Debate contribution: Poverty: North Down
Debate contribution by Mr Gordon Lyons on .
- MLA
- Mr Gordon Lyons
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 9 December 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Adjournment
- Heading
- Poverty: North Down
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5296648
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I welcome the debate and, indeed, congratulate the Member for securing it. I am sure that she and others in the Chamber will have heard the jokes and guffaws around the Building today about our debating the issue of poverty in North Down, as if that is somewhere where poverty could not or should not exist. However, we know that poverty does not stop at constituency boundaries. Yes, we have areas, as we have in my constituency, that are considered to be affluent, but, right next door, you have areas of deep deprivation. Therefore, it is right that we have this debate and talk about what we can do to help. I give the firm commitment that I am every bit as keen to make sure that we tackle poverty in North Down as I am to tackling it everywhere else in Northern Ireland. I give my commitment that I will do everything that I can to tackle the issue. We have already done and continue to do many things in the North Down area to help those who are in need. For example, over the past year, the Make the Call outreach team has helped 1,159 people in North Down, securing additional benefits of £6·57 million that they were entitled to. We have secured the winter fuel payment support; the Northern Ireland Housing Executive has invested almost £7 million in 660 homes; £3·25 million of private-sector grants and support has been made available; and there has been £500,000 for projects in 13 neighbourhood renewal areas, £138,000 for independent advice services, £820,000 for labour market partnerships and £135,000 for social supermarkets. I know that there is more to be done and more that we need to do, but that demonstrates that support is going into the North Down constituency, and that will continue. Of course, much more needs to be done to tackle the issue. First, I will pick up on one issue that was raised by most Members who spoke this evening: working families. Members are absolutely right to highlight the fact that many of those who experience the effects of poverty most acutely are in working households. We see that time and time again. I want to stand up and speak up for them, because they are doing the right thing — they are going to work; they are trying to do their best; and they are playing by the rules — but they find time and time again that they miss out on support that is available to others. Understandably, they can say to themselves, "Why am I doing this? Why am I knocking my pan in when I'm actually hurting myself by excluding myself from some of the support that is available?". That is what we need to change, and it is why I have two areas of focus for working families.
The first relates to housing. We know the impact that housing can have — the costs of rent and mortgages. We need to do a better job of building more homes and of doing more to address the cost of housing, because we know that it is one of the biggest outgoings for any family.
That is why we are taking action and why the housing supply strategy is in place. We have put in place other initiatives, such as using financial transactions capital (FTC) in new and innovative ways through the intermediate rent scheme, which will help people who find themselves stuck because they do not qualify for social housing but cannot afford the rents that we see in the private rented sector. FTC was underutilised; we are using it. We are building more homes, and we are using reduced rent to help people. The social housing development programme is also important, and I am pleased that we are making progress on that. With the budget that was available in June, we were going to be able to build only 1,000 homes across Northern Ireland this year, but, working with my Executive colleagues, after today's announcement, we will be able to build 1,750 homes, which is really close to our target and should be welcomed. The loan to acquire —. I will happily give way to the Member.
That is still being finalised. We got the extra funding only today, but I will provide that information to the Member when it becomes available. We are trying to do many other things in housing. Over the past 20 months, we have tried many innovative ways of increasing housing supply, and, after discussions with the Finance Minister, I will bring a paper to the Executive about what we can do with public-sector land to increase housebuilding in Northern Ireland. Fuel poverty is the second issue; addressing that could help working families. Huge amounts of money go out to pay for rent or mortgages, and one of the next biggest outgoings is the cost of heating homes. I am pleased to say that the fuel poverty strategy will be with the Executive this month; I look forward to Mr Muir's contribution to the discussion. The strategy will be ambitious, and I will be looking for a significant capital investment in energy efficiency measures in particular because those things could make a real difference. Every year, we spend lots of money on helping people, when we could have helped them earlier and for longer. Changes to the energy efficiency of a home can have a recurring benefit every year. That is where our focus should be, and it is what you will see in the fuel poverty strategy. I will address a couple of the other issues that were raised. The Member who secured the debate expressed some concern about my approach to getting people into work. I acknowledge that many people are in work and still find themselves squeezed financially, and that is why I want to help in the ways that I have just outlined. One reason why I want to make sure that we get more people into work is that it frees up money that we can use to help people in other ways. I have already mentioned the disability and work strategy. That is about getting 50,000 more people into work and bringing the disability employment rate from 40% to 50%, which is the rate in the rest of the UK. That will save £750 million that otherwise would be paid out in benefits or would not come in through National Insurance and income tax payments. That £750 million will go to the Treasury, but think of how that could give working households some of the extra support that we want to see. I am keen to get people into work and to provide support with the additional funding that that frees up. The Member who secured the Adjournment debate also mentioned the need to avoid short-term measures: sticking plasters. That is exactly what has driven me in the development of the anti-poverty strategy. It is not about asking, year by year, what additional mitigations we can put in place or what other help we can give to those who are in need; it is about how we can spend the money sooner and in a better way so that it will have a lasting impact. In 2022, we got extra money because of the rising cost of energy, and we gave the money directly to people. I want to see such money spent earlier on energy efficiency measures to help people who face difficulties with their home every year, rather than their being given one-off support. The anti-poverty strategy is entirely about spending the money that we have earlier and in a better way so that we can achieve longer lasting benefits. The Chair of the Communities Committee said that we need to see a strengthening of the anti-poverty strategy. I am open to that. I am open to any and all measures that will make a lasting and real difference to people. We absolutely need to support people now. We absolutely need to provide immediate support and relief, as we do through discretionary support. However, we need to get real: we need to start doing things that will make a long-term difference. We need to invest rather than just handing out money in that way. That is what I am determined to do, and I will not be found wanting on that. Another issue that was raised by Ms Armstrong was around fraud. She might be getting sick of me saying this, but let me just say that this is not about those who are in need. This is not about those who have made mistakes. This is about people who are misrepresenting their circumstances in order to get money, and, sometimes, we are talking about £30,000 or £40,000 and, in one case, £65,000. That is money that they are not entitled to, so I will happily crack down on fraud and on the error that takes place in my Department. I want that money to go towards helping people who need it most, and I will continue to address that. I will address one more issue, which is around the hardship fund. It is another example of sticking plasters. I want to make sure that we spend that money better as well. One thing that was missing from the debate was the issue of creating wealth. We need to be in the position to do that. We need to make sure that we are generating more in our economy. We need to make sure that we have more productivity in our economy so that we can help people and put that towards those need it.
You are being very generous. I was thinking for a second there —.
I am sorry. You gave me so much latitude that I thought I had an extra minute because I had given an intervention. My time is up. This is the last debate in this place for the year. I wish you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and everyone here at the Assembly a very merry Christmas.
1,690 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.03 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.95).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.09 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.95 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.83 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.16 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:11 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 reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.