Debate contribution: Social Security Reform and Economic Inactivity

Debate contribution by Mr Mark Durkan on 1 April 2025.

MLA: Mr Mark Durkan
Party at the time: Social Democratic and Labour Party
Date: 1 April 2025
Type: Debate contribution
Business: Private Members' Business
Heading: Social Security Reform and Economic Inactivity
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 4876729

Text

Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
Since this latest wave of cuts to disability support was announced a couple of weeks ago, I have been inundated daily on the street, in the supermarket and through late-night messages from anxious constituents, all terrified about what is coming next. I am sure that everyone here has heard the same anguish from constituents, family and friends. In recent years, we have witnessed gaslighting through welfare: telling people that things will not be that bad — actually telling people that things will be better — whilst systematically dismantling the very safety net that they rely on. I put on record not just my disappointment but my disgust at the UK Labour Party. 'Things Can Only Get Better'? Things have only got worse. Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves have carried on the work of the Tories, like Robin Hoods in reverse, taking money from the poor and protecting the interests, and the interest, of the rich. The removal of the £20 universal credit uplift, the loss of discretionary housing payments for disabled private renters, the two-child limit, cuts to personal care packages and reductions in discretionary support grants are all sacrifices under the guise of balancing budgets. Rather than plugging financial gaps, those in power in Westminster have delivered "wealthfare" — death by a thousand cuts — and this place has not always just sat and watched; parties here have empowered Westminster. I welcome the tabling of the motion and, in particular, the fact that it was tabled by those in Alliance, who now appear to fully recognise the harm that welfare reform has inflicted, is inflicting and will continue to inflict on people here. Ms Mulholland's speech excellently outlined its impact. I hope that, in acknowledging past mistakes, Executive parties will take steps to address the suffering caused by those callous policies. The parties that now vociferously express opposition to welfare cuts — we welcome that — were responsible for embedding them in our system. It is worth remembering that we are still waiting for the delivery of promised welfare mitigations, from the removal of the five-week wait for universal credit to the end of the cruel two-child policy. Meanwhile, welfare cuts will have — already are having — a disproportionate impact on people in the North. Due in no small part to the legacy of our past, we have higher rates of disability than any other region, the widest employment gap for disabled people and the fastest-growing child poverty level. We also have the highest number of low-income households that rely on benefits for over half their income; that tells us everything that we need to know. Those families do not rely on the system by choice but because they have no other option. When support is cut, where do they turn? How can people, especially those without the capacity to work, bridge the growing gap between support and spiralling housing costs? More people will be plunged further into poverty, adding to our homelessness and our hopelessness. We all have a duty to dispel the toxic trope of the benefit scrounger. Any system is open to abuse, but we have a system that abuses people. Distilling the situation to such a cynical and, frankly, misleading argument does a disservice to the harsh reality; it serves as a smokescreen, concealing the war on welfare or, more accurately, the war on the poor. It begs these questions: where are the radical reforms on tax evasion to ensure that the super-rich pay their fair share? How can the Labour Party justify spending billions on defence while bombarding the defenceless? Instead of focusing outrage on a small minority who exploit the system, we should remember the real people behind the statistics: those already struggling to get by. I think of one constituent who dedicated years of her life to caring for the elderly only to find herself unable to work any longer due to crippling arthritis and neurological problems that leave her bed-bound; or a gentleman who suffers serious mental health struggles, after a lifetime of trauma that no one should be forced to endure, who is no longer able to manage day-to-day life; or the parents who provide full-time care for their disabled child and are no longer able to work.
I thank the Member for his intervention. Ms Mulholland demonstrated very well that the savings that will be realised in practice will not match those that are proposed on paper. On the other hand, the costs to people that loss of the benefit will bring about will far outweigh the financial amount saved. For those people, the costs will not just be difficult — they will be devastating. They will not just be devastating for those directly impacted on; there will be a wider economic impact. Small businesses, which are already struggling to survive as they face an increased outlay in National Insurance contributions — they will rightly ask, "Where are those going?" — and through the minimum wage increase, will now be hit by the fact of people having less money to spend. It is a double whammy. The ends cannot meet. It will result in people losing their jobs and being forced on to welfare support. The Executive's habit of pointing the finger of blame at the British Government is well justified in this particular issue. The bad Budgets that we have seen and heard from Westminster seem to keep coming. However, pointing the finger also belies the Executive's culpability. I remind Members that welfare is a devolved matter. The situation has been made worse by repeated political collapse, chronic underfunding of the block grant from Westminster and, also, a failure by us — by this place — to transform and improve public services. Time and time again, those who need help the most have been left in limbo, abandoned due to political inaction and dysfunction: that cannot continue. Our amendment urges the Minister for Communities to work with the Minister of Finance to develop, at pace, a mitigation package that will protect current and future claimants. Yes, it is vague. We do not know how much that might cost. We do not know how much you might have — maybe you can tell us. However, let us see the options. Give us a decision to make. Stripping welfare from our most vulnerable will not help those with long-term illnesses and disabilities to return to work; it will make it even more difficult — impossible in many cases — for them to do so. All Departments and all Ministers have a role to play. What are we doing to tackle economic inactivity? Many people are not fit to work because they have languished for years on healthcare waiting lists, often descending into dependence on painkillers or into depression. Will the long-awaited and long-overdue anti-poverty strategy — I know that it went to the Executive for approval yesterday — shield our most vulnerable from further onslaughts? We will not hold our breath. People are afraid. People are anxious. They deserve a system that enables, not one that punishes. Let us not wait until more lives are pushed to the brink. We must act now to build a compassionate system for those who need it most.

1,212 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Awaiting analysis

This record has not been analysed yet. It is not counted in any total until it has been assessed.

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