Welfare Reform

Jim Allister Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

We absolutely will protect those who can never work. One thing I have not said to the House so far is that we are consulting in the Green Paper on whether we should increase the age until which children get DLA from 16 to 18. That is an important point to give people the reassurance they need and deserve.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Parity in our welfare benefits is a key feature of our Union. When the last Government introduced their welfare reforms, the Northern Ireland Executive saw fit to introduce mitigations for which they had to pay by taking money off health and education out of the block grant. If the Northern Ireland Executive decide to mitigate these cuts on this occasion, can the Secretary of State confirm that that money would again have to come out of needed services, such as health and education?

[Liz Kendall]

Full details on the impact of these changes on the block grant will be available at the spring statement. The last Budget provided the biggest ever block grant settlement since devolution. I will be working closely with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Executive to make sure we do everything possible to help people in Northern Ireland into work and off benefits, to ensure that they have the same chances and choices as people right across the United Kingdom.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Allister Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I give my hon. Friend a firm assurance that not only have we been listening, but we shall continue to listen once the proposals have been published.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

I have previously urged the Secretary of State to liaise with the Department for Communities in Northern Ireland over its pitiful pursuit of benefit fraud. In the same vein, is the Minister aware that of the 39,000 new vehicles registered in Northern Ireland last year, 18,000 were under the Motability scheme? Is that not indicative of appalling abuse of that scheme? Will he raise with the Department for Communities what it is doing about that?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

The Motability scheme is highly valued by disabled people around the UK. If the hon. and learned Gentleman has examples of misuse of that scheme, I would very much like to see them, but it is a scheme that is greatly prized right across the House. I think he would discover that if he talked to other Members about it.

Women’s Changed State Pension Age: Compensation

Jim Allister Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Stringer.

Surely the abiding question that arises from this debacle is: what is the point in having an ombudsman if, when maladministration is found, it can be swept aside and ignored? Why have we an ombudsman? Governments make mistakes. Governments get things wrong. People think Governments get things wrong, so they want to complain. So what do we do? We set up an independent ombudsman. Why? Because Governments should not be judge in their own cause. That is the whole purpose and ethos of having an ombudsman. But in this case the Government want to be judge in their own cause.

We are not talking about some incidental, slight illustration of maladministration. Let us remind ourselves that the ombudsman found that

“some women lost opportunities to make informed decisions about their finances. It diminished their sense of personal autonomy and financial control”

and therefore led to injustice. We are talking about injustice—we are not just talking about maladministration —and injustice needs to be rectified. The Government say, “We apologise”—frankly, the sincerity of that apology is weighed in the balance of their refusal to compensate—but it is not just a matter of saying sorry. It is a matter of putting it right. That is what we do when we find an injustice: we try to put it right.

What have the Government done in this case? We had the most spurious attempt to repudiate the ombudsman’s findings. The Government told us, “Oh, well, only one in four people actually read unsolicited letters from DWP.” What was the point in sending them then? They might as well have saved the postage.

It really is pathetic and appalling that the Government have reached the stage of saying, “Nothing to see here; nothing to do here; we’re doing nothing about it” to women the independent ombudsman says were not just wronged but had an injustice visited upon them. I say to this Government: it is not a sign of weakness to admit that you are wrong; it is a sign of strength. The Government would rise in the estimation of many if, rather than hide behind their huge majority in the House, they exercised the strength of saying, “We’ve got this wrong.”

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

The hon. and learned Gentleman is making an extremely powerful case about righting an injustice and about the importance for our parliamentary system of following the recommendations of an ombudsman. Does he agree that the Government revisiting this issue will strengthen our democracy? We have heard just how strong the cross-party consensus is; notably, that includes many Labour Members, as well as Members of other parties, referring to the pledges we made in the election. Is that not why it is so important that the Government think again to restore faith in democracy?

[Jim Allister]

This matter goes to the very heart of public confidence in our system of Government. I started by saying that Governments get things wrong, and people think they get things wrong, so the Government have an independent arbitrator. But we cannot have an independent arbitrator and then throw the findings in the bin, and that is what is happening here. It goes to the very heart of confidence in Government, whichever party is in power. If maladministration of this magnitude is found, there must be recompense for those against whom the injustice was wrought.

I say to the Government that many of their Back Benchers are saying loud and clear that it is time to rethink. It certainly is time to rethink, and in that there is strength. On behalf of the 77,000 WASPI women in Northern Ireland, who are with those in the rest of this United Kingdom, I say that it is beyond time for the Government to rethink. It is time to put right the wrong that was done to all these women.

Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill

Jim Allister Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 3rd February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

None of us, I hope, has any empathy with fraudsters. I trust that it is the united view of this House that fraud, wherever it occurs, should be pursued with rigour. However, that does not mean that a Bill that proclaims itself to have that purpose should be simply nodded through. The fine print of this Bill deserves as rigorous an examination as any other.

There are a number of areas in this Bill that I find concerning. I find the equivalence in investigative powers and the initiation of those powers between investigating fraud and investigating overpayment troubling. There is a huge difference between a person who enriches themselves through fraudulent activity and someone who is innocent, but is the recipient of an overpayment—not because of a mistake they have made, but because of a mistake the Department has made. That is a huge distinction morally, and in every other way. Yet it seems to me that the Bill makes an equivalence between the powers of investigation in that regard, which is something I find discomforting and unfair.

I also find some of the detail we find in the Bill surprising. As our law presently stands, a person can be regarded as and held to be a fraudster, in the eyes of the law, only if they have been convicted of fraud beyond all reasonable doubt. That is the hallowed and long-standing criminal standard that has to be reached before someone is convicted as a fraudster. But no longer is that the standard. Indeed, no longer is it for the courts to decide whether someone is a fraudster. Now, under clause 50, the Minister can decide whether someone is a fraudster, and not on the criminal standard but on the balance of probabilities. Clause 50 states:

“The Minister may impose a penalty on a person if satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the person has carried out, or conspired to carry out, fraud”.

The Minister—not our courts, but the Minister—will decide, on the balance of probabilities, whether someone is a fraudster. How could that be right? How could that be fair?

It gets worse, because when we read clause 50 with clause 52, we discover that the penalty is measured not by what the fraud was in every case, but by what the fraud might have been. So a person can be penalised on the balance of probabilities; not by a court, but by a Minister; and not for having obtained anything fraudulently, but for what they might have obtained had the fraud been perfected. I say to the House that is taking us far too far. That needs to be re-examined.

Then we come to clause 91. Under this astounding, disconnected provision, a person can be disqualified from driving if they have failed to pay back £1,000, whether they got it by fraud or, as I read it, they were overpaid it. They can lose their driving licence not because they have been convicted of fraud, but because clause 91(2) states that the schedule that will now be amended will make

“provision for a liable person to be disqualified”.

What is a “liable person”? We have to go to clause 11 to discover that a “liable person” is somebody on whom the Minister has served a recovery notice. If the Minister serves a recovery notice on you, that makes you a liable person under clause 91, and under clause 91, if you still have not paid back £1,000, you can lose your driving licence. Really? I do think that with this measure we have hugely run away with ourselves in terms of what is proportionate and appropriate.

There is much in this Bill in the way of overreach, which the Government need to re-examine. Yes, let us go after fraudsters. Yes, let us recover the money that they should never have had. But let us do it in a way that respects the traditions of our legal system and of the decency in our society, instead of the overreach of some aspects—not all—of the Bill.

The Bill does not apply to the area I come from, Northern Ireland, but inevitably, because parity controls the welfare payments that are made in Northern Ireland, there will eventually be some parallel, reflective legislation. That will be needed, but I want to say a word—I want the Minister to take it on board—about the Northern Ireland Executive. Welfare payments in Northern Ireland are demand-led. They are administered by the Department for Communities in the Northern Ireland Executive, but they are demand-led. Therefore, in that sense, they are not coming out of the Northern Ireland block grant.

It seems to me that there is a tendency within the Northern Ireland Executive to be less rigorous than they ought to be on fraud, because they are not recovering money that has been misused from the block grant; they are recovering money that has been misused from the Treasury. That, for some of them, shamefully, does seem to create a disincentive to pursuing fraud recovery with the vigour that they should. I say that on the basis of figures released in a number of Northern Ireland Assembly answers. They show that in the last five years there have been only between 200 to 300 fraud pursuit cases in Northern Ireland, touching on only £4.5 million. There is a lot more fraud in the benefits system in Northern Ireland than £4.5 million.

Yes, let us pursue fraud with vigour, but let the Secretary of State put some pressure on the Northern Ireland Executive to ensure that they are living up to their obligations to also save the Treasury the money that has been lost in fraud.

