Debate contribution: Support for Carers
Debate contribution by Ms Sinéad McLaughlin on .
- MLA
- Ms Sinéad McLaughlin
- 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 4791079
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I begin by thanking the proposer, Gerry Carroll, for tabling the motion. We will also support the amendment. Unpaid carers are the backbone of our health and social care system, providing essential support to loved ones each and every day in our communities. Our healthcare system — our health system in general — is on its knees, but, if our carers were not doing the job that they do with love and giving dignity to those whom they look after, we would be in complete chaos and there would be collapse and failure at every level of the health system. Essentially, they are supporting the system as it stands. They care for the elderly, parents, disabled children, partners with long-term illnesses and those with complex needs. I heard first-hand about the sacrifices that carers make when I recently attended the Carers NI 60th anniversary event here in Stormont. It was not only a moment to celebrate the work of Carers NI and those who go above and beyond in looking after their loved ones but it was a moment of reflection. I personally reflected on how our system would simply collapse if these unpaid carers disappeared and, despite the contribution that they make, just how far we have to go to support unpaid carers. The reality is that their work saves the public purse billions of pounds every year, yet they receive little recognition or financial support. As the motion rightly states, many carers are experiencing acute poverty due to the lack of support, and many are forced to take on more and more debt in order to make ends meet. Many have said here that the burden of responsibility predominantly, but not exclusively, falls on women. I know many, many women who are providing care for a loved one, and that will be a cost to them when they reach pension age as well. Therefore, we are perpetuating poverty among women right through their lives. With the burden particularly and disproportionately falling on women, as I said, the Government have too often chosen to turn a blind eye to the financial challenges that those women have taken on board. Financial support is limited, with carer's allowance standing, as has been said, at £81·90 per week, making it one of the lowest benefits of its kind in the UK. Not only are carers unable to work due to their responsibilities but they are doubly prevented from doing so due to the earnings threshold, which caps their ability to earn money at £151 per week when claiming carer's allowance. The whole system is tilted against them, and it is government policy that has tilted that system against them. I welcome the fact that the Minister plans to increase the carer's allowance weekly allowance limit to the equivalent of 16 hours at the national living wage. That is a step in the right direction, but it must be accompanied by a full review of carer's allowance to ensure that it is fit for purpose. As the motion points out, many parents of children with additional needs cannot access childcare that meets their child's requirements. That is another policy failure. It often leads to parents having to give up their career in order to provide their child with the support that they need. That trend is not helped by the cost of specialist care and therapies, which far exceed what is provided through support schemes. Ultimately, that vicious cycle forces parents to become carers and leads to further financial hardship and isolation. We must do more to ensure that carers are not left struggling, and that the full value of their work is recognised and rewarded. That is why we should seek to introduce a carer's allowance supplement. Across the water, the Scottish Government took that step in 2018. Such a step has been recommended by the Northern Ireland Carer Poverty Commission, which found that the introduction of the scheme would immediately lift 3,400 people out of poverty and lead to a 3·7% fall in the poverty rate amongst carers who receive carer's allowance. Support for carers cannot be secured through financial means alone. As the amendment suggests, there is a need to provide wider support to unpaid carers —
— through the expansion of respite services and the introduction of paid carer's leave.
721 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: 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 | 0.05 | 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 | 0.96 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.54 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.32 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.14 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| 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.