Debate contribution: Benefit Fraud and Error: Task and Finish Report

Debate contribution by Mr Gordon Lyons on 9 February 2026.

MLA

Mr Gordon Lyons

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

9 February 2026

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

Business

Ministerial Statements

Heading

Benefit Fraud and Error: Task and Finish Report

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5369620

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I am determined to tackle errors in my Department as well as fraud. Official error represents 0·4%; customer error represents 0·8%; and customer fraud represents 2·5%. Therefore, official error is not the most significant challenge that we face, but, at a cost of £42·5 million, it is still significant. That is why work is ongoing to put a fraud ambassador in place in the Department. As well as that, extra training will made available to staff so that they can not only identify fraud but make sure that they do not make the same mistakes, because it is public money, and we need to make sure that it is spent wisely. I am more than happy for the Department to be scrutinised, just as we scrutinise those who deliberately misrepresent their circumstances.

Yes. I require and have requested just under £10 million per year to help to deal with the issue, but that amount should be seen as an investment, because, as I have said before, we can recoup additional money for the Treasury when we invest in tackling fraud and error. Unfortunately, we have fallen behind where we were on that, and we have also now fallen behind the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). It really is a no-brainer. We spend money on dealing with people who are not getting what they are entitled to or with mistakes that may have been made, and we can then recoup some of that money once the agreement is finalised with the Treasury. It is a win-win for everybody involved, unless, of course, you are defrauding the public purse.

It is very effective, but it would be even more effective if we had more people in place. The sum of money that, the Treasury says, could be recouped speaks for itself, but the Member is looking only at convictions. I would rather that nobody were convicted, because it would be better if people accepted their mistakes at an earlier stage and repaid what is due. It is regrettable that some people hang on until the end and fight it in court, meaning that we have to go through the additional expense of that process. However, as I said in my statement, thousands of cases have been reviewed, and money that otherwise would have gone out in benefits has not gone out. We need to look at the matter in the round, not just at convictions. It is a powerful tool for us, and we should use it. It is about stopping money that should not go out from going out in the first place and dealing with fraud at the earliest possible stage. However, if we need to go to convictions, so be it.

The figures have spoken for themselves. It is clear that the intervention that I made last year has changed the culture towards benefit fraud. It is interesting to note that some of the most visited web pages on the DFC website are those that highlight the cases of benefit fraud. People are interested in that, and they recognise the importance of dealing with the issue. In some cases, those pages have up to 20 times or more the average number of page hits. The public are fed up. They are fed up with getting up every morning and going to work when they see neighbours fraudulently misrepresenting their circumstances to get taxpayers' money that they do not deserve. I am committed to rooting that out and ensuring that those who exploit the system face the consequences. Publicising convictions has, of course, raised awareness of the impact and consequences of defrauding the benefit system. That is why we have seen an increase in the number of referrals.

This, obviously, stems from the Fresh Start Agreement of 2015, and not much had been done around the issue in the intervening period. As I set out in my statement, I am pleased that we have got to the place where Treasury is interested in the issue. We have put in a business case that is being reviewed, and we have agreement in principle that Treasury will work with us on the issue. That should be welcomed by everybody. It will be a win for the Treasury, the Department for Communities and the Department of Finance in Northern Ireland. I would like to see it move faster, and I think that it could move faster if we were allowed to get it on to the Executive agenda, even for discussion. That would allow us to say that the Executive are united in wanting to tackle the problem and see the value of the investment and the money that can be recouped through it. It would be helpful if the Executive could get on board with me and ensure that we push it even further with Treasury.

That is simply not true, because we have outlined the figures. I have outlined the returns that we can get in the Committee, in the Chamber and in the media. Those returns are not based on my ideas or views on what can be achieved if we work hard on this but on figures that stand up to scrutiny from the Department for Work and Pensions. The return that we get currently is around £8 for every £1 that we invest. However, it is complex work, and we need highly trained staff who will have some incredible investigatory powers. That takes time and costs money. The return, on the basis of the additional investment that is required, will be lower: it will be £5 for every £1 invested, but that will eventually ramp up to £8 for every £1 invested. Those are figures that we can stand over, and they are figures that the DWP can stand over. Let us not pretend that there is a lack of certainty or clarity on this one. It is a no-brainer.

