Debate contribution: Social Security Reform and Economic Inactivity

Debate contribution by Mr Gordon Lyons on 1 April 2025.

MLA: Mr Gordon Lyons
Party at the time: Democratic Unionist Party
Date: 1 April 2025
Type: Debate contribution (made as a minister)
Business: Private Members' Business
Heading: Social Security Reform and Economic Inactivity
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 4877141

Text

Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I thank the proposer of the motion and all those who have contributed to the debate. I do not intend to go into the detail of everything that has already been said. I do not intend to go into all the consequences that those decisions will have. They are well known, and I have already placed my views on record in the Chamber, in the media and directly with the Government. I believe that the changes are wrong, are ill-thought-out and will have longer-term consequences beyond the pounds and pence that we are talking about today. Another example of that is found in the Labour Government's decision to reduce the winter fuel payment and the number of people who are eligible for it. The Government put that in place thinking that it would save them money when, in fact, it may end up actually costing them more money because it will push more people towards applying for pension credit — I welcome that — which becomes a passport to other benefits. Perversely, there may be a greater cost to the Government when they are actually trying to save money. In other ways, it will cost because additional people will suffer and, perhaps, even require hospital admission because of the decisions that the Government have made on the winter fuel payment. I believe that there will be the same impact from the changes that are being made here. We have heard a number of comments about the impacts that the changes will have, but what has been missed in the wider public commentary around that, although it was mentioned once or twice in the debate, is the fact that PIP and universal credit often go to people who are in work. They often go to people who otherwise might not be able to stay in work. Again, we have more perverse consequences of that decision. The other thing that frustrates me is that the Government do not really have any idea how much this will cost or how much it will save. Can you imagine if I were to come to the Chamber one week and say that I was going to bring forward proposals that would save £5 billion, and then to come back the following week and say, "No, that was wrong. It will actually be only £3·4 billion"? I would be laughed out of the Chamber, but that is exactly what has happened at Westminster. We have a Government that do not know the impacts that this will have. We do not know what impacts it will have in Northern Ireland. We have not done the calculations and sums to understand, for example, what impact the new PIP criteria will have, how many people will be affected or how many people might score differently. It is ill-thought-out and wrong. I have made my opposition clear. It is clear that there is consensus across the Chamber that it is the wrong decision, although people will have different views on the matter. I place on record, as I have done before, that I have no objection whatsoever to reform of our welfare system. In fact, I would welcome reforms to our welfare system that could reduce the welfare bill. I have greater ambition for our people than to see an ever-growing welfare bill and ever more people being dependent on welfare. I believe that that is the ambition of many people in Northern Ireland — I see it all the time. People have come to me and told me about how they want support to enable them to get into work. I have had disabled people in my office who have told me just that, saying, "Give me help. Make sure that we have a welfare system that helps and incentivises me to get into work". There are opportunities for reform and ways in which we can reduce the welfare bill. Those include looking at fraud and error and, importantly, making sure that we put in place measures that help people who want to be in work to get into work. I have had numerous engagements over the past 14 months. I have met people from all walks of life. An experience that has stayed with me, which I think will stay with me the longest, is meeting people who are involved in the Job Start programme. They are people who never had the opportunity to work or were never given help to get into work. Some of them have disabilities or neurodivergent issues that had previously prevented them getting into work. I remember speaking to one young individual who told me that he thought that, because of his autism, he would never have a job. His parents thought that he would never be able to get employment. With the help that we were able to give him through that programme, however, he is now thriving in his employment. That is the type of help that we should give to people and the type of ambition that we should have for them. We should have the ambition to take people off welfare benefits if they do not need them and to get them into work, because we know that there will be numerous benefits as a result of doing that, including a reduction in the welfare bill, more money going into the Treasury and a better quality of life for everyone involved. That young individual was so pleased at what he was able to achieve, but it took some help. That is what we should be doing to reduce the welfare bill. That is what we should be doing to help people. The Government have taken completely the wrong approach. There are those in the Chamber who celebrated the election of a Labour Government. I think that we are all surprised at the action that the Government have taken, and I hope that they will see sense. It is worthwhile for us to have these debates, to take such action as we have taken and to continue to make our views on the issue known. I think that there is consensus in the Chamber, although two amendments to the motion have been proposed. I will not be in a position to agree with the SDLP amendment. I understand that there is a bit of politics in there, yes, but I have been upfront and honest about the Assembly's financial capability. Despite Sinéad McLaughlin's earlier comments, the SDLP amendment very clearly calls on me:
"to work with the Minister of Finance on the development of a mitigation package that protects current and future claimants from reductions in social security entitlements".
I am sorry, but I cannot pledge that. I cannot promise that I will be able to work out the cost and give a blanket guarantee that we will be able to mitigate the reductions. I will be upfront and honest with people. If Mr Durkan or any of his colleagues were in my position, they would have to do the same. That is the most honest thing that we can say.
The other reason that I oppose the SDLP amendment is because it leaves out some of the things that the DUP amendment and the Alliance motion call for.
There has been some talk about tax increases for the superwealthy, which is something that the SDLP has removed from the motion in its amendment. The DUP amendment states that such tax increases should be explored, but:
"any such policy must be fair, deliverable and avoid a detrimental impact on savings or investment".
That is fair, but what need to be highlighted today are the additional measures that have been included in the DUP amendment, which, I believe, take nothing away from the Alliance motion. These are things that all of us in the House should be calling for:
"tackling fraud and abuse in the welfare system, targeting global corporations that evade tax and exploring a potential sales tax for online marketplaces".
There are additional measures that the UK Government can take. I do not believe that we are removing anything from the spirit of the Alliance motion. I hope that the Alliance Party and other Members can look at what is being proposed and say, "There are some realistic measures that can be looked at". I do not think that the DUP amendment takes anything away from the motion at all.
I do not think that it is offensive at all, because I am not linking the two in any way. I am not saying that those who are entitled to disability benefits are in any way responsible for defrauding the system. Rather, I am saying that this is a package of overall measures that we should be taking in order to increase the amount of money that we have to spend. I have said regularly that we need to get the right money to the right people at the right time. It is a disgrace that there are people who are deliberately defrauding the system. I am talking not about people who wrongly fill out a box but about those who are deliberately defrauding our system and taking money that should be going to the very people about whom the Member is talking. I do not believe that the line in the DUP amendment about tackling fraud and abuse should be attributed to disabled people any more than it should be to the global corporations that are mentioned or the potential sales tax for online marketplaces. I have made it very clear in everything that I have said about welfare fraud and error that it is not about targeting people who need benefits or individuals who make honest mistakes. Rather, it is about making sure that we target those who are deliberately defrauding the system. Those who are not doing anything wrong should not have anything to worry about. All in all, the DUP amendment very much strengthens what is in the Alliance motion. I do not see how anybody in the House with any honesty can wholeheartedly support the SDLP amendment, which takes out the opportunities that we have to increase revenue and make sure that we have a more balanced system but states that we should be taking action that, people know, we are simply not in a position to take at this time. I hope that that clarifies my position on the matter. I assure Members that I will continue to beat the drum for Northern Ireland. I will continue to make the case, along with Executive colleagues, for the better way that we suggest. I believe that we have a better way of doing what the Government are trying to do. Unfortunately, what they are trying to do in the short term is simply to balance the books and make their numbers add up, by which I mean that they are trying to make sure that their sums are as they should be, regardless of the longer-term costs and other consequences. We all want to see more people who can work get into work and to see a reduction in the welfare bill. The way in which the Government are going about it, however, is completely wrong, and I will continue to make my case to them. Yesterday, I was able to send the draft anti-poverty strategy document to my Executive colleagues. I look forward to their considering that document and hope that it can go out to public consultation soon and be adopted. We will continue to put in place all the measures that we can to support those who are most in need, help people prevent themselves from falling into poverty, help people who find themselves in poverty and make sure that we have routes available for people to exit poverty. The Government are making our task more difficult. They are also making their own job more difficult in the long term. That is why we will continue to speak with one voice from this Chamber to make sure that our views are heard and put forward a better path for us. We are better off supporting the amendment in the name of Mr Kingston. I look forward to support from the House.

2,048 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