Debate contribution: Loneliness Strategy
Debate contribution by Mr Harry Harvey on .
- MLA
- Mr Harry Harvey
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 29 April 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Loneliness Strategy
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4486475
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I support the motion proposed by Mr Butler. Colleagues across the Chamber have covered many of the salient points, but I want to hone in on a few of the statistics presented in the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) continuous household survey for 2022-23 in evidencing a few thoughts on the motion. We must first acknowledge not just the presence of loneliness but, more importantly, its prevalence, which all relevant data shows to have increased dramatically in recent years. According to the Action Group on Loneliness Policy, over the past three years, there has been a 3% increase in the number of people in Northern Ireland who report feeling lonely. We are all aware of the long-term impact that the COVID-19 pandemic has had on exacerbate the issue, particularly among the vulnerable. We can all think of older people who led quite socially engaged lives prior to the pandemic but who are now rarely to be found outside the house, largely due to fear. Although we were grappling with an unknown at the time, with the benefit of hindsight, we know that things could have been done differently. We must acknowledge that the House carries a degree of responsibility in that regard and should therefore, similarly, carry a duty to rectify the social harm that is still in evidence among our most vulnerable. Many organisations already do exceptional work across Northern Ireland, particularly with older and more vulnerable citizens, to drive down social isolation and foster healthy, regular relationships. As ever, our faith community is front and centre of that effort, providing space and opportunity for senior groups to meet and organising day trips, lunches and craft evenings that are a lifeline for many people who live on their own. I think of West Winds Community Church and The Warehouse in my constituency, in particular. It is worth remembering that many church organisations not only facilitate such services for our older people but fully finance them. Given that so many funders, including government funders, either preclude them from applying or rule them out, due to the involvement of National Lottery funding, that is an unfairness that urgently needs to be rebalanced. As my colleague Diane Dodds said, it is vital that the Government, and funders generally, support organisations that seek to tackle loneliness among the elderly and vulnerable as much as possible. I look forward to the Communities Minister addressing the matter in the time ahead. As I said, many organisations work in this area, but, as the motion implies, in the absence of a clear strategy and a collaborative cross-organisational approach to loneliness, many across the sector have had to resort to a silo approach. We work best when we all work together, so I welcome the proposal for greater governmental structure to support providers in the charity sector that work hard to tackle loneliness. The DOH, Health and Social Care, the Loneliness Forum, the tackling rural poverty and social isolation (TRPSI) framework, the various loneliness networks across local government areas and everyone else who works in this space will benefit greatly from a specific government strategy on loneliness. I was shocked to learn from Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action (NICVA) research that one in 20 people in Northern Ireland experiences chronic loneliness. Whilst I am sure that there will be occasions in our lifetime when each one of us experiences a degree of loneliness, the levels of chronic loneliness evidence the size of the societal problem at present. We often focus on groups whom we view as being more susceptible to loneliness, but the NISRA statistics show that other groups are equally affected. One statistic that stood out for me was the urban/rural divide. One would have expected that rural and isolated areas of the Province would present with higher percentages of loneliness, but that is not the case. In fact, Belfast presented with the highest figure, at 24·9%, with an urban/rural divide of 22·7% urban to 14·1% rural, proving the old adage that you can be lonely in a crowd. I want to highlight a specific group that is often forgotten —
— but is particularly vulnerable to chronic loneliness: our veterans community.
699 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: 0.05 (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 (0.91).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.91 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.57 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.36 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.04 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.02 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
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.