Debate contribution: United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Debate contribution by Ms Emma Sheerin on .
- MLA
- Ms Emma Sheerin
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 25 November 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4675246
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I support the motion and commend the proposer for bringing it to the House to have this valuable debate. Incorporating the UNCRPD is a practical step that we can take to support those across society who live with a disability. That came up a lot during the bill of rights process in the last mandate, during which we took presentations from a number of vulnerable groups across society. Other members of the Ad Hoc Committee on a Bill of Rights are in the Chamber. They will concur that we heard time and again that people with a disability have negative experiences because of their lack of access to rights; our punitive benefits system and how it punishes people who cannot complete the daily tasks that a lot of us take for granted; and the humiliating and demoralising process for applying for the personal independence payment (PIP) and, in the case of children, the disability living allowance (DLA). That is a benefits system that we inherited from 14 years of the Tories being in power and that we want to change. Incorporating the UNCRPD means that we should legislate to consider the needs of people who live with a disability and encourage participation, ensuring that people have a seat at the table, looking at their needs and bringing equality. In doing so, we need to realise that actual equality means meeting people where they are and ensuring that they have the framework and ability to access whatever standard of living they would like to access. That is a right for us all, and it should be legislated for. We need to encourage people across society to speak up. We need to be their voice and to advocate for them. As constituency MLAs, we could all think of examples of people who have approached us for help, whether that be families of children with additional needs who cannot access one-to-one support in their classroom and are therefore left out of getting the education that they need; families of those