Mark Durkan
Foyle · Social Democratic and Labour Party · Northern Ireland
“That review involved an extensive engagement exercise with charities, regulators and funders, aimed at creating a more modern and proportionate regulatory system.”
“When the review was commenced in 2021, many organisations were still in the midst of responding to the pandemic. Since then, they have faced a succession of new and evolving challenges. The ending of European funding programmes, on which so many in our communities relied for decades, has left a significant gap.”
“<BR /> <BR />The broad principles behind the Bill are sensible. The changes will modernise charity regulation, strengthen the Charity Commission's ability to intervene where misconduct or mismanagement occurs, improve information sharing and, importantly, reduce unnecessary red tape, particularly for smaller charities with limited adminis…”
“I welcome the opportunity to speak today. Before turning to the detail of the legislation — there will not even be that much detail in the debate today at Second Stage — I pay tribute to our charity sector. Across every constituency, charities provide support that changes and saves lives every single day.”
“<BR /> <BR />Whilst the SDLP supports legislation that removes unnecessary bureaucracy, we should not kid ourselves that administrative reform alone will secure the future of charities and organisations in the voluntary and community sector.”
“I thank the Minister for giving way. Like other Members, I welcome the fact that we have reached this point. There seems to be consensus among Committee members and, I am sure, all Members that the introduction of these measures will save lives, which begs the question of whether the 10-year delay in introducing the measures had an opposi…”
The complete record
Every one of 3,938 lines we hold for Mark Durkan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 79.
“There must be collective ownership and a commitment to joined-up provision, not piecemeal interventions that leave parents fighting the same and new battles year after year.”
“Children with special educational needs do not run out of need when they turn 19, and parents worry even more when Departments say that they do not have the resource, time or will to deliver the change that is needed. If anything, that response shows why families feel so frustrated, so exhausted and so unheard. <BR /> <BR />We will support the amendment. We certainly do not want to divide on the motion. Obviously, we recognise the important responsibility that lies with Health, but there is a danger of passing the buck again, as Claire Sugden identified, and diluting the collective responsibility of the Executive. Fundamentally, this is a cross-departmental issue involving several, if not all, Departments.”
“Diane Dodds is right: we might not be — we probably would not be — having this debate today if it were not for those campaigners, but nor would we be debating this issue today had it not been for the Opposition's tabling the motion. Although every Executive party up here has talked about what is wrong, we have seen very little in the way of action. You have had ample opportunity to bring forward similar motions. Campaigners have been marched up to the top of this hill and let down again and again by the Executive. Promises have been made, but, in February, after years of campaigning, campaigners were told by the Health Minister that dedicated legislation to protect young people with SEN beyond the age of 19 could not be progressed as the Department had run out of time.”
“<BR /> <BR />Over the past 20 years, there has been a staggering 134% increase in pupils with a statement of special educational needs. However, there is no overall statutory lead or contact after a young person finishes school; they are left in a void. That is totally unacceptable. What strikes me most from speaking to parents is the uncertainty. Inclusion has to be more than just a slogan. As Mr Gaston said, we continue to lag behind other jurisdictions when it comes to protections for young people with SEN after school. While other places are at least attempting to extend statutory protections to 25 and beyond, support here remains fragmented at best. <BR /> <BR />I also recognise the determination of Alma, her fellow campaigners and the thousands of parents like them out there who fight tooth and nail every day for their children.”
“<BR /> <BR />For too many families, the transition at 19 feels like falling off a cliff edge, with no one held accountable and no guarantee of support. Instead, families are left trying to navigate the Health, Education, Communities and Economy Departments separately, repeating themselves over and over again, filling in forms, chasing assessments and battling for basic answers. While Ministers argue over responsibility, parents and families are left carrying the burden. The report from the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People's 'Too Little, Too Late' report could not have put it more plainly: our system has failed to plan ahead, failed to listen and failed to act. As one parent said, every delay is another piece of their child's future slipping away.”
