Gordon Lyons
East Antrim · Democratic Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“Implementing other recommendations will require further legislation that, I trust, will come in the next mandate, but I can confirm that 60 of the recommendations have already been separately addressed by either the Department or the commission. I hope that that answers his questions.”
“Yes, I do and am happy to share those. The issue has been raised in the Chamber and through Assembly questions. My position is that we want to make it simple and straightforward for people.”
“They also introduce greater flexibility in financial reporting, allowing requirements to be tailored more appropriately, reducing burdens on smaller organisations and ensuring that the system can adapt over time through secondary legislation.”
“If they want to constitute as a Northern Ireland-only charity, they are able to do that, if they believe that that will bring certain benefits.”
“That is similar to what we are trying to do with trustees. Even though you leave your position as a trustee or your position as someone who holds an office in a charity or who has employment in the office, the commissioner will still be able to make a determination that says, "Even though you have left, we are still making this order to t…”
“I do not believe that it was. That was maybe picked up wrong. We are happy to look at and explore that, but that is the information that I have on it. Again, we will have the Committee Stage of the legislation, so we can look into that then.”
The complete record
Every one of 5,903 lines we hold for Gordon Lyons, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 14 of 119.
“We were involved in that. We agreed to it, and we stand by that. I know that that does not suit the agenda of some and the message that they are trying to push. I will come to that further in my remarks. <BR /> <BR />The question that I ask is this: why has the project not progressed? The answer is simple: it is because of the actions of Sinn Féin and SDLP Ministers.”
“<BR /> <BR />In 2011, there was a funding agreement for football, rugby and the GAA. I stand by that agreement, which would have allowed all projects to progress. The work at Windsor Park progressed. The work at Ravenhill progressed. The work at Casement Park did not.”
“Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I thank all Members for their contributions, and I welcome the opportunity to respond to the debate and the amendment. As the Minister with responsibility for the long-established regional stadia programme, I recognise the issues that Members have raised about the future use of the Casement Park stadium, in particular the question of whether a mechanism should be put in place to secure a clawback of public funds from non-GAA events held at Casement Park for the public purse. Let me provide clarity to the House: that is something that I support. However, let me first set out a little of the history behind the Casement Park project, as some in the Chamber seem to have forgotten that history or seem determined to rewrite it.”
“We may want to see change in that, but we also disagree with some of the other insinuations and accusations that are made about me. There is also the fact that the Irish Government have no role in the process and should not be involved in it. Yes, we will against it for those reasons.”
“It was done in the hope of a better outcome for everyone involved. It was done in good faith. The outcome of today's vote will be immaterial. It will not change the approach that I take in this job or as a public representative for East Antrim. I will be guided by what is in the best interests of those who elected me and work for them. They elected me, and they know that I am here because I have a genuine desire to make things better for the people of Northern Ireland. My job is to serve them, represent them and get things done for the people of Northern Ireland. That is what I will keep doing.”
“I am sure that that is something that we could find out, but, rather than taking the time to write letters, I assure him that that is probably a grand total of zero. <BR /> <BR />I remind the Committee that there was nothing progressive and democratic about the Sinn Féin movement when it was murdering and maiming people across Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />You can disagree with me. Say what you want about how you would have taken a different approach: that is fine. However, the idea that I am in some way not a democrat or that I believe that there is a role for violence in this society is so ludicrous that it is laughable. <BR /> <BR />We all know what way the vote will go today. Let me be unequivocal: my intent in posting was to de-escalate. It was done in an attempt to avert a repeat of what we had seen in Ballymena.”
“However, I doubt that there has been a more ludicrous response than that from some members of the Committee for Communities, who, led by Kellie Armstrong, resolved to write to the Secretary of State to get his opinion as to whether I may have been in breach of section 30 of the Northern Ireland Act. The Committee thinks that the report could mean that I am not committed to pursuing my political goals by purely peaceful and democratic means. Those Members claim to act in defence of democracy and accountability but disregard the facts and cuddle up together as so-called progressives.”
