Debate contribution: Social Security Reform and Economic Inactivity

Debate contribution by Mr Brian Kingston on 1 April 2025.

MLA: Mr Brian Kingston
Party at the time: Democratic Unionist Party
Date: 1 April 2025
Type: Debate contribution
Business: Private Members' Business
Heading: Social Security Reform and Economic Inactivity
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 4876742

Text

The past two weeks have caused great anxiety for people who receive disability- and health-related benefits. The 'Pathways to Work: Reforming Benefits and Support to Get Britain Working Green Paper', which was published on 18 March, reduced the number of people who will qualify for personal independence payments from 2026-27 onwards and made other reductions to health-related benefits. Combined with further changes in the spring statement last week, the package of welfare measures is designed to decrease government spending by around £4·8 billion in 2029-30, which is different from the plans in the autumn statement. The DUP has always stood for a welfare system that provides support to those who need it most. We will continue to do so, whilst recognising that the quantum of funding that would be required to mitigate the proposed cuts simply does not and will not exist in the Northern Ireland block grant. I point out to the SDLP Members for Foyle, in case they have not read it, that the SDLP amendment absolutely proposes mitigating any reduction in claimants' social security entitlement.
That would have to come from the block grant for public services in Northern Ireland.
I will, briefly.
I am referring to the wording of the SDLP amendment and am making the point that your party claims every time that we should mitigate poverty out of the block grant, which would reduce much-needed funding for all our public services in Northern Ireland. Despite what you claimed earlier, if you read your party's amendment, you will see that that is clearly what it proposes. We believe in protecting the most vulnerable in our society whilst ensuring fairness for taxpayers and tackling abuse of the system. It is disgraceful that, instead of taking responsibility for its previous attacks on pensioners, employers and farm businesses, Labour is targeting welfare recipients and pensioners to foot the bill for its ill-conceived policies, which have damaged economic growth. Nobody will disagree that welfare spending must be fair and sustainable, but the proposed narrowing of eligibility for the daily living element of the personal independence payment has caused great anxiety for the thousands of people in Northern Ireland who rely on that support, including many with mental health conditions. The nature of mental health means not only that an individual's needs fluctuate over time but that illness manifests itself in a variety of ways. The Government's changes to PIP assessments do not seem to reflect that reality and will require four points under a single heading, rather than a possible accumulation of points across the board. There is no fairness, justice or compassion at the heart of the Labour Party's proposals. Our MPs have urged the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to accept that those with severe mental health issues may not understand their illness or be able to explain or grasp it following the proposed changes. How will those people be protected? It is increasingly clear that the Government are intent on making life more difficult for those in need in order to balance the books. No credible plan for economic growth has been presented. Labour needs to rethink its proposals and provide real assurances to those affected. The punitive nature of some of the reforms is compounded by the fact that key mitigations that are being put forward, including an additional universal credit premium or security for those with the most severe and lifelong disabilities and a new unemployment insurance benefit, have not been fleshed out to any significant extent. Equipping benefit fraud officers with adequate resources and powers to catch and deal with those committing fraud would be a better starting point than sweeping changes that are unlikely to outsmart the fraudster but will hit the most vulnerable. The spring statement details some investment in fraud and error measures, but that must translate into concrete actions and outcomes. Calls for a wealth tax are well rehearsed, and we support the principle of a fair and progressive tax system. Equally, we are mindful that such a policy, particularly if adopted annually, is not a silver bullet and could undermine investment and economic growth across the United Kingdom.
Indeed, and I will come on to that point. We have said that the Government should do more to bring in taxes, but the scale of welfare fraud is in the hundreds of millions of pounds. If we are talking about mitigations, that is where we could cover them. I will keep going. In 1990, 12 countries had wealth taxes; today, just three do. OECD reports suggest that wealth taxes create problems for people who are asset-rich but not income-rich and whose wealth is tied up in illiquid assets. Such a tax could also discourage a savings ethos. Alliance may claim that it is unlikely to impact on those in Northern Ireland, if the tax targets the "superwealthy", but how is that defined? Ultimately, taxing income and consumption is relatively simple. Analysing wealth is far more difficult. That is not to say that there are no other measures that could tangibly increase the tax base while protecting the most vulnerable. Online marketplaces continue to undercut our high street shops, which often pay more in rates than global firms that operate online pay in taxes. There should also be renewed focus on cracking down on those who evade paying tax in the United Kingdom. We support the proposal for a UK-wide commission to scope out interventions to tackle high economic inactivity rates. In 2024, Northern Ireland was overtaken by Wales in having the highest regional economic inactivity rate, but our rate remains well above the UK average, which requires sustained attention. In their Green Paper, the Government have earmarked £1 billion for a "Pathways to work" offer. We need to see more detail on that and on how such initiatives, as well as the transformation pot mentioned in the spring statement, can benefit Northern Ireland's labour market conditions. To recap, I point out to the Alliance Party that our amendment removes none of its motion's wording but adds that increasing the public purse can be better achieved by:
"tackling fraud and abuse in the welfare system, targeting global corporations that evade tax and exploring a potential sales tax for online marketplaces".
It states that any policy to increase taxes on the superwealthy must be:
"fair, deliverable and avoid a detrimental impact on savings or investment".
It also states that the welfare support system must be fair to those who require support and to the taxpayer. I commend our amendment to the House.

1,093 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Awaiting analysis

This record has not been analysed yet. It is not counted in any total until it has been assessed.

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