“As parents, we all want the same things for our children. We want them to be happy and safe and to have every opportunity in life. We want to equip them with the tools that they need to thrive, grow in confidence, socialise with their peers and find independence. That is not an unreasonable ambition; it is the hope of any parent. However, for far too many families of children with special educational needs, particularly once those young people reach the age of 19, that hope is replaced by the fear of what comes next, the fear of support structures collapsing overnight, and the fear that their child will be left behind by a system that no longer caters for them. This Opposition motion is really for those parents who are fighting to give their children the life that they deserve.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.”
“While parties and the Minister enjoy pointing the figure of blame, and some people will want to see the papers to which the Minister referred, most people just want to see progress. We have now had two High Court judgements ruling that delaying the strategy is a breach of legal duty. How can the public have any faith in an Executive who treat their statutory obligations, never mind the people who live here, with such blatant disregard?”
“Go raibh maith agat. Tá sé náireach go bhfuil muid anseo arís.”
“Minister, we welcome the delivery of any social housing, and we certainly support bids for more funding to provide more much-needed social housing. The Minister waxed lyrical about his achievements on housing starts. The reality on the ground, and certainly in Foyle, is something different, however. Last year, only 18 social housing units were completed in an area where there are almost 9,000 people on the waiting list. Surely the Minister will agree that that cannot really be heralded as being any sort of success. Will he update me on his actions to achieve more social and affordable housing through the intermediate rent scheme and on his attempts to identify and acquire public land for social housing?”
“— and through the autism strategy are finally delivered.”
“The Health Minister must now show real leadership, drive genuine cross-departmental accountability and ensure that the commitments already made through the autism legislation —”
“The system is broken, and, in turn, it is breaking the people who rely on it. <BR /> <BR />There also remains far too little clarity around who is responsible for delivery, how progress is measured and whether these strategies are, in effect, improving the quality of life for people on the ground. Families do not need another strategy that ticks all the right boxes but fails in practice. They need timely assessments, proper respite provision, coordinated transition services and equal access to support, regardless of postcode. Most of all, autistic people and their families deserve dignity, consistency and a system that works with them and for them rather than against them.”
“<BR /> <BR />Autistic young people and their families are not experiencing joined-up government. They are experiencing collective buck-passing. There is still no fully coordinated regional transition pathway in place, and respite services have been described as fragile. I will go so far as to say that, in many areas, they have been all but decimated. We know that there is a postcode lottery in support, depending on where a child lives. We know that there are major gaps in post-diagnostic support, and we know that demand for autism and ADHD services is lengthy and growing across every trust. The pressure on families is enormous. Children are missing school because adequate support is not there. Parents and carers are reducing their hours or are leaving employment altogether simply to cope.”
“Parents are exhausted by a system that forces them into those never-ending battles simply to secure support. <BR /> <BR />The Independent Autism Reviewer laid bare what families, Autism NI and others have been saying for years: services are inconsistent, fragmented and incredibly difficult to navigate. Families are left trying to piece together support themselves because the system around them simply does not join up. That is not about a lack of policy; it is a failure in implementation. Nowhere is that failure felt more sharply than in the transition from childhood to adult services. Caleb's cause has highlighted very powerfully the struggle that is faced by young people who lose vital support services upon turning 19. Once again, Northern Ireland is falling behind provision that is available in other jurisdictions.”
“Too often, however, that work has not been matched by adequate funding, urgency or political will. Families today are still fighting the same battles. Autistic people and their families are still not experiencing consistent, reliable or joined-up support. That is not simply my view; it is the clear finding of the Independent Autism Reviewer's first annual report. The reality facing many of those families is grim. Currently, 17,000 children here are waiting for an autism assessment. We have heard that 4,000 adults are waiting as well. We know that many children are waiting for three years and more for that assessment, during which time families are left in limbo, schools are struggling to cope and, most importantly, children are being left behind.”
“This week, my office has again been inundated with the perennial calls from parents of children with autism and additional needs who have not secured a SEN placement at secondary school for September. Some are angry, some are exhausted, and many have simply become resigned to a system that continuously lets their children down. For far too many families, raising a child with autism in the North means one battle after another, including battles for education, assessments, health services, respite care, and the most basic support to which their children are entitled. <BR /> <BR />That is not to say that some progress has not been made. Sunday marked 15 years since the passage of the Autism Act here, which was led by the SDLP's Dominic Bradley. We have seen subsequent legislation, strategies and action plans.”
“Daniel, the cameras are facing over here now; you might want to come back.”
“I thank the Minister for giving way. He must have missed the bit in the motion where we established that the situation had arisen due to the mishandling by the British Government. The Minister speaks about unfairness in the community and voluntary sector. Does he think that it is fair to promise the community and voluntary sector — it was not this Minister of Finance that did it — that a working group would be established to look at how these cuts could be mitigated? That was in January 2025, and the sector has heard nothing about it since nor has it heard anything from any Department since 31 March when the axe fell.”
“I urge Members to support the motion, and I urge the Executive to re-establish the principle that made European structural funds so effective here: long-term commitment matched with deliberate political choice. The voluntary and community sector here depends on the re-establishment of that principle. It deserves no less.”
“The questions for the Executive are fairly straightforward. If, under European funding, we knew that match funding was essential to delivery, why is its disappearance being treated as acceptable? If Departments cannot assess the impact on service delivery here, why are they content to proceed regardless? If we accept that Westminster will not adjust the funding profile in the short term, what is the Executive's plan to prevent permanent damage to the sector on which we all depend? The motion asks the Executive to stop managing decline and to start managing risk, proactively and strategically. We know what worked and what has been lost, and we still have an opportunity to act.”
“Ring-fencing funding in the multi-year Budget is not a radical measure. It would achieve predictability, continuity and accountability. Let us be honest about the alternative. If we are to allow experienced staff to leave, services to close and community trust to dissipate, capacity will not be easily rebuilt. The costs will simply reappear elsewhere: in mental health services; in long-term unemployment; in poverty statistics; and in the very economic inactivity figures that the Executive say that they want to reduce. That is not fiscal responsibility but cost-shifting.”
“<BR /> <BR />The motion is not asking for charity; it asks for the restoration of a principle that previously guided policy: if we rely on the voluntary and community sector to deliver core outcomes, we fund it accordingly.”
“Yet there is no published assessment to set out which of those services can survive the funding reduction, what staffing capacity will be lost or how the loss of the provision will affect local economic inactivity rates, not to mention the vulnerable individuals. Instead, the Executive acknowledge the problem but appear to be willing to proceed without modelling the impact. In contrast, under the ESF, the Executive understood that withdrawing match funding would collapse delivery, so they did not do that. Under the current arrangements, however, the withdrawal has happened by default: not through decision but through omission.”
“Action Mental Health's north-west provision, YouthStart’s delivery partners, the Bytes Project, the women-focused employability and confidence programmes and community-based support organisations from the Bogside to the Waterside are not peripheral; they are central. Those organisations work with people who do not transition neatly between mainstream programmes, such as people with learning disabilities, people who are managing long-term mental health conditions, women returning to the labour market after prolonged care responsibilities and young people whose barriers cannot be addressed by short-term interventions.”
“Despite accepting that job losses and service reductions are inevitable, Departments have produced no clear or published analysis of the impact of the funding transition on the voluntary and community sector's ability to continue delivering support. That is not my interpretation; it is the clear implication of answers already given in the House and to Committees. We are effectively being told that the full impact cannot be assessed, while organisations are already issuing redundancy notices. That is not an evidence-based approach; it is policymaking while blindfolded. <BR /> <BR />Let me bring it back to Foyle, because those decisions have a real-world impact. In my constituency, the voluntary and community sector carries much of the weight of tackling economic inactivity.”
