Debate contribution: Committee for Communities: Report on Engagement with Local Government on the Draft Anti-poverty Strategy
Debate contribution by Mr Mark Durkan on .
- MLA
- Mr Mark Durkan
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 26 May 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Committee Business
- Heading
- Committee for Communities: Report on Engagement with Local Government on the Draft Anti-poverty Strategy
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5582555
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Councils here have become leaders in the fightback against poverty. They provide the services that people have to turn to when they cannot heat their home or afford food or when they are drowning under the pressure of the cost of living. That reality is felt across all council areas, but it is felt differently in different areas. It is felt extremely acutely in Derry and Strabane.
Time and again, we have seen councils step in to provide support, often in the absence of Executive support. Local government is therefore leading the way.
The report lays bare the scale of the challenges facing our communities. There are 110,000 children living in poverty here. The Member who spoke previously shared the statistics. He also pointed out that we have among the highest levels of working poor. Families are working hard and doing everything right, yet they still cannot make ends meet. The report also rightly highlights the structural drivers of poverty. As usual, housing is high among them. We know that we have a severe shortage of social housing, with families trapped on waiting lists for years while living in worsening conditions. Far too many people continue to be forced into an increasingly unaffordable and largely unregulated — under-regulated, I will say — private rented sector. Since 2006, the number of people living in the private rented sector has more than doubled. The number in that group who are living in poverty has increased by over 60%. Despite that, progress on meaningful reform of the private rented sector has been too slow and too limited. There has been no ban on no-fault evictions, there have been no rent controls of any type and there has been a reduction in supports such as the local housing allowance and the discretionary housing payment. For many families, it is no longer a temporary hardship but a never-ending battle. Advice services are under severe pressure. Funding for the community and voluntary sector has been slashed. Councils themselves are being pushed to breaking point. That makes it all the more baffling that the Department did not engage adequately — that was councils' view, not just my view or that of the SDLP — on the draft anti-poverty strategy. If councils are expected to be key delivery partners, and they clearly are, why were they not central to the process from day 1? Sadly, that is typical of the silo approach taken to government here that has held this place back for years. While people struggle, councils have been left to try to pick up the pieces, and with fewer and fewer resources to do so. It is the councils with the biggest problems that are least able to do that. In 2009, the poorer councils, as I call them, availed themselves of over £20 million in rates support grants. That funding now totals just over £3 million. The impact has been devastating for councils' ability to deliver services and devastating for an already, by definition, deprived area, because the pressure ultimately falls back on to local ratepayers, many of whom are themselves struggling. Although there has been a recent review of the rates support grant, it looked at how the pie was cut rather than at the size of the pie itself. The Minister of Finance is not responding to the debate. I know that he is a former chef, so we will be continuing to appeal to him to rustle up an adequate and protected budget for the rates support grant, because this is about equality. Despite all of that, councils continue to do extraordinary work on the ground. That is leadership. That is local councils stepping up when the Executive have failed people. They are not making excuses about decimated budgets. Instead, they are looking to find solutions and are working with others on the ground to identify and provide those solutions. Perhaps leadership here should take a leaf out of their book. Councils understand their communities, the deprivation locally, where intervention is needed most and what intervention is needed most. They demonstrate repeatedly that, when properly resourced, they can deliver meaningful change. They cannot do it alone, however. Poverty is not inevitable. It is a political choice, but so is ending it. If the anti-poverty strategy —
— is to mean anything at all, it must come with real Executive investment and through genuine partnership with local councils.
735 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
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: 0.04 (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 (0.96).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- 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
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.96 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.87 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.07 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.03 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.03 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:40 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.