Debate contribution: Support for Carers
Debate contribution by Mr Robbie Butler on .
- MLA
- Mr Robbie Butler
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 10 February 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Support for Carers
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4791061
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I will highlight the indispensable contribution that Northern Ireland's unpaid carers make. There are around 220,000 individuals, nearly 60% of whom are women, who are the indispensable thread that helps hold our society together. They provide daily care for children with additional needs, as Mr Carroll points out in his motion, and care for the elderly, those with disabilities and those with chronic illnesses. Without them, as the Member for Strangford Kellie Armstrong aptly states in an article:
"Without the 220,000 unpaid carers in Northern Ireland, our health service would collapse. The government simply could not afford to replace the billions of pounds' worth of care that carers provide each day."
For that, we absolutely thank them. Despite the monumental role that they play, however, our carers face significant challenges. Many have been let down by inadequate social security support, leaving them to struggle financially and socially while they dedicate their lives to caring for loved ones. The reality is stark. Carers are often forced to balance the demands of paid work with overwhelming unpaid responsibilities. That is a combination that takes its toll on them financially, socially and emotionally. Today, I hope that the Assembly recognises those challenges and agrees with the motion and the amendment, both of which call on the Minister for Communities to introduce a carer's allowance supplement scheme, as recommended by the Carer Poverty Commission NI. Such a scheme would provide financial relief to carers across Northern Ireland. In relation to the amendment, we see value in a cross-departmental approach to support unpaid carers more broadly, including the provision of paid carer's leave and improved access to respite services. Those measures are essential in order to ensure that those who care for others are not neglected themselves. In 2021, before Stormont was collapsed, the Ulster Unionist Party took proactive steps to highlight the plight of carers. The then Health Minister, Robin Swann, detailed a £4·4 million initiative, the support for carers fund, managed by the Community Foundation NI. The grant scheme was available to community and voluntary sector organisations with a charitable purpose and marked an important step towards offering our carers tangible support. While that was achieved via additional COVID moneys, the fund was indeed justified and perhaps offers us a template for how we can do better. We must also acknowledge the often overlooked struggles of young carers. Many young people bear the burden of caregiving at a critical stage in their life. I apologise for using the word "burden", which is probably a cumbersome word, because they do not see it as a burden. It is an honour to provide care, but the reality is, as I have said before, that it comes at a financial, social and sometimes emotional cost. Studies show that many of those young people — as many as one in four — face serious disruption to their education and personal development. That cannot be right. If we passed any of those problems through a child's rights impact assessment, they would fail. Their futures are at stake. The Ulster Unionist Party supports the motion and the amendment.
519 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 (0.94).
- 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 | 0.94 | 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 | 0.62 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.30 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.07 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 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.