“Yes, what the UK Government have done is indefensible, but Ministers here have abandoned their responsibility to the thousands of people supported by those projects and organisations. That places an even greater responsibility on the Executive to assess and mitigate the impact now, but, as usual, when a crisis points to a collective responsibility for the Executive, the response is a collective silence. <BR /> <BR />Assurances to the sector have been paper-thin. As far back as January 2025, the then Finance Minister agreed to set up a cross-departmental group to identify the risks coming forward from the transition, but we do not know whether that group even got off the ground. If it did, it was in secret with no collaboration or consultation with the community and voluntary sector.”
“Capital funding does not support a person with a disability into sustained employment; it does not address trauma-related barriers; it does not keep skilled employability staff in place, and yet that is the funding model now being imposed. Ministers have already acknowledged key elements of the problem. The Finance Minister has put it on the record that the Executive cannot rebalance the capital/resource split and that the resource element will be delivered directly by Westminster in 2026-27. At the same time, we are told that the responsibility for delivery later reverts to the Departments here, meaning that the Executive will inherit the consequences of a model that they did not design. <BR /> <BR />The Executive have also failed to take any responsibility for a problem that, we knew, was coming.”
“Savings arising from the end of European structural funds have not been reinvested in a way that protects the delivery capacity that those funds supported. Instead of being treated as foundational, voluntary and community sector programmes have been left exposed, dependent on short-term, externally designed schemes with limited local flexibility. <BR /> <BR />The failure of continuity matters, because the local growth fund, as currently structured, is not just smaller in revenue terms; it is fundamentally mis-designed for Northern Ireland. A 70:30 capital-to-resource split might suit the regions where growth challenges are infrastructure-led, but our challenge is people-led.”
“That is why those programmes delivered results, particularly in places such as my constituency of Foyle, where economic inactivity is deeply entrenched and driven by disability, long-term ill health and caring responsibilities. <BR /> <BR />What replaced that model was something very different. Brexit resulted in the loss of EU funding, especially for the most marginalised groups in society. The parties that championed Brexit must bear some responsibility for that and for where we are today. Since then, we have seen a succession of schemes — first, the Shared Prosperity Fund (SPF) and, now, the local growth fund — that lack those three qualities: scale, stability and integration. Most critically, the Executive match funding principle has disappeared.”
“Executive match funding was not a courtesy; it was a statement of intent that said, "Tackling economic inactivity, supporting people into work, addressing inequality and strengthening communities are central priorities of devolved government". <BR /> <BR />That match funding ensured three critical things. The first was scale. European funding came in at a level that was meaningful because it was matched locally. The second thing was stability. Organisations could plan across programme cycles, retain skilled staff and build trusted relationships with participants. The third thing was integration. Programmes were embedded in local strategies for employability, skills, disability inclusion and regeneration.”
“The crisis facing the voluntary and community sector did not arrive suddenly, nor was it inevitable. It is the product of decisions taken and decisions not taken over many years. To understand how we reached this point, we need to be clear about what previously worked, why it worked and what has been lost. <BR /> <BR />For decades, European structural funds, particularly the European social fund (ESF) and the European regional development fund (ERDF), provided stable, strategic investment in Northern Ireland's communities. They worked because the Northern Ireland Executive treated them as core policy instruments, not as discretionary add-ons.”
“I thank the Minister for her statement and for having had such an important piece of work carried out. Our thoughts today are with Katie's family and friends, but I cannot help thinking also of the late Paul Lusby, a constituent of mine, who raised early concerns about Creswell and felt not only that those concerns were dismissed but that he was demonised for raising them. <BR /> <BR />Minister, you hinted that, in contrast to your party colleague, some seemed content to shut the issue down. Will you elaborate on that? Is there any suggestion of political involvement or interference in the investigation of Katie's murder?”
“— that must be filled now before complete extraction is required.”
