Debate contribution: Support for Carers
Debate contribution by Mr Maurice Bradley on .
- MLA
- Mr Maurice Bradley
- 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 4791071
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the proposer of the motion. I will support the motion and the amendment. A recent report highlighted growing evidence that the demands of caring increasingly impact on carers' physical and mental health, with a further survey showing that lack of support and recognition from healthcare services is taking its toll on unpaid carers. Providing the support that carers need will require input from across the Executive in the areas of welfare, respite and employment.
Unpaid carers dedicate themselves to looking after others, providing valuable care, often at great personal sacrifice and cost. They cannot do that alone. They need regular and reliable respite. Remember, without the support of unpaid carers, our health and social care system would collapse.
Northern Ireland is predicted to have one of the largest increases in dementia prevalence in the UK — an expected rise of 51% to over 43,000 by 2040. The largest cost associated with dementia is the cost of unpaid care. Carers need more holistic support to continue in that role. Support for carers must be sustainable for years to come because, as our demographics continue to change, the situation will get worse. The common-sense approach for carers ought to be UK-wide, safeguard Northern Ireland's budget for public services and provide equity and cohesion across the United Kingdom. That is where the focus must be. On a personal note, I know a lady who cares lovingly for her mother, 24-hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. She has no family support. The things that we take for granted, she cannot avail herself of; that is, she cannot work. She cooks and purees every meal for her mother, who is lovingly hand-fed. This means that the daughter gets no trips to the hairdresser or to the shops for clothes. She is reliant on her friends to get groceries and to order and pay for heating oil. The daughter relies on anyone who is available to get emergency medical attention when it is needed. The daughter has medical needs herself, but cannot get to see a doctor. Those are just a few of the things that we take for granted, and they are only the tip of the iceberg of things that carers have to endure, especially those who care for elderly people for 24 hours a day, seven days a week. That is why I intend to support the motion and the amendment.
405 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 (0.89).
- 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 | 0.89 | 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 | 0.81 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.12 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.05 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 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.