Debate contribution: Social Security Reform and Economic Inactivity

Debate contribution by Mr Robbie Butler on 1 April 2025.

MLA: Mr Robbie Butler
Party at the time: Ulster Unionist Party
Date: 1 April 2025
Type: Debate contribution
Business: Private Members' Business
Heading: Social Security Reform and Economic Inactivity
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 4877122

Text

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. David did not use his extra minute, so I will maybe take it if that is all right. It is an honour to speak in the debate, which highlights the devastating impact that the Labour Government's approach to what I am going to term "disability benefits reform" could have on some of the most vulnerable people. As has been said, and given the fact that we know about the clear link between poverty and ill health, the proposed cuts and tightened criteria for support will not only deepen poverty but place additional strain on our already overstretched public services. We must acknowledge, however, that if we want to make a real difference, the issue requires action where the power actually resides, which, ladies and gentlemen, is in Westminster. The Assembly can and should express its opposition to the reforms, and that is what we are doing today, but unless we leverage appropriate influence in Westminster, where those decisions are made, the debate risks becoming just another social media sound bite rather than being a meaningful intervention. Political abstentionism, which can mean choosing not to take up our seats or failing to speak or vote on critical subjects right across the gamut of issues, whether it be the spring statement, any budgetary matter or anything that pertains to the lives of people in the United Kingdom, leaves our constituents feeling helpless, voiceless and powerless. While we debate this motion here, the real decisions will be made in Westminster. Those who are elected to represent Northern Ireland at Westminster must be in the room, in the Chamber, using their votes and fighting for fairer policies, otherwise we are merely protesting from the sidelines whilst others dictate the future of our most vulnerable citizens. My colleague Andy Allen said that we will support the motion, but it is also right when we are debating that we ask questions.
Perhaps the motion could define more accurately what is meant by "superwealthy" when discussing taxation. Perhaps it could define what is meant by "those most in need" when discussing social security. This is a very worthwhile motion, but when —.
One second, please. When we debate these motions, it is really important — there are people watching who have different views on these issues — that we ensure that we are over the detail of what we are talking about.
That is very useful information. I am not sure that everybody shares those same figures, but, thank you, Kellie, for reading those in. These are not just rhetorical questions. They genuinely are not. They are essential when we are looking at what we can do here. We support a UK-wide commission, but we need to ensure that it is costed and that the terms of reference are clearly set out. What we do not need — we have talked about this numerous times — is further strategies that are going to sit on a bench. We need to ensure that we take away the barriers that disabled people face, along with higher living costs and worsening financial hardship. The Assembly must reject any reforms that push disabled people further into hardship. The Labour Government, sadly and regrettably, claim that tightening PIP criteria will deliver £5 billion in savings, yet experts have already indicated that it will save a maximum of £100 million. That does not capture and quantify the difficulty and distress that it will put people under. Previous attempts at similar cuts have been ruled unlawful or have been abandoned because they were unworkable. There is no economic case for the changes. I contend that it is purely political. Instead of targeting those in need, the Labour Government should explore fairer ways to raise revenue. Such progressive taxation, as has been alluded to on extreme wealth, needs to be explored. If we are serious about addressing economic inactivity, we must take a cross-departmental approach that focuses on early intervention, education and genuine employment support for disabled people. To give the Minister some credit — I know; it pains me to do it, Minister — in response to a question recently, he said that he is very aware of the obstacles and hindrances to regular work that disabled people face and that he is taking steps to change that. I urge the Assembly to go beyond condemnation and demand real representation where it counts. That means taking your seat in Westminster and speaking up and voting for the people on whom this impacts.

754 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