“We have heard from the families of children with disabilities whose conditions make oral health problems more likely and more serious. We have heard parents describe non-verbal children in serious distress. Cases are escalating, because routine appointments just are not available. No family should be left in that position. <BR /> <BR />As was said, the situation did not happen overnight. It was seen coming. We all saw it coming and were warned of it. Many of us have been raising the issue of the slow erosion of the service for years, yet, in that time, thousands of registrations have lapsed, and there has been no meaningful reform. <BR /> <BR />The Department must engage with the profession and put in place a payment model that reflects the real cost of delivering care now. We are witnessing a growing cavity in our healthcare system —”
“That is a necessary step, but emergency treatment cannot become a substitute for a functioning routine dental service. We should not have to wait until people are in agony before the system responds, yet that seems to be what is happening. I am contacted daily by constituents on the issue. As I said, many of them are desperate parents who are unable to register their child with a dentist. Is that really what this place has become? <BR /> <BR />We have a cohort of children born during the pandemic who have never been registered and have never seen a dentist. That means years of missed check-ups and missed opportunities to identify problems early. That is totally unacceptable. Society will pay the price of the consequence of that failure.”
“I thank the Member for the intervention. I am particularly concerned about our most deprived areas, where the problems are worst and where people who are already struggling cannot afford private dental fees and are losing access to dental care. Whether it is pensioners or parents worrying about putting food on the table, everyone should have access to basic dental care regardless of their income or postcode. <BR /> <BR />In the north-west, health inequalities are already among the starkest anywhere on these islands. Tens of thousands of people are potentially being left without routine care and left to manage pain, infection and worsening conditions on their own. I welcome the recent investment in an emergency dental clinic for the Western Trust area.”
“That is to cover all examinations, X-rays, orthodontic assessments and referrals for general anaesthetic. If a child needs 10 appointments in a month, that fee has to cover all the care required. <BR /> <BR />We also need to remember that the sector needs more clinicians. Some dentists who are qualifying come into the profession already in debt to the tune of £70,000. Simply put, they then cannot afford to work in the health service. We have reached the absurd position where providers can, in effect, lose money by delivering basic care. As Miss McAllister said, that is not sustainable for any business, any practice or any public service. <BR /> <BR />Responsibility lies squarely with the Department and the wider Executive, who have allowed the gap between the cost of care and the level of reimbursement to widen year after year.”
“More and more people are already being pushed towards private healthcare, while others face waiting lists that stretch years into the future. <BR /> <BR />The crisis was not created by dentists; it was created by a system that no longer works. It is a broken model designed, funded, albeit inadequately, and overseen by the Department of Health. Having engaged with local dental practices, I have heard a consistent and clear message: the issue is not a lack of willingness to care for patients but the fact that the current model is no longer financially viable. In many cases, practices are being paid less than it costs them to deliver treatment safely. One local dentist explained to me that, for the Strand Road postcode in Derry, they receive £1·77 per month per child.”
“For many of us, a visit to the dentist is an ingrained childhood memory and maybe not always a pleasant one, but it was a normal part of growing up. Access to relatively basic services has become increasingly out of reach for many people. Today, trying to access NHS dental care is like trying to find hen's teeth. <BR /> <BR />While it is worrying how quickly access to NHS dentistry is being eroded, that has not happened overnight. The warning signs were written on the wall before the pandemic, which has been something of a catalyst for the crisis. The steady loss of basic services has almost become normalised here, met with little more than a shrug from the Executive, it would appear, along with the public's growing sense of fear of what is next.”
“At a time when politics can often if not always seem divided, the Bill shows what can be achieved when we work together: delivery for all the people whom we represent.”
“I also thank the officials whose hard work has been key in bringing the Bill to its Final Stage. <BR /> <BR />The Bill will improve lives. I hope that it can mean a better future for deaf children and young people and their families. We know the importance of early access to language and how that will improve outcomes across education, employment, well-being and confidence. Today, however, as the Chair said, is not the finish line; it is the starter's pistol signalling that the race has just begun. We have a responsibility to build on the positive momentum created by the Bill. We must continue to listen, engage and break down barriers wherever they remain. <BR /> <BR />Today should be a proud day for the Assembly.”