The Department for Work and Pensions has received significant investment in counter-fraud activity, including increased staffing for investigations and compliance, but my Department has not secured parity funding, despite repeated bids. That money, which should have come through, would have equated to around 200 additional staff. The absence of that funding has limited our ability to respond to rising fraud and error risks at the same scale and size as the Department for Work and Pensions and is the reason why we have fallen behind it for the first time in at least 20 years.

DWP is increasing its investment in fraud and error by increasing its number of counter-fraud and compliance staff by 1,400 and scaling up its universal credit review team to 6,000 staff. It has also just announced further funding for an additional 300 staff to deal with fraud and error. On top of that, the Chancellor's spring statement gave funding for an additional 500 staff to address fraud and error. The parity interventions have given us Barnett consequentials, but they have not been allocated to my Department. That is why we are falling behind and why you are seeing the numbers going up. That is why it is so important that we invest in this way, because, under the agreement that I hope to negotiate, we will be able to keep the benefits of that.

We often hear the First Minister and Agriculture Minister complain about papers not being placed on the agenda, but those are papers that I have had on the agenda since May and September, respectively. We also have a Finance Minister who frequently tells us that we do not have enough money, yet I am presenting an opportunity for us to tackle fraud and recoup money at the same time via that business case with the Treasury. There are many reasons why papers do not get on to the Executive agenda. Sometimes, there are disagreements and policy differences between Ministers, but I do not understand the reason in this case. I am more than happy for you to ask the First Minister and other Ministers why this has not been placed on the agenda, because, for me, it is absolutely straightforward: we get the opportunity to right the wrong of those who are claiming money that they are not entitled to and also get to invest in a way that gives us a return for Northern Ireland and a return for the Treasury. Consequently, we can give confidence to people who are working that we are listening to their concerns and making sure that the money that they earn and pay in tax is actually being used for what it should be used for. This is not, and should not be, a political issue. It is time for us all to realise that and get on board.

First of all, I make no apology for attacking those who are deliberately defrauding the system or those who deliberately misrepresent their circumstances in order to claim something to which they are not entitled. I am not talking about people who are genuinely in need and those who are genuinely entitled to those benefits. There is a significant difference between the two. I know the difference between the two, and I think that the general public know the difference as well. We are investing money in the Make the Call service to make sure that people have the opportunity to ring up and find out what benefits they are entitled to. We run advertising campaigns so that people know what they are entitled to. We push out that information through jobs and benefits centres across Northern Ireland. I want to make sure that we are getting support to those who need it and that we are supporting vulnerable people. However, those who are claiming that to which they are not entitled are actually hurting vulnerable people. They are taking money away from those who could do with it. Therefore, I make no apology for doing this. Gerry, I am not on the side of those who are defrauding the system, and I am not here to support or help them in any way. I am on the side of people who need the welfare benefits that are provided by my Department, and I am on the side of those who go out every single day and earn money that pays for benefits, because those people are the ones who are being taken for a ride. They are fed up with it, and I will do everything that I can to deal with the issue.

I will then also be able to help with the other issues that he raises. Poverty is one of the most pressing issues that we face in our society, and I want more resource in my budget to deal with the root causes of poverty. I know that some people in the Chamber do not like it, but I do not want to be in a position in which we are just handing out money to people. I want to give people money in a way that helps. That is why, last week, I brought forward the warm healthy homes strategy, so that we can actually invest in people's homes and save them money in the longer term. That is why I want to use the money that is saved here for investment programmes in jobs, so that we can help people in the longer term. I know whose side I am on, and I have no problem whatsoever in attacking and going after those who are defrauding the system.

That is absolutely right. I have explained that consistently. There is a return that comes from taking action to tackle this, which, as I have said, starts off and grows from £25 million a year. That money may go back into Executive coffers. I would like it to stay in the Department for Communities because, if it does, we can use it on things that actually make a difference, such as investing more money into people's homes, investing money into programmes like JobStart that have a transformative impact on people's lives, and investing in those other measures that we can take to deal with the root causes of poverty. There have been attempts — this has been talked about in the Committee for Communities — to say that this is an attack on benefits claimants. It is not. It is about ensuring that the people who need it and are entitled to it get what they are entitled to and that those who deliberately misrepresent their circumstances are dealt with. I know, because I have received much correspondence and have heard the views of many people on this, that, whether they are Protestant or Catholic, unionist or nationalist, everybody is concerned about this and wants to see an end to it. There should not be a hint of political disagreement on this. We should all be united and helping those who are most in need. That is what drives me.

2,162 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:33 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.

Challenge this classification