Debate contribution: Loneliness Strategy
Debate contribution by Mr Alan Robinson on .
- MLA
- Mr Alan Robinson
- 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 4486514
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Like others, I thank Robbie for tabling the motion. Imagine the only company that you have is a clock ticking in a room. We have all been there, but, for us, it is likely to have been short-lived. For thousands of others in our Province, that is their daily reality. Feeling lonely is a seemingly innocuous emotion, but it has far-reaching consequences that can affect all age groups, people with disabilities and even those with a caring role. That role can be so demanding that they lose their hobbies or what was once their circle of friends. On some occasions, as some of us can testify, they lose the will to live. As we heard, Northern Ireland is the only part of the UK that does not have a loneliness strategy. When we hear of the need for a cross-departmental strategy, which we have, it is an opportunity to applaud the good work that is happening as we speak to address the issue. In my constituency, I think of the wonderful work of Men's Sheds, including the groups at Ballykelly, Limavady and Portstewart, which provide users with skills in woodcraft and opportunities for people who are lonely to participate in pool, darts, gardening, cooking, counselling, art projects, health talks, walking groups and trips. I think of Age Concern Causeway, which does so much good work in befriending people and providing networking opportunities. I think of Good Morning Roe Valley, which the Limavady Community Development Initiative (LCDI) delivers, and, of course, Causeway Older Active Strategic Team (COAST), which supports people across the Causeway area who are aged 60-plus and delivers a vital handyman service to keep older people safe in their homes. I met representatives from COAST recently, and I was horrified by the fact that their current funding is due to cease in 2026. If we are truly to deliver on such a strategy, organisations such as COAST should have ring-fenced and sustainable funding. We should invest in those who provide befriending and companionship services and who have been at the front line in addressing loneliness, rather than de-investing in them. Indeed, we should use their experience to drive policies and frame any such strategy. I agree that the strategy should apply to all ages and that it should be embedded in a Programme for Government and developed through schools and youth services. Given that the thrust of the motion lies, on the whole, with the Health Minister, it would have been helpful for him to be here or for the proposer not to frame the motion in a way that dials down the obligations of his Minister.
I appreciate the Member's comments, but, sometimes, we differ in here. The building blocks of a strategy could be lifted from the 'Loneliness in Northern Ireland: A call to action' report, which was published in 2020. The report brought together different approaches from across the UK and Ireland, and it recommended, as a first step, setting up an Assembly Committee inquiry and making recommendations based on the evidence gathered. It is a starting point but one that must commence. My party will support the motion.
523 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 | 0.03 | 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 | 0.55 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.33 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.07 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.05 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
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.