Debate contribution: Tackling the Financial and Societal Impacts of Division

Debate contribution by Mr Mark Durkan on .

MLA
Mr Mark Durkan
Party at the time
Social Democratic and Labour Party
Date
25 March 2025
Type
Debate contribution
Business
Private Members' Business
Heading
Tackling the Financial and Societal Impacts of Division
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 4866909

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I thank the Alliance Party for tabling the motion. We compliment it, and I believe that our amendment complements it also. We have heard and shared our deep concerns today about the high cost of division in Northern Ireland. It is a cost that, as we have heard today and see every day, places an unsustainable burden on our public services, economy and communities. The separation that has existed in our society for decades has manifested itself not only in social terms but in financial terms. We face a situation in which public resources are being duplicated, policing and justice costs are escalating and economic opportunities are left untapped. The motion refers to the Ulster University Economic Policy Centre estimate that the cost of division in 2016 was up to £833 million per year. That figure can only have gone up since, and it is a figure that we cannot afford to ignore. That is money that could be better spent on essential services that are vital for the well-being of all citizens here. Those resources could have been used to tackle waiting lists, build much-needed social homes, improve education and even increase the number of police officers to keep our communities safe. Eóin Tennyson referred to paramilitary harm and its cost to society. It is worth pointing out that those paramilitaries are happy enough to work across the divide that they have done so much to create and sustain. However, it is not just paramilitaries who profit from division. There are parties in here who do so as well. The big parties in here profit politically from division and are always happy to turn on the tribal taps, particularly, though not exclusively, when there is an election coming. Recently, we heard and saw from Paul Givan attempts to reduce scrutiny of his Department's spend to a sectarian slanging match. That is just not on. The DUP needs to lead, not be led by the even more divisive dinosaurs in the TUV. Far from the shared future that we were promised, we are seeing the shared-out future that David Cameron warned of. He did not get much right, but he was spot on there. Declan Kearney spoke, and I agree with much of what he said about the impact of UK austerity on our ability to deliver services. We do need a bigger pie, but this is about how we cut that pie rather than having it carved up by a couple while services survive on the crumbs. John Hume was not just our leader; he was a leader. He often said that the most important thing for any politician is to build a society in which people can live together with their differences respected. If we are to honour his memory and vision, we must recognise the undeniable truth that division comes at a heavy cost. That is not a cost that we can continue to bear without jeopardising the very future of our society. We must take action. It is time to demand an updated assessment of the true cost of division, one that reflects not only the financial impact but those huge societal consequences. The Assembly has called on the Minister of Finance to ensure that the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council is given a statutory duty to assess the cost of division. I heard him bat that back. I do not believe that asking the Fiscal Council to carry out a piece of work compromises its independence. We are not trying to dictate the findings of that work, and I wonder what people or parties have to hide. We must go even further. We have to act in a coordinated manner across the entire Executive to tackle these challenges. Therefore, we also call on the First Minister and deputy First Minister to introduce a statutory duty on all Departments to cooperate with each other. We cannot afford to waste resources on the unnecessary duplication of services and functions. We need to improve collaboration, reduce waste and ensure that every penny of the Executive's Budget works to serve the needs of our people. We cannot keep putting our heads in the sand. We are standing at a critical juncture. Let us come together and make the right choices for the sake of future generations. Let us tackle the impacts of division and ensure that our resources are spent in a way that builds a stronger, more united Northern Ireland — or North or Six Counties — whatever our different constitutional views are and whatever the future looks like on this island. The SDLP believes that that future looks brighter and better in a new united Ireland —

— in terms of people and public resources. We need to make this place work for people and families here and now.

801 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

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: 0.17 (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 (0.86).
  • The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (0.81).
  • Subject area: Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations.
  • 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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.16No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.12No
Cultural grievance politics0.04No
Dog-whistle messaging0.33No
Controversy escalation0.14No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.86Yes
Overall judgement0.17At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing0.13
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it (chosen)0.81
Adopts it0.06
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations0.85
Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty0.13
Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism0.02
No identity-related subject0.00
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:11 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.

Challenge this classification