Debate contribution: State Pension Access: Terminally Ill People

Debate contribution by Mr Mark Durkan on 31 March 2025.

MLA

Mr Mark Durkan

Party at the time

Social Democratic and Labour Party

Date

31 March 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

State Pension Access: Terminally Ill People

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4872112

Read the official Assembly record

Text

We in the SDLP are entirely sympathetic to the motion's aims and will support it. Of course those who have been diagnosed with a terminal illness should have financial security and dignity in their final months. In the Chamber, I have frequently called for more action from the Executive to help people who are living in poverty, so the least that we can do is unite to prevent people from dying in poverty.

There is lots of evidence that we have lots of people dying in poverty, particularly fuel poverty, here in the North. That is according to the research that Marie Curie has provided to us. I commend Marie Curie on its work, not just that piece of work but all the work that it does. Ms Dillon referred to the Marie Curie presentation up the stairs earlier. That is yet another string to that organisation's bow. We have the highest rate of people dying in poverty while they have a terminal illness of any region across the UK. Across these islands, one in six people spends their last months, weeks and days on an income that is below the poverty line. Here, as we have heard, the proportion is over one in four. Ms Mulholland largely focused her comments on fuel poverty. Fuel poverty is particularly acute at the end of life, and terminal illness can lead to much higher energy usage to keep people's homes warm and comfortable. Our reliance on heating oil exacerbates that issue. Women who have a terminal illness are more likely than men to die in poverty, and so are ethnic minorities. Marie Curie has recommended that the Northern Ireland Utility Regulator ensures that its review of codes of practice on prepayment meters and payment of bills provides adequate protections for households that include people living and dying with a terminal illness. The UK Government have brought in legislation that extends access to benefits for the terminally ill from six months to 12 months, and we, on a cross-party basis, have supported those changes. Linda Dillon, correctly referred to the good work that was done here in the previous mandate, which was led by her party colleague, as Minister. Some of us argue that we should be making more, if not all, of these decisions here, but the policy of the majority in this place is to support parity with Westminster. I understand why, but parity should not mean "parrot-ry", and this is one area where we possibly could and should explore how much it would cost and how much is to be gained by our doing something for people here. All the motion does is ask us to lobby the UK Government to make these changes. That is a Government who have abolished the winter fuel payment for pensioners who are not on benefits and whose Chancellor talked recently, and scarily, about even more benefit cuts, not increases, in the spring statement. I am not sure how much these changes would cost or how the logistics of having a mitigation package in place would work, but I am very interested in seeing those details. There is quite a bit of detail in the Marie Curie paper, but I have not seen Northern Ireland specifics. I have some slight concerns about unintended consequences. How would the changes impact on people's eligibility for other benefits and support? Again, that is something that we must work through to ensure that they do not unintentionally disadvantage the terminally ill, whom we are trying to help out of poverty, or anyone in their households. Too often, we see that what is given with one hand is taken away with the other. The SDLP supports the motion, but, given that the party that tabled the motion includes the First Minister and the Minister of Finance, we would have liked to have seen a clearer, costed policy. Maybe DFC can have a look at that rather just asking Rachel Reeves and Keir Starmer to do the right thing, because it has become painfully evident that none of us can rely on them to do that.

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

Assessment

Not qualifying

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:16 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 reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification