Debate contribution: State Pension Access: Terminally Ill People
Debate contribution by Miss Nicola Brogan on .
- MLA
- Miss Nicola Brogan
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 31 March 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- State Pension Access: Terminally Ill People
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4872117
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The measure of a society is how it treats its most vulnerable members, so I hope that today's motion will pass without objection. The measures in the motion would provide support and comfort to those who are dealing with the crippling physical and psychological effects of a devastating diagnosis; financially assist families that are grappling with the increased costs of preparing a home for the care of a loved one; and allow for some quality-of-life improvements for those who are at the end of their lives. Those reasons alone are enough to support the motion; its measures are, quite simply, the right thing to do. They can also be done at relatively little cost to the public purse. It is important that we consider what exactly a pension is. It is not a reward that you get for reaching a certain age. It is a pot that you have been paying into your whole working life so that you have a social safety net as you near the end of your life and find yourself less capable of working. That is precisely the situation that terminally ill people find themselves in.
The shameful reality is that we have relatively few supports for those who find themselves with a terminal illness and that the supports that are available are either insufficient or subject to a 12-month diagnosis. According to Marie Curie, people with a terminal illness under the age of 66 are twice as likely to die in poverty. Two thirds of those with a terminal illness rely on benefits as their main source of income. That is another reason why we need an anti-poverty strategy. I urge the Communities Minister to bring a fit-for-purpose anti-poverty strategy to the Executive as a matter of urgency. It is clear that we, as a society, are not doing enough to ensure that those who receive those devastating medical diagnoses can see out the final part of their life with some measure of comfort and dignity. Allowing them access to their pension — a pension that they have already earned — would go some way to correcting that shameful oversight. Setting aside the fact that it is, essentially, their own money, it could be done with relatively little additional strain on the public purse. We are talking about a small number of people. As the motion states, it should be provided by the British Government. Their legacy of chronic underfunding for generations here, coupled with two decades of ongoing austerity, has left the Budget here incapable of taking on even that modest additional burden. With the political will and some basic compassion, the actions that the motion calls for could quickly become a reality. I support the motion and urge others to do the same.
461 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: 0.04 (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 (0.93).
- 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 | 0.04 | 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 | 0.93 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | 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 | 0.98 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:16 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.