Member's statement: Domiciliary Care Provision and Home Care: Mid Ulster
Member's statement by Ms Emma Sheerin on .
- MLA
- Ms Emma Sheerin
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 9 June 2026
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Domiciliary Care Provision and Home Care: Mid Ulster
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5601516
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I will speak briefly about an issue that I have raised in the House on numerous occasions: domiciliary care provision and home care, specifically in my constituency of Mid Ulster. It is appropriate that I speak about it during Carers' Week, when we acknowledge the role of unpaid carers in our society and the struggle that they face. I was recently contacted by a constituent who was forced to make what was almost a public appeal for support after spending the best part of six months trying to get the most basic of care provision for her elderly mother. The appeal that she made would bring tears to a stone. I am frequently contacted by daughters, daughters-in-law, nieces and neighbours, and, to a lesser extent, by sons and male members of the family, about the care that elderly parents, aunts, uncles and neighbours need. The level of desperation that those people have to go to in order to get the most basic care provision for elderly people who have worked all their lives, contributed to the system and are entitled to dignity at home in their last years on this earth is absolutely heartbreaking and ridiculous. I have appealed to the Minister of Health on a number of occasions to properly provide for our elderly communities and properly resource our domiciliary carers. One of the biggest problems that we face in the Northern Health and Social Care Trust area is that we cannot facilitate packages of care because the carers who carry out that vocational and heartbreaking work are not paid sufficiently to do so. Therefore, it is left to unpaid carers — family members — to pick up the burden. It is emotionally and mentally draining, and it leads to unacceptable tension in families. The level of responsibility that is placed on families to carry out what should be provided for by the state is unacceptable. In the particular case that I talked about, the lady made multiple phone calls to a social work team to deal with her mother's care and found that there was no social worker assigned to her mum; she was dealing with multiple duty social workers, none of whom was aware of her mother's complex needs. She had to re-brief each of them every time that she phoned. She felt as though she was begging for very basic provision for her mum, which still has not been delivered. I have made the case directly to the Minister on a number of occasions. We have also brought motions on the issue to the House, but, as we face into another summer where such care is not provided properly, we need to see urgent action from the Minister.
452 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: 0.03 (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 (0.95).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups.
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.95 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.76 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.14 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.07 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.03 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:47 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.