Debate contribution: Support for Carers
Debate contribution by Mr Brian Kingston on .
- MLA
- Mr Brian Kingston
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 10 February 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Support for Carers
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4791055
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Carers play a vital role in our society. We recognise how challenging that role is for full-time carers and for carers who also work or are trying to gain employment. Across Northern Ireland, we have more than 220,000 people providing unpaid care for a sick or disabled family member, neighbour or friend. Carers do tremendous work caring for others. It is work that would otherwise need to be covered from the public purse. It has been calculated that unpaid carers in Northern Ireland provide care worth £5·8 billion each year. That takes huge pressure off public resources, and we need to properly support them. I often talk to people who have factored the care needs of others, particularly family members, into their career and work choices, perhaps reducing their work hours or even leaving work in order to provide that care. While carers take pressure off the public purse, they can face significant financial difficulty. Carers NI has highlighted the fact that 28% of unpaid carers in Northern Ireland currently live in poverty. The DUP Communities Minister has taken action on that, and, from April 2025, the earnings limit for carer's allowance will rise to the equivalent of 16 hours, in line with the recommendation of the review of welfare mitigations. There is significantly more to be done. However, finance is a limiting factor. Raising the weekly earnings limit further will enable carers to earn more money from paid work while retaining their entitlement to the carer's allowance benefit. However, we recognise that that does not go far enough.
In Northern Ireland, there are around 48,000 in receipt of carer's allowance, with payments worth £81.90 a week. A carer's allowance supplement scheme would cost around £28 million each year. It is estimated that a recognition payment would immediately lift 3,400 carers out of poverty. We will support the Alliance amendment, and we welcome all proposals to provide greater support for our carers. The reality, however, is that, on a practical level, a supplement scheme cannot be provided in the absence of additional funding from the Department of Finance, as is the case in any instance in which we break parity with the benefits system as funded by Westminster. It must be balanced against demands for Executive support for other agreed priorities.
The Minister is committed to considering the Carer Poverty Commission's recommendations, and, where there is bandwidth to progress additional support, the Minister will work with Executive colleagues to that end. Most important, support needs to be sustainable for carers and for the vital work that they undertake.
433 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: 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 | 0.95 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.99 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| 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 11:56 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.