NI Communities Minister attacks ‘shameful' welfare reform plans
On a separate issue related to the benefits system, Mr Lyons said he had received confirmation from the Treasury that Stormont could potentially share in savings achieved by any Stormont-devised plan to target fraud around benefit payments in Northern Ireland.
The minister said he would now proceed with a business case on a fraud prevention plan with the hope of getting it on the agenda of the Executive for consideration.
At an appearance before his Assembly scrutiny committee, the minister also said that the Government's U-turn on eligibility for winter fuel payments for pensioners would result in 86% of pensioners in Northern Ireland (288,000) receiving the payment this coming winter – a proportion higher than the UK average of 80%.
Facing questions from MLAs at Stormont on Thursday, Mr Lyons also defended his own department's recently published draft poverty strategy, a document that has faced criticism from several community and civic society organisations.
The DUP minister's appearance came days after the UK Government was forced into a late climbdown on a central plank of its welfare reform agenda in a bid to avert a major backbench rebellion.
In a late concession on Tuesday, only 90 minutes before MPs were to vote on the Bill, ministers shelved plans to restrict eligibility for the personal independence payment (Pip), with any changes now only coming after a review of the benefit.
Mr Lyons was scathing of the Government's approach while giving evidence to the committee.
'I think it is important that I place on record just how appalled I am by this Labour Government and how they have conducted themselves over the last number of months,' he said.
'I believe their approach has been shameful. I believe that it has caused significant stress for many in our society, even those who I believe would never have been affected by the changes that have been proposed and those that perhaps would have been.
'It has caused a huge amount of stress.'
The minister added: 'We're at very early stages of assessment, but we believe ultimately that it will end up costing, it will not create any saving at all in Northern Ireland.
'So, I think that that has been an incredible mess, they've made a real hames of it, if I'm being honest.'
🗣️ Minister @GordonLyons1 is calling on you to take part.
Help shape @NIExecutive's Anti-Poverty Strategy by sharing your ideas and experiences.
Let's work together to tackle Poverty in society.
🔗 https://t.co/SMdqhZunuy pic.twitter.com/goJsJ7pEuh
— Communities NI (@CommunitiesNI) July 2, 2025
On the winter fuel payments, Mr Lyons said: 'There are 336,000 pensioners in Northern Ireland and HMRC are now estimating that 86% or 288,000 will receive the winter fuel payment in 25/26 because they have an income of less than £35,000.
'Twenty per cent will not receive it in the UK as a whole, that is only 14% in Northern Ireland. Again, another mess by this Government. It was inevitable that they would have had to have changed course.'
The minister said he had received confirmation on Thursday that Northern Ireland could potentially have a share of savings generated by any welfare fraud measures taken by the Executive.
'If there are savings through us tackling welfare fraud and error that are certified by the Office for Budget Responsibility, the Treasury will consider providing for us a share of those savings,' he said.
'And those savings are massive.
'A very, very small amount of money that we put in (to introduce fraud prevention measures) and you can get incredible savings from those.
'So that could be a net benefit to Northern Ireland. We will be progressing that business case.
'I have a paper with the Executive. I hope it will get on the agenda, because I think that could be very, very important.'
Mr Lyons faced several questions on his draft anti-poverty strategy.
The minister said he respected those who had criticised it, but made clear he did not agree with several of the claims that had been made about the plan lacking ambition and targets.
He said he remained open during the public consultation phase to listening to alternative proposals.
SDLP MLA Daniel McCrossan put it to the minister that Sinn Fein First Minister Michelle O'Neill had appeared to distance herself from his proposed strategy.
Mr Lyons said he never encountered any 'push back' from Executive colleagues when the draft proposals were presented to ministerial colleagues for consideration.
'I think it's safe to say there was not a lengthy debate around this issue, and I certainly left that Executive meeting believing there was good consensus on the way forward, and that we were open to consultation on this and to listening to what people had to say, and that there was broad agreement on what we had in front of us,' he said.
'I listen to what others have to say. I will do that through the consultation period, but I was not getting push-back at all within the Executive and I believe that there was good unity among Executive colleagues.
'I understand people can come under a bit of pressure, and they can change their positions, or they want to be seen to be on the right side, but I've taken on board all of the criticisms that have been made of this, and we will certainly listen to those.
'I believe a lot of those don't have a basis in reality.
'I hope I've explained and I've reassured the committee today about the approach that I am taking.
'But if anybody inside or outside the Executive have changes that they want to make to that that they haven't expressed to me so far, I'm open to listening to those, but I hope that they will also be willing to provide the funding that is necessary if it comes at an additional cost as well.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scotsman
an hour ago
- Scotsman
How, one year after defeating Tories, Labour has delivered more of the same
Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... It hasn't been the happiest of 'birthday' weeks for the government at Westminster. Labour colleagues were not in a celebratory mood on the anniversary of their 'landslide' election win. In Westminster, it wasn't hard to find government parliamentarians griping about their own record whilst in open rebellion. The Welfare Bill debate on Tuesday was, for those of us who still wear the scars, a throwback to the chaos at the height of the Brexit debacle. Ministers were making U-turns at the despatch box just before key votes. It was difficult to keep up, so rapid was the disintegration of the Bill over the course of one afternoon. Potential rebels were unsure what they were voting for at the end of the day. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad So feverish was the atmosphere that the Chancellor's tears at Prime Minister's Questions led to a bout of frenzied speculation as to what it all meant. The Conservatives, struggling to find a meaningful role themselves, were quick to jump on the visible upset of Rachel Reeves, in a way that reflected rather worse on them than the incumbent of Number 11. It did, however, tell a story of a government that has lost its way. This week's events were more reminiscent of an administration staggering to the end of its time in office rather than at the peak of its powers. Keir Starmer has failed to live up to the expectation of change that people wanted to see following last year's rejection of the Conservatives (Picture: Carl Court) | Getty Images Hard Tory Brexit remains A major challenge is that Labour doesn't know what it's for. Inevitably it has failed to live up to the expectation of change that people wanted to see following last year's rejection of the Conservatives. Westminster has levers Holyrood ministers could only dream of to deliver policies, but doesn't use them. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The increasing levels of poverty in the UK, the lack of investment in infrastructure, an outdated parliamentary and electoral system, a hard Tory Brexit that no one seems to want and the UK certainly can't afford – all areas they could have delivered on. A year ago, there was an appetite for change. Labour won a landslide in terms of seats, albeit a shallow one in terms of the vote because of who they weren't. Rather than taking the historic opportunity afforded to them, unfathomably, Labour's message has been one of continuity, the very thing that people had voted against. Continuity was seen in the cuts to the winter fuel payment that hit the most vulnerable, continuity in failing to fix our relationship with the rest of Europe that hampers growth, and continuity in maintaining the Conservatives' failed fiscal rules. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Contrast with Blair and Salmond Labour won power and don't know what to do with it. Compare with previous incoming administrations who knew that people had voted for change. In 1997 on day one as Chancellor, Gordon Brown made the Bank of England independent. In Scotland, in the days after the SNP's narrow election win in 2007, Alex Salmond changed the name of the Scottish Executive to the Scottish Government, and scrapped bridge tolls amongst a range of other measures. These actions by two distinct administrations told the electorate that not only had the voters' message of change been heard but it was being delivered. These opening acts also told voters something of the governments' plans. Blair's New Labour was determined to be financially prudent and Salmond's administration was delivering a distinctive Scottish Government that would make up its own mind on policy and pursue devolution that diverged from Westminster where the First Minister believed that to be in Scotland's best interest. Agree or disagree, these administrations knew what they were for from the start. Wrong side of poverty issue Even after this disastrous week, there is no sign of improvement. Government sources have briefed that the rebellion over the Welfare Bill will mean that the two-child cap will remain in place. The Child Poverty Action Group said of the latter policy: 'This tax on siblings is the biggest driver of rising child poverty in the UK today.' Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Former Blair adviser John McTernan remarked, with palpable frustration, that the government's position appeared to be 'you stopped us harming people with disabilities, so we'll hurt children'. This Labour government seems to be on the wrong side of tackling poverty and getting people back to work. Scottish Labour are no better. The day after the rebellion, there was a debate in Westminster Hall about the UK Government's vision for Scotland. Labour MP after Labour MP stood up, not to talk about their hopes and aspirations for their own government, but rather to focus on the Scottish Government. More than once, the chair had to remind Scottish Labour MPs that their job was to scrutinise the UK rather than the Scottish Government. Their focus on Holyrood is something of an unintentional complement to the SNP administration and says much about the lack of imagination or clear mission within the ranks of Scottish Labour MPs. The UK Parliament has powers and responsibilities over Scotland far in excess of that of Holyrood. The fact that Labour MPs don't have much to say about that speaks to a malaise in a party which doesn't know what to do with the power it has attained. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Lacking credibility This week Scottish Labour were one of the last holdouts of loyalty to Keir Starmer. The Welfare Bill would have a profound impact on the Scottish Parliament's own efforts to reduce poverty, but few Scottish Labour MPs joined the rebellion. As Labour leaders in Wales, London, Manchester and elsewhere were joining in calls for change to the Bill, Scottish Labour remained silent. Their claims that they wouldn't introduce the changes in Holyrood, that they failed to oppose in Westminster, lack credibility. That's the problem. Labour showed this week that they lack credibility or a plan to end the chaos. One year on, the great change has led to more of the same.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
‘We promised change but people aren't feeling it yet': Labour rues poor first year
In a stiflingly hot room at a health centre in East London, as he announced the government's 10-year plan for the NHS on Thursday, Keir Starmer was confronted with a brutal assessment of his first year in power. 'You've U-turned on your reforms, your MPs don't trust you, and markets worry that you've lost resolve on fiscal discipline. It's the epitome, isn't it, of sticking-plaster politics and chaos that you promised voters you would end?' a television journalist asked. Initially, Starmer avoided answering the question, but he eventually addressed the fall-out from his government's chaotic handling of its welfare bill. 'I'm not going to pretend the last few days have been easy: they've been tough,' he admitted. 'I'm the sort of person that then wants to reflect on that, to ask myself what do we need to do to ensure we don't get into a situation like that again, and we will go through that process. But I also know … that we will come through it stronger.' The jubilant crowds of flag-waving supporters that greeted the prime minister as he arrived in Downing Street on 5 July 2024, daring to hope for a brighter future after 14 long years under the Conservative party, felt like a very long time ago. Senior members of Starmer's inner circle now quite openly admit that their first year in power has not gone as expected. 'I always knew it would be hard, but I think I was probably quite naive about just how hard it would be,' one said. 'We had a difficult fiscal inheritance and there was this sense in the country that everything was broken. We promised change but people aren't feeling it yet. And they're not in any mood to give us the benefit of the doubt,' a cabinet minister added. Despite all the political misjudgements such as early gloominess over the economy when the country needed to feel hope, unforced errors over issues such as the winter fuel cuts and freebies and a party base unsettled over cuts to international aid and the welfare system, it is too simplistic to suggest that it has all been bad. Decisions to raise the national minimum wage, improve workers' rights, build more affordable housing and cut NHS waiting lists have all been popular. Even more starkly 'Labour' policies such as nationalising the railways, introducing VAT on private schools fees and threatening water firm bosses over sewage have been well received. But the government, slumping behind Nigel Farage's Reform UK in the polls and with Starmer's own personal approval ratings tanking, hasn't got the credit. Labour strategists keep themselves awake at night trying to work out where it went wrong, and what they can do about it. So for all the reflection on the year gone by, the focus has now inevitably turned to what comes next. 'We're only 12 months in: if we can learn not just from what we've got right but also from what has not, then we still have time to get it right,' one No 10 source said. Starmer talks of a decade of national renewal, his assumption being that Labour will win a second term, and that he'll still be at the helm of the party. But not everybody shares that view. Even though the odds are still – despite everything – of Labour being the largest party. Some ministers believe they should focus on the first five years instead, as a way of injecting some urgency. Backbench MPs, many with small majorities and fearful of what the next election could bring, are pushing to make the most of what time they have. They may recoil when asked about a reset, but No 10 political strategists do acknowledge there will be a 'next phase' that allows Starmer to move on from his difficult first year and get the government on to a steadier footing. They believe the prime minister needs a big unifying message that allows him to make ideological arguments – akin to the way Tony Blair used 'modernise'. The theme of the strategy will be 'fairness' – a word that peppered Starmer's speech on the NHS on Thursday, and which they hope they can use in a provocative way and use to pick political battles. 'It's an invitation to make proper arguments,' an aide said. In his autumn conference speech and the run-up to the crucial political test of next May's local elections, Starmer will be able to argue there has been an imbalance in the economy or in previous political priorities that he will now set about to change. At the heart of it, Labour wants to speak to a pervasive feeling in the country that no matter how hard you work, nothing improves, and life gets tougher and tougher. Fairness, they argue, provides a platform to argue that big decisions – choices such as VAT on private schools or workers' rights reforms – were the right things to do. But also small ones such as investments in crumbling local heritage, which has become such a symbol of decline. It was an argument, strategists believe, that could have been made much better, to make the case for cuts to winter fuel and the dysfunctional state of the welfare system. Crucially, aides hope the message will resonate right across the Labour coalition, bringing together progressives to the left of the government and the more socially conservative voters who were the focus of the last election. 'Those people are in many ways often similar in circumstances but very different in values,' one senior strategist said. 'We should be a government for all those people.' But there are some senior Labour figures, including some in cabinet and party grandees, who favour a much more explicit progressivism, to shore up Labour's own voters and take on the right when the Reform hordes are at the gates. They believe that this is much closer to Starmer's own politics and would allow him to speak and act more like himself, addressing a view held inside and outside Westminster that he often comes across as inauthentic. 'He's been dressed up in all sorts of different incarnations, as an insurgent disruptor or the hammer of the civil service, which I don't think he's felt comfortable with,' said one ally. 'I think the reason why he went out of his way to express regret over the immigration speech where he talked about an island of strangers was because it just wasn't him.' On the progressive wing of the party, where Labour is losing more votes, there is frustration about what many perceive to be leaning to the right in response to Reform UK. 'It's the wrong approach. We should acknowledge that people really care about small boats, about housing, about the cost of living, but have our own answers to those problems, not try to ape Reform,' said one senior MP. 'Authenticity is a big problem for Keir. It's much better that he goes out and makes a Labour case for what we want to do for the country.' Some in No 10 believe that it would be disastrous to pivot back to the Labour base, comparing it to Ed Miliband's '35%' strategy that aimed to unite progressives but which ultimately cost Labour the 2015 election. While Starmer is generally praised for his role on the international stage, and has strong relationships with his fellow world leaders – including, perhaps counterintuitively, Donald Trump – the same is not true of the domestic sphere. There is a strong desire within No 10 for Starmer to reconnect with voters at home, to spend more time out in the country with ordinary people, on the campaign trail, with businesses, with industry, in hospitals – and with his own MPs. 'We have got to get him off a fucking plane,' one senior aide said. 'It becomes so easy to not think too much about what is going on at home. It has been at the root of a lot of problems.' The party finds itself at a crossroads. Morgan McSweeney, Starmer's fabled chief of staff, told staff as they entered government that they could govern as insurgents and that power would make them more radical. But the pace of change has been frustratingly slow and some aides believe there must be a serious strategic turn to speed it up. Many government figures compare this moment to the turbulent aftermath of the Hartlepool byelection. Starmer tells friends that he's used to people underestimating him, that it happened back then, too, yet he proved his detractors wrong by sticking to his plan. But others are less generous. 'Nobody knows what he's thinking,' said one senior Labour figure. 'He's delegated political decision-making to Morgan. He needs to get more of a grip.' But while advisers, including McSweeney, often get the blame for the government's woes, ultimately the buck stops with the prime minister. Veterans of Labour's last time in office believe that Starmer needs to articulate a more clearly defined purpose. 'Until and unless people know what the point of this government is … then nothing else will follow,' said one. 'What does Keir actually want? What does he stand for? For all the contradictions with Tony and Gordon, you knew they were driven by ideas. It seized them. What does Keir stand for? Whatever it is, we don't know,' said a senior Labour figure. 'It's all been show not tell. He thinks that if the government delivers gradual material change that will be enough. But it's not. It wasn't for Joe Biden. It won't be for Keir Starmer either,' said one minister. Senior party figures worry that Starmer's reputation for being competent, even if that doesn't include political flair, has taken a battering over the past year, and that he needs to turn that round. 'Everybody thought he was going to be a more professional, competent version of the succession of failed Tories that we had before. But instead many people have got the sense that he's a further instalment of them,' one said. Starmer's allies vehemently reject the suggestion that he can't turn things around. 'A big drum roll and clash of cymbals and fireworks wouldn't work. Keir can win a second term, not by dancing to Nigel Farage's tune, but by doing what Labour governments do in his pragmatic, hard-headed way, trying to make this country better. That seems to me a more authentic place for him, a better place for the government.' But not everybody is as optimistic. 'I just don't know whether he'll pull it off,' one senior figure said. 'Keir is a diligent and thorough person who every day jumps out of bed and thinks what he can do for the country. He goes to bed every night dissatisfied that he's not done enough. But somehow in between those two moments something doesn't quite connect.'
Powys County Times
3 hours ago
- Powys County Times
Cooper orders ‘crackdown' on suspected illegal working for delivery apps
Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has ordered a nationwide immigration 'enforcement crackdown' which the Government says will target illegal working in the gig economy. Officers will carry out checks in hotspots across the country where they suspect asylum seekers are working as delivery riders without permission. It comes after Deliveroo, Uber Eats and Just Eat said they would ramp up facial verification and fraud checks over the coming months after conversations with ministers. Last week the shadow home secretary, Chris Philp, claimed in a post on X to have found evidence of people working illegally for the food delivery firms during a visit to a hotel used to house asylum seekers. On Saturday, the Home Office said anyone caught 'flagrantly abusing the system in this way' will face having state support discontinued, whether entitlement to accommodation or payments. 'Strategic, intel-driven activity will bring together officers across the UK and place an increased focus on migrants suspected of working illegally whilst in taxpayer-funded accommodation or receiving financial support,' the Home Office said. 'The law is clear that asylum seekers are only entitled to this support if they would otherwise be destitute.' Businesses who illegally employ people will also face fines of up to £60,000 per worker, director disqualifications and potential prison sentences of up to five years. Asylum seekers in the UK are normally barred from work while their claim is being processed, though permission can be applied for after a year of waiting. It comes as the Government struggles with its pledge to 'smash the gangs' of people-smugglers facilitating small boat crossings in the English Channel, which have reached record levels this year. Some 20,600 people have made the journey so far in 2025, up 52% on the same period in 2024. Ms Cooper said: 'Illegal working undermines honest business and undercuts local wages, the British public will not stand for it and neither will this Government. 'Often those travelling to the UK illegally are sold a lie by the people-smuggling gangs that they will be able to live and work freely in this country, when in reality they end up facing squalid living conditions, minimal pay and inhumane working hours. 'We are surging enforcement action against this pull factor, on top of returning 30,000 people with no right to be here and tightening the law through our Plan for Change.' Home Office director of enforcement, compliance and crime, Eddy Montgomery, said: 'This next step of co-ordinated activity will target those who seek to work illegally in the gig economy and exploit their status in the UK. 'That means if you are found to be working with no legal right to do so, we will use the full force of powers available to us to disrupt and stop this abuse. There will be no place to hide.' Deliveroo has said the firm takes a 'zero tolerance approach' to abuse on the platform and that despite measures put in place over the last year, 'criminals continue to seek new ways to abuse the system'. An Uber Eats spokesperson has said they will continue to invest in tools to detect illegal work and remove fraudulent accounts, while Just Eat says it is committed to strengthening safeguards 'in response to these complex and evolving challenges.' Responding to the announcement, Mr Philp said: 'It shouldn't take a visit to an asylum hotel by me as shadow home secretary to shame the Government into action.' He added: 'The Government should investigate if there is wrongdoing by the delivery platforms and if there is a case to answer, they should be prosecuted. 'This is a very serious issue because illegal working is a pull factor for illegal immigration into the UK – people smugglers actually advertise it.'