Women’s State Pension Age Communication: PHSO Report

Jim Allister Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Is not the appalling message from the Government today that maladministration pays? If, as here, we have nationwide maladministration and no consequences, what other conclusion could one reach? What is the point of an ombudsman if the Government can be the judge in their own cause and dispense with the findings? Surely, the whole purpose of finding maladministration is to ensure that the maladministrator pays.

[Liz Kendall]

I think it is the precise opposite. We accept what the ombudsman found about the maladministration, and we apologise and we will learn the lessons to put it right. However, if Parliament itself decides it wants to put the parliamentary ombudsman on a different footing, it can do so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Allister Excerpts

Monday 16th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern]

My hon. Friend describes exactly why we need a local tailored service: so that all employers can properly engage with jobcentres and work together to find the skilled members of staff that they need. I agree with him that Edinburgh offers so many opportunities to our young people. I know that all my DWP colleagues in Edinburgh will work with him to get business the skilled staff that they need.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

E-commerce is a growing part of our economy. Will the Minister spare a thought for small-scale employers in my constituency and throughout Northern Ireland, who. since Friday, have seen their supply chain clobbered by the imposition on Northern Ireland of the EU’s general product safety regulations? Because of the extra paperwork and the need to pay an agent in Northern Ireland, many suppliers in Great Britain are now refusing to sell to Northern Ireland. Will this Government ever take steps to reintegrate Northern Ireland into the internal market—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We have to shorten questions a little, so that I can get others in.

“Get Britain Working” White Paper

Jim Allister Excerpts

Tuesday 26th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

I note that the White Paper is called “Get Britain Working”, not “Get the United Kingdom Working”. I appreciate there are devolution issues, but when I listened to the Secretary of State’s statement, I found it very England-orientated. There are references to national partnerships, but how does the White Paper fit with getting the United Kingdom working? Will there be Barnett consequentials? And will things be left up to the sometimes failing devolved institutions?

[Liz Kendall]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. Northern Ireland has one of the highest rates of economic inactivity in the United Kingdom, which is a real concern for me, and, I am sure, for him. I have already spoken to the Minister responsible. There are things happening in Northern Ireland that we can look at to see whether there are lessons that could be learned for elsewhere in the country. We will always work closely with the devolved Administrations to ensure that our plans match people’s needs in every part of the country, because that is what his constituents and the country as a whole deserve.

Income Tax (Charge)

Jim Allister Excerpts

Monday 4th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

When the Chancellor introduced her Budget, one thing she said was that change must be felt. This Budget will be felt, but, in many instances, not in a good way. My constituency is peppered with small businesses employing 10 or 12 people. They are the victims of this Budget, because they are now going to be soaked with additional tax on jobs, and that will not bring change that will be felt in a good way; it will diminish employment in my constituency. My constituency also has many family farms, and they too will not feel this Budget in a good way, because inheritance tax will put many of their futures in jeopardy. Family farms are asset rich, but more often than not they are cash poor, so how on earth will they ever meet the huge imposition that has been placed on them?

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

The average farm income in the past year in Northern Ireland was £27,345, which does not exactly leave those family farms a lot of slack. It does not leave them much to live on, let alone meet inheritance tax bills.

[Jim Allister]

That illustrates my point. It shows how impossible and unfair it is to say to family farms—and it does not take a lot of acreage to be worth £1 million—“You may have the assets, you do not have the income, but you must pay the inheritance tax to HMRC.” What do those farmers do? They sell off part of the farm, and what does that do? It diminishes the food production, and it diminishes the viability of the farm. That will be how this Budget will be felt in many family farms. Similarly, it will be felt in a negative way by new homebuyers because of the stamp duty threshold reductions: new purchasers will now pay significantly more in tax to buy a new home.

As for the Budget allocation for Northern Ireland, back in 2012 the Government accepted a national barometer of need. Through Professor Holtham, it set out what was needed in each part of this nation. What £100 could buy in public services in England was then translated—because other areas were smaller—into what it would cost to buy the same amount in the rest of the United Kingdom: £105 in Scotland, £115 in Wales and £121 in Northern Ireland. Yes, according to the block grant transparency document this Budget provides for Wales £120 per £100 in England, but in Northern Ireland we continue to be just at need. Why is there that uplift for some parts of the United Kingdom and not for others? We in Northern Ireland also have no guarantee of meeting need beyond 2026-27. That is not assured in this Budget. I ask for my constituents what has been afforded to the constituents of Wales, an uplift on need so that they can see their public services provided properly.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Interventions prevent other colleagues from contributing, so let us be mindful.