Debate contribution: Support for Carers
Debate contribution by Mr Mark Durkan on .
- MLA
- Mr Mark Durkan
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 10 February 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Support for Carers
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4791065
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member who tabled the motion. The SDLP will support it and the Alliance amendment. Both could go further, but not every motion can do everything. My colleague Daniel McCrossan had been working on an amendment that does not seem to have made the cut. In that, we called for a carers' charter, similar to the one proposed by Carers NI, that would have gone further than the motion and the amendment. In June, my colleague Daniel McCrossan presented to the Speaker a petition with almost 1,500 names on behalf of Carers NI. It called for the introduction of a carer's allowance recognition payment as recommended by the independent review of welfare mitigations. This issue affects 48,000 people in the North who struggle to make ends meet on carer's allowance. Carer's allowance is the main social security benefit for people providing unpaid care for sick or disabled family members or friends. It is available only to those who care for a loved one for a minimum of 35 hours a week, although, for a significant number of recipients, as others have alluded to, the caring role is around the clock. It is 24 hours a day, seven days a week and 365 days a year. Other Members mentioned the lack of respite opportunities, and the Health Minister and we, as an Assembly, really need to get that addressed. People need the opportunity to recharge. In exchange for their Herculean efforts, carers receive a weekly payment, as Mr Carroll reminded us, of £81·90, which equates to less than £2·50 an hour or nearly five times less than the national living wage. It is hardly surprising that nearly half the people who rely on carer's allowance in the North are living below the poverty line. Over 40% are having to cut back on essentials such as heating, and one in seven of our carers have been forced to use a food bank. The shocking rate at which carer's allowance is paid represents nothing less than the exploitation of the love, devotion and dedication of those carers. You cannot put a price on that love, but look, as others have said, at the pressure that they are taking off and the money that they save our Health and Social Care system for one. A recognition payment will not fix the carer's allowance payment for everyone, but it would be a crucial starting point in delivering the financial support that unpaid carers need. Carers need more than money, though: they need a charter of rights and more support. They need the right to live free of poverty; the right to regular breaks; the right to be treated as equal and valued partners in the health and social care system; the right to have access to education and employment opportunities; and the right to proper and timely information and support. Our carers make an immeasurable contribution to society across the North every day, and, in return, they deserve so much more than a social security benefit that forces them to go hungry and sit in the dark. It is time that government cared for our carers, because God only knows where we would be without them.
533 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 | 0.01 | 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 | 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.