Member's statement: Carer's Allowance: Overpayments
Member's statement by Ms Sian Mulholland on .
- MLA
- Ms Sian Mulholland
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 21 May 2024
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Carer's Allowance: Overpayments
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4491373
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I want to talk about a deeply concerning issue that is having an impact on thousands of unpaid carers in our community. Unpaid carers dedicate time and energy to caring for sick or disabled loved ones, often at great personal and financial sacrifice. They receive a small additional income each week while retaining their carer's allowance payments. It amounts to £151 and not a single penny more, unlike other tapered benefits. The rules that govern the payment are opaque and complex and make it exceptionally difficult and challenging for carers to stay within the limits, especially when their earnings fluctuate or they are new to the caring role. Recent figures, which were obtained by way of an FOI request, revealed that more than £9 million of carer's allowance overpayments had been referred to the Department for Communities debt management branch since 2021 as a result of breaches of the earning rules, which many carers struggle to navigate. Between 2021-22 and 2023-24, a staggering 6,514 carer's allowance overpayments were referred. The average value of those overpayments was £1,413, which is over a third of the annual amount received. Legal proceedings have been initiated in three of those cases, which highlights the extreme measures that are being taken to recover the overpayments.
For many carers, the overpayments represent a significant financial burden and often push them further into hardship. Whilst the Carer Poverty Commission indicates that one in four carers were living in poverty last year, the rate of poverty amongst those in receipt of this benefit is 46%. That is nearly one in two recipients of carer's allowance living in poverty. I have been in contact with Carers NI. It has not only shone a light on the issue but worked tirelessly to support those impacted. An individual it supports ended up with a debt of over £4,000 by inadvertently going over the earnings threshold by a few pounds a week. I repeat: a few pounds a week. That person is really struggling to pay back the money and has been left in a state of constant fear and worry. They have to cut back on food to get by and are
"so scared they will lose their house".
Yesterday, we asked DFC if it uses an IT system that is similar to the one used in Great Britain, which automatically identifies carers who have exceeded the weekly earnings cap. We did not get a clear answer. We need clarity. If we have the same system, why do officials not act on such cases more promptly? If we do not have it, what systems are in place for the Department to identify cases earlier? We need to understand how we got into this mess and, more importantly, what will be done to resolve the issues now and prevent them happening to carers in future. We have to improve our systems and interventions in order to support our unpaid carers and prevent the financial hardship that is caused. Unpaid carers are the unsung heroes of our society. Whilst it is difficult to quantify their exact contribution, a recent report put the economic value of unpaid carers in Northern Ireland at approximately £5·8 billion. That is 85% of our recent Health budget.
They deserve our support and a system that works for them, not against them.
553 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 (0.96).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits.
- 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 | 0.96 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 1.00 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:31 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.