Welfare Reform Bill

Speech by David Ford delivered to Assembly, 18 June 2007 on Tue 19th Jun 2007

The amendments recognise concerns - which have existed across the UK since the implem­entation of the Welfare Reform Act 2007 - about the effects that some of the requirements may have on people who suffer from psychiatric illness or who have a learning disability. However, it is not clear that the amendments deal with those problems. Certain issues are beyond what can reasonably be included in primary legislation.

Amendment No 2 refers to job-related interviews and has considerable merit in its specification that such interviews should be carried out in a reasonable manner and in accordance with the needs of the individual. However, there is already a host of provisions for regulations. Some Members referred to the Minister's comments in last week's debate on the Second Stage of the Bill. The question must be asked whether the amendment, which would require the provision of further regulations, is appropriate. The Assembly must ensure that people who face work-focused interviews are treated in a way that will encourage them into work and not in a way that increases anxiety or creates difficulty for people who suffer from depression or who have a learning disability. That is a key issue on which there is no disagreement. The question is whether the relevant clauses should be amended. My colleagues and I will listen carefully to the Minister's response.

As a social worker by profession - indeed, an approved social worker under the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 until my registration lapsed because of the time that I spent in this place, where a qualification in mental health social work is, apparently, not relevant - I must declare an interest. All the appropriate professionals are covered in the Bill. To suggest that a particular group of professionals is required to deal with a particular case - such as that of someone who has had orthopaedic surgery, for example - implies that there should be a list of those who are suitable to deal with each case. As one who made his living as a social worker, I certainly would not have felt qualified to submit a professional report on the ability to work of someone who had had orthopaedic surgery.

Professionals are sought to provide professional reports, and part of their professionalism is to determine whether they are capable of providing a report. To suggest that certain professionals would deal with certain conditions is to suggest that a raft of amendments should go through in order to encompass all kinds of other people who would be suitable. That goes against the spirit in which professional regulations were laid down and those that are referred to in the Bill. Registered social workers, occupational therapists, physiotherapists, nurses or doctors are capable of dealing with their area of expertise. We should not divide them into further subsections.

Like Mr Maginness, I agree with Ms McIlveen, who spoke against the necessity of such divisions. However, I want to put on record my disagreement with her reference to the principle of parity. The Assembly has yet to tackle the issue of where parity is essential in social security matters and where variation may be an option.

The basic structures, financial benefits and key conditions of the legislation must be treated on the basis of parity. However, It is wrong to suggest that the Assembly cannot amend minor details in a Bill such as this because of parity considerations. Had I received the necessary assurances from the Minister about the concerns that I raised, I would not be supporting what I regard as a flawed amendment.

However, that is not saying that Members should accept automatically that no amendment is possible in such cases. There may be circumstances in which the Assembly could make marginal variations to conditions, which would have no effect on their role within the UK national framework for social security but would make conditions easier for some people here. Let us be careful not to get too hung up on parity even in relation to social security legislation.

The key issue is to ensure that the Bill goes through as fast as possible and in the best possible form. If the Minister repeats the assurances that she made about the way in which people with psychiatric illnesses or learning disabilities will be treated, and addresses concerns that appropriate professionals will be involved, there will be no need for any of the amendments to be made.