“She took at face value his ludicrous assertions that he was not aware of what was going on. She meekly accepted his pathetic excuse that he was simply referring to Palestinians destroying fences in an act of civil disobedience. Nobody believes that for a second. By her actions and judgements in that moment, the former commissioner demonstrated the two-tier imbalance in the standards regime governing our arrangements: for unionists, a different — higher — standard applies. <BR /> <BR />The reaction of some Members has been completely over the top. It has not been grounded in reality. It is political pantomime. Some Members have repeated falsehoods with glee. Some simply read out attack lines given to them by their party leadership.”
“I will not give way. <BR /> <BR />She took at face value his ludicrous assertions that he was not aware of what was really going on. She meekly —”
“No, I will not. <BR /> <BR />This goes to the heart of the problem with the report: she believed that it was her job not just to investigate and produce a report but to police the words and behaviour of Members — well, some Members. It is hard to fathom how the commissioner did not think it appropriate to investigate the conduct thoroughly of Mr Gerry Carroll, when he posted, "Victory to the Palestinian Resistance" as Israelis were being murdered, raped and kidnapped in their hundreds by Hamas.”
“When it comes to managing protests that have the potential to turn violent and the police take the view that getting the word out is likely to be helpful, while the commissioner takes the view that getting the word out may lead to further unrest, I think that most people would place more weight on the assessment based on operational policing judgement than on the musings of a commissioner far removed from the events on the ground. Most would assume that that would be far outside her area of expertise, and they would be right. Therein lies the problem with the former commissioner: she thinks that she knows better than the people on the ground, including the police, and that she knows better than I do about what I meant and about the capacity in which I was acting.”
“The PSNI, which was present on the ground and is trained in managing protests, asked that we let people know that the families were no longer there. Let us play that out. The alternative option open to me — it appears that it is the view of the commissioner and Members on the other side of the House that I should have taken it — was, on receipt of that request from the police, not to comply. That would have been the wrong thing to do. A refusal to assist the police could well be construed as a breach of the Pledge of Office.”
“Look at the new test that she introduces: our posts and commentary should not be influenced by political considerations. My post on that day as a local MLA was shaped by neither personal nor political considerations, yet here we have the former commissioner stating that we cannot allow our personal or political convictions to shape our views and how we communicate. What an incredible statement to make. <BR /> <BR />I have a further point. The commissioner said that it was her view that stating that the migrant families had been in the leisure centre:”
“It would be unelected commissioners, who would dictate not just what we say but how we say it under the guise of enforcing standards that chime with their attitudes and personal bias. That would crush robust debate and discourage politicians from engaging directly with the public during crises. Ultimately, it would harm the communities that we serve. If the same standard were applied, we would have a future in which every tweet, post and speech was parsed for emotional content rather than factual accuracy. That is not accountability; that is political correctness and cancel culture masquerading as virtue. <BR /> <BR />I note what else the commissioner had to say for herself:”
“I have no truck with anyone who seeks to harm others, and it is particularly abhorrent when that is done because of the colour of someone's skin or their nationality. <BR /> <BR />I never set out to hurt or offend anyone. Anyone who knows me knows that I would never want to do that. However, the omission of empathy cannot be sufficient cause for finding a breach of the ministerial code. If that were applied consistently, it would set an alarming precedent that would threaten our public discourse. If Ministers are now required to infuse every statement with empathy — a term so subjective that it could mean anything to anyone — we are entering dangerous and anti-democratic territory. Here is the key question: who determines whether something is empathetic enough or carries the requisite emotion? Who becomes the arbiter of such behaviour?”
“to justify the conclusions in her report. That is as unprofessional as it is inaccurate, and she should know better than to indulge in such innuendo. <BR /> <BR />I will address the comments that have been made about my supposed lack of empathy. Although I have explained clearly that the vulnerable families who were affected had been moved away from the leisure centre and were therefore not at risk from the awful events that later unfolded, I had then and have now a deep compassion for them and for anyone who might find themselves in such a position. What they experienced was wrong, and I have always stood against violence and intimidation. My record is not one of justifying or excusing violence, and I have consistently advocated support for the police, the courts and the rule of law.”
“It is, therefore, no surprise that she uses words such as "may have", "appears" and "could reasonably conclude", because she cannot be categorical. Worse, though, is the former commissioner's presumption of the positions held by the people whom I represent in how she used the line:”
“Not only is the report laced with contradictions, but it contains falsehoods. For example, while the commissioner makes many outrageous comments, I highlight and utterly reject her completely false allegation that I endorsed or encouraged protests: at no time did I do that. The former commissioner also said that I criticised public bodies: at no time did I do that. There is no evidence to support her claim. Even in the event that I had done so, that would not have been a breach of the ministerial code. With such shoddy work, it is little wonder that she got so much else wrong. The report is based on what she thinks happened rather than what actually happened. She made no effort to conduct a proper investigation or speak to a wide range of witnesses.”
“<BR /> <BR />What we have is the introduction of new standards, falsehoods and contradictions. In fact, the former commissioner does a number of somersaults in the report. She finds that there was coordination between my office and the PSNI and later laments the lack of coordination. She states that the post required "more thoughtful communication" but also states that it was "deliberate and considered". She states that I blended personal, political and official roles but later states that I cannot step in and out of those roles. She states that I did not prioritise public safety but later concedes that it was my intention to "calm tensions". Her report is a bucketful of biased contradictions. When the evidence did not support her predetermined position, it was inevitable that she would tie herself up in knots.”
“Liberty, free speech and the exchange of views should never be cancelled, and I will never be afraid to give leadership, regardless of whether that comes at a cost. <BR /> <BR />I reject the report and believe that all objective people should do the same. Ultimately, this is not about whether you like me or agree with what I posted after the events that disgracefully unfolded at Larne Leisure Centre that night; it should be about whether my actions constituted a breach of the ministerial code. Had I revealed in real time where those migrant families had been sheltering, that would have been a failure of leadership. Had I encouraged protests, my actions might have been called into question. However, I did neither. The report is based not on evidence but on conjecture, and opinion has triumphed over fact.”
“Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. <BR /> <BR />The motion proposed by the leader of the Opposition is nothing more than a charade dressed up as a debate on standards in public life. Let me be clear: the report from the former standards commissioner was an attempt to denigrate my standing and it was straight from the playbook of the woke brigade. I engaged in good faith and fully cooperated with the process, yet the commissioner, Melissa McCullough, blatantly disregarded much of my evidence. As I will set out, the former commissioner produced a ragbag report that failed to clear any objective threshold in its findings. I have to say that the former commissioner sits well with the increasing number of people who want to cancel those with whom they disagree.”
“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.”
“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. <BR /> <BR />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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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. <BR /> <BR />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 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.”
“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. <BR /> <BR />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.”
“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. <BR /> <BR />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.”
“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.”
“Let us not pretend that there is a lack of certainty or clarity on this one. It is a no-brainer.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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. <BR /> <BR />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.”
“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.”
“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. <BR /> <BR />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.”
“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). <BR /> <BR />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.”
“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.”
“I noted the lack of the same commentators coming on to the radio last week when we announced £150 million to deal with fuel poverty in Northern Ireland. We know the impacts that that has on our homes, but there were no radio interviews or social media posts about that announcement. <BR /> <BR />The Executive should promote work not benefits as the route out of poverty. We want to get more people into work and need to support those who cannot work, but, surely, we should all agree that fraud is wrong and we should go after fraudsters, so that the money that they take that they should not have is spent on those who need it.”
“I agree with the Member. I was disappointed to hear a commentator say on the radio this morning that all we need to do is make sure that the system is less complex. We absolutely need to make sure that we have as simple and straightforward a benefits system as we can, but it is not the complexity of the benefits system that is the problem; it is the intent of those who want to commit benefit fraud. Yes, I want to see a welfare system that is fit for purpose, protects those who need it most and is a safety net for those who fall out of employment. <BR /> <BR />I was struck by other comments on the radio this morning that our focus should be elsewhere. We can walk and chew gum at the same time. We can tackle welfare fraud and, at the same time, deal with poverty in other ways.”
