Debate contribution: Universal Credit: Remove the Two-child Limit

Debate contribution by Mr Gordon Lyons on 16 April 2024.

MLA

Mr Gordon Lyons

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

16 April 2024

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

Business

Opposition Business

Heading

Universal Credit: Remove the Two-child Limit

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4483411

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I thank everyone who has contributed to the debate, and I sincerely thank the Members from the SDLP for their Opposition motions. It is useful for us to have such conversations around what are really important issues, and I am pleased to take part in the debate. I thought it strange that SDLP Members Mr O'Toole and Mr McCrossan indicated that attendance at debates shows the level of interest that parties have in the matter. The Member pointed towards the attendance of other parties in this place. I do not think that he can draw anything from the attendance of Members today, but, if he is to do that and if he continues down that line, that must mean that the SDLP has no interest in housing, because there was an Adjournment debate on housing last week in the Chamber, and not a single Member of the SDLP turned up. They may want to reconsider their thoughts on that issue. There is no question that, over the past several years, we have seen significant challenges for people in Northern Ireland and, indeed, the rest of the UK, particularly for our most vulnerable. We have had the COVID-19 pandemic and Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and we have seen food and energy prices increased to the highest levels in four decades. We know that those cost-of-living increases hit low-income households hardest. As Minister, I am committed to continuing the important work of my Department in providing support to those who are most in need. I acknowledge the findings of the Audit Office's report on child poverty, and I acknowledge the scale of the problems that we face, with 18% of children living in relative poverty. As is highlighted in the report, growing up in poverty has lifelong implications, with children from poorer households being twice as likely to leave school with no GCSEs and those who attain five GCSEs being 24% less likely to get the top grades. That in turn leads to reduced earning potential and employment prospects in adulthood, and that is simply unacceptable. We must work together to give our children a better start and better opportunities not only to simply survive but to thrive and, importantly, to set them on a path to meet their full potential. We know that poverty is rarely caused by a single factor; indeed, the Audit Office report highlights the fact that low incomes, worklessness and the rising cost of living are all among the factors that significantly impact on child poverty. The factors to alleviate child poverty in our society are also multifaceted, and our approach must be collective and committed. I am certainly committed to doing what I can to drive down the levels of child poverty in Northern Ireland and to working with Executive colleagues to ensure that children who have been affected by poverty are afforded the opportunity to live happy, healthy and productive lives. The report, based on 2019 to 2020 data, reflects that almost half of children in relative poverty in Northern Ireland live in families with three or more children. The two-child limit will inevitably impact on claimants who have chosen to have larger families. My Department currently administers welfare mitigation schemes to alleviate the impact of specific changes to the social security system in Northern Ireland, such as the benefit cap and the bedroom tax, and the total budgetary requirement for the current mitigations package is £45 million for 2024-25. In October 2022, the independent advisory panel published the report of its welfare mitigations review, and it recommended creating new mitigation schemes, including the better start larger families payment, to offset the two-child limit. I do not want the House to be in any doubt about my position on the two-child limit. I agree with what nearly every Member has said about that. From the research that has been done since then, the Government's ambitions have not even been met here. The policy has not led to the changes that they hoped for. There are issues with it. I am convinced of the problems that it causes. The issues around rape, for example, are particularly galling; it is horrendous to have to ask any parent to go through that. I do not support or defend the two-child limit in any way, and I do not think that it is of benefit to people in Northern Ireland. I have to look at the cost of mitigating the two-child policy, however. As I set out earlier, the latest available estimate of the cost of mitigating it, if we were to take it on, is £56·4 million for this year. Kellie Armstrong asked about the total costs: unfortunately, I cannot give them. We have that figure of £56·4 million, which is the mitigation cost, but additional IT systems would need to be in place, and there would be ongoing staff costs. Mr McCrossan, in particular, has frequently raised the issue of staffing in my Department. I simply do not have those additional costs for the Member, but Kellie Armstrong will remember the debates that we had in the House during the previous mandate on the difficulties around IT systems in relation to parental bereavement leave and pay. It is not easy for us to do that in terms of the finance or the infrastructure required. I think that the SDLP means the motion to mean something other than what it means. My understanding and a plain text reading of the motion is that the SDLP wants me to present a plan before the Assembly to remove the two-child limit before the end of 2024. I think that the leader of the Opposition wants me to present a plan before the end of this year, but, if the plain text reading is right, he actually wants me to remove the two-child limit before the end of 2024. That is simply not possible in terms of finance and, particularly, the IT infrastructure that would be necessary. I am committed to doing what I can to address the issue. Concerns have been expressed via the amendment that my colleagues tabled, but I can assure the Member that I am working at pace to bring the report forward as quickly as possible. Although the amendment asks me to bring it forward before the end of the financial year, I believe that I will be in a position to bring it before the end of the calendar year, if not sooner. I understand how important it is. My officials are currently —.

I will, yes.

My understanding is that the Member is asking me to remove the two-child limit this year. If the motion does not mean that but means what, I think, he actually means, which is to bring forward a plan to remove it, I cannot commit definitely to do so, because of the costs that I have outlined. I appreciate that the Member is trying to be a bit more mature than most opposition parties may be. He has tried to give evidence of where the funding would come from. He used the example of the non-domestic vacant rating, which, I think, he has spoken about before. We know how much that has brought in in the past: it alone would not cover the cost, and nor would the regional rate increase, which, I think, the Member's party was against. Certainly, his party leader complained about it on Twitter yesterday, and Mr McGrath has been particularly concerned about the rate rises in his area. We cannot have it both ways. We cannot be opposed to regional rates or come to the House with four or five different ways in which that money could be spent and then ask for it to be spent on something else as well. I am trying to be up front and honest with Members by saying that yes, of course, I want to be in a position to remove the limit, but that I do not believe that we will be in a position to take it on ourselves, put in the legislative changes and pay for them. I want to look at that report in the round, however. I want to look at all the interventions and at how we can use the resources that we have to make sure that we tackle the issues that cause the greatest distress and hardship and contribute to poverty. Of course child poverty is a problem. I am wholly committed to playing my part in alleviating that, but I cannot support the motion as framed to remove the two-child policy by the end of this year. Tackling poverty is, of course, a responsibility for the entire Executive. I know that I am going back over some of the points that were made in the debate yesterday, but it is worth repeating that we are working at pace on the development and implementation of an anti-poverty strategy. We are looking at how we, as an Executive, can best move that forward. I want to work with Executive colleagues to agree an anti-poverty strategy that is sustainable and deliverable, and the issues raised will form part of that. I will comment on some of the speeches that we have heard today. I completely agree with what the Chairman of the Committee for Communities said about the impact of the policy. He was realistic about finding a way for us to offset sustainably the impact of the two-child limit. I also welcome the comments from Sian Mulholland in that regard. She took a sensible approach by recognising that it is not just about the cost of the mitigations but about the cost of the IT systems and the infrastructure. That is why it is important that we consider all the recommendations in the round. If we are to put additional resources into tackling poverty, I want to make sure that we spend them on people and not on IT systems, where possible. To be fair to the Opposition, however, I think that they realise that there does not need to be complete abolition and that, rather, mitigation is possible. I accept that. I wish Robbie Butler a very happy birthday. I am glad that his mother still calls him on his birthday. I hope that he calls his mother as well and not just on his birthday. I recognise the points that he made about the impact that the policy has on larger families in particular. Other Members made similar points. We do not want to find ourselves in the position in which children are penalised simply because their parents have more children. Kellie Armstrong referred to that issue as well. Mr McGrath mentioned the importance of childcare: that is a priority for the Executive. That we are not making announcements about it in the Chamber does not mean that the work is not ongoing. Paul Givan has taken on the issue from day 1. It has been a constant theme around the Executive table, and I look forward to progress being made. Mr McGrath also made the point that tackling poverty is not simply about any one issue. Yes, the two-child limit is important, but this is about getting people into work; getting people better-paid jobs; making sure that people have appropriate childcare so that they can work; making sure that we address health inequalities; and making sure that people have warm homes in which to live. All of that contributes to the outcomes that we want to see, and that is what I am committed to doing. He told me to get on with the job: I assure him that that is exactly what I am doing, as I want to see the wider issue of child poverty sorted out. We need to address it. Doing that will take many different forms, and I look forward to making sure that we deliver. In closing, I —.

Yes, quickly.

If we did not have the voluntary and community sector in Northern Ireland, we would find ourselves in a horrendous situation. It holds so much together, and it has really borne the brunt of some of the spending constraints that have been in place in recent years, so I completely acknowledge and accept what the Member said. That ongoing support is vital, and if that support were to be taken away, it would put incredible strain on our public services. I join her in paying tribute to the sector.

I hope that Members can see what we are trying to do through the amendment. It is realistic, and I give the personal commitment that I will do everything that I can to address child poverty.

2,115 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not qualifying

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:56 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification