Debate contribution: Support for Carers
Debate contribution by Mrs Linda Dillon on .
- MLA
- Mrs Linda Dillon
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 10 February 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Support for Carers
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4791067
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I associate myself with most if not all of the commentary that has been made. You could not put a sheet of paper between what any of us are saying, to be fair. That is because there really is an agreed approach. As the Member who spoke previously just said, we need to show that we care about our carers. I thank the proposer of the motion, Gerry Carroll, and the Alliance Party for its amendment. I will support both. We know that, behind every statistic on unpaid carers, there is a real person — someone who has sacrificed. We have listened to some of the personal stories today. They have sacrificed their financial security, their health and sometimes even their future to care for someone whom they love. The former US First Lady Rosalynn Carter said:
"There are only four kinds of people in the world — those who have been caregivers, those who are currently caregivers, those who will be caregivers, and those who will need caregivers."
Her words are a powerful reminder that this is not an issue that affects a small section of our society. It will touch every one of us and our families at some point in our life; for many of us, that has probably already happened. Whether we care for a parent, a child with additional needs or a partner with long-term illness or we are receiving care, we all have a stake in ensuring that carers are supported, valued and treated with dignity. Across the North, 220,000 unpaid carers provide support that the Government and our health system could not function without — as we have heard, nearly 60% are women — yet they remain an invisible workforce, undervalued and undersupported. According to WPI Economics, 130,000 people have been forced to leave work or reduce their hours because of their caring responsibilities. The evidence is clear that unpaid caring is one of the biggest drivers of poverty, especially for women. The reality is stark: the current system forces carers into a financial trap. If they work too many hours, they risk losing their carer's allowance; yet, if they do not work, they face poverty. That is why a carer's allowance supplement is so important. It would provide a financial lifeline to carers who are currently being penalised simply for caring. We have seen from economic modelling that supporting carers to remain in work reduces poverty, improves economic growth and leads to long-term savings for the Government. That means long-term savings for everybody who lives here. While all unpaid carers face hardship, those in rural communities, such as in my constituency, Mid Ulster, suffer even more. Rural carers are isolated, often living miles from hospitals, GP surgeries and support services. Public transport is unreliable or non-existent in many areas, and broadband black spots mean that carers are often locked out of the digital services that could provide support. They have higher costs, greater travel burdens and fewer opportunities for respite care. If we are serious about supporting unpaid carers, we must address rural inequalities. We also need to rethink employment policy for carers. Paid carer's leave and flexible working policies could transform lives, allowing carers to stay in work while continuing to support the people whom they love. As we all know, there is an inextricable link between support for carers and the failure to address the massive gaps in social care provision. Studies have shown that increasing access to paid social care services would help carers to return to employment, boosting household incomes and reducing the risk of long-term dependency on benefits, yet we continue to expect carers to simply cope without those essential supports. It is just not fair. It is economically short-sighted. I commend my colleague Dr Caoimhe Archibald for her instrumental role in introducing the Civil Service guide, 'Supporting Carers'. That initiative is a significant step towards acknowledging and supporting carers in our workforce. We need a cross-departmental approach to carer support. We must ensure that rural carers are not left behind. Integral to that is focused work by the Health Minister to address the recruitment and retention of those who provide social care in our communities. We must also ensure that women do not continue to bear the financial and career cost of caring and that no one is forced into poverty simply because they care for someone whom they love. Let this be the day that we stop failing our carers and start delivering the support that they deserve by working cross-departmentally in a genuinely joined-up approach to support the people who need us most.
769 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 | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.53 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.34 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.12 |
| 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.