“I do not have a breakdown of those figures, but the Member will be aware that we have a significant number of people working on the issue, because there are consequences for us if we do not work on it. There are consequences in not keeping up with the Department for Work and Pensions, so it is important that we have in place the people who make sure that the system is run effectively and fairly. <BR /> <BR />The Member makes a false comparison between the number working on this issue and the number working on the anti-poverty strategy: one is an operational area; the other is policy. If the Member is talking more broadly, I will say that hardly anything goes on in my Department that is not, in one way or another, done to help people to deal with poverty and its effects. <BR /> <BR />I can provide those additional figures to the Member.”
“<BR /> <BR />That money goes to tackle fraud and error, whether customer error, customer fraud or error in the Department. I do not have a complete breakdown of that money, because there are overlaps in how some of it is spent. Investigation of cases will show that some fall into more than one category. I am determined to make sure that we reduce that number, because, frankly, £350 million is far too much and would be spent better elsewhere.”
“First, I welcome the fact that the Member said that he is committed to tackling fraud and error, because that has not always seemed to be what has come from his Benches and in some of the comments that he has made in Committee. It is right that we tackle the issue and that we put the investment in. <BR /> <BR />Let us be clear: this is not about going after those who make genuine mistakes; this is about those who continually, deliberately misrepresent their circumstances. We will be fair, and we will be robust. Where simple mistakes have been made, there are ways in which they can be rectified. I am talking about making sure that we deal with those who consistently engage in something that is wrong and is defrauding the system.”
“With additional funding, we will act robustly and with urgency to fully implement the task and finish group’s recommendations. My Department is delivering real improvements, but we recognise that there is more to do. We will continue strengthening the system, protecting taxpayers’ money and ensuring that support goes to those who truly need it. Let us reaffirm our shared commitment to ensure that the right money reaches the right people at the right time and that those who seek to exploit the benefit system are met with firm and fair consequences. I commend the statement to the House.”
“<BR /> <BR />This work is about protection: protection of our welfare system, of public confidence and of the vulnerable individuals who rely on timely and accurate support. We know that fraud and error remains a significant challenge across all modern benefit systems. We are not complacent; we are adapting our approach as new risks emerge. We are investing as far as possible in improved technology, better analytics and training for staff so that we can continue to raise standards. We are modernising our processes to make them faster, more accurate and more responsive, because the public rightly expect a system that is both fair and robust. However, more investment is needed and quickly so that we do not lag behind.”
“I welcome the confirmation from the UK Government that they will work with the Executive over the coming months on ways to tackle welfare fraud and error in Northern Ireland and on funding options, including the potential to share a portion of resulting savings with the Executive. In line with the Fresh Start Agreement, I will seek a 50% share of the savings. However, the Executive must support the initial investment and the reinvestment of the share of savings generated in programmes that will support people with barriers to employment, particularly those with disabilities or health conditions. That is a key priority for me as it aligns with the Programme for Government goals to reduce economic inactivity; tackle poverty and social exclusion; and support inclusive economic growth across Northern Ireland.”
“Generating a return of 8:1 on investment in 2024-25, the results achieved by my Department’s benefit security intervention teams demonstrate the positive value of investing in counter-fraud work. The return on investment cannot be denied, and I will continue to make the case to Executive colleagues for that funding on that basis. <BR /> <BR />Regardless, I have not sat back. Where recommendations have not required additional funding, my officials have already prioritised actions that will deliver an early impact. Recognising my Department’s efforts to generate savings through tackling fraud and error, in agreement with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, my Department submitted a welfare fraud and error invest-to-save business case.”
“However, I must be completely clear that a number of those measures, particularly those that involve increased capacity, are subject to funding bids. They simply cannot proceed without the necessary financial support, and, despite repeated and robust bids for additional resources in order to expand our counter-fraud and error operations, the necessary funding has not been forthcoming. Every delay in resourcing the work leaves our system exposed to fraud, undermines public confidence and risks diverting vital support away from those who need it most. We are stretching our teams to do more with less as the scale and sophistication of fraud continues to evolve. If we are serious about safeguarding public money, investment in counter-fraud activity must match our ambition and be treated not as optional but as essential.”