“Accessibility has been treated as an afterthought rather than a basic right. The Bill is the springboard for changing that, but legislation of its kind does not happen by accident; rather, it is the result of relentless campaigning, engagement and careful drafting. I record my and the SDLP's appreciation of campaigners from and for the deaf community, many of whom are in the Public Gallery. While so many people have played such a part in this, all politics is local, so I pay particular thanks to those who have been so active in the north-west. All of you deserve credit and applause. <BR /> <BR />I also thank the Minister for Communities for taking a constructive approach to the legislation. The Minister is not renowned for compromising, but he has made constructive compromises along the way in order to strengthen the Bill.”
“Today is a great day for the deaf community and for progress towards a more inclusive society that works for everyone. It represents a truly historic moment for Northern Ireland. We are leading the way as the first jurisdiction on these islands to pass a sign language Bill. The beauty of our Bill is that both British Sign Language and Irish Sign Language are valued, respected and recognised as part of the rich cultural fabric of this place. <BR /> <BR />Inclusion means access to public services on an equal footing. It is about ensuring that everyone has the opportunity that they need, be that in the classroom, at work or in their interactions with health services or other public services. That begins with the most basic tenet of the human experience: communication. For far too long, the deaf community has had to fight for the basics.”
“We in the Opposition agree that we need more from the UK Government, but can the First Minister update us on or give us any insight into the conversations going on across the Executive about what interventions or actions can be taken now to alleviate the stress of the situation on people, businesses and public services?”
“It means providing access to timely support and delivering recovery programmes and appropriate housing placements that will help rebuild lives and communities. For the sake of those whom we have lost, the families who are still grieving and the communities that are still living with that harm, the —”
“I call on the Justice Minister to take that into consideration and include Jasmin's law in the Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill. The amendment rightly highlights the role of paramilitary organisations and crime gangs in the drugs trade. Sadly, however, my party will not be supporting it, because we feel that the wait for a sentencing council would significantly prolong the process of securing deterrents. I believe that the Lady Chief Justice has voiced similar concerns. We cannot afford to delay action on the issue. <BR /> <BR />There is no single solution to a crisis on this scale. It requires a full government response. That starts with tougher sentencing practices that recognise the suffering that drug dealers cause.”
“Those death dealers poison communities, exploit vulnerability, sow addiction, destroy lives and wreak devastation that filters across generations, yet, far too often, those who do appear before the courts receive suspended sentences and are often even given anonymity orders. They then return to the same streets, to the same communities that they have harmed, and the cycle continues. <BR /> <BR />The motion is about ensuring that death dealers are dealt punishment and sentences that truly reflect the harm that they cause. It is not about punishment for punishment's sake. Rather, it is about deterrence, protection and sending a clear message that those who profit from addiction and misery will face consequences that are proportionate to the damage that they inflict.”
“When sentences are reported, the reaction from the public is usually one of anger and disbelief, with many feeling that serious drug-related crimes have resulted in little more than a slap on the wrist.”
“<BR /> <BR />The call for Jasmin's law has emerged from personal tragedy and from the determination of one woman — Pauline Duddy — to ensure that no other family endures the same loss and pain. Pauline is a formidable and ferocious campaigner, and she is in the Public Gallery this afternoon. She has shown extraordinary courage in turning personal grief into public advocacy following the loss of her daughter Jasmin in 2023. Pauline has given a voice to families who often feel voiceless in the face of such huge loss, and her campaign is a stark reminder that what we are discussing today is real lives, real tragedies and the need for real action. <BR /> <BR />Sentencing must do more than simply process offenders. It must protect the public and hold their confidence. It must also act as a real deterrent.”