point. Apparently, out of the money for schools, health and all that, we will sustain something that Sinn Féin boasts will be £565 million over the next few years. They seem to be saying that we will do that in perpetuity and for new claimants as well as old claimants. Yet, time and again, we are told that the Executive has an economically driven vision to rebalance the economy. There is a collision course there that has not been reconciled. I will give way.

Mr Wilson: Does the Member accept that, even in the GB legislation, there are exemptions from the cap; for example, for those who have severe disabilities etc. So, the idea that, somehow or other, people in Northern Ireland should be beyond the cap is not a defect in the Bill. It partly reflects what is happening in the legislation for the United Kingdom as a whole.

Mr Allister: I accept that entirely. In GB, not everyone will be capped at £26,000, because there are component benefits that do not count towards the cap. However, while there are 6,600 families in Northern Ireland who are above the present cap — there will be 12,000 if it drops to £23,000 — we have yet to hear the detail of the number of those families who will and will not be subject to a cap. One thing that is certain is that — it is not in the Bill; the cap is in the Bill — it appears that the agreement is that a number of those people will be exempted from the cap. That must be coming in regulations, but the House is not being told about that. Will the Minister tell us that the cap will apply per se in Northern Ireland? I do not think that he will.

Mr Wilson: Will you give way again?

Mr Allister: Yes.

Mr Wilson: As he always does, the Member is trying to build a case that there is something wrong with everything that goes through the House. Would he accept that, on most occasions, primary legislation goes through the House and regulations follow? That is the normal process of legislation here or, indeed, at Westminster.

Mr Allister: The difference is that we are at Consideration Stage and no light has been shed upon what the regulations will contain. I sit on the Committee for Social Development, and the officials were before us no later than yesterday. They told us that none of it had yet been agreed and that it has all still to be thrashed out and agreed at Executive level. We are going into a Consideration Stage and the officials nor no one else, least of all the MLAs, have any notion of what the regulations will contain.

Yes, it is a natural process to have subordinate legislation under primary legislation, but I suggest that it is unnatural that, when you are legislating through the primary legislation, there is such a blank canvas about what will be in the regulations. It takes one back to the question and the burning issue of just what is being put upon the Northern Ireland taxpayer and the Northern Ireland that is dependent on the block grant, and how much of the block grant will be soaked up in meeting what were the demands of Sinn Féin.

It is not so very long ago that the First Minister and other Ministers told us that there was no more money and that they had done the best that they could. It now seems that there is an unspecified amount of money in the future, and the only thing that we know about it is where it will come from. It will come from where it can least afford to come from: the block grant. That is what is frightening about those unspecified welfare reform arrangements.

In that context, it is interesting to debate all the amendments, but we are doing so largely in the dark. I think that the House is owed a more straightforward approach.

I trust that, when the Minister comes to speak, he will do that. I suspect that he will not because he cannot, given that, in truth, nothing has been agreed with Sinn Féin, who say that there is not even a Stormont Castle agreement.

Mr O'Dowd: Thank you, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on the Welfare Reform Bill. When the Assembly was reconstituted in May 2007, I doubt whether many could have forecast that, with all the pressures that may have been bearing down on the political agreement at that time from various forces, including armed forces on the outside of the agreement and political division within certain political elements, inside and outside the Assembly, the one matter that would bring the Assembly to the verge of collapse would be welfare reform. I doubt whether any Member or political observer at the time would have forecast that, but that is the case. Coupled with British Government economic policy, the matter that brought the Executive and the Assembly closest to collapse was welfare reform. That is the context in which this debate is taking place: the Stormont House Agreement that led to today's debate and to the continuation of the elected institutions.

Members should not forget that the agreement that was reached in Stormont House and the political agreement that flowed from it covers a number of areas, but the most important element is this: after two years of a breakdown of political relationships across the Chamber, across the Executive table and, indeed, in society, trust was reformed among the political parties. Political parties reached a position whereby, through word and deed, they were going to ensure that the matters of concern to them and to society would be dealt with in a mature political fashion through agreement, legislation and a commitment to work more closely together than they had previously. It is quite clear that the reputation of the Assembly pre-Christmas 2014 was in tatters in our ability to work together, to bring forward legislation and, most importantly of all, to deliver on the ground and to make positive changes in people's lives, which is the primary reason why this institution was established. That is why, therefore, it is vital that the political parties that signed up to the five-party agreement honour that agreement. They need to reflect on why they entered into those negotiations and why they were necessary in the first place. Today, we are debating the Bill's Consideration Stage, and the first group of amendments, which I am speaking to, all flow from that. You cannot draw the curtain on your mind on 23 December and say, "The negotiations that led up to the agreement are all history and have nothing to do with the implementation of the agreement".

Ms Ruane: I thank the Member for taking my intervention. I will deal with the issue raised by Mr Allister. Our party is quite happy for the five-party agreement made on 19 December to be made public. Furthermore, the agreement that was signed by four parties, which did not include Sinn Féin, was deficient in a number of areas, and we also believe that it should be published.

Mr O'Dowd: I thank the Member for that intervention, and I —

Mr Allister: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Dowd: Yes.

Mr Allister: I welcome the clearance from wherever it came. I notice that Ms Ruane pulled rank on Mr O'Dowd, but one welcomes that. One now looks forward to the agreement that, a few minutes ago, was supposed to be this, which it patently was not, and seeing what it actually is.

Mr O'Dowd: I do not mind rank being pulled on me at all.

Ms Ruane: We believe in equality.

Mr O'Dowd: Yes. Towards the end of my contribution, I will return to your comments. Nothing that Ms Ruane has said contradicts what I have said, and I will elaborate on that towards the end of my contribution.

I return to where I am in my contribution. There are three stages of an agreement. There is the negotiation, the agreement and the implementation of the agreement, all of which are vital for success. We are now at the implementation stage of the agreement, and, as part of the implementation stage of the agreement, it was agreed among all political parties to work together to bring forward a Welfare Reform Bill that was built on the Stormont House/Stormont Castle agreement, Mr Allister. It was agreed to work together through the party leaders meetings and to bring amendments to that agreement. What the 2012 draft Bill will be built upon and the final Act will be built upon will be that agreement, so it is somewhat disingenuous for political parties to circumvent that process —

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: I have afforded some latitude to the Member, but I ask him to address the amendments.

Mr O'Dowd: I will, Principal Deputy Speaker, address the amendments. I am principally talking around a number of the SDLP amendments and, indeed, the UUP amendments, particularly those that would have been clarified through the group leaders meetings. For instance, I refer to amendment No 4 and also to amendment No 17, which I will talk to in more detail as we go forward.

To the parties that have tabled the amendments, I ask this: is the intent of the amendments, whether it is amendment No 4, amendment No 17, amendment No 8 or whichever it may be, to improve the Bill and the final Act? Or, is the intention of the amendments to take part in grandstanding and raise expectations or attempt to get political capital on political opponents? As Ms Ruane said, during the negotiations, political parties, particularly those that have tabled amendments today, signed up to a lesser Bill than that which we have before us.

There were a number of secret agreements during the Stormont House and Stormont Castle discussions, and I particularly refer to the agreement that was signed up to by four of the parties on 17 December, because, when I read through that agreement, I see that none of amendment No 17, amendment No 12, amendment No 13, amendment No 11, amendment No 9 or amendment No 4 are reflected in the four-party agreement that was signed up to. None of those amendments are reflected in that agreement, and none of those amendments appear to have been of such importance that, when the four parties signed up to that agreement and insisted that that was the final deal, any of them were there. I am left asking this question: why are those amendments of such vital importance to the sponsoring parties? I have to say that some of them carry significant merit, but, when political parties enter into an agreement on the way forward for this Assembly, the Executive and our society, I have to expect them to live up to it. We have to ensure that the Assembly delivers for the most vulnerable in our society. We have to ensure that the final Welfare Act and the regulations that flow from that Act and the regulations and the Act that will give body to the Stormont House/Stormont Castle agreement will all be there. When parties divert from that, I think that there is a significant danger in a lack of trust flowing forward.

I will refer to some of the comments made during earlier parts of the debate. One of the comments that Mr Attwood made stuck with me. He was talking about the relationship between the Executive, the Westminster Government and future welfare reform legislation. He stated, "You will be asked to stand and deliver". Surely that is the purpose of ensuring that the regulations that are coming from the Minister for Social Development are scrutinised. I note the comments of the Chair of the Social Development Committee, who stated during his contribution that the Committee stands ready to continue its scrutiny of this entire matter. This is not the final act in this saga. It is not the final part of the play. The curtain is not about to fall once this piece of legislation is passed. There is a further role for the Assembly, for the Social Development Committee and for the Executive. Many of the amendments, particularly in group 1, which may be commendable, do not require to be placed in legislation. Primary legislation is not the answer to all ailments in society. We can deal with any of those matters through regulations.

Indeed, some of the amendments, if passed, would actually make it more difficult to make changes in the future. I refer to placing bimonthly payments in legislation. In principle, they are a very good thing, but if you place them in legislation and then you want to move to weekly payments, you have to bring legislation back to the House to get it changed. That is just one example of where the intent may be good but the outworkings of it actually make it more difficult for the Department for Social Development and those delivering welfare to the most vulnerable to make the changes required.

I said that I would return to amendment No 17, because that is where the leaders' working group comes into play. That is where the agreement and the agreement on the implementation of the agreement were vital. Amendment No 17 again refers to a worthy issue. It states:

will come into play.

It appeared to me, during contributions from Mr Beggs and interjections from Mrs Kelly, that there has been no discussion with either DSD or the Department of Health in relation to that matter, whereas, if the amendment had been brought to the group leaders' meeting for agreement, that would have been the ideal place for such discussions to take place and for the various elements to bring forward an amendment that actually delivers positive outcomes for people on the ground rather than an amendment that may be well intentioned but, I suspect, also has a political intention. People are seen to go further than others were prepared to go. The fact of the matter is that, if the proper mechanisms, which were agreed as part of the Stormont House Agreement, had been used, that issue could have been resolved, in my opinion, not to satisfy the need for amendments but to satisfy the need to ensure that people in need receive the benefits that they deserve.

In conclusion — well, I do not want Mr Allister thinking that he has got one over on me. I would not sleep easy tonight with that thought in my mind. Mr Allister said that we are making legislation in the dark. The only legislation before the House today is the Bill and amendments that have either been brought forward by private Members or are sponsored by the Minister, so we are not making anything in the dark. The regulations that will flow from this matter, which will also be scrutinised by the Assembly and its bodies, will not be made in the dark.

What we have agreed to in a five-party agreement, which we have all been open about, is that we have ensured that the most vulnerable in our society will be protected. What we have agreed to is that we have a different welfare Bill from that passed at Westminster two or three years ago. As I said in my opening comments, the Stormont House Agreement was about political parties agreeing to work with each other in deed and word. I think that some of the amendments brought forward today break that deed and word.

In conclusion, Dolores Kelly said at the end of her speech that the SDLP have done what they said they would do. They have not. They have done the exact opposite of what they said they would do. They have failed to live up to the five-party agreement. They have failed to faithfully implement the Stormont House Agreement, and I think that, by doing so, they have ignored the facts that brought us to those negotiations. Party politics have their place, but, when it comes to destabilising the institutions, you have gone too far.

Mr Ramsey: I support amendment No 17. I hope that the Minister can give us some clarity on the independent living fund at some stage. I will go into a bit of detail, but, before I do, I want to declare that I chair the all-party group on learning disability and the all-party group on disability.

This is an issue that has been affecting so many families and carers in Northern Ireland for some time now. We know that, in Britain, the UK Government have brought to a closure the independent living fund and devolved it to some of the regional councils. As Alex Attwood said, the Scottish Parliament last year agreed to work on a new autonomy for the independent living fund to ensure that more people have access to it. I make the point that we tabled amendment No 17, because, later this year, the independent living fund as we know it will come to a close.

Many hundreds of people, families and carers in Northern Ireland have disabled children, many of whom have complex and profound disabilities, and, because of the independent living fund and direct payments, those children have a choice to remain at home and a lifestyle to be able to do so. That is fundamental in going forward. The independent living fund gives that sense of independence, as it says on the tin, to enable people to employ a personal assistant, for example. It enables people to employ carers in cases in which clearly more profound needs are involved, and it enables parents or carers to employ people to take the disabled person to their home, thus giving those parents or carers some respite. Therefore, we need to know.

We had a number of events highlighting and promoting the independent living fund. The Health Minister, Jim Wells, is not here, but I met him a number of weeks ago along with a number of parents and carers, and it was a very good meeting. We wish Jim and his wife, Grace, very well. I know that she is on the road to recovery, and we hope that that continues. Unfortunately, at the same time, a gentleman from our own city, Martin McCrossan, died very suddenly, and I was at his funeral this morning. He had been on the same ward as Grace. We extend our sympathies to Sharon and her daughters Charlene and Christina at such a traumatic time. Martin was the epitome of a decent person and what every person could be in the city. He provided tours in the city with positivity and cheer. I just wanted to use the occasion when it was there to say that.

We want to see progress made, and we want to hear what the Minister for Social Development is going to tell us today about access to direct payments to enable those families. At present, just over 660 families and carers receive money from the independent living fund, and that enables them to have some type of lifestyle to bring in carers. The reason that we are bringing the amendment forward, and I say this directly to the Minister, is that we want to know what is happening. We want to know whether there is going to be direct contact with the Department of Health. I know that the transfer of powers from DSD will take place to ensure that DHSSPS will use those powers, but many hundreds of others across Northern Ireland cannot access those moneys, because they do not have the capacity or skills to deal with direct payments. They do not have the skills to employ people, while others are using accountancy firms to help them process payments, National Insurance and tax, That is crucial for families across Northern Ireland.

Amendment No 17 is a very important amendment, because it reflects what is happening across Northern Ireland. It is the duty of the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister to monitor the inclusion of disabled people across Northern Ireland. I am sorry that the First Minister is not here now, but that is a key principle in order to give a bit of piece of mind, comfort and reassurance to families. I will tell you what would happen if we did not do it: if those families were not receiving the payments, they would put their children or family members into care, a residential home or hospital, and the health budget would reach crisis point. You can imagine the cost to hospitals if we did not provide that level of support to families who are in crisis at the best of times. There but for the grace of God.

We talk about our families and bringing them up. In some families, a number of people in the household have disabilities or learning disabilities — they depend on this. I have talked to people who are absolutely stressed out, worrying about what is happening and the outcome of the independent living fund. They know that it will place them under so much pressure that they might have no alternative but to consider the option of placing their loved one in a care home or residential home.

Reflecting on all of that, I say to the Minister that we have come a long way from a period when disabled people had to live, segregated, in institutions. That is important. We are modernising and doing things much better. We cannot go back to that situation by not having clear plans and definitive time frames for the independent living fund.

I met Jim Wells. I have to say that, as Health Minister, he was very encouraging to the families whom we met. He hopes to make some determination on the four available options that were subject to consultation. One option must be to enable an increase in those who can access these moneys. Some Members are shaking their heads. They are probably dealing with many such people in their communities and constituencies and realise that they are struggling to come to terms with the multitude of problems. The impact on family life and the disabled person is immense.

Earlier, somebody used the word "shame". We would be shameless if we did not, under this legislation, look at, explore and take the opportunity to try to devise a method to ensure that, as a result of the discussion over the next few days, Minister Storey will say to me, "Pat, you are absolutely right, and these are the actions that we will take". If those actions are definitive and clear, there will be no need for us to press the issue at all.

Mr Storey: I thank the Member for giving way. I deliberately wanted to intervene at this stage, given what the Member has said. I could have done so on many other occasions, but I think that it is better to wait until I respond at the end of the debate. Many, if not all, of the issues that the Member brings to the House, he brings with a sense of conviction and understanding of what the issues are.

We concur with the Member's comments and pass on our best wishes to Minister Wells and his good wife, Grace. We are glad of the progress that she has made. We also send our sympathy to the McCrossan family on the very sad and tragic death. I know that it is a loss felt by many across the city.

I will give a commitment in the House. The public consultation ended on 30 November, and the Health Minister, I understand, is to announce his way forward early in 2015. Following today's debate, I will undertake to have urgent discussions with the Health Minister. I will convey the concerns relayed by the Member. I give an assurance on record to the House that I will make that a priority.

Mr Ramsey: I thank the Minister for his intervention. He and other Members will now appreciate why we tabled this amendment: to get clarity and definitive commitments, as the Minister, very kindly, has given. I make the point again that I am reflecting only the opinions, concerns, worries, fears and trepidation of many parents and carers across Northern Ireland. With a sense of relief, I hope that Minister Storey and Minister Wells can, within a very short time frame, give some clarity on the options available. If one option is to set up another trust fund with fewer overhead costs to administer the money, that is fine. That is what disabled families want as well. They do not want a heavy burden of secretarial administration costs. They want the money available to go directly to those people who need it.

So, I am content at present with the Minister's response. We have to look after the people in our community who are less well off — the marginalised, the most vulnerable — and if we cannot do that, we should forget about entering politics. We are about trying to change and improve the quality of life, and give peace of mind to many carers and parents across Northern Ireland.

Mr Agnew: The Democratic People's Republic of Korea, otherwise known as North Korea; the Democratic Republic of Congo; the Democratic Unionist Party. Why is it that those who are least democratic feel the need to shout their democratic principles most loudly? Forty-nine petitions of concern are binding the hands and feet of the Assembly today on this Bill. The Assembly is the body charged with legislating in Northern Ireland, and the Members democratically elected to it have been bound by those petitions of concern and, indeed, bound by the Stormont House Agreement which was made behind closed doors and without public scrutiny.

I am an MLA, a Member of the Legislative Assembly. This is the body that should be legislating for welfare reform in Northern Ireland, in full public view and with democratic accountability.

I have to question the Stormont House Agreement. We have seen some detail of it, but have we seen the full agreement? Do we know what was agreed behind closed doors? For example, is it a coincidence that, on the day that Sinn Féin signed up to the Tory welfare cuts, it launched the Irish language consultation? Is that a coincidence, or is it part of the Stormont House Agreement? Only time will tell on that front.

In his contribution, John O'Dowd said that this is not the final act, not the final curtain — I thought he was going to sing 'My Way'. Thankfully, for us all, he did not, and he could not, because this is not his way: it is not the way of Sinn Féin. This is the Tory way. This is the Tory welfare Bill translated into Northern Ireland legislation. It is the mirror image of that legislation and of the principles of the Tory Party, which set out at the beginning of its term in government to make £18 billion worth of welfare cuts. That is what we are proposing to translate into legislation today, if we do not amend it. As we know, the vast majority of amendments brought forward by Members have been subjected to petitions of concern. There are no amendments from the DUP, Sinn Féin or Alliance, which suggests to me that those parties are happy to implement the welfare cuts as laid out by the British Government.

Mr Campbell: Will the Member give way?

Mr Agnew: I will.

Mr Campbell: Just now, the Member said that the other parties which have not tabled amendments seem content to implement the welfare cuts as rolled out by the Conservative/Lib Dem Government. That is essentially what he said. Does he then dismiss all the concessions and flexibilities that my honourable friend the former Minister negotiated over the course of the past two-and-a-half years?

Mr Agnew: I am talking about the Bill that is before us. I have read the agreements in the press. I have been assured, and heard assurances from the Minister's predecessor, who is now referred to. I have been told that, in the Stormont House Agreement, one of the agreements is that no one in Northern Ireland will be worse off but, at the same time, I hear parties saying: "We will implement the cap on benefits." You cannot have it both ways. Either 6,600 people will be worse off or they will not; but I am being told both by different parties to the Stormont House Agreement. What I am being asked to do is trust the parties that are signatories to the Stormont House Agreement that either there will be a cap on benefits or that no one will be worse off.

I am not sure who I am supposed to trust in that scenario. All that I can really make a decision on and table amendments to, as I have sought to do today, is the Welfare Reform Bill that has been brought to the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Mr Maskey: I thank the Member for giving way. Does he recall that, when he held bilaterals with my party during the Social Development Committee's deliberations on the Bill, he was prepared to sign the petition of concern against the bedroom tax but was not prepared to agree to any other mitigating measure? In fact, since that time, which is two years ago, you have not brought forward a single amendment. It seems to be a bit of a contradiction. Has it taken you two years to get a conscience on some of these matters?

Mr Agnew: I thank the Member for his intervention. There is a certain amount of revisionism, but that should not be surprising. Yes, I would be willing to sign a petition of concern to block something that will harm the most vulnerable in our society. What has happened since those conversations was that we were told that the Welfare Reform Bill was not coming back to the Assembly, so I did not, when I had so many other issues as leader and sole Member of my party, spend time on a Welfare Reform Bill that, I was told by Sinn Féin, would never see the light of day because it would not implement Tory cuts. Maybe I should not have trusted them, but I took them at their word. Then the Stormont House Agreement happened, and the Welfare Reform Bill was to be back on the table virtually immediately. Yes, I had prepared amendments. I have 26 amendments tabled today, and I have been genuine in seeking to amend the Welfare Reform Bill to make it better than the current draft.

Mrs D Kelly: Will the Member give way?

Mr Agnew: Yes.

Mrs D Kelly: Is the Member surprised to learn that, at Sinn Féin's ard fheis in 2013, Martin McGuinness said:

Therefore, are you surprised to learn that Sinn Féin has not signed the petition of concern that we have tabled and that you signed last night?

Mr Agnew: I thank the Member for her intervention. I will trust her on this occasion that that is indeed a quote from the Sinn Féin ard fheis. I thank her for reading it into the record.

Today, we have introduced the Stormont Castle agreement to the public. I put it to the leader of the DUP that there should be full public scrutiny of how the welfare reform proposals will be topped up and what they would look like. I am pleased that we have been given that commitment by various parties. I think that each of the five parties has now given a commitment to publish that, and I look forward to seeing the detail because I am left in a situation again where I face contradictions but am being asked to trust.

The top-up in the Budget was £70 million. In various estimates of what the welfare cuts would mean for Northern Ireland, each figure has been above that. NICVA's estimate was that welfare reform cuts would result in a £250 million loss of benefits to the people of Northern Ireland. Some people did not accept that figure. I believe that the last Minister told me that it would be £115 million a year, which is still some way above £70 million. The First Minister, when he was speaking as First Minister and not as DUP leader, said that, eventually, the cost of not implementing welfare reform — in other words, the additional benefit that we would have to pay out — would come to £1 billion a year. Today, as DUP leader, he said that the average would be £70 million a year and that that is exactly what we have budgeted for so nobody need worry. I have heard so many different figures. I look forward to seeing the detail of the Stormont Castle agreement on what figures have been used, how they have been calculated and how this top-up system will work.

I come back to what I said earlier: these things should go through the Assembly. Whether we are being asked to trust the Minister for Social Development and his officials to get it right through legislation or to trust the parties who are party to the Stormont Castle agreement, this is too big an issue of public importance for it not to be put through the democratic processes of the Assembly.

With that in mind, I come to the amendments that I tabled today, every one of which has been subject to a petition of concern. I assume the intent of the DUP is to block them. For the benefit of those who observe the Chamber, and want to see what their MLAs are proposing, I will go through why I have tabled each of the amendments.

Through amendment Nos 10, 37 and 57, I propose that work capability assessments should be provided by GPs or those employed by the health and social care trusts. This is about learning from the mistakes of others. We have seen this outsourced in GB with disastrous results. Atos has relinquished the contract due to its poor record. It had to pay compensation to the Government after it was accused of failures in quality. Indeed, of 600,000 appeals at a cost of £600 million a year, 40% were successful. That was 40% of people put through the added trauma of appealing their assessment relating to benefits to which they were later deemed entitled. If my son in school gets four out of 10 of his questions wrong, I am disappointed. When it is a company paid such exorbitant sums of money to administer work capability assessments, I am more than disappointed; I am horrified at the trauma that people have been put through due to the failures of this company.

Previously, the assessments were undertaken by internal departmental medical staff, and, as I said when, I think, Mr Beggs raised the question of cost, one way or another we pay for those medical experts, if that term can be used. Whether they are employed by public agencies or privately, we, the taxpayers, bear the cost. We have seen the record of outsourcing in GB. With outsourcing, you lose control and accountability. The public have already lost trust in the processes. We need to take action to restore that trust.

Amendment No 44 is about payments pending appeal. I just outlined the number of successful appeals and, therefore, the number of initial decisions that were wrong. My argument is that we should not make people, in some cases, destitute or, certainly, struggle financially while awaiting an appeal, especially when we know that in many cases they will be entitled to the benefits when their appeals succeed. I will read out the details of one case study of somebody whose benefits were stopped pending appeal after such an assessment. Jessica is a 23-year-old woman with mental health problems who was 22 weeks pregnant.

That is what we condemn people to if we do not give them the benefit of the doubt during the appeal process rather than giving the system the benefit of the doubt. It is certainly my contention that, when people apply for benefits, the vast majority do so genuinely. We know that 40% of assessments are wrong, and we should not punish the people on the end of those mistakes.

I do not propose to move amendment No 45. It may require some thought in advance of Further Consideration Stage. Amendment Nos 38 and 39 —

Mr Givan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Agnew: Certainly.

Mr Givan: On amendment No 45, I am interested to know why the Member needs to give it further thought. I am interested in exploring it, but I appreciate that he does not plan to move it.

Mr Agnew: That is fair. I cannot recall who outlined it earlier — it may have been Mr Beggs — but the intent is to prevent a blunt clawback when there is an overpayment, with the Department simply extracting money from people who are on a very low income after an overpayment that was the fault of the system rather than the individual and when it is clearly not a fraudulent claim but an overpayment by the Social Security Agency. I have come across circumstances — I go back to my time working with the homeless — where mistakes were made and the clawback was quite excessive and led to significant financial difficulties for those on the receiving end. People should not be punished for the mistakes of the Social Security Agency, but, equally, I accept the point that was made earlier: should a significant overpayment be made, it is unreasonable that the public purse be out of money.

Mr Givan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Agnew: Sure.

Mr Givan: I appreciate the Member elaborating on that point. It is more about the principle. People can have sympathy when an overpayment has been made and it is not the fault of the individual, but, if you are not entitled to a benefit, you should not receive it. If you were to apply that principle to the payment of income tax or corporation tax, would the argument still prevail that, because you did not take enough income tax off an individual, they should be given a bye ball? That is when we need to be careful about compromising on the principle of the issue.

Mr Agnew: I suspect that we are in agreement. It is not so much the principle of whether the money should be paid back but how it should be paid back. I would be concerned if the Department had the power simply to withdraw money from people's accounts. It is about how rather than whether money should be paid back, but, as I said, the amendment may need further thought.

Amendment Nos 38 and 39 very much concern disability. They are about how long someone's disability should persist before a payment is made. The principle of personal independence payments or disability allowance is about providing support for the extra costs of living with a disability. The proposal in the Bill is for 12 months: three months prior to a claim and nine months afterwards. My proposal is to reduce the nine months to six months, which is the current situation.

I do not understand the rationale for increasing that timeline. The extra costs of disability are virtually immediate, so why would we ask someone to shoulder the burden of those costs without support from the state for a full year? Why would we ask them to demonstrate beyond a year that they are disabled before they get any support? I fail to understand that, and I think that retention of the current system would be preferable in that regard.

Amendment No 43 deals with payments in cash. Again, with a petition of concern not tabled and the Assembly minded to support it, this amendment may need some further definition. This goes back to my time working with the homeless. I will give the example of someone on benefits receiving their payment. It has become increasingly onerous to get a bank account because of the burden of proof of address and identity. There may be good reasons for that, but for someone who does not have a driver's licence or a passport, and certainly for someone who lives in a homeless hostel and does not have utility bills, it can be quite difficult. Mr Beggs made a point about why it is preferable to have a bank account, and I completely agree with him, but for some people that is very difficult. Despite, in the circumstances I referred to, letters from the hostel or the organisation that I worked for or letters from social workers, many of our residents were unable to get a bank account. Their situation was one where they got their cheque — in some cases that was an amount of £45 a week paid in a single £90 payment — and then went to "Cash a Cheque" or something of that nature, where they paid a premium to receive their money. The intention of the amendment is to ensure that no one should be paying to receive their benefits. No one who is on the lowest incomes in our society should have to pay a premium to receive that money. We each get our pay paid into our bank account, I am sure, and there is no charge for that. There should not be a charge for those on such low incomes to receive their benefit payment. The figures I have suggest that 5% of people on the lowest incomes have no access to a bank account. It is a real problem; it does exist, and we need a solution to it.

Amendment No 74 is about opposition to payment in vouchers. I understand that the wording is that payment "may" be made in vouchers. Again, Mr Beggs laid out some of the reasons why it might be preferable to make payment in vouchers, and the Minister may come back on this in his contribution, but without any assurances as to how and when that would be used, I would be very concerned about that proposal. For example, if you are a parent with children in school, you cannot use vouchers to pay for school trips. There is the potential that the very narrow view of what people need their benefits for, which is that it is needed for food and clothing and that is all, fails to reflect the realities of the lives and financial pressures of people on benefits. Without assurances as to how it would be used, I fear that vouchers are used almost as a penalty and a restriction of freedom on those who are on benefits. I do not believe that people should be punished for being unemployed or disabled or for the many other reasons for having mental ill health. For that reason, I oppose payment in vouchers.

Mr Wilson: Can I, first of all, just make a couple of general points about the importance of the Bill? This issue has disabled this Assembly for quite some time because of the financial constraints it put on it and the concerns that there then were around the budgetary implications. It is important that we now have the Bill on the Floor of the House, and, hopefully, we will get it through this evening, though I notice that it is still being used to score political points and make bogus points against other parties by those who, in the past, complained about the impasse in the Assembly. That is despite the fact that, when you examine their role in these issues, you will see that it hardly stands a great deal of scrutiny.

I noticed the pseudo-anger that we had from the SDLP on this issue. For example, they upbraided Sinn Féin on their refusal to sign a petition of concern on the spare-room subsidy, ignoring the fact that the spare-room subsidy was introduced into Northern Ireland by the SDLP. Indeed, it was introduced for those tenants in the most expensive housing sector, namely the private sector. There were no concerns then, of course; no petitions of concern; no amendments being put down. Their Minister simply introduced it. Now, they try to score political points. It is this cheap political point-scoring that makes the public cynical about the approach that parties have to certain issues.

They talked about sanctions. Sanctions were introduced by an SDLP Minister. We had the pseudo-rage from Mrs Kelly about Atos and the independent bodies that make assessments. Indeed, when she was moving her amendment, she talked about it, despite the fact that that privatisation of the assessments, if you want to call it that, was introduced by an SDLP Minister.

When we listen to the criticisms that the SDLP level and direct mostly in that direction — and I am not here to defend Sinn Féin, by the way, just in case anyone thinks that I am — one has to bear in mind their own record on this, and then ask how sincere are they really about the things that they said about it.

Of course, we had Mr Beggs who, in the other direction, I suppose, tried to poke at the DUP, as if, somehow or other, the Ulster Unionist Party was totally divorced from all this stuff about welfare reform, despite the fact, as was pointed out to him ad nauseam by Members, that his own party stood in the last election under the banner of the party that has introduced it. Indeed, his own party leader stood as a candidate in that election.

Mr Nesbitt: Will the Member give way?

Mr Wilson: I will give way, certainly.

Mr Nesbitt: Yes, I did stand as a candidate, and I did not get elected, and Mr Wilson did get elected. When was the last time he had coffee or a diet Coke with the Prime Minister?

Mr Wilson: I have never had coffee or a diet Coke with the Prime Minister. Do I look like the kind of person who drinks diet Coke, for a start? All I am saying is that we actually support a lot of the welfare reform proposals anyway. We are supporting this Bill because we support a lot of the elements in welfare reform.

When it counted and when there were things that we disagreed with, first of all we went to Westminster and voted against those parts of the Bill. When that did not succeed, our Minister here in Northern Ireland sought to get changes made in the Bill, some of which are reflected and some of which reflect the concerns that have been expressed by parties all around here.

Our record on the Bill is consistent. Where there are good aspects to it, we have supported them. Where there are aspects that we believe are disadvantageous, we have opposed them. Where we have had the ability to do something about it, we have done something about it. That is as good a record as anyone can have on the issue.

On applying standards, Mr Beggs, when he was talking about amendment No 1, which would mean significant costs to the Executive, he would not or could not give us the costings. Indeed, his argument was that it is up to the Minister and the Department to give us some of the costings. However, when challenged by Mr Agnew to support some of his amendments, he said that he could not do it unless the Member could give him costings. It is another example of parties wanting to have it both ways. Where there are costs applied to their amendments, they say that somebody else should tell you what the costs are. However, they will not support other people's amendments unless they can be told what the costs are, saying that the obligation to give the cost is on the person moving the amendment.

Mr Beggs: 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?

Mr Wilson: I will come to putting that kind of issue in the Bill. Yes, there are financial consequences attached to some of the changes that have been made. Where we have already had them costed, we have not sought to make them secret, despite what Mr Allister said. In fact, we have been quite open about the costs. Some will require changes in regulations, and we know the areas that those lie in. I suspect that the regulations may even be drafted with a mind to the amount of money that is available. That will show the kind of flexibility that you can then attach to those regulations. The idea that, somehow or other, you simply put forward amendments willy-nilly without attaching costs to them is totally irresponsible.

That brings me to the issue of the petitions of concern. Somehow or other, Members have tried to portray the use of the petition of concern as undemocratic and seeking to railroad things through, and so on. First, we are having a debate on the Bill. The public will be able to hear the arguments that people are putting forward for their amendments. There is transparency there. A petition of concern does not stop there being a vote on the Bill, so the public will know who voted for it and who did not vote for it.

Use of a petition of concern is especially relevant in cases such as this, in which there are significant costs attached to some of the amendments that are being proposed, and where some of those amendments are being proposed because parties can behave irresponsibly when they are in the position that they are in. They might be able to behave irresponsibly individually, but, if they were to behave irresponsibly collectively to score the points that they wish to score, there would be implications. A petition of concern is used in a situation like that to safeguard against the kind of irresponsibility that, unfortunately, we have heard even today. Some of the parties that signed up to an agreement at Stormont House now seem prepared to ignore what they signed up to by putting down some of the amendments that they have — amendments that they never raised with the other party leaders. I suppose that they thought that it was a good way of poking their opponents by putting them down now.

The petition of concern is a perfectly relevant means to use, and I will tell you one thing: it is far more relevant in a situation such as this than in the situations in which the SDLP used it in recent weeks: to protect the postman from sanctions for letters to get murderers off the consequences of their crime; to ensure that money is irresponsibly spent on an Irish-medium school in Dungiven; or to ensure that there cannot be a Union flag placed on the driving licence of people in this part of the United Kingdom. If you are looking for frivolous uses of the petition of concern, look in that direction, not this direction. At least we have some rationale behind it, and it does not stop —

Mr Beggs: Will the Member give way?

Mr Wilson: I will, yes.

Mr Beggs: Will the Member explain the language used in amendment No 1, which states:

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?

Mr Wilson: Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, you have been a bit tolerant with me anyway. I had tried to keep, at least loosely, to the amendments before us. Let me come to those now. I will not speak on all of them, by the way, but I want to take up some of them.

Amendment No 1 is a very good example of where there is a cost attached, and I suspect that a great deal of thought did not go into the amendment. The consequences, of course, of allowing one individual in a family to decide that they do not want to make a commitment, therefore allowing the other member of the family to make a commitment, can, I think — in fact I know — have significant cost and lead to irresponsible behaviour. That is because the claims have always been joint. It has been done that way for one simple reason, which is that when someone makes a claim, there is also a necessity with income-based benefit to look at the total income of the family.

If we were to run with the amendment, we could find that one of the two people in a family, because of their savings or other income, could simply say that they do not want to make a commitment. Under the amendment, the other person could then make the claim. So, people who abide by the rules are excluded from benefit and disadvantaged by an amendment such as this, which allows those who want to use the system and the amendment that the Member has put forward to have the best of both worlds: one partner drops out; the other person gets the benefit. That is an additional cost. Indeed, were that to be widespread across Northern Ireland — if people cottoned on, why would they not do it? — the cost would be quite significant.

Had the Member thought a wee bit about his amendment, he might have seen its implications. He pulled at the heartstrings, of course, asking, "What about irresponsible partners who decide that they do not want to make a commitment, which, in turn, affects the benefit that is available and means that children suffer as a result?" However, there is a provision there: the cooling-off period. There are seven days for all of the implications to be explained. During that period, there may or may not be a change of mind, but at least there is an opportunity to steer people towards the right decision. Anyhow, the irresponsible person who does not want to make the commitment and allows the benefit to go to their partner would still receive housing benefit, would keep a roof over their head and everything else, and would be encouraged in their irresponsibility. The whole point of welfare reform was to try to make people be more responsible. Is he really saying that he wants to introduce easements that pander to those who are either workers of the system or want to abuse the system?

Mr Beggs: Will the Member give way?

Mr Wilson: I will, yes.

Mr Beggs: 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".

Mr Wilson: While he has used the term "may", I would love to hear from the Member — and I did not hear it during the debate — the circumstances he would stipulate in regulations under which you could not do it. How can you make a judgement about a person's motivation? Do not forget: it is one thing to say "may" when you can measure where the problem lies. It is another in a case like this, in which, I suspect, it is what the person's motivation happens to be. In the way in which it is dealt with at present, there is a chance for people to understand the implications of what they will do, what will happen to their benefits and what impact that will have. This will give them a chance. With the cooling-off period, they have that chance.

A number of other amendments were tabled by the Ulster Unionist Party. I will maybe deal with them later as they overlap with some of the amendments tabled by the SDLP.

When Mr Attwood was speaking, there was a sense that the SDLP wants to be the champion of the poor and that anybody who supports the Bill wants to trample the poor into the ground. That was the implication, despite the work that has gone into trying to make the changes more palatable. At one point, I thought he was going to break into what he would he describe as a sectarian tune. He spoke about hand on heart. He got so passionate that I thought he was going to talk about guarding old Derry's walls as well. He said that the purpose of the SDLP amendments is to protect the claimant on their journey through the new welfare changes.

