Debate contribution: Child Poverty: North Belfast
Debate contribution by Mr Phillip Brett on .
- MLA
- Mr Phillip Brett
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 24 September 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Adjournment
- Heading
- Child Poverty: North Belfast
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4645071
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I apologise for not being here for the entirety of the debate: I had some Committee commitments that I could not miss. North Belfast usually gets a reputation as a place where the political representatives disagree, have different ideals and do not share a common goal. Although I missed much of the important contributions made by the Members opposite and other Members, I guarantee that they raised the exact same issues that I plan to raise. Those are the issues that our communities and constituency offices deal with daily. The five Members elected by the people of North Belfast work together daily on tackling poverty. The North Belfast community groups, which other Members may have mentioned, regularly bring elected representatives from the parties together to tackle poverty. We come together to discuss the collective ambitions and issues faced by those whom we are honoured to represent. Be they from Tiger's Bay, the New Lodge, Rathcoole, Glengormley or anywhere in between, the issues that they face are exactly the same. With your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will highlight a number of things. The community and voluntary sector in North Belfast is made up of the best people who freely give their time daily to try to improve the lives of all those who call North Belfast home. I must pay tribute to Ministers and political parties of all hues who have put together many strategies and initiatives across North Belfast that are making a lasting impact. I think of the neighbourhood renewal partnerships that continue to deliver daily for those most in need. I think of the Building Successful Communities programme that operates in parts of our constituency. It builds much-needed homes to tackle poverty. It invests in education, which is key to ensuring that our young people are lifted up. It also invests in the fabric of our community organisations, which, day and daily, provide the service that all our constituents need. I think of the Urban Villages programme, which my colleague Brian Kingston is heavily involved in. It operates in the Old Park district electoral area across Ballysillan and Ardoyne. It is sponsored by the Executive Office but, day and daily, delivers programmes and community assets that are used to tackle the issues that are rife in our community. It is important to recognise that progress has been made but that there is much more to do. Nuala, Carál, Gerry, Brian and I will continue in that spirit of cooperation to try to ensure that no person in North Belfast experiences what they have in the past and that, together, we can ensure that North Belfast continues to be the best place to live, work, invest and raise a family.
452 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).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.94).
- Subject area: Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations.
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.33 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.94 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.04 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.02 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.52 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.43 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.04 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:06 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.