Debate contribution: Loneliness Strategy
Debate contribution by Mr Colm Gildernew on .
- MLA
- Mr Colm Gildernew
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 29 April 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Loneliness Strategy
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4486473
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank Robbie for proposing the motion on an important issue that all of us need to consider. I acknowledge the many people around the Chamber who have worked collectively on the issue, including the chairs of the all-party group on ageing and older people and the all-party group on preventing loneliness, which came together on the issue. It is important work. I have figures for the impacted groups, but Robbie covered that aspect admirably, so I will not go into the number of people or sectors impacted on. I will say, however, that we clearly have an issue with an ageing society. We need to do better by older people but also recognise that it is not simply about older people. Many younger people and many people with caring responsibilities are impacted on. In my role as a social worker, I often had to fight to get carers perhaps 15 minutes in which to go out, or even at times an hour in which to maintain their faith, never mind to do their own messages. It is very isolating to care for someone. Our system cares for those people rather badly and needs to do better. Loneliness is a public health issue, in that it clearly and significantly impacts on the health and well-being of many citizens across many key sectors, where it can exacerbate other vulnerabilities and disadvantages. We now have an understanding from research that the impact of loneliness on a person's physical health can be the equivalent of smoking 15 cigarettes a day. That is a call to action. That is not to say that the response must, or even should, come solely from the Department of Health. Indeed, it is important that we do not medicalise issues or solutions where we do not need to. Taking a cross-governmental approach, we can see that many of the solutions can come from housing, planning strategies, education, rural development in DAERA and our broader economic policies. In addition, many of the solutions lie within the realm of community services and with the community and voluntary sector. Instead of cutting back on community transport, we should look at how we can expand it, because it is a lifeline for many of our citizens who live in rural areas. It maintains their independence, dignity and connection to other people so that they can go to the butcher's to get the meat or so that they can do that other piece of shopping. We need to, and must, support community groups that know their area and know who may need additional support from time to time. They are ideal partners for us in this. We need to focus on building community groups' capacity to reach out further and support people for whom loneliness becomes an issue. I recognise that "social prescribing" is a contested term, and I understand why it is contested, but it is the term that is widely used, and we need to make much more use of social prescribing. We need to provide outlets in the community for people to build connections and gain the sense of purpose that Robbie was right to identify as being crucial to all of this. I fully endorse his comments about the need for an all-island strategy. When we look at our transport system and at border areas, it is clear that it is key that we have a strategy that covers the entire island. I am pleased to support the motion. This is a fundamentally important debate, and I am delighted that we have a chance to take up the issue today.
601 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: 0.02 (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 (0.92).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.92 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | 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 | 0.90 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.03 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.03 |
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.02 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.02 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:20 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.