Let us look at some of the amendments. It is as if the SDLP are the only ones who want to protect people. Some of the amendments certainly do not show that. Take amendment No 8, for example, which deals with the frequency of payments. The frequency of payment has already been established. As a result of listening, and our concerns about people on low incomes being paid once a month — where the difficulty would have been that they would have spent it all by the end of the month because they were under such great pressure — it is now down to every two weeks. Indeed, it has been left open.

Mr O'Dowd made a very important point when he said that if we put the frequency into the Bill we would have cut out the opportunity for further flexibility. For example, for some people in certain circumstances, a weekly payment might be necessary. To say that that is an amendment to ease people's journey through the changes is incorrect. If anything, it probably makes it more difficult to have flexibility, and that flexibility has already been considered.

Another amendment, amendment No 9, dealt with the claimant commitment. That amendment states:

It is as if that was something new that was invented by the SDLP. The truth of the matter is that when somebody goes for a work-focused interview, the things they look at are what kind of work you have done in the past, what skills you have, what caring responsibilities you have and what training you need. This is nothing new, yet it has been presented by the SDLP as, "This is our amendment, because we are more concerned about the people who might be affected by welfare reform." That is already there.

I could go through some of the other amendments. Amendment No 11 on mental health says that mental health reports should be considered. That already happens not only with reports but the assessment of capability that is based on those reports. A lot of the amendments really do not add anything to the Bill. Indeed, I asked myself, as I was listening to the SDLP's case, what those amendments add. If the purpose and the objective are to make it easier for people, what amendments have I heard from the SDLP that actually improve the lot of people who will be affected by welfare reform? The answer is that they do not add anything, because a lot of what the SDLP is proposing is already there. The changes are already made, and therefore the working that has been done by the parties and Ministers etc has been dealt with.

I was not too sure whether Mr Allister supported the Bill or opposed it; he just always likes to take a swipe at the dysfunctionality of this place. It actually might be more functional if we could get a constructive attitude from him on some of these things, but, of course, the problem is that we do not. We have had "secret deals" and "secret agreements", and "we do not know what has been done." We now have the "conspiracy" of the Stormont House Agreement. I do now know what people were conspiring to do in the Stormont House Agreement other than to find a way forward with a Bill whose absence had crippled this Assembly, to find additional money, to alleviate some of the impacts of it, and to look for the longer term at how that money might be spent.

Some might argue — I suspect that they will — that there is not enough money in it. However, the important thing is that we have tried to deal with it. Not all of it is secret, because the Minister, over time, has already revealed where some of it is going anyway. Some of it will be spent on avoiding, until we get our housing balance and our housing stock right, the impact of the spare-room subsidy or bedroom tax.

Some of it will be spent on the very thing that Members have raised here today: what happens when people go for their assessments as to whether they can work or not. Six million pounds will go towards helping people to get medical reports that they will be able to use at those assessments. Some of it will be used to replace the social fund, and sums have already been attached to that. As the First Minister pointed out, some of it has not been allocated yet because, until we know the exact form of the regulations, we will not know what the additional costs might be. It is not unusual, despite what the Member said, for regulations to follow a Bill rather than be published before a Bill goes through. We examine those quite frequently in the Committee.

Lastly, then, I come to some of Mr Agnew's comments. I know that we will have even more of this when we come to the second round of amendments. We know, because we have recently seen its manifesto, that the Green Party lives in cloud cuckoo land.

It says things like, "No bacon on a Monday", or, "No advertising for holidays in the sun" and, "Be able to join a terrorist organisation without it being illegal". So it goes on. I suppose some of his amendments reflect that sense of being out of touch with the real world and reality.

In fact, I will ask him for a loan, because if this is the way that he operates publicly, I would love to know what he does privately. Do not forget that we are talking about people who do not have a great deal of money and who have more of a chance of having their appeal turned down than approved, but I think that it is amendment No 44 that says that, where an appeal is pending, we should continue to pay those people as though they had won the appeal. Presumably, at the end of the period, if they have lost the appeal, we have to get the money back off them. I am sure that the business of recouping that money will be extremely easy. Maybe the Member for North Down is flush, so I can imagine somebody coming up to him and saying, "I think my auntie is going to die in about a year's time. I may have a legacy from her, so you wouldn't lend me 20 grand on the strength of it?" He would not do it, yet I suppose because it is populist, he expects that we should behave that way with state money.

A lot of the Member's other amendments are the same, including the one on vouchers. It is made quite clear that vouchers are used in a case where someone is dysfunctional and is not spending their money where they should. His argument was that, if you give people vouchers, they cannot pay for their children to go on a school trip. If they were paying for their children to go on a school trip, they would not need vouchers in the first place. The vouchers are provided if there is maybe an alcohol or a gambling problem or whatever; they are not even meant for providing for the person's family.

Mr Agnew: Will the Member give way?

Mr Wilson: Yes, I will.

Mr Agnew: The Member is talking about living in the real world, so will he show me where in the Bill those assurances are made? Will he show me where that is laid out in the Bill and the parts that say that that can happen only in those specific circumstances? Will he provide me with that information? He is asserting it with certainty, but it is not in the Bill.

Mr Wilson: Again, this is where the Member strains on these points. The default position is that people get their benefits paid in cash, by cheque or into their bank accounts. However, neither the default position nor the normal position is that people get paid in vouchers. If that was the case, benefits would generally be paid in vouchers. Throughout the rest of the welfare system, payments are made in cash or into bank accounts, but the very fact that this is regarded as an additional way of making payments is indicative of the fact that vouchers are for exceptional circumstances. We know the kind of exceptional circumstances in which they would apply.

I accept that the voucher system will not be immune to abuse. You may find that people will be prepared to buy vouchers at a discount from somebody who has an alcohol problem. The Member mentioned that those people might go to Tesco to get their messages, and when they go in, they buy alcohol. That is probably easy to deal with: you simply make the voucher not redeemable for alcohol. I accept that there are other ways in which that system can be abused, but I think that it is irresponsible to say that, in circumstances like that, people should be paid in cash.

I am not going to deal with a lot of the Member's other amendments. I have tried to go through some of the amendments, and if you look at them, Mr Speaker, you will see that their purpose is quite clear. Their purpose is not to improve the situation, because some refer to what is already the practice or in the Bill. The purpose is to be able to say, "We put an amendment down; we are good. You lot did not put an amendment down; you are bad". That kind of cheap point-scoring does not do anybody any good. It confirms, in my eyes anyway, why we can have a debate and a vote, but sometimes you have to have a petition of concern because you will still have people who are totally irresponsible on the issue.

Mr McCallister: Most of us could sign up to the broad principles of welfare reform, which are that work should always pay. No family or couple should be disadvantaged by going into the employment market and back into work only to find that they are worse off. On that basis, I welcome the fact that, after almost two years, the Bill is now back, and we are debating the amendments today. It is, however, unfortunate that, while we are debating the amendments, there is not much chance of a different outcome for the Bill. We can engage and be well intentioned in tabling the amendments and debating them, but the petition of concern has effectively killed off any prospect of any change. It points to something important for the Executive.

I said before in the Chamber that people who signed up for things at Stormont House, whether it is an agreement on the Budget or on welfare reform at the castle, and then go round to Stormont House to present a united front as the Government of Northern Ireland, suddenly find themselves in the new year, and the shine has gone off it, and they think that maybe they should not have signed up for that and should have held out for a better deal. That is not how the Executive should work, because that does not provide for good or stable government.

We have an Executive without a Programme for Government or any meaningful policy ideas beyond corporation tax. They have no sense of direction, and that is deeply regrettable. So many amendments in this group have petitions of concern. Just when I thought that the Assembly or the Executive could not get any worse than the debate on the Education Bill when we had 10 petitions of concern, or when we had some 50 petitions of concerns from unionism, if you like, from 1998, we now have almost 50 in the one day. That is outdoing even yourselves.

To cap it all off, we have Mr Wilson telling us, effectively, that he has done us all a great favour; he has saved the Executive and the Assembly from the arduous task of sorting out what they might want to do: "We will save you all that bother; we will do the petitions of concern on your behalf". What it points to is the dysfunctionality of the Executive. The First Minister is absolutely right, and every day the Assembly proves just how right he is: an Executive and an Assembly that are dysfunctional. That is why they need to change.

No meaningful ideas are coming through here, apart from what Westminster are making the Executive do. They are making them do welfare reform, which they would not do without Westminster pushing them into it. They would not do public-sector reform in any guise without Westminster pushing them down that road. I have no idea what the Executive would do, what they stand for or what direction they will take, so they are not fit for purpose. You have an Executive in which two parties now agree on welfare reform, but the other three parties are out there voting against the Budget. I will say this to the Alliance Party today: well done on acting like part of the Government for today. I am not sure how long it will last, but well done today on acting as part of the Government. To the other parties that are in the Government, I say this: why are you still there? Why are you tabling amendments? Why are you voting against something?

Why are there so many petitions of concern if the DUP has the confidence of its other Executive partners, particularly Sinn Féin? You have the numbers. You have the majority in the House. Therefore, in all of these amendments, you do not need a petition of concern. We had a petition of concern from Sinn Féin and the SDLP yesterday against Mr Allister's amendment when the amendment was voted down by something like 96 to two. Why oh why are we using petitions of concern in this instance? With the Education Bill, we had 10 of them against even Mr Agnew when the Assembly naturally found its place after debate. There is no need to go about our business in that way. Even if you were to table petitions of concern on these amendments against your other government colleagues, why, when the Government of Northern Ireland has an in-built majority of 102, do you necessarily pick on Steven Agnew, one lowly independent Member, and his amendments? Mr Wilson gave us a brief glimpse of the Green Party manifesto, but I suspect that the Speaker would rule me out of order if I were to listen to too much of Mr Wilson.

This makes our Executive look like a pinball machine, with nobody quite sure what direction it is going in or what direction it is going to fire off into next. That is why we cannot allow this to continue. Using the petition of concern is an anti-democratic measure. It was built in to give protection while we built up a process and moved from conflict to consensus, and it is a clear abuse of that and the workings of this Assembly. It reflects badly not only on the Executive but on each and every one of us in here.

I want to speak about some of the issues around the amendments. If we were to believe the rhetoric of Sinn Féin, we would say that we are going to spend some £565 million over the next five to six years. Of course, that is a huge financial burden that we are looking at taking on. We listened in the Budget debate to the Finance Minister, who constantly warns us that we are entering a very difficult budgetary period. Not only this year but right the way down the line up to at least 2020, we will be in difficult times. We are now taking this on with some debate on how it will be paid for, where it is coming from, where it is going to be targeted and how it will be used. Will it mean less money for health services, for education, for employment and learning and all the Departments that were working tirelessly to provide the services to try to get people off welfare and into work? Are we diverging away from the GB model? Can we afford to do this? Where will this end after five or six years, and where will that leave people? Will it leave people more trapped in our benefits system than in other parts of the UK?

We also have to look at this. The amendments to this Bill tie in to what is an agreed Executive policy on corporation tax. The Executive aim to get control of corporation tax and to move to cut it to maybe 12·5%, which is the same as the rate in the Republic of Ireland, or, indeed, maybe below that, as in the DUP manifesto. The cost to the Executive could be some £325 million a year. Where does the £325 million for corporation tax and the £565 million for welfare reform fit in with an ever-tightening budgetary position? That will cause real strain on the Executive and how they manage that. We have been told about the costs of not doing welfare reform. We have looked at the fines and penalties that could have been imposed by the Treasury, and, quite rightly, we are doing welfare reform because the reality of us not moving to do it is a nonsense.

To continue down the road of fines, penalties or whatever you want to call them would just be madness. You cannot continue to do that.

The figures used were that, if we put welfare reform through, we would have one third of people better off, one third of people the same and one third marginally worse off. Those are very rough figures, and I suppose it depends where everybody falls and where you are fighting through.

I will turn to some of the amendments. While I will not speak to them all — it is probably slightly pointless, given the number of petitions of concern — I think that amendment No 1, standing in Roy Beggs's name, seems relatively sensible. Amendment No 2 from Mrs Kelly and Mr Attwood seems similar to the UUP amendment. Amendment No 8 seems sensible enough, although it gives rise to the question of what the administrative costs associated with it would be. I understood that the Executive had won some provision about fortnightly payments anyway when Mr McCausland was Minister. I wonder whether Mr Agnew's amendment No 10 would place an unnecessary burden on the health service by making sure that that person has to be from the Department of Health.

There are many amendments that we could have accepted the principles of and worked around. It would have been fair to debate and look at why we would want to develop those ideas and that thinking. The Chamber, at its best, would debate, listen to and work through amendments and vote accordingly when the arguments were won. Again, you come to the point of why so many are subject to petitions of concern. It does not seem a sensible move forward. Amendment No 19, an SDLP amendment, seems quite sensible. There are many amendments that it seems sensible and worthwhile to have a genuine debate about without, effectively, the axe of a petition of concern hanging over us.

Mr Wilson talked about the bedroom tax. I know that Minister Storey will be aware of this. I also have questions, not only around the bedroom tax issue but even around the lifetime tenure of people in social housing. If we are doing anything about the principles of welfare reform, it is about making sure that people are not trapped either in welfare or in social housing and even that our housing stock is not being inappropriately used. That is something that Mr Wilson touched on in his contribution, and it is something that we ought to look at.

My other comments on the amendments are about the rhetoric, mainly of the SDLP and Sinn Féin. The SDLP was largely founded on the principles of social democracy, social mobility and helping people to better themselves. I do not always see that in some of the opposition or some of the changes that you want to make to the Welfare Reform Bill. If anything, the basics of welfare reform are about not trapping people in poverty, worklessness or social housing. It is about social mobility, and I just think that some colleagues, mainly to the right of me, have lost their way on social mobility.

I have to say to colleagues in Sinn Féin that, if you look at some of the areas that they have represented for many years now, you can see that they are probably some of the least socially mobile constituencies in the UK. That is something that we need to change. I find it bizarre, when you set it in the context of supporting corporation tax devolution and then welfare reform, because you come to the point at which that is effectively supporting trickle-down economics, and it is a long way to trickle down. Corporation tax has a long way to trickle down to reach the very poorest and those most distant from the labour market. That is the basis of what welfare reform is and should be about. It is about protecting the vulnerable, but I do not think that, from the point of view of Sinn Féin and the SDLP, the two policies sit together.

Mr McGlone: I thank the Member for giving way. Will the Member accept the difference, which is that there are people who will never be able to enter the workforce because of their disabilities? That is why the SDLP is proposing amendments and why the SDLP and others, including Mr Agnew, are advocating and championing their cause. The link between corporation tax and those who are disabled, some of whom are so severely disabled as never to be able to enter the workforce, is an erroneous one.

Mr McCallister: I am grateful to Mr McGlone. The links between reforming welfare and economic policy are well established. The work that the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition Government have done is about making work pay and driving a private sector that can create jobs to take people off welfare and get them into work. I entirely accept Mr McGlone's point that there are people who will never be able to work; there will be people with disabilities so profound that they will not be able to work. The liberating fact of getting people into a job and getting paid and off dependency is something that we as an Assembly and an Executive should encourage. Those are the more positive points about welfare reform. We do not want to trap people. We want social mobility —

Mr F McCann: Will the Member give way?

Mr McCallister: I will in a second. We want people who have some of the most difficult starts in life not to be trapped in welfare and worklessness for generations, with the cyclical effect that that brings.

Mr F McCann: I understand your politics in all of this. Having listened to your debates and arguments, I know you have always argued in and around support for welfare reform, regardless of the consequences.

I have also listened to the SDLP talk about the amendments. It is a party that entered into an agreement and then walked away from it when it got out the door. People talk about work capability assessments, but it is the party that initiated those and has been responsible for tens of thousands of people with physical and mental disabilities being taken off benefits, yet it stands here today saying that it is championing their cause.

Mr McCallister: I am grateful to Mr McCann as well. On his initial point about supporting welfare reform, I think that most people support the broad principles that we cannot or should not trap people. I want to see people from his constituency of West Belfast, which is one of the most deprived constituencies in the United Kingdom, being socially mobile and being able to get a good education and a good, well-paid job. The point is about linking it with an economic strategy. Some people in his constituency will be a long way off benefiting from a cut in corporation tax. That is where the trickle-down economics comes in. It is a long way for it to trickle down to get to the very poorest in his constituency.

I have to say that I agree entirely with his point about agreeing to something before Christmas and then walking away from it. If you are going to do that, at least leave the Executive. I know that, if Mrs Kelly had her way, the SDLP may well have been out of the Executive by this stage, but that is — [Interruption.]

She may be getting to her feet now. That is the reason why we need to reform the way in which we do our business here.

We cannot have an Executive who function like this. They agree a Budget, then three parties vote against it. They agree welfare reform, then two parties vote against it. You need either to agree —

Mr Givan: Will the Member give way?

Mr McCallister: I will give way to Mrs Kelly first.

Mrs D Kelly: I thank the Member for giving way. I want to clarify something for Members who do not appear to have read the Stormont House Agreement and are trying to throw in a number of red herrings about what was or was not agreed. There are six lines in the agreement, as I said earlier, on welfare reform and the Bill. If I may be permitted, they state:

It appears that the Executive have already failed to implement the Stormont House Agreement, because this is the month of February. I do not see where there has been any walking away from the agreement. We are debating the Bill here. We did not give a veto to the dictatorship that runs in Sinn Féin and the DUP. I know that those two parties clamp down on dissidents and speakers who have a different view from the party leadership, but the House has a duty to scrutinise the Assembly, and it is the right of the legislative Assembly to scrutinise legislation. We are not giving up that right.

Mr McCallister: I welcome the right to champion that right to scrutinise, but you should be doing that from a position outside the Executive. That is what all three smaller parties should be doing: opposing, scrutinising and tabling amendments from outside the Executive.

Of course, I was not at the Stormont House Agreement discussions —

Mr Speaker: The longer you go on, the more tenuous your connection with the amendments. Will you please return to the subject matter?

Mr McCallister: I will. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think that Mr Givan wanted to bring me straight back to the amendments, if he still wants in.

Mr Givan: If the Executive have handled this so badly, and the SDLP and Ulster Unionists are so vociferously opposed — whether they are happy to be subjected to a "dictatorship", as Dolores Kelly said, is a matter for those parties to deal with — can Mr McCallister impart to us how the Executive could be more functional, if he believes that that needs to be the case? Maybe, if there is best practice from his experience of NI21, that could be shared with us to try to make us more functional.

Mr Speaker: I invite you not to follow that line of inquiry — [Laughter.]

— and come back to the subject matter.

Mr McCallister: Mr Speaker, I am grateful for your guidance on that. I am sure that there is an amendment that I could try to link it to.

The issue of these amendments and their functionality does not reflect well on tabling amendments from various sides of government. My views on how we make this place better are very well known. In fact, the Member could come out and support my Bill on reforming the Assembly and Executive. That would make a huge difference to it.

One last point: at least when I was in something as dysfunctional as NI21, I knew to resign. [Laughter.]

Mr Speaker: I call the very patient Minister for Social Development, Mr Mervyn Storey.

Mr Storey: Thank you, Mr Speaker. After listening to all that since 10.50 am today, I wonder where to start, but I will try to make my way through this. Had I known on 24 September 2014 what awaited me, it might have coloured my answer to the question put to me by the First Minister about taking up this post. However, we are where we are, and we will endeavour now to work through the very important issues raised.

I want to say a word of thanks to all who worked on the Bill. In particular, I thank the Committee for the work that it carried out when focusing on the matters pertaining to it. Its sterling work on the consultation with organisations should be acknowledged.

I also want to acknowledge the work of my colleague and friend, Nelson McCausland the previous Minister for Social Development, who did a huge amount of work. I do not think that we will underestimate the work that he did to bring the measures that he negotiated to the fore. I want to place that on record and say a word of thanks to him. I also thank my staff who have worked tirelessly over the last number of months and continue to work in relation to this. I want to pay tribute to them as well.

A comment was made earlier; I think it was by Mrs Kelly. It was a quote or summary of what it was that we should be about. It was about meeting the needs of people. As I listen to the contributions, I think that sometimes we lose sight of the reason why we are here. It is to ensure that we do what we were mandated to do for the people who sent us to this House. I have listened to cheap political points and nonsense spoken by Members who, I honestly believe, if they had the convictions they claim to have, would walk out of the Executive and the Assembly and would tell the people of Northern Ireland: "I do not want to be part of this dysfunctional process, this Assembly.cannot make a decision."

It seems that when we do not make a decision it is a problem, and when we get an agreement, it is a problem and there are difficulties and issues. Clearly, I think that there are some people and parties in the Chamber for whom it is make-your-mind-up time. Surely, if you have the convictions that you claim you have, and if you are politically posturing in relation to these things, as we think you are, you will have an opportunity in a few months' time to put that to the test. Surely, that is the ultimate test that we all subject ourselves to.

However, I do not have that privilege or luxury. I have been given a task to do, one that is underscored in legislation: to ensure that I continue to deliver a safe and secure welfare system for the people of Northern Ireland. I can assure you that I will not deflect from that purpose or responsibility, even though it will be difficult and challenging. That is the purpose and goal that I have been set.

Mr Nesbitt: I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. I acknowledge his opening remarks. I have just a couple of questions to put to him, if I may. Has he heard anything from the Ulster Unionists today that he did not hear in a three-hour meeting in this Building yesterday? Will he confirm what I believe I heard yesterday from the other parties that signed up to the Stormont House Agreement, that we were supposed to go forward as five parties agreeing together? Can he understand the shock of the Ulster Unionist Party to discover that the petitions of concern, which were not mentioned once in the three hours yesterday, were issued within minutes of the end of that meeting?

Mr Storey: I thank the Member for his intervention.

I have to say that we find ourselves in a position where we must get progress. Mrs Kelly made reference to the timeline and that already we are in default. Our party is a party to the Executive, their processes and the work that they do. I find it difficult, when we bring papers to the Executive and inform them of what we are doing, that that is taken and used against us, as though we are defaulting and not implementing what we agreed. I can understand the issues that the Member has raised but he, equally, has to understand the frustration that I have in trying to ensure that the issue of penalties is dealt with. Remember, that issue has not gone away. There is a requirement on us to make progress in relation to that, and I am trying to keep the focus in relation to that issue. I have given commitments to ensure that we will work our way through this process.

Let me make this point before I start into the comments that I want to make on the amendments: a lot of this was not about the Bill when it all started; it was about the regulations and about implementation. That is following on from, and trying to respond to, the point that was made by Mr Attwood earlier when he referred to the way in which this is chaotic in the rest of the United Kingdom. Members know that I have repeatedly said that it is vital that we get the legislation but that it is more important that we get the regulations and have the implementation in a way that avoids all the issues that have been to the fore in other parts of the United Kingdom. I will come back later to some of the comments that he made.

I want to move to the issues raised by Members. To encourage Members, you will be delighted to know that we have five groups and that we are just coming near the end of the first one. I will endeavour, as time permits, to work my way through the comments that I want to make.

I will begin by addressing amendment Nos 1 and 3, which relate to the basic conditions that must be met to be entitled to universal credit. It would perhaps assist the House if I explain, first, what universal credit is and, secondly, what the basic conditions are. Universal credit will be a single-household benefit that will replace a number of working-age benefits and is designed to simplify the existing complex benefits system, making it cheaper to administer whilst providing incentives to encourage individuals to find work or return to work and to ensure that work always pays. It is trying to address the issue that was referred to by my colleague. He makes many valid points about that incentive and that policy intent and ensuring that we have a system and a policy intent that is about taking people out of a very sad situation. We have to face up to that.

There sometimes seems to be a view in the House that there are difficulties only in certain communities and that it is only certain locations in this city that have problems and challenges. My constituency is deemed affluent by the Noble indices and all the other indicators by which an area is judged. However, there are people in those communities who are dependent upon ensuring that there is a welfare system that provides for their needs. Let us not lose sight of that, because we sometimes do ourselves a disservice by the cheap, trivial way that we approach problems faced by families, individuals, lone parents and a whole variety of people such as disabled people and people who have other challenges and difficulties. I come here today, I trust, with some heart for those issues because I know what it is like to have been there and to have seen some of the difficulties that families can face.

Clause 4 sets out the basic conditions that must be met in order to be entitled to universal credit. The five basic conditions that must be met for entitlement to universal credit, unless exceptions apply, are to be aged 18 or over; to be under the qualifying age for state pension credit; to be in Northern Ireland; to not be in education; and to have accepted a claimant commitment. Those requirements must be met and must continue to be met for entitlement to universal credit. In the case of joint claims, both eligible claimants in a household will be required to accept an individual claimant commitment. Amendment Nos 1 and 3 would allow, where one member of a couple does not accept their claimant commitment, the claim for benefit from the member of the couple who accepts a claimant commitment to be treated as a claim from a single person.

Clause 14 introduces the claimant commitment for universal credit. Clauses 45, 55 and 60 make accepting a claimant commitment a condition of entitlement for existing benefits such as jobseeker's allowance and income support and will be implemented at the same time as universal credit is implemented.

Therefore, should the amendment be accepted, amendments would also have to be made to clauses 45, 55 and 60.

The amendment raises significant issues that I want to address. A couple will be required to make a joint claim for universal credit to ensure that both take responsibility for the claim and obtain support to find work where appropriate. That is a principle already established in jobseeker's allowance for joint claims and is being extended to universal credit so that both members of a couple should have equal opportunity to access this support. In addition to work-related expectations, the claimant commitment includes responsibilities such as reporting a change of circumstances and is tailored to the individual circumstances of each member of the couple.

It is recognised that there will be circumstances where claimants will find it difficult to accept a claimant commitment. In cases where one member of a couple is incapable of claiming due to disability or a health condition and has an appointee acting on their behalf, the requirement to accept a claimant commitment will be waived. Also, if the claimant is in hospital and is likely to be there for weeks or if there is a domestic emergency preventing the claimant from accepting a claimant commitment, the claim can be made by the other member of the couple singly. However, such claims will be treated as joint claims, as that underpins the policy principles that universal credit is a household benefit and that the income and capital of both members of the couple will be treated as being available to the couple jointly.

In cases where the claimant is reluctant to accept the claimant commitment, a cooling-off period of a minimum of seven days will be allowed for claimants to reconsider the impact on the household and to sign the claimant commitment before any decision is taken to disallow. It is not anticipated that the clause will adversely affect any claimant. We believe that, once the position is explained to the claimant by their personal adviser, common sense will prevail.

Accepting amendment Nos 1 or 3 would also open the door to fraudulent behaviour. Take the scenario where a family consists of a mother, father and two children, where the mother is working and the father is not. If the mother decides not to sign a claimant commitment, removing the clause would mean that the father could claim as a single parent. This is not behaviour that we wish to encourage or condone. Personal responsibility is one of the basic principles of the wider reform agenda, and this is particularly relevant for universal credit, where claims are to be assessed on the basis of joint income and savings for all members in a household. Treating a couple as single claimants would be financially advantageous and, therefore, unfair to couples who both agree to sign their claimant commitments. To accept amendment Nos 1 and 3 would be a clear breach of parity. There would be potential implications for the Northern Ireland block grant, and it would result in claimants in Northern Ireland receiving preferential treatment over those in Great Britain.

Mr Beggs: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Storey: The impact of this would be difficult to justify and would create the potential for wider and significant equality issues between claimants here in Northern Ireland and Great Britain. For those reasons, I urge Members to reject amendment Nos 1 and 3. I give way to the Member.

Mr Beggs: Amendment No 1 states:

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?

Mr Storey: For the reasons I have set out, I am trying to safeguard the rationale that I believe exists because of the way we have constructed the elements of the Bill. I have set out why, in those circumstances, it is better not to accept amendment Nos 1 and 3.

Amendment No 4 inserts a new clause on the provision of claimant documentation when making a claim for universal credit. When a person cannot provide all the required documentation to make a claim, provision is made for third-party verification in lieu of required documentation, including identity documents, so that the claim can be made. Under the current claims and payment regulations, a person making a claim for benefit must provide certificates, documents, information and evidence as required. That provision is being carried forward into the proposed universal credit claims and payments regulations. I underscore "is being carried forward" so that Members are clear about that issue. How evidence is currently accepted is stipulated in guidance. While there is nothing specific on handling third-party evidence, in practice, if it is from a reputable source, such as social services, it is accepted to kick-start a claim from someone who is homeless or vulnerable.

Guidance will cover, as it does currently, the continued acceptance of third-party verification when appropriate. The IT identity security system — the integrated risk and intelligence service (IRIS) — will flag up a range of risks or concerns, including those originating from identity trust flags. In such cases, an identification task will be generated that will require resolution, including third-party verification. That would ordinarily happen through face-to-face contact with Social Security Agency staff in the office. There should be no difficulty for claimants without bank accounts; the simple payment service will enable such vulnerable claimants to access their money without conventional ID documents. I am providing an assurance that the current practice allowing third-party verification for vulnerable claimants will carry forward and that such claimants will still be able to make a claim and have their money paid via either a bank account, if held, or the simple payment service, which is aimed at claimants who do not have access to a bank account. For those reasons, I urge Members to reject amendment No 4.

Amendment No 8 would insert a new clause 12A on the frequency of universal credit payments. The amendment introduces a default position of an award of universal credit being paid twice monthly unless a claimant opts or joint claimants opt to be paid monthly. I find it somewhat bizarre that Members today have claimed that we are working in the dark, as if, somehow, we are all living in a cauldron in which we do not know what is going on, and that this is all part of a secret deal that the public know nothing about. These things have been agreed and are now being brought forward. I will say more about that later; judging by the way things are going, it looks as though it will be much later.

Currently in Northern Ireland, the majority — over 99% — of social security claimants receive their payment fortnightly, with two thirds of tax credit recipients being paid weekly. Furthermore, in Northern Ireland, 32% of employees are paid more frequently than monthly, which compares with only 18% in GB. Concerns have been raised by many stakeholders, including the voluntary sector and the Executive subgroup on welfare reform, that the introduction of monthly payments will cause significant difficulties for some people, especially those on existing social security benefits. Twice-monthly payments is one of a package of measures that my predecessor agreed with the Department for Work and Pensions to shape how welfare reform could be implemented in Northern Ireland and to mitigate some of the negative aspects of welfare reform in Northern Ireland. My correspondence to the Church leaders in October 2014 is in the public domain. It was not secret. It was not done under some guise of secrecy. It was done very publicly and openly. I was very happy to do it, and I have continued to keep the Church leaders abreast and informed of what has been going on. In October 2014, in my correspondence, which is on the website and is available to Members to check, I informed the Church leaders that I was proposing:

This would more closely match the frequency of current benefit payments. I went on to say that claimants would have:

Mr I McCrea: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Storey: You scared me there, but I will give way, yes.

Mr I McCrea: I thank the Minister for giving way. Given that he has referred to the number of occasions that this has been put in the public domain, can he find any reasoning behind the amendment that is on the Order Paper? Does he believe that it is down to a lack of understanding, or is it just political grandstanding?

Mr Storey: Well, it is always difficult to ascertain what is behind amendments. I do not want to in any way sound as though I am just being totally and absolutely dismissive of Members' motives when they come to this issue. I have already referred to the fact that a huge amount of concern was raised by stakeholders, including the voluntary sector, and it was all relayed through the Executive subgroup on welfare reform. Sometimes, however, you get to the point where it is difficult to come to any conclusion other than that politics is being played with these issues, and that is regrettable.

Mr Agnew: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Storey: I will, but I want to make progress.

Mr Agnew: I will be very brief. As has been pointed out, it has been stated publicly many times that agreement has been secured to have bi-monthly payments here in respect of welfare reform. Why, then, has the Minister not tabled amendments for today to put that in the Bill?

Mr Storey: If the Member was listening to what I said earlier on, he would have heard that a lot of this was not about the difficulties in the Bill; the difficulties were in the regulations. I was going to say that I was relatively young to the House, but I came here in 2003 and maybe now I am beginning to realise how many years ago that was. I am still challenged and having difficulty in trying to get my head around all the mechanics of the legislation, but I think that the regulations will be the way in which we ensure that these things are handled and implemented.

Maybe this is putting it too simplistically, but the framework for the introduction of the policy intent is the Bill, and a huge amount of work will still have to be done over a period to bring forward the various regulations that will see enacted what we have agreed. For Members then to somehow think that that is all being done without them or because two parties have agreed it is an unfair reflection of how we propose to deal with these issues.

I would also say to Members that the Bill and the proposed relevant regulations already contain flexibility to accommodate a decision on any frequency of payment. That flexibility is required in the event that future policy dictates an alternative option for frequency of payments. To specify in the Bill that universal credit is to be paid twice monthly unless a claimant or joint claimants opt to be paid monthly would remove that flexibility. If that flexibility is removed and replaced by a specific twice-monthly provision, in the event of new developments or policy, any adjustment would have to be done by way of primary legislation. It is considered more appropriate for this to be done in regulations, so that the detail can be easily amended, rather than by way of primary legislation. I assure Members that the views of the Social Development Committee will be sought on all regulations. That point was maybe referred to by Mr Beggs, and I know it was referred to by Mr O'Dowd. I almost had a sense of déjà vu because I know the difficulties that I created for him when he was endeavouring to legislate to establish a single education authority. That was also referred to by Mr McCallister, as though somehow, despite the 10 petitions of concern and all the concerns he had around that and although it was difficult, challenging and we had to keep going back and many pressures were brought to bear on us all by organisations and interest groups, that process proved that, if we keep at it, we can find a way through these issues. I trust that that is the case in relation to the Bill. For those reasons, I urge Members to reject amendment No 8.

Amendment No 9 relates to clause 14, and I will explain briefly what clause 14 does. It introduces the claimant commitment for universal credit. The claimant commitment is a record of a claimant's responsibilities in return for receiving benefit and will be tailored for the individual — I stress that it will be tailored for each individual — taking into account their individual capabilities and circumstances.

Clauses 45, 54 and 59 make accepting a claimant commitment a condition of entitlement to existing benefits and will be implemented at the same time as universal credit. The claimant commitment will determine exactly what work a person is looking for, when or if a work-focused interview should take place and the nature of any training that they will need to carry out.

Interviews will be used to develop an understanding of all factors relevant to job search: caring responsibilities, physical and mental health, skills and work history. In much the same way as already happens with jobseeker's allowance, it is expected that the discussion will be central to shaping the nature of the back-to-work effort. After consultation with the claimant, the claimant commitment will take account of the claimant's skills, qualifications and circumstances, including any caring responsibilities, physical or mental disability or ill health. In addition, that will be dealt with in regulations and guidance.

Requirements imposed on a claimant will take account of all relevant matters, not just at the beginning of a claim but throughout a claimant's time on benefit. The requirements will be reviewed following any change of circumstance, should a claimant raise a particular issue or if the nature of the job search changes. The claimant commitment is expected to be a living document. It will be personalised to the individual claimant and regularly revised to reflect the claimant's circumstances.

As the claimant will take part in discussing all the factors that need to be considered when drawing up their claimant commitment, it is not considered necessary to legislate for the Department to have due regard to the claimant's skills, experience, caring responsibilities and health matters in the Bill, as amendment No 9 suggests.

I want to pick up on a point raised by Mrs Kelly in relation to childcare and assure her that the provisions in JSA will be retained. In other words, where there is no affordable available childcare, no lone parent will be coerced into work or work-related activity. That should give the Member an assurance in relation to that issue.

It is for the reasons that I have outlined that I urge Members to reject amendment No 9.

Amendment Nos 10 and 11 relate to clause 16, which defines the work preparation requirement for universal credit. This is a requirement that a claimant takes actions that will increase the chances, now or in the future, that they will get work, get work that is better paid or increase the number of hours that they work.

All claimants who are able to prepare for work should be required to do so as a condition of receiving benefit. It is likely that all but the most work-ready jobseekers will have some kind of work-preparation requirement placed on them, even if it is just updating their CV.

Those people who have been found through the work-capability assessment to have limited capability for work but who are capable of work-related activity will also have work-preparation requirements placed on them. The Department is committed to increasing the number of disabled people in employment. We will provide better and more intensive support to help people off benefits and find sustainable work. In return, claimants who are capable of taking steps to prepare for work should do so. Advisers will devise a tailored work-preparation plan for each claimant. The details of that will be included in the claimant commitment. The nature and amount of work preparation required could vary from person to person but will always be reasonable in the claimant's circumstances. Examples might include skills training, confidence building or work experience.

Amendment No 10 changes the wording in the explanation of what a "work-focused health-related assessment" means. Instead of an assessment being conducted by a health-care professional approved by the Department, it would change to a health-care professional who is employed by a health and social care trust or who is a general practitioner. Health professionals undertaking work-focused health-related assessments will all be recruited and trained directly by the assessment provider appointed by the Department, which, for Northern Ireland, is Atos.

It is important that we read into the record the requirements that health professionals must meet, because this is a very important matter for many people. Health professionals must be an occupational therapist, nurse, psychiatrist, paramedic or doctor; be fully registered with the relevant licensing body, while doctors must have a licence to practise; have no sanctions attached to registration; have at least two years' post-full registration experience, except where individually agreed by exception with the Department; and have passed all Access NI checks.

Once health professionals are recruited by the assessment provider, they are required to undertake an accredited training programme and, on successful completion, are approved by the Social Security Agency's health assessment adviser. They will receive specialist training in assessing the impact of disability. Therefore, the role differs from the therapeutic role of health professionals in Health and Social Care trusts and of general practitioners, which is primarily to reach a diagnosis and/or plan treatment. Training will incorporate both e-learning and face-to-face modules and will be signed off by the agency's health assessment adviser.

Furthermore, health professionals do not need to be already employed by a health and social care trust, as they will all be employed directly by the assessment provider. Clearly, therefore, it would be inappropriate to place limitations on those who can undertake the assessments. On that basis, I urge Members to reject amendment No 10.

Amendment No 11 inserts an additional provision in clause 16 to ensure that any person who carries out a work-focused health-related assessment takes account of relevant medical evidence, including evidence of mental ill health. Medical evidence is reviewed as part of the work-capability assessment process. Medical evidence will also be taken into account as part of the mandatory reconsideration process of any claim in which an individual decided to take an appeal against a decision of the agency. That is a point that Mr Beggs raised.

Mr Beggs also raised the issue of the number of appeals. I will clarify that 67% of decisions made in ESA appeal cases are in favour of the Department's original decision; 30% are in favour of the claimant and are made for a range of factors, including fresh medical evidence presented on the day of the appeal; and 3% of decisions are in favour of the claimant because of incorrect decisions made by the Department. All of that can be verified by the annual report of the president of the Appeals Service.

The scope of the work-focused health-related assessment is the extent to which a person’s capability for work may be improved by taking steps in relation to their physical or mental condition. The assessment aims to support people back to work. It enables claimants to explore, with a trained health-care professional, their aspirations for engaging in or returning to work, and their beliefs, perceptions and concerns about their particular condition. It is intended that a version of the work capability assessment will be used to decide the level of support that a disabled person receives under universal credit. The health-care professional will review all the evidence before them and provide advice to the decision-maker on the likely functional implications of any medical evidence provided. This advice helps the decision-maker to reach an appropriate decision on entitlement to benefit.

The proposed amendment seeks to make it a legislative requirement for health-care professionals to take account of relevant medical evidence when carrying out a work capability assessment. It is worth pointing out that the primary role of the GP or hospital doctor is to carry out a medical assessment. They do not, as a matter of course, always consider the disabling effects or restrictions of the claimant’s medical condition. The assessment carried out by the health-care professional is a functional assessment. It is designed to assess the impact of the claimant’s health condition or disability on their ability to provide for themselves through work.

Amendment No 11 is not required, as the role of the health-care professional is to take account of relevant medical evidence when carrying out an assessment. Specifying that in the Bill could suggest that this type of evidence is more important or carries more weight than other available evidence. This has been subject to review by Professor Harrington and Dr Paul Litchfield. Their independent reviews have come to an end, but I am conscious, on hearing concerns raised here today, that further work is needed, and I take this opportunity to assure the House that I will examine how we can best ensure that, going forward, this learning is built into the assessment process. That point was also referred to by, I think, Mr Beggs. It is important that, following the independent reviews, I take some time to look at these issues and ensure that we have covered this element in the best possible way, and I give that assurance to the House. For those reasons, I urge Members to reject amendment No 11.

Amendment Nos 12 and 13 relate to clause 24. The Bill aims to give advisers broad discretion to impose requirements that they think give claimants the best chance of finding or preparing for work. However, there may be certain requirements or actions that are not and will never be appropriate. Clause 24 allows us to make regulations to put such matters beyond doubt, by setting out particular circumstances when requirements or specific actions must not be imposed. There may also be circumstances that justify claimants being exempt from having requirements imposed on them for short periods, such as a bereavement or a domestic emergency. A specific example of this is included to allow claimants who have been victims of, or threatened with, domestic violence to be given a 13-week exemption from any work-related requirements, and this is a carry over from existing social security legislation. Amendment No 12 proposes to include victims of an incident motivated by hate in the 13-week exemption from any work-related requirement, and proposed amendment No 13 defines the meaning of an "incident motivated by hate". Domestic violence and hate crime are very different. Domestic violence is caused by a member of the household, whereas hate crime is usually associated with strangers. The two are therefore, correctly in my view, treated differently in social security legislation.

The universal credit regulations, which will be subject to Assembly approval, will give work coaches the discretion not to impose or tailor a work search or work availability requirement temporarily for claimants who are dealing with a domestic emergency or temporary circumstances. Domestic emergencies or temporary circumstances are not prescribed in the guidance. This allows a work coach to make a decision based on an individual’s circumstances and on whether a work search or work availability requirement would be reasonable in those circumstances. A work coach would be able to consider a racist attack under that regulation. I trust that this will be helpful to the Member who raised that issue. This approach will support better decision-making by allowing staff to consider the merits of each individual case. It also gives flexibility on the time during which the easement on work search and work availability applies and does not tie it to the 13 weeks for victims of hate crime.

In responding to the proposed amendment, I assure the House that legal advice was sought. It confirmed that there is no legal definition of hate crime that could be incorporated into social security legislation. I think that that issue was raised by a number of Members. For these reasons, I urge members to reject amendment Nos 12 and 13.

Amendment No 17 proposes that my Department is provided with powers to introduce a fund to replace the current independent living fund for Northern Ireland within 18 months of commencement of the Northern Ireland Welfare Reform Act. I appreciate that my colleague Mr Pat Ramsey referred to that issue earlier. I want to make a few more comments on that and underpin what I said to him.

It may be helpful if I provide some background to the independent living fund. It was created in 1988 as an executive non-departmental public body of the Department for Work and Pensions to provide financial support to disabled people throughout the United Kingdom. In Northern Ireland, my Department is only responsible for meeting the costs of Northern Ireland recipients of the fund and a share of the overall administration costs. However, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety currently has a policy interest in the fund given that the people supported are those with severe disabilities, most of whom are in receipt of a substantial care package from their local health and care trust.

The fund makes direct cash payments to severely disabled people with intensive care needs across the UK. The money is used to pay for agency care staff or for the recipient to employ a personal assistant. The support enables disabled people to choose to live in the community rather than in a residential care setting.

Due to escalating costs, the decision was taken in GB to close the fund permanently with effect from 30 June 2015. Following that decision, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety in Northern Ireland published a consultation document on 4 August 2014 to seek views on how Northern Ireland users of the fund could be supported from 1 July 2015. As I said earlier, that public consultation ended on 30 November 2014, and I understand that the Health Minister plans to announce his decision in early 2015.

I gave an assurance — and I reiterate that assurance — that I will discuss this issue with the Minister of Health when he returns. Following on from the debate, I will ensure that Mr Ramsey's comments and concern about the issue are conveyed to the Health Minister.

I will, I trust, be in a better place to inform the House of progress on this when we come back for Further Consideration Stage in a couple of weeks' time. As the Department of Health will have responsibility for the independent living fund (ILF) users following the closure of the fund, it is for those reasons that I urge Members to reject the amendment.

I move on, Mr Speaker, to amendment Nos 18 and 19. They refer to clause 38, which allows us to continue to use the work capability assessment when determining whether a claimant has limited capability for work and, if so, whether they also have limited capability for work-related activity. Determination of a claimant’s capability for work following a work capability assessment clarifies a claimant’s work-related requirements and their eligibility, or not, for an additional element in a universal credit award. Those who are unable to work because of the effects of a disability or health condition will be entitled to a higher amount of universal credit based on their capability for work. As in the current system, they will be allocated either to the work-related activity group or the support group.

The work capability assessment assesses individuals’ functional ability for work, rather than assuming that a health condition or disability is an automatic barrier to work. Many disabled people, and others with health conditions, play a full and active role in the labour market, and there is evidence that work is exceptionally beneficial for people’s physical and mental well-being. Whilst we remain committed to supporting those who cannot work, we want to help as many people as possible to return to suitable work. No one should be written off or consigned to a life on benefits simply because of a disability.

It is intended that a version of the work capability assessment will be used to decide the level of support that a disabled person receives under universal credit. This will include a work preparation requirement, which may specifically include taking part in a work-focused health-related assessment. The scope of the work-focused health-related assessment is about the extent to which the person’s capability for work may be improved by taking steps in relation to their physical or mental condition.

Amendment 18 seeks to make it a legislative requirement for health-care professionals to take account of relevant medical evidence when carrying out a work capability assessment. Amendment 19 mirrors this, but expands it to include "evidence of mental ill health". I have previously highlighted the role of the health-care professional, which includes considering the evidence when assessing the impact of the claimant’s health condition or disability on their ability to provide for themselves through work. They also provide advice to the decision maker on the likely functional implications of any medical evidence provided to enable the decision maker to reach an informed, appropriate decision on entitlement to benefit. I have also highlighted the primary role of the GP or hospital doctor: to carry out a medical assessment. They do not as a matter of course always consider the disabling effects or the restrictions of the claimant’s medical condition. Amendment Nos 18 and 19 are not required, as the role of the health-care professional is to take account of relevant medical evidence when carrying out an assessment, including any mental ill health.

Roy Beggs asked for an update on discussions between my Department and the Department of Health on medical evidence and GP contracts. The GP contract has been raised with Department of Health colleagues, but we have been unable to move the issue forward, due to a lack of agreement on the Welfare Reform Bill. Officials will now be taking forward this piece of work, and I trust that I will be in a position to give a more detailed assessment as to the outcome of that issue. The GP contract has also been tabled with Dr Litchfield, who referred to it in his most recent report on the operation of ESA in Northern Ireland. Mr Beggs referred to that.

Amending the Bill in this way could suggest that this type of evidence is more important or carries more weight than other available evidence. For those reasons, I urge Members to reject amendment Nos 18 and 19.

We are making slow but, I trust, steady progress as we make our way through the amendments, so I will address my comments to amendment Nos 35, 36, 37 and 57. They all relate to the requirements for the assessment process for personal independence payment as set out in clause 79, so I will address them together. Amendment No 35 would insert a new provision to clause 79 that says that, when assessing an individual's ability to carry out daily living or mobility activities to determine entitlement to personal independence payment, the Department must:

This amendment and amendment No 36, which I will come to shortly, mirrors earlier amendments on assessments to determine entitlement to universal credit. I argued against accepting the earlier amendments on medical evidence, which was on the basis that one of a health-care professional's primary roles is to take account of the relevant medical evidence, including any mental ill health issues, when carrying out an assessment. Therefore, I did not think that that needed to be addressed in the Bill.

However, given that PIP's distinct purpose is to help with the extra costs of long-term illness or disability, I am content to accept amendment No 35. Indeed, to ensure that medical evidence is available when needed, the Executive have agreed to establish a fund to provide additional funding for medical reports. No claimant will have an adverse decision made against their claim for PIP without the decision maker considering a report from either the claimant's GP or consultant. That is another issue that is in the light, not in the dark. I know that it has taken a long time to get to the point where you wanted to hear me say that I was accepting something, but for those reasons, I urge Members to accept amendment No 35.

Amendment No 36 would make a similar provision to amendment No 35 but has a particular emphasis on taking evidence of mental ill health into account. Similar to my arguments on earlier amendments, accepting amendment No 36 would give a degree of prominence in the assessment process to evidence of mental ill health. Indeed, it could be argued that, by making such provision in the Bill, mental ill health could be given an elevated status over other medical conditions. That would go against the core principles that are the foundation of PIP. Entitlement is to be determined not by a specific disability or health condition but by the impact that that condition has on the individual's ability to carry out a number of key everyday activities. I have personal experience of attending many DLA appeals, and I think that that is an issue that Members repeatedly have to go back to. It is not about the person's condition; it is about the implications of how it affects them. I think that we need to emphasise that entitlement is to be determined not by the specific disability or health condition but by the impact of the condition on the individual's ability to carry out a number of key everyday activities.

The Department will set out in regulations and guidance the actual processes for how the assessment should operate in practice, including when and how additional information will be sought. Again, I remind Members that that will be for the Assembly to consider.

Mrs D Kelly: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Storey: I will give way to the Member.

Mrs D Kelly: I have concerns about guidance and regulations, in particular for people who have a learning disability, perhaps coupled with a severe physical disability. I have experience of representing constituents and their carers who are elderly and have repeat calls for review and appeal, which is traumatic and puts a lot of stress and anxiety on them. In bringing forward the guidance, Minister, I wonder whether you would look at the concerns raised. I will write to you if you wish about this case, because it is hugely traumatic for the carers in particular.

Mr Storey: I thank the Member for raising that issue, and I assure her that I am quite happy for her to write to me or that we take up her comments. As we prepare the regulations and guidance, we need to be made aware of examples like that. This is always going to be the challenge for us. I have said a huge amount in the 23 pages that I have gone through, and I still go back to the point that I made at the very beginning, which is that this is about people. If we can incorporate those things in the regulations and guidance, I assure the Member that I will look at that and come back to her.

The intention behind the assessment is that it is more evidence-based, so additional evidence will cover a broad range of areas, including medical and other forms of evidence that may not be seen as medical — for example, a care plan or a report from any other professional involved in supporting the claimant, such as social workers, key workers, care coordinators or something else that would not be condition-specific but would provide relevant information to help the Department to determine whether the individual has a difficulty with daily living or mobility activities and to what extent.

Let us go back to the 30% that were successful on the basis of additional evidence, which is the issue that we need to underscore. We sometimes fail our constituents when we do not give them that piece of good advice. It is about ensuring that the evidence is there. It is not that someone is questioning an individual, but, when you are a decision maker and are going through this process, it is very good — in fact, I would say that it is essential — to ensure that that information is there and is given due regard.

The Department or the assessment providers on its behalf will seek further evidence by phone or by issuing one of the standard pro forma requests in cases in which they feel that it is appropriate — for example, when they feel that further evidence would allow them to offer robust advice without the need for a face-to-face consultation, or when they consider that a consultation is still likely to be needed but further evidence would improve the quality of the advice that they provide to the Department. It is important that the PIP functional assessment is carried out by a professional with the appropriate training to complete the assessment. I have a responsibility to ensure that the service is provided efficiently and to ensure proper use of public funds. It is my view that the identity of the employer is not the primary concern of the assessment.

Health professionals undertaking PIP assessments must also meet the same requirements for those undertaking the work capability assessment, which I highlighted earlier in the debate. They must, for example, be an occupational therapist, a nurse, a physiotherapist, a paramedic or a doctor, and they must be fully registered with the relevant licensing body. The health professionals have to complete an accredited training programme before being approved by the Social Security Agency’s health assessment adviser and receive specialist training in assessing the impact of disability.

This role differs from the therapeutic role of health professionals in the health and social care trusts and general practitioners, whose primary role is to reach a diagnosis and/or plan treatment. Therefore, it clearly would be inappropriate to enable health professionals employed by the health and social care trusts or general practitioners to undertake assessment in respect of the personal independence payment as, for the most part, they will lack the necessary training and skills to undertake this specialised role. For these reasons, I urge Members to reject amendment Nos 36, 37 and 57.

Mr Speaker, I am trying to work my way to a conclusion on these. Amendment Nos 38 and 39 relate to clause 80 and the prospective test for the personal independence payment. Perhaps this will assist the House, and I am sure that you all want to have this information imparted to you so that you will all be better informed on this issue. I will take a step back and reiterate what clause 80 does. Clause 80 is linked with clauses 77 to 79 and makes provision related to what constitutes "the required period condition" for entitlement to either component of the personal independence payment. To qualify for help, claimants must, first, have needed help for three months or more — this is known as the qualifying period — or, secondly, be likely to need help for the next nine months. This is known as the prospective test period. Amendment No 38 proposes changing the prospective test period to six months. Amendment No 39 is consequential on amendment No 38 and defines when the six-month period commences.

The current mechanisms in attendance allowance and DLA to establish that a condition is likely to be long term are through the operation of a qualifying period, during which no benefit can be paid, and a prospective test. For attendance allowance, a person needs to meet the six-month qualifying period. For DLA, a person must meet a three-month qualifying period and a six-month prospective test. The qualifying period is passed if someone has established that they would have met the conditions of entitlement to attendance allowance or either of the component parts of DLA in the previous three or six months. That is measured from when the benefit can first become payable, and this prospective period is passed if someone is likely to meet those conditions of entitlement for a further six months. Although the criteria for establishing that a disability is likely to be long term operate slightly differently for attendance allowance and DLA, they both serve the same purpose, which is to ensure that support is focused on those who face the greatest challenges to taking part in everyday life.

I underscore that key to the reform of DLA is that entitlement to the personal independence payment should be on an individual-based approach rather than by labelling people according to their disability or their particular impairment. The objective is to avoid the current situation where a specified impairment or diagnosis leads to automatic entitlement. In this way, we would endeavour to ensure that benefit is better targeted towards those with assessed long-term needs.

In the DLA reform consultation, the Government set out their proposals to restructure the existing qualifying period and prospective tests for PIP so that the overall period covered by the tests more closely aligns with the general definition of long-term disability used in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and the associated guidance. It is felt that a three-month qualifying period and a nine-month prospective test offers the fairest solution, both to claimants and to the sound administration of the benefit.

Therefore, to ensure that support goes to those with the greatest need, the personal independence payment will be available only to those with a long-term health condition or impairment rather than short-term conditions, where other financial and in-kind support mechanisms already exist. The impact of most health conditions and disabilities can fluctuate over time. Taking a view of ability over a longer period helps to iron out fluctuations and presents a more coherent picture of disabling effects.

The consultation document also made clear that we will bring forward into personal independence payment the existing provisions that allow for exemption from the qualifying period and prospective test for people who are terminally ill. That will mean that terminally ill people will be able to get immediate payment of the enhanced rate of the daily living component without having to demonstrate that they have severely limited ability to carry out any daily living activities. Immediate entitlement to either rate of the mobility component will also be available, subject to someone having the necessary limitations on their ability to carry out the mobility activities.

To summarise, the combined effects of the three-month qualifying period and the nine-month prospective test in PIP will better align the definition of long-term disability with that generally used for the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and its associated guidance. The required-period condition will therefore continue to establish long-term disability within the context of a cash benefit paid to contribute towards the extra costs of disability. For those reasons, Members, I urge the rejection of amendment Nos 38 and 39.

I now turn to opposition to clause 99. Clause 99 clarifies that the existing power in the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 to decide who should be paid benefits includes the power for the Department to determine which of the persons should be paid in a joint award situation. Currently, payments of benefits are normally made to the claimant. For couples, ordinarily only one partner will make the claim, with their partner’s income and capital taken into account, and rates paid accordingly. The exception is joint claimants of jobseeker’s allowance, where partners can decide between them who receives the payment.

Universal credit policy is that couples living in the same household will make a joint claim for benefit, with the universal credit payment normally paid into one bank account. That is the default position in the rest of Great Britain, with any different arrangement only available in exceptional circumstances. Flexibilities secured for Northern Ireland will mean that no default position will be applied here. There will be several options available, including split payments paid into separate bank accounts. That is something that is to be welcomed and something that had been raised as a concern.

Clause 99 as drafted ensures enough flexibility to pay as frequently as required. Opposition to clause 99 would remove the clause from the Bill, and that would limit any flexibility to determine which of the persons should be paid in a joint award situation. That would reverse the flexibilities in payment options that have been secured. I therefore urge Members to reject the opposition.

Amendment No 43 proposes to insert a new clause 100A on payment of awards in cash. I advise Members that the simple payment service, which I alluded to earlier, was introduced in October 2012 for those claimants who cannot get their benefit paid into a bank, building society, credit union or Post Office card account. It is provided by Citibank, working in partnership with PayPoint, and was a replacement for payment of benefits and pensions by cheque. The simple payment service can also be used to make emergency and one-off payments where necessary. That method of payment provides a safe, secure and efficient means of allowing people to access their payments at a convenient local outlet, without the need to use a PIN and PIN pads, and provides the flexibility required by those who rely on someone else to collect their money for them. Currently, almost 1,500 claimants are paid by that modern, secure and efficient method of payment. The new clause is therefore not required, and I urge Members to reject the proposed amendment.

Amendment No 44 would insert a new clause 101A on payments pending appeal. The amendment would add a provision to section 5 of the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 for regulations to provide for the making of a payment pending appeal.

Perhaps it will be helpful if I explain that section 5 of the Administration Act contains the enabling provisions for claims and payments of benefit that apply generally to the majority of social security benefits. Other than in certain employment and support allowance cases, it has never been the case that benefit is paid pending the outcome of an appeal.

The cost of paying benefit to all appellants during the appeal process would be hugely expensive and an additional burden on the Northern Ireland block grant. In addition, consideration would have to be given to recouping the amount paid during the appeal period where the tribunal upholds the original decision, thereby increasing my Department’s administrative costs. That issue was raised by my colleague Mr Wilson. I wish to reassure Members that the provisions in the Bill do not alter the position on the payment of employment and support allowance at the assessment-phase rate, pending the outcome of an appeal of the work capability assessment.

For those claimants who will be in receipt of universal credit when it replaces income-related ESA, where similar circumstances apply, in that a claimant does not satisfy the work capability assessment, provision for payment of universal credit pending appeal is not required, as the claimant can continue to receive universal credit under one of the other conditionality provisions.

For those reasons, I urge Members to reject amendment No 44.

Amendment No 45 proposes to amend clause 103, which sets out when and how overpayments of benefit, payments on account and certain hardship payments can be recovered even where there has been no misrepresentation or failure to disclose on the part of the person from whom recovery is being sought. Where the Department makes a mistake, claimants should not expect to have the right to keep taxpayers' money to which they are not entitled. Although most overpayments of universal credit, jobseeker's allowance and employment and support allowance will be deemed recoverable in certain circumstances, the Department may decide that the overpayment, or part of it, does not have to be repaid. The circumstances in which action will be taken to recover overpayments will be governed by a code of practice in order to ensure consistent and considered decision-making. Members need to remember that the money being recovered is public money and a cost to the public purse, which the Department has a responsibility to protect. I therefore urge Members to reject amendment No 45.

The purpose of clause 129 was to amend section 165 of the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 to correct a flaw in the legislation. Owing to the delay in the progress of this Bill, the National Insurance Contributions Act 2014 carried the required amendment and corrected that flaw. Therefore, clause 129 is no longer required. I therefore urge Members to accept that position.

Amendment No 54 proposes to insert a new clause to provide that regulations under the Bill are prepared in consultation with the Northern Ireland Commission for Victims and Survivors to ensure that due regard is given to survivors of the past. When considering any new social security policy, or change in that policy, like any other Department or public body, the Department is mandated by section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to consider an equality impact assessment on the proposed policy.

Mr Speaker: Minister, for the record, did you say "54" when you meant "53"? It is for the benefit of the record.

Mr Storey: I apologise, Mr Speaker. It is amendment No 53. Thank you for paying due regard and diligence to that. Apologies for that.

Section 75 requires public authorities designated for the purposes of the Bill to comply with two statutory duties. One is the equality of opportunity duty, which requires public authorities, in carrying out their functions relating to Northern Ireland, to have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity between the nine equality categories, which are persons of different religious belief, political opinion, racial group, age, marital status or sexual orientation; men and women generally; persons with a disability and persons without; and persons with dependants and persons without. As you can see, all categories of persons accommodate not only victims and survivors but all particular groups of individuals, such as cancer patients.

Any proposed change in policy or new policy is subject to equality screening with the focus of identifying any adverse impact on the equality of opportunity of any section 75 group. The Department also considers any mitigating measures that may be necessary to alleviate that impact. In screening the proposed policy, account is taken of evidence and information obtained, where necessary, from relevant stakeholders, such as the Equality Commission, Citizens Advice and the Northern Ireland Commission for Victims and Survivors.

I am very aware of the particular sensitivities around the Northern Ireland Commission for Victims and Survivors. My Department is working with the commission, particularly on the impact that the introduction of PIP may have on the most seriously injured victims. I had what I would describe as a difficult meeting. It was not difficult in the sense that those who came to see me were in any way awkward or difficult to deal with; it was difficult in the sense that it was a reminder to us all of those in our society who still, to this day, bear scars that none of us can begin to comprehend. I recently met those victims to discuss the progress of work jointly commissioned by my predecessor and the Victims' Commissioner to avoid victims being further traumatised by the experience of being assessed for PIP.

Officials are also working with the commission on a range of issues including the PIP claimant journey. I will continue to ensure that the commission is consulted on a wide range of welfare issues. A number of Members raised that issue. I give a personal commitment to ensure that it is looked after and dealt with in a way that I believe reflects the point that was made to me. I will leave it here: there is a sense amongst that group that they have been forgotten; I want to ensure that they are not forgotten.

For those reasons, I ask Members to reject amendment No 53.

Mr Attwood: I thank the Minister for giving way. I also acknowledge his very comprehensive response to the debate, which is the right way to conduct the debate. Some of the answers — I will not put it any more strongly than that — have certainly been helpful to us.

Given what you have said in respect of victims and survivors; the sorry tale of how the VSS operated previously; the entitlement to name in legislation the categories of persons to be treated with due regard, as happens already for domestic violence victims; and given your powerful narrative just now about the experience of victims and how they should not be let down, does that not lend to the conclusion that a provision, even in simple terms in legislation, is the right response to the right needs that you have identified?

Mr Storey: I will reflect on the Member's comments in conjunction with comments that I made following my discussions with victims and survivors. I told them that it would not be a one-off meeting. I do not want to name the member of my staff who was there, but it was not the one who was named earlier. It is someone who is highly respected for the way in which they deal with these issues. I will consider the comments that the Member has made in the House tonight and reflect on what I have said in relation to how I will deal with issues in relation to victims and survivors.

Amendment No 74 relates to paragraph 6 of schedule 1, which gives the Department power to make regulations to pay all or part of an award by voucher. If a claimant finds that they are experiencing financial difficulties and have immediate needs as a result of a sanction, they can apply for a hardship payment. With the launch of universal credit, hardship payments will be paid as any other universal credit payments but, in the future, consideration will be given to alternative methods of payment, such as by voucher. That means of support will ensure that payment is spent on the needs of the family.

Work is ongoing on developing an approach to the use of vouchers. I recognise the sensitivities around the provision and the use of vouchers, and I would like to assure the House that, where vouchers or a voucher-type system are being considered, the focus will be very much on the dignity and choice of the claimant. The Department does not issue food vouchers and, I have to say, has no plans so to do. This was an issue raised by Mr Beggs and others. So, there is ongoing work in relation to the issue and I will be open to further discussion. It will be interesting to hear the comments of the Committee in relation to this particular issue as we do further work in regard to it.

To accept amendment No 74 would result in the Department being unable to make a hardship payment by voucher which, in some limited circumstances, may be the optimum way to meet the family's needs. For that reason, I urge Members to reject amendment No 74.

I want to conclude, and to dispel the myth and the mist that somehow there was something that took place prior to Christmas in the Stormont Castle agreement and Stormont House Agreement that was done behind closed doors and that people do not know all about it. I can assure you, as someone who was there for a considerable part of those discussions before Christmas and saw all the media out in the grounds of this estate, that it was not secretive. I have no intentions of joining any secret organisation.

There is an Executive paper that sets out the package of measures which was previously agreed, and you heard me refer to them. We referred to the following issues: the frequency of universal credit payment; split universal credit payment; direct payments; and we could go down a list of things that have been addressed and are in the public domain. There are, for example, issues in relation to the social sector size criteria. There is still further work to be done and further papers to be brought to the Executive, but I have to say that I was disappointed — and with this point I will conclude — to see headlines in the newspapers which read:

The article goes on to give a narrative based on one element of the welfare system, universal credit. What we are introducing here is, I believe, GB-plus, but remember that we, as an Executive, made the decision that to do so we would fund it out of the block grant and not use our annually managed expenditure. That is the decision that the Executive have made; it is the agreement that we have come to, and I think it is time that, collectively, we ensure that that agreement is implemented.

Remember, there are many people who are watching this debate and who simply want to know that we are making progress and that we do not have a situation which has been referred to. I take the Member's point on how it has been rolled out in the rest of the United Kingdom. I do not want to be the Minister who oversees something shambolic and dysfunctional. I give a commitment that I want to do it in a way that keeps people at the centre of what we are doing.

Mr Beggs: 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.

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. 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.

Mr Swann: Will the Member give way?

Mr Beggs: I certainly will.

Mr Swann: Will the Member agree that Mr Maskey did not acknowledge the commitment from the Ulster Unionist Party to creating the ad hoc Committee into the human rights and equality requirements for the Welfare Reform Bill? Had it not been for this party, it would not have passed through the House at that time. We played a role in bringing forward that report, and his party voted against it.

Mr Beggs: I thank the Member for reminding us all of that. It is right that that should be held on record.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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 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.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for giving way. Would he be surprised to hear that the First Minister gave me the very clear impression yesterday that he had no difficulty with how we intended to handle our amendments in the debate today, before he surprised us with the petitions of concern?

Mr Beggs: 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 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.

Alex Attwood said that he had never seen such abuse of petitions of concern before, rightly so. 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.

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. 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.

John O'Dowd noted that welfare reform almost brought the Assembly down. That should not be forgotten.

Mrs D Kelly: Will the Member give way?

Mr Beggs: I certainly will.

Mrs D Kelly: Does the Member share my astonishment at the selective amnesia that seems to have befallen Mr O'Dowd, who failed to mention the 40,000 letters issued in east Belfast that led to flag protests, controversy and public disorder on the streets, causing strained relationships? Would he not also acknowledge — has Mr O'Dowd forgotten? — that the ongoing disgrace of the OTR letters of comfort also had a role to play in the "strained relationships", to use Mr O'Dowd's words, between him and his partners in the DUP?

Mr Beggs: 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.

Mr O'Dowd highlighted, like others, the continuing role of the Committee, the Assembly and the Executive; I certainly do not disagree with that.

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. I am pleased that that dialogue occurred and will continue to occur to address the issue.

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. 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.

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 —

Mrs D Kelly: Will the Member give way?

Mr Beggs: I may, but I want to finish this.

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.

Mrs D Kelly: Will the Member give way?

Mr Beggs: Certainly.

Mrs D Kelly: In relation to Mr Wilson's contribution, was the Member also going to refer to his staunch defence of Sinn Féin's position? I know that love is in the air as Valentine's Day approaches, but it is a somewhat unusual courtship in the House today.

Mr Beggs: 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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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. 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.

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. 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.

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. 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.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): Before I put the Question, I remind Members that amendment No 1 requires cross-community support due to a valid petition of concern.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): We now come to the second group of amendments for debate, which contains 14 amendments and opposition to nine clauses. The amendments deal with entitlement to benefit, including the housing and childcare components, the benefit cap and housing size criteria.

Members will note that amendment No 48 is mutually exclusive with amendment No 50 and that amendment No 52 is consequential to amendment No 51. Members will also note that valid petitions of concern have been received in relation to amendment Nos 2, 5 to 7, 27 to 29, 42, 48, 50, 73 and 75. Therefore, they will require cross-community support.

I call the Chairperson of the Social Development Committee, Mr Alex Maskey, to address the Committee’s opposition and to address the other amendments and oppositions in the group.

Mr Maskey (The Chairperson of the Committee for Social Development): Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I remind the House of the fact that the Committee expressed opposition to a number of clauses in this group. Those were clauses 4, 10, 12, 52, 54 and 69. I would like to outline — [Interruption.]

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): Order. Those Members who are leaving should please do so quietly so that we can hear what the Chairperson is saying.

Mr Maskey: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. As I said this morning, it is not my intention to oppose any of the clauses on behalf of the Committee, but I think that it is important to remind the House what the concerns were. That is in appreciation of all the Members who participated in the discussions and deliberations on the Bill and, of course, equally importantly, all the stakeholders who gave very generously of their time to contribute to the discussion and debate in the Chamber and the Committee's deliberations.

I want to place on record my thanks on behalf of the Committee to the staff, the Committee Clerks, the Committee members and all those who came to the Committee and expressed their concerns about and views on the Bill.

The Committee originally had serious concerns regarding clause 4. Those specifically related to the situation where one partner in a relationship was prepared to sign a claimant commitment but the other person was not, and that, as a result, neither would receive a payment. This was a result of the requirement for joint claims to be made, and the Committee believed that to be unfair. The Committee was also concerned about the removal of the severe disability premium under clause 12 and, therefore, sought to oppose it.

Clause 52 refers to the period of entitlement for contributory allowance. In its report, the Committee asked the Minister to explore the possibility of extending that period for more than 12 months. I note that, in recent discussions, it became clear that 80% of people return to work within a year of first making a claim, so the costs associated with a longer period would not be as great as first envisaged. This is good news.

In its report, the Committee also noted that, until clause 54 came into operation, there was provision under paragraph 4 of schedule 1 to the Welfare Reform Act 2007 for claimants to qualify for contributory ESA on the basis of youth without having to meet the paid National Insurance contributions condition. At the time, the Committee noted that no new claims would be allowed when that clause came into operation. The Committee was particularly concerned about the impact that this would have on young people with disabilities.

At the time, the Department noted that almost 97% of the people to whom that provision applies would not be affected by the change and that new claimants may qualify for income-related ESA. However, given the comparatively low cost of maintaining the current provision, with some groups estimating the cost at £390,000 per year at the time, the Committee recommended that the Minister should discuss the issue at the Executive Committee, with a view to making funds available to maintain the current arrangements.

Clause 69, titled "Housing benefit: determination of appropriate maximum", generated considerable debate at Committee during its consideration of the Bill and has often been in the media ever since. The terms "size criteria" and "underoccupancy" particularly raised serious concerns, and the issue has become better known as the bedroom tax. In a nutshell, when a property is deemed to have one extra bedroom, housing benefit will be reduced by 14%, and when there are two extra bedrooms, it will be reduced by 25%. The Committee heard that upwards of 32,500 tenants in the social housing sector will be deemed to be underoccupying and, therefore, subject to the reduction in benefit that I have outlined.
Again, thankfully, as a result of ongoing negotiations over the last couple of years, including in particular the Stormont House Agreement and within the new arrangements under that, we have been able to put in place arrangements that will ensure that no one will be subject to a reduction in their housing benefit.

Of course, as I said this morning, it will be a matter for each member of the Committee, and indeed their parties, to take their own view, or that of their party, on these matters, and I hope that I will be able to adequately reflect those views when I wind up the debate on the second group of amendments later this evening. I formally repeat that, as Chair of the Social Development Committee, I will not be expressing opposition to any of the above clauses.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): I am reluctant to point out that there are Members who are engaged in continuous conversations, and that is discourteous to Members who are speaking. It also makes life difficult for me, because I may not hear what is being said. I appeal to those who want to have a long conversation: there are plenty of other places in the Building to do it.

Mrs D Kelly: In moving the amendments on behalf of the SDLP, we will take account of the Minister's contribution at the end of the debate. Some of them are, indeed, probing amendments, and we will look to see what assurances he can give in allaying some of the concerns that I will be raising on behalf of the party in relation to these amendments.

Amendment No 2 is a proposal to reduce the waiting day provision from a maximum of seven days to three days. We believe seven days is too long. Seven waiting days at the start of a claim is currently the practice with jobseeker's allowance and ESA, and this is an opportunity to rectify that. I also refer to amendment No 27, which was tabled by Mr Steven Agnew and signed by us. It deals with removing the time-limiting aspect for ESA youth claimants. We believe that we need to protect young people. Contribution-based ESA should be afforded to young people as well as to adults to ensure protection for them and their households. We are advised by DSD that the Department is to bring an amendment to afford that protection, but we do not see it here today. We will therefore await with interest what the Minister commits to this evening.

Amendment No 28 adds the words:

The Department claims that this is unnecessary, but the intention is the same as the above: it is an attempt to find a workable solution to protect sick young persons. Again, we await the Minister's response.

There is opposition to clauses 61 and 63. This ensures that claimants can receive contributory JSA, ESA, maternity allowance or statutory payments only if they are entitled to employment. We have brought this forward because of concerns articulated to us and to others about the rights of migrant workers in particular. We believe that social security measures are coordinated by EU member states on the basis of established principles of EU law, including free movement of workers and equal treatment. During Committee Stage, there were concerns that these clauses might not comply with EU law. Again, we will be keen to hear what the Minister has to say and what assurances we can get on this aspect of the Bill.

I turn my attention to our opposition to clause 69, which is known as the bedroom tax or underoccupancy rule. Mr Deputy Speaker, you will know that we have signalled our opposition and, indeed, signed a petition, as has Steven Agnew — the SDLP petition of concern. It is regrettable that Sinn Féin can no longer support the view of its deputy First Minister when he gave a commitment at Sinn Féin's ard-fheis in April 2013 that it would deploy a petition of concern in relation to this.

I heard what the Committee Chair said about some of the assurances that we have been given about how some of the mitigating factors will provide comfort and no one will lose out on housing benefit over the next five years. We are concerned, however, about what will happen beyond that.

Other devolved Assemblies, most notably the Scottish Parliament, have also abolished the bedroom tax clause. We know that it was a model that the Tories put forward to deal with the south-east of England, but it has had severe repercussions right across GB. We also note that the Labour Party has given a commitment that, if it wins the election in May, it will also abolish the bedroom tax.

Mr Wilson: I thank the Member for giving way. I am sure that the many people — in fact, the thousands of people in the private sector — who do not get housing benefit for the additional room in their properties will be puzzled that the SDLP is the party that they have to thank for that reduction in their housing benefit but is now the champion of the public sector. Maybe the Member will explain to them why there has been this volte-face by the SDLP on this issue.

Mrs D Kelly: I believe that any volte-face, as Mr Wilson would say it, that there has been has been by none other than his good self. He voted against the Welfare Reform Bill in another place, yet he is its champion from the Back Benches here. I am sure that no Member needs spelt out to them Northern Ireland's particular needs and the difficulties that people in the communities that we serve have in finding alternative accommodation. First, it does not exist, and secondly, where it does exist, it is in areas where people do not feel safe to live. It is a sad reflection of the fact that we have not yet dealt with building reconciliation on this island and between our two communities, particularly here in Northern Ireland, that people cannot live where they wish because of the fear of intimidation and threat. So, the bedroom tax has a particular resonance for the public in Northern Ireland.

As Mr Wilson and others will know, many people are very concerned about that. People who own their home talk about downsizing when their family grows up and leaves the home, but for many, particularly as people are living longer and growing older, the support network of neighbours and friends is crucial. The health service and other public-sector services are arguably being saved a lot of money by the good neighbour support that we often find in our communities.

We know that the Stormont House Agreement brought forward commitments to mitigate the ravages of the bedroom tax, but we do not see anything about that here. Again, that is in the absence of final Executive approval for all the flexibilities and mitigating factors. A well-known phrase says, "Success has many fathers", and I note that many Members, particularly in the DUP, paid tribute to the previous Minister for his development and gaining of a number of mitigating factors and flexibilities. I think that it would be remiss of me not to pay tribute to my party colleagues, especially former Ministers Margaret Ritchie and Alex Attwood, who led the charge at DWP and secured those commitments and the ability to have the flexibilities. [Interruption.]

Mr F McCann: They brought in Atos.

Mrs D Kelly: I hear something from the Back Benches to my right. I am glad they have actually decided to say something and make a contribution to the debate.

Mr McCausland: Will the Member give way?

Mrs D Kelly: Yes, I will give way.

Mr McCausland: Could I suggest to the Member that if, come the elections next year, her political career comes to an end, she should certainly have a career in writing fiction? All the hard work with DWP was done by the Department, by me and by this party, and the input from her party was zero.

Mrs D Kelly: Well, I heard what the Member said. He will forgive me for not accepting what he said, because that particular Member was too busy fighting fires created by himself and his party right across the Department and has enmeshed the Committee in having to complete inquiry report after inquiry report into allegations against his behaviour as Minister.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): Order, please. I hope that the Member has picked up that I need her to move back to the debate.

Once again, I have to appeal to a small number of Members who want to ignore me and who are continually in conversation. That is discourteous to the people who are making a contribution to the debate, and it is making life for me very difficult when the conversation that I hear is the one to my right, rather than Mrs Kelly.

Mrs D Kelly: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. We have, today, again honoured our commitment that we gave over two years ago to the people to stand against the bedroom tax, and we are pleased that the Green Party has stood with us. It is also a matter of regret that the Alliance Party, which has proved to be worthy poodles of the DUP/Sinn Féin diktat, have not submitted any amendments or spoken in relation to this —

Mr Maskey: Will the Member give way?

Mrs D Kelly: I want to move on, as the Deputy Speaker indicated, but I will give way, of course.

Mr Maskey: I thank the Member for giving way. I know that she has a lot to cover. The Member referred to the bedroom tax and seemed to suggest that she heard that it was dealt with in the Stormont House Agreement, but she does not see anything in front of us. Does the Member, who is the deputy leader of her own party, not accept that her party signed on to the Stormont House Agreement and, in particular, the first bullet point, which was that tenants in social housing will be protected from the bedroom tax? Does the Member, who is the deputy leader of the SDLP, not accept that her party leader, Alasdair McDonnell, signed on to that commitment? It is in black and white in the Stormont House Agreement. How can the Member suggest that she is not quite sure what was agreed?

Mrs D Kelly: I do not believe that I did suggest that. I have the Stormont House Agreement on the table before me and I read out the six lines within the agreement that deal with the Welfare Reform Bill. I do accept, and I did say, that there have been mitigating factors already agreed and flexibilities put into the Budget that will mitigate the bedroom tax. It is not abolished, and that is what we want to see from our party's perspective. We acknowledge that the agreement, as I understand it, is only for five years. We want to see it abolished forever.

I will move on to amendment No 42 and deal with the benefit cap. We are very concerned about this, and we know that, already, the benefit cap proposal is being capped at £26,000, but, only in the last few weeks, the Tories have said that their first action, if re-elected, would be to reduce that to £23,000, which would affect thousands of families in Northern Ireland. A £26,000 cap does not affect huge numbers; I understand that it affects about 600 families in Northern Ireland. People may be wondering who is getting £26,000. As Mr Allister said in his earlier contribution, that equates to a salary of about £33,000 before you would have that sort of take-home pay.

In my constituency, I have families who have four or more disabled children in the house, and they are providing care at home for their children. I think that there should be an acknowledgement that some people find themselves in exceptional circumstances, and some of that means that they have bigger homes, but that is usually because of the adaptations that are required for physical mobility and personal care assistance. I am very worried on behalf of those individuals, who are some of the most vulnerable. Again, those people are saving the state, if you like, huge sums of money because they choose to care for their children at home. Not only have the Tories said that they might go to a £23,000 cap, there is a suggestion that it might go down to £18,000. As I said in my earlier contribution, it is all right to talk about people going back to work and getting good contracts, but, as we know, a lot of the jobs on offer are low paid, have short hours, have temporary contracts and very little in the way of protections or rights, and many of them have zero-hours contracts. Set that against the backdrop of what the Tories are doing, who the Tories' friends are and what motivates the Tories. The motivation of the Tories is to attack the public sector, the welfare state and, indeed, many might say, the health service, so I think that this is a stand that we should make to take the opportunity to speak out against the worst ravages of a Tory-led Government.

I move on to amendment No 50 and amendment No 48, which relate to independent advice. Amendment No 48 has been tabled by the Ulster Unionist Party. Again, we will listen to what the Minister has to say about this amendment and the commitments given, but we do believe that there has to be strong, impartial and independent advice that puts the needs of the service user to the forefront. I was very encouraged by the humanity and compassion shown by the Minister, as he fully appreciates that, behind each of these measures, there are people, individuals and families who are suffering. I accept the good faith of the Minister in his commitment to putting people first and at the heart and centre of this legislation. However, there are stories emerging from GB, England in particular, that some Social Security Agency staff have been put under pressure by their Tory paymasters to take people off benefits. We do not want to have that sort of situation arising here, and we want to hear that good, solid advocacy services will be available to people who find themselves in the welfare system.

I will touch on some of Mr Agnew's amendments. We will also listen closely to what he has to say. In general, we welcome his amendments, which aim to provide the most protection possible for claimants, and that is what we hear is at the heart of his policy proposals in relation to these clauses. I understand that amendment No 5 seeks to maintain the current system that exists under tax credits in which the disabled child element of benefits equates to two thirds of the severely disabled child element. Amendment No 6 gives claimants a transition period of a year in which benefits for a young person that are supposed to be reduced because a young person has become too old are maintained at the current rate. This gives claimants better time for transition. Amendment No 7 is to have the housing cost element of universal credit continue for four weeks after the claimant starts employment. Again, that is to ease the transition period. People tend not to get a wage the moment they get a new job, and I am sure that some cognisance could be given to that. Some flexibilities could be made in the guidance or regulations around the imposition or withdrawal of entitlement. With that, I finish my contribution.

Mr Dickson: The amendments before us in regard to entitlements relate to some of the most contentious parts of the Welfare Reform Bill, notably the so-called bedroom tax. This is perhaps the most well known and, indeed, galvanising element of this Bill. The removal of the spare room subsidy is one of the most cynical reforms made by the Conservative-led Government. The policy, cited as a means of dealing with the under-occupation of social housing —

Mr Wilson: Will the Member give way?

Mr Dickson: I will.

Mr Wilson: First, all of us recognise the difficulties of the spare room subsidy being removed, but will he accept that it was not just a cynical exercise by the Conservative Government but that, indeed, an SDLP Minister has already imposed it on tens of thousands of tenants in the private sector, which is the most costly sector here in Northern Ireland? There has not been a word about that.

Mr Dickson: I agree. The policy, cited as a means of dealing with the under-occupation of social housing, has resulted in the demonisation of those in receipt of housing benefits, 500,000 of whom across the UK are actually in work. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the tax has been a failure in England, with only 6% of those affected moving to a smaller home. In the meantime, a huge amount of undue distress, debt and punitive measures have been levied on the most vulnerable in society, alongside the extra cost to local authorities charged with housing.

Rent arrears are up by 26% as a result of the policy, alongside fuel and food poverty. The policy also ignored the need of many people with disabilities to have that extra space or extra room to store medical equipment, for their carers to sleep or for households reduced in size as a result of separation.

Furthermore, housing associations in England have reported that many people wish to downsize, but, to put it simply, smaller homes are not there. To illustrate that, 180,000 tenants were judged to be underoccupying two-bedroom homes, yet in the rest of the UK, only 85,000 smaller houses were available. That reflects the very crux of the matter. For years, Governments have sold off social housing stock but failed to reinvest the revenue in the construction of new social housing to replace that moving into the private sector. To penalise the poorest in our society for the lack of long-term planning at the highest level of government is indeed perverse.

For Northern Ireland, however, the size, distribution and organisation of our housing stock only make that policy — which is designed for larger cities in the south of England — even more unworkable. It is therefore fortunate that we are able to implement meaningful mitigation measures in regard to that policy. We have agreed those special measures with Treasury, and we cannot and should not go back on those agreements, undermining concessions gained. In response to Mr Wilson, it is a pity that those concessions were not gained earlier on in all of those processes. That would be a betrayal of those who would otherwise be affected by those punitive measures.

It is important that we allow the Department the flexibility to alleviate the effects of the bedroom tax in the context of the wider departmental resources, as agreed by — it bears repeating again — all of the Executive parties. The one-size-fits-all implementation in Britain —

Mr Durkan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Dickson: I am nearly finished. The one-size-fits-all implementation in Britain is unsustainable, unjust and irrational. Therefore, I support the amendments brought forward by the Department with regard to the mitigation policy. Ultimately, the decision on the continuation or the abolition of the bedroom tax will be made at Westminster. That is where those decisions will be made, and I hope that a future Government will reverse that. The Alliance Party and our MP, Naomi Long, fought that unjust policy on the Floor of the House of Commons while others shirked their representative role and stood shouting from the sidelines.

Mr Wilson: Name them.

Mr Dickson: They are sitting to my right. In regard to the general issue of entitlements in the Bill, it is important that we have a clear vision of the Northern Ireland that we are seeking to build: a competitive Northern Ireland, less dependent on welfare, with investment in skills, education and infrastructure, and attraction for the jobs of the future; a more just Northern Ireland, where a fair day's work returns a fair day's pay, the state is no longer required to subsidise poverty wages and people are better off in work than they are on benefits; nevertheless, a Northern Ireland where the social security net supports victims of circumstances and, vitally, breaks the cycle of poverty in which so many find themselves trapped. That, crucially, involves the provision of good quality social housing.

In conclusion, I am content that the concessions that have been negotiated and agreed will ensure that Northern Ireland will not have the worst effects of that poorly thought-out and mean-spirited policy. I therefore support the amendments that have been agreed and brought forward by the Minister. I wish to place on record again my previous point with regard to skills, education and infrastructure. As representatives and legislators we must now get down to the job of building a united, shared and prosperous Northern Ireland fit for the 21st century that will deliver for everyone and protect the most vulnerable.

Mr Beggs: 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.

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?

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. 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.

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. 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. There is a huge unknown cost and a lack of clarity as to what will be lost as a result.

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.

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. 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. Is that really where we wish to spend some of our limited funds? We have choices to make. I question such a choice.

Mr Agnew: I thank the Member for giving way. I will give him credit: I think that he is giving each of the amendments the time that they deserve. He keeps coming back to where we would put our money. It just seems strange to me that a party that is willing to support proposals to reduce corporation tax at a cost of around £330 million per year is struggling over a measure that, in the case of the housing benefit grace period of four weeks, will help people to get back into work. It just seems incongruous that that small amount of money cannot be supported. We are talking about making work pay. This is an amendment to help do exactly that.

Mr Beggs: 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. 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.

Mr Wilson: Will the Member give way?

Mr Beggs: Yes, I will.

Mr Wilson: Would the Member also accept the principle that, once someone is in work, they should make a contribution to the rent on a property where they live, whether it be with their parents, a friend or whatever? If that principle is accepted, it has to be accepted across the range of everybody who is earning money. Therefore, this four-week period seems to be a rather odd proposal, because you would treat people who are in permanent employment or have been working for a longer time differently. Would he also accept that, if the argument is that you have got to make work pay, you would extend that forever? If that is the argument — that, by taking housing benefit off people, you are not making work pay — you would continue it indefinitely.

Mr Beggs: 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.

Mr A Maginness: I thank the Member for giving way. I do not want to detain him, but this is an important point. The whole thrust of thinking on welfare reform is to get people back into work. If somebody is going back into work, but sees that part of the obstacle to that is, for example, waiting until the expiration of one month to get paid, in those circumstances is it not reasonable to allow a period of grace of four weeks so that that person can get to a position where he or she will be able to pay that additional burden in rent?

Mr Beggs: 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.

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.

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. 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?

Mr Agnew: I can give the "where?": it is from the top-up fund that has been set aside for the amendments and proposed changes to the Welfare Reform Bill. That is £70 million; I propose that it is taken out of that.

Mr Beggs: 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.

Mr Durkan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Beggs: I wish to make some progress, please.

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?

There are other amendments. I turn to amendment No 28, which has regard to ESA youth claimants. 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.

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.

Amendment No 42 from the SDLP is, I believe, a very genuine attempt to try to retain some influence on what we all accept is an important matter but to which, at present, we have limited local feed-in. The benefit cap was a key DFP policy and one which my party has, on the whole, generally supported. Nevertheless, I think that the SDLP means well with its proposal of exempting some key supports, especially child benefit and carer's allowance. It is my opinion that carers are already facing financial hardship and difficulties, not least with what happens to them when they reach pension age and the caring component comes to an end.

However, this is not the place to try to make these changes, and I would argue that it should be done at Westminster. If we start moving benefits in or out of the overall cap, it will inevitably lead to an unequal system between us and the rest of the UK. If the cap needs to be changed, it should be changed for the entire UK. Again, the amendment would have a clear and not insignificant financial implication, that is, additional cost to our limited block grant and the additional loss of public services.

I am aware that amendment No 48, from the Ulster Unionist Party, has generated quite a bit of interest, not least in the independent advice sector. Let me make it clear that I understand that the Department, on the whole, provides support to the independent advice sector. However, that is because it is absolutely essential that it does. Without independent advice, fewer people would be claiming their fair entitlement. More people would be submitting inaccurate or erroneous claims. Many might be unable to claim their entitlement, and, quite possibly, there would be gridlock in the system and severe hardship for many.

We can all think of our local offices in our towns, and I think of how the citizens advice bureaux in Carrickfergus, Larne and Newtownabbey contribute and help the system run smoothly. I certainly do not believe that they in any way undermine the work carried out by the Social Security Agency offices. They often complement them. Our amendment would simply give it a statutory footing. It would not necessarily mean more money; it may mean some. It would not mean more bureaucracy. In fact, I expect that, if our amendment is supported and approved, the only difference will be that it will help focus minds in the Department to ensure that there are no blind spots in terms of advice, either from it or from the independent sector across Northern Ireland. With that statutory requirement, it would have to do that.

Mr Wilson: Will the Member give way?

Mr Beggs: Yes.

Mr Wilson: He has accepted that considerable investment goes into advice-giving across the board, and a lot of it is very professional. Will he accept that, once you put anything on a statutory footing, it is not correct to say that there will be no costs involved because, once it is on a statutory footing, you have to make sure that it is done, you have to monitor how it is done and you have to ensure that, since there is a legal requirement that people get advice, they are getting advice? We all know that, once you put things on that kind of footing, a whole raft of bureaucracy builds around it, and, indeed, instead of money being spent on giving advice, money is spent on making sure that the statutory duty is met.

Mr Beggs: I think that it would be useful if there was a requirement for the Department to monitor what is being done and to ensure that that support is being delivered on a wide range of subjects, and, therefore, I believe that there is merit in the proposal. There need not necessarily be huge additional costs, but someone needs to spend some time looking very carefully at what level of advice and support is available to claimants and to ensure that all areas are covered. I am not entirely sure why the DUP is so threatened by that proposal that it felt it necessary to table a petition of concern to kill it. One thing that is for sure is that it is not the confident boost from the Department that many advice organisations were hoping to see today. I will stress again that the tabling of the petition of concern is particularly bad-mannered after what was discussed at yesterday's meeting of the five parties. Before determining whether we move amendment No 48, I will listen carefully to what the Minister has to say.

Mr Attwood: Will the Member give way?

Mr Beggs: Yes, I will.

Mr Attwood: Is it not also the case that, in 2010, the Assembly put into law the statutory right to advice for people in situations where there is homelessness, or a risk of it? The Assembly has already, in particular circumstances — I am sure it was a Social Development Minister who did it — put into law a statutory requirement to receive advice in respect of homelessness. Under PACE law, every citizen in Northern Ireland is entitled to legal advice in the event that they are arrested further to a claim of criminal conduct. It is not a matter of principle in terms of the life of this part of the world, and it is not even a matter of principle when it comes to the law in respect of particular matters in this part of the world. Is that not a catalyst for the Minister to respond positively to these amendments?

Mr Beggs: I thank the Member for drawing that previous requirement to Members' attention. I think that has been very helpful.

Moving on, we are satisfied with amendment Nos 51 and 52 in which the Minister proposes to replace the old discretionary elements of the social fund, such as crisis loans and community care grants, with a new discretionary support scheme. It is essential that this new scheme works effectively and efficiently, and that the people it supports, who are likely to be some of the poorest and most vulnerable in our society, find that help and support in a timely fashion. Teething problems with the new system must be avoided as far as possible. People looking to avail themselves of this scheme will often not be able to wait around for a decision because their lives are in crisis. Prompt resolutions are absolutely essential, and we hope that the new commissioner will recognise the urgency of the environment in which the new scheme will be operating. We trust that this will be kept under review.

That brings us to the last two amendments in this group. We have no hesitation whatsoever in opposing amendment No 73. I wonder whether the full range of potential consequences of that amendment were considered before it was tabled. The strapline built up during the early discussions of welfare reform was that people should always be better off in work than on benefits. We agree with that as a broad policy priority. For too long, people were trapped in a system of welfare dependency that did not benefit them financially to go out and find a job. The danger, of course, is that a culture of worklessness can quickly build up in homes and be passed on from generation to generation. Universal credit is at least trying to rectify that. However, amendment No 73 would take away the incentive for people who are declaring themselves as self-employed to try to increase their paid income. I can see why, initially, there may be concerns about setting a minimum income floor, but we need to be pragmatic. Claimants should be encouraged to undertake work that makes them money, rather than only keeping them occupied from day to day.

Similarly, we oppose amendment No 75. This has been a live issue right from the moment when the Assembly started considering the first draft Bill in 2012. We have listened to the concerns that European Economic Area nationals, including those with disabilities, will be subject to work-related tests, when, in some circumstances, British nationals in the same situations will not. First, we need to remember that paragraph 7 in schedule 1 has been lifted entirely from the Bill that applies to the rest of the United Kingdom. It is, therefore, wrong in principle for anyone to claim that this Assembly is seeking a licence to discriminate. More importantly, however, we need to remember that our social security system is already not fully open to immigrants from other EU states. Instead, entitlement is very often based on whether the applicant has a right to reside here, and that is assessed through the habitual residency test.

I would be fearful of the consequences of the amendment were it to be accepted. Very quickly, we would put our entitlement for support on a different footing from the rest of the UK in the eyes of EU nationals. We all must welcome EU citizens who come to Northern Ireland to work, so long as they strive to provide for themselves and their families. They frequently contribute to the local economy by filling many jobs that might not otherwise be filled by locals. We do not, however, want to become a magnet for those who come to the UK not to work, but for benefits. If Northern Ireland had that variation, we would risk becoming a gateway to the United Kingdom for those who wish to enter the benefits system. Potentially, we would attract many more claimants to join the benefits system at the risk of incurring much of the cost that will flow from their living in Northern Ireland, not to mention the resulting pressures on housing and on a whole range of services.

It is for that reason that we need to think carefully. I argue that we should retain the same levels and guidance as elsewhere so that those who want to work are attracted to Northern Ireland, not those who may want to join the benefits system.

Mr Brady: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I have sat here for nearly six hours. I have heard people preaching, pontificating and, in some cases, talking absolute nonsense. I am glad to see that Mrs Kelly has come back into the Chamber. I ask her and her colleagues to explain to me why, on 17 December 2014, they signed up to an agreement with three other parties — not including Sinn Féin, I might add. That agreement — I have it here — contained no protection for children with disabilities, no protection for adults with severe disabilities, a two-year loss-of-benefit sanction, and no supplementary payments fund.

Sinn Féin had a detailed negotiation with the DUP, and an agreement including five parties was signed on 19 December. Mr Attwood, Mrs Kelly and their party colleagues seem to have assumed the moral high ground. All I can say is that your view from it must be very blinkered. We would like an explanation. Maybe you can explain to the House why you were prepared to sign such an agreement. You talk about protecting the most vulnerable. Are children with disabilities, adults with severe disabilities and people who are going to be sanctioned for two years not vulnerable? Maybe, at some stage, we will get an answer to that question. We look forward to that. If you want to give it now, I am quite happy to give way.

Mrs D Kelly: No, go ahead.

Mr Brady: That is OK. Right. You obviously need to think about it, consult and discuss. I understand that.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): Order, please. I remind Members that the Chair is still here, despite the lateness of the night. All remarks will be through the Chair.

Mr Brady: Certainly, a LeasCheann Comhairle. As I said, that agreement contained very little protection for vulnerable people.

I will move on to talk about the particular clauses and amendments but, first of all, I will just mention another thing before I forget. There has been a lot of talk about petitions of concern. If my memory serves me right, Mark Durkan, who sat on the Social Development Committee with us, wanted to introduce a petition of concern a couple of years ago that would have killed the Bill. When we had bilateral meetings with his party, it — Mr Ramsey in particular — wanted to kill the Bill. What would that have meant? Direct rule, possibly? The introduction of the full implementation of welfare reform? Student fees? Water charges? Prescription charges and all the other ills and woes that come from a Tory Government? Those are the people who are pontificating and preaching to us today. The reality is that we would not have introduced a Bill like this. My colleague Fra McCann, who is sitting beside me, and I have been on the Social Development Committee since 2007. In our defence, we have stood resolute against the swingeing cuts of so-called welfare reform. We have been resolute; I challenge anybody to say that we have not.

Mr Durkan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Brady: No, you will have your chance. Obviously you are more prepared to talk than Mrs Kelly or Mr Attwood at the moment —

Mrs D Kelly: I will talk if you want, Mr Brady.

Mr Brady: No, the Member will not give way. You had your chance —

Mr Maskey: It is a bit late in the day.

Mr Brady: A bit late in the day is right.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): Order, please. The Member will resume his seat for a moment. I repeat what I said a few minutes ago: the Deputy Speaker is still here. All remarks will be through the Chair. Mr Brady, will you continue, please?

Mr Brady: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.

Mr Wilson: Will he give way?

Mr Brady: Yes. [Interruption.]

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): Order, please. I am going to insist that this is done properly. You do not address anyone as "you"; you address your remarks through the Chair.

Mr Wilson: I said, "Will he give way?".

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): I hope that the Member is not challenging the Chair.

Mr Wilson: If you had listened, Mr Deputy Speaker, I said, "Will he give way?".

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): I am sure that he is not. Continue.

Mr Wilson: Now that we think that Mrs Kelly has her story as to why they signed up to an agreement that does not offer the protections that the Bill and the arrangements do now, maybe he would be generous enough to let her give the explanation to the House. We are all waiting to hear it.

Mr Brady: I thank the Member for his intervention. I think that Mrs Kelly had her chance, and I am sure that she will compose something. She will have a long night to think about it, and I am sure that she will come up with some sort of an answer. The reality is that the agreement that was signed by the party on our left did not protect vulnerable people. That message needs to go out, for all the preaching, pontificating and attacks by that party.

I will address some of the clauses. Clause 52 deals with contributory ESA. Initially, under the proposed Welfare Reform Bill, that was to last only a year. People who worked for 30, 35 or 40 years and who became ill, through no fault of their own, were going to lose by getting only one year's contributory benefit. My colleague the Chairperson of the Social Development Committee said that 80% of people return to work within a year, but, unfortunately, a lot of cancer patients who have been working become ill, again through no fault of their own, and have to give up work for a limited period. Obviously, they go through very traumatic treatment and may need extra time to get themselves back to a point at which they can return to work. That is essential.

It is interesting that none of the people who tabled amendments and criticised various aspects today was prepared to admit that some good was coming out of all this and that concessions and mitigations had been obtained. It is interesting that, in Mr Allister's weird world — in his utopia — nobody would be on benefits, and everybody would be out working, according to him. His attack on vulnerable families is an absolute disgrace, and he should be totally ashamed of himself.

In my experience of working with people on benefits for many years, nobody has ever come in on a Monday morning and said, "I love being on income support". It does not work like that. People do not want to be on benefits, and there are many reasons why they are on benefits. Even the inimitable Lord Freud, when he was here, agreed that we had higher rates of disability in the North and that we had a society that was coming out of conflict. There are many reasons why people are on benefits, and it is not incumbent on any of us to stand here and criticise them for no good reason. I argue that clause 52, which I think the Minister introduced, is a good clause, in the sense that it extends the period in which a person can get contributory ESA.

There has been much talk about the bedroom tax. It does not work; that has been proved in Scotland, where housing associations built loads of houses with three bedrooms. People would not move into them because of the bedroom tax. Housing associations cannot service their loans and are left with empty houses, and some of them will probably end up going to the wall. That is the reality of the bedroom tax.

Historically, we have had three- and four-bedroom houses built over many years. When the Housing Executive's representatives came in to brief the Committee initially about the bedroom tax, they admitted that, if it were to have been introduced the next day, it would take at least six years for the proper houses to be built.

We also live in a society that, unfortunately, has housing segregation. I am sure that there are people in north Belfast who could probably move into other areas of north Belfast, but, because of the society that we live in, it becomes next to impossible for them to do so. The mitigation of the bedroom tax has succeeded because there is the supplementary payment fund, which my friends on the left initially signed up not to have.

Mr Durkan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Brady: No, the Member will not give way. The bedroom tax has been neutralised and will continue to be neutralised, so that is a good thing for those vulnerable people whom we have all been talking about today.

I will move on to the discretionary payments in clauses 51 and 52. Basically, the social fund has been abolished in Britain and has gone to local authorities, some of which service it in a good way, and some of which do not bother. Some of the money that is set aside for that purpose goes to other things. It is good that we had an opportunity to be innovative and have a discretionary fund and a discretionary fund commissioner. That is a very good thing because it gives that independence, much the same as the social fund commissioner. When people actually started to take community care grant disallowances to the second and third stage with the social fund commissioner, up to 49% of decisions at local offices were overturned. That can only be a good thing.

This is not a Bill we would have taken, but there has been good progress in many areas. The other thing that has been looked at apart from people who are unemployed, because we mentioned contributory ESA, is those who are termed the working poor. There are approximately 90,000 here in the North. People on low incomes are going to be helped with the discretionary fund. There are no benefits that we are in control of where people will be worse off. That is true to say. There are other areas in HMRC control, like tax credits, child tax credits, child benefit and areas like that, but where we have control over benefits, nobody will lose out. I want to make that point. Go raibh míle maith agat.

Mr Wilson: Most of the amendments we have been dealing with have been put forward by the SDLP. As I think the last Member pointed out, there is a degree of grandstanding by the SDLP here, especially in relation to some of the issues that they have been responsible for themselves. Now, suddenly, they have had a conversion on them because of the opposition there has been or, maybe more, because there is simply the unprincipled stance that they have taken, namely they see a chance to have a poke at Sinn Féin on some of these issues, and are taking it now, despite the fact that it is totally irrational given their previous stance.

I want to start off with clause 69, because we did not get an explanation from the SDLP on this. Their desire to have it removed from the Bill has already been dealt with. It could not be clearer. There is a commitment from the Minister and the Executive. Furthermore, the Executive have already earmarked all the funds required to make sure that anyone in the public sector who falls foul of the loss of the spare room subsidy will be recompensed for that. They will not be forced to move.

Mr F McCann: Will the Member give way?

Mr Wilson: I will give way, yes.

Mr F McCann: Those were interesting points. If you listened to Mrs Kelly earlier, it not only became a problem that it has not been removed, but even the mitigation has become the problem for her now also because it lasts only five or six years.

Mr Wilson: Of course, here is the point: there was no mitigation. Nor, I suspect, does Mrs Kelly want to remind the people who live in the private sector. Sure, there are no proposals from her to mitigate the effect of the introduction of the spare room subsidy by her colleague who is sitting beside her. He was quite happy to introduce it in this Assembly for a sector where the rents are higher and people are equally under pressure, yet the subsidy that they lose there is much bigger than the subsidy that will be lost in the public sector. But no call for mitigation there. In fact, let us quickly move on and forget about the SDLP's involvement in that sordid little exercise, where they claim the Tories have done this on the poor people of Northern Ireland. Well, the Green Tories did that on them some time ago in the private sector when they introduced that, and not a whimper about it now.

Indeed, when she was given the opportunity to explain it, she did not. If she wants me to give way now, I will, but I suspect that I will get no more of an explanation from her this time than last time.

Let us not have this nonsense peddled. The Member who spoke previously was right: we are preached at by the sanctimonious braggarts on the other side who say, "We would not have done that. You are the bad people". We have provided a way out. "It is only for five years", she says. It may well extend for more than five years; that will be a choice for a future Executive.

Mr Durkan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Wilson: I will give way, yes, because I know that he has been trying to get in for some time now, and I would love to hear his words of wisdom. Maybe we will now receive from Mr Durkan the explanation that we did not receive from Mrs Kelly.

Mr Durkan: Unlike the Members on my right, Mrs Kelly does not jump to DUP demands. The Member said that the issue on clause 69 could not be clearer. He refers to the mitigation measures that we have received commitments on, and I welcome them. However, they are not clear in what we are here to debate today. We are here to debate and shape legislation, and those mitigation measures are not clear in that.

Mr Wilson: How could they be any clearer? This is not a commitment that was whispered in some corner or was part of some secret talks between the five party leaders; this is a commitment that has been made time and time again on the Floor of the Assembly. Those who are affected by the removal of the spare bedroom subsidy will have the money paid to their housing benefit. Furthermore, it is not that we will do it if we can find the funds; a commitment has been made to provide, I think — I cannot remember the figure now — £17 million in the first year. That money has been committed and committed publicly here in the Assembly time and time again. The Finance Minister has said it, the Social Development Minister has said it, the First Minister has said it and the deputy First Minister has said it. It is a bit difficult to say that no commitment has been given on it.

Mr Durkan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Wilson: Let me just finish the point. There is no provision, but you would not expect provision in the Bill that makes a statement about it. The commitment has been given, the money has been given and the reason why it is for five years has been given. The reason is that the whole idea is to try, over that period, to build up a stock of houses that gives people the opportunity to move from properties that are perhaps larger than they need. That cannot be done at present, hence the reason why we had to mitigate a change in welfare reform that was going to have that impact.

Mr Durkan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Wilson: Given all that, I hope that we will get from the SDLP Members some explanation of why they still feel a necessity to remove clause 69 when that commitment has been given and, indeed, when they are making no effort and giving no indication of what they would do to help the people who are the victims of measures introduced by their Minister.

Mr Storey: Will the Member give way?

Mr Wilson: I will give way, and then I will give way to the Member who asked previously.

Mr Storey: The Member who asked the question and who supports the removal of clause 69 will be aware that I have given a commitment to the Executive that we will bring forward the scheme and it will go to the Executive. However, listen to this: it will go further, because it will then go out to public consultation. It will not be done in the dark. It will not be, in some way, clouded in secrecy. The public will see that. There seems to be a failure in the House today to understand the reasons why we had to do things in the way that we are doing them. I go back to the point that I made earlier and to which I think the Member referred: there was an attempt to kill the Bill at the very start. If that had happened, this place would not be here, I think, and, secondly, you would have had welfare without any changes, any modifications or any help.

Mr Wilson: I thank the Minister for that information. I will give way.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Member for giving way, and I again welcome the commitment from the Minister. However, will the Member accept that people have had commitments made and heard them before? He referred to commitments from his party colleagues on the bedroom tax and, indeed, to the commitment from the deputy First Minister on bedroom tax. Does the Member agree that this is not the first commitment that the deputy First Minister has given on bedroom tax? At his 2013 ard-fheis, he gave a commitment to deploy a petition of concern to block the bedroom tax.

Mr Wilson: I do not know when that meeting was, but, if there was such a commitment — he can answer for himself, rather than have me answer for him — the one point that I will make is this: there is no need for a petition of concern against this for the simple reason that the impact of it has been removed. It has been removed by the commitment of resources and the promise of the Minister and the fact that the Executive collectively and, indeed, the five party leaders have agreed the issue. Let me come to the —

Mr Attwood: Will the Member give way?

Mr Wilson: I will give way on the understanding that Mr Attwood will now either repent of his former sins against tenants in the private sector or give us an explanation of why he believes that the treatment of private sector tenants should be different from that of tenants in the public sector. I give way on that basis, though I suspect that I am wasting my time.

Mr Attwood: I thank the Member for giving way. To prove his worst fears true, can he confirm something? You and I sat around the Executive table for a period, and you and some of your colleagues were the most insistent that the Welfare Reform Bill be brought through the Executive to the Chamber. I never once heard from you, Mr Wilson, in all —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): Order, please. Speak through the Chair and no finger-pointing.

Mr Attwood: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I did not once hear from the Member opposite in endless meetings of the Executive, week after week, when he and his DUP colleagues were saying, "Get the Bill into the Chamber and through the legislative process". Not once did Mr Wilson say that there was any need, any reason or any money to mitigate the bedroom tax. Not once. Now he makes a virtue tonight, to quote the former Minister, of mitigating what was going to have that impact in his reference to the bedroom tax. Not once, Mr Wilson, did you make that argument in all your time as Finance and Personnel Minister —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): Order, please.

Mr Wilson: For the record: first, not only did I make the point here, I made the point during debates at Westminster. I signed early day motions to that effect at Westminster. Indeed, if the Member remembers rightly, I was Finance Minister when the £17 million was made available for the Executive for the mitigation of the bedroom tax, as he calls it. He is wrong on all of those counts, but we still have total silence from him on why he introduced this tax on the private rented sector tenants of Northern Ireland.

He has not repented of it. He has not explained it. He is not prepared to do anything about it. He has not tabled any amendments to alleviate it, and that is perhaps the more telling issue.

Mr Maskey: Will the Member give way?

Mr Wilson: I will give way, yes. I am sure that you want to have a wee go at him. [Laughter.]

Mr Maskey: Given the number of times that the Member has given way, I was fairly confident that he would give way once more, even though we are coming to the close of the debate for this evening. Does the Member agree with me that it is quite interesting, if not ludicrous, that we have listened to the SDLP talk about the need to have a debate? It is obviously very important to do that, but they have said that we need to tease this out and probe that. In actual fact, in June 2007, Ms Ritchie, the then Minister for Social Development, rushed the first Welfare Reform Bill through the House by way of accelerated passage on the basis of the need to protect parity. There were no mitigating measures with parity, no opportunity for anybody to table amendments or to seek clarification. The first Welfare Reform Bill, which is causing people to suffer as we speak, never mind the latest one, was introduced by an SDLP Minister by way of accelerated passage with no mitigation measures whatsoever.

Mr Wilson: I am glad that I gave way to the Member because I had not quite remembered that point. It is not very often that he and I do a double act; it is usually head-to-head stuff. He has made a very important point, which once again torpedoes under the waterline the case that the SDLP is making.

I want to deal with a couple of other amendments. Mrs Kelly introduced a number of amendments. She told us what the amendments said, which we could all have read anyway, but gave no explanation as to why she believed that they were justified. There was no mention of why she believed that the extension of three days to seven days was essential. As Mr Beggs pointed out, that is no different than people who go into work for the first week and sometimes have to do a lying week. She wants to introduce a costly measure that would add significantly to the bureaucracy and make benefits available to them after three days.

I also do not understand her thinking on amendment No 27. Why does she believe that young people should be treated differently than any other people? That is also true of some of Mr Agnew's amendments, which I am sure he will deal with later. I thought that the whole idea was to ensure that young people did not get into a culture of benefits at an early stage, which is where we get generational unemployment. It seems that there are a number of amendments that seek to see young people treated more generously in the benefits system than those who are older. I will not go through all Mr Agnew's amendments, but there is a common thread. We want to encourage people into work and it is easier to do that before they get into the inertia of long-term unemployment. Yet, it seems that a number of the amendments on entitlements are designed to encourage that inertia and to be more generous.

Mr Agnew: Will the Member give way?

Mr Wilson: I will not give way on those points. I think that we will finish fairly soon.

Again, no explanation was given by Mrs Kelly for the SDLP's opposition to clause 61. Of course, Mr Agnew is in the same boat. The clause gives the Department the ability to find out whether anyone has a right to residency because they are actively seeking work. That is a requirement for a citizen who is living in this country: if you are not actively seeking work, you will not be entitled to benefits. The effect of opposing the clause would be to remove the Department's ability to do that for people from outside the United Kingdom. We know about the anger that exists. In many cases, people are wrong, but some believe that people from outside Northern Ireland are treated differently and more generously than people who live in Northern Ireland. That amendment would have that effect and, again, no explanation was given. It was just introduced by Mrs Kelly.

Mr Attwood: Will the Member give way so that an explanation can be given?

Mr Wilson: Since the Member will, hopefully, have an opportunity later in the debate to give an explanation, and we will finish fairly soon, I do not want to give way on that one.

I do not have a great deal of sympathy for lifting the cap on benefits. If we are to encourage people into work, we must make work pay. In Westminster, the SDLP voted against tightening the cap. I did not understand its explanation then, and I do not understand it now. The removal, for example, of the carer's allowance and child benefit — they are really an additional source of income for people because they are caring for a child, a parent or whatever — from the benefit when the cap is being calculated removes a source of income. Many people query whether it is right that someone on benefits should have the possibility of getting more money than someone who is in a job and earning not even the average wage in Northern Ireland. Again, no explanation was given as to why those issues should be removed from benefits when the cap is being calculated. It is important that we get this in perspective. When there is genuine need and genuine disability, the Government's own proposals allow people to have benefits beyond the cap level. That is right, but it has to be in very specific and controlled circumstances.

Mr Beggs talked about amendment No 48, and he used rather dramatic words: why did we need to kill it? It was not a case of killing it, but it was simply that we made our position clear on amendment No 48. Of course there needs to be advice. The Department already spends a considerable amount of money on institutions that give advice, but I still maintain that, once you make something statutory, a whole industry grows around ensuring that it is in place, monitoring it, measuring it, ensuring the right quality and everything else. I believe in the independent way that it is done at present, but, once you make it statutory and the money comes from the Department, the real danger is that it is no longer seen as independent but as an extension of the Department. At least the advice that we have at the moment is seen as independent from the Department, albeit the money comes from the Department. However, since it is not a statutory obligation, there is no statutory link between the organisations that give advice and the Department, and they are seen as being more independent. For that reason, it is not a case of killing the amendment but simply using common sense. We have to give advice, but let us keep it that the money goes to organisations that give advice and not to setting up a new bureaucracy.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): The Business Committee agreed that the House would not sit later than 10.00 pm this evening and would resume at 10.30 am tomorrow. This seems to be a convenient moment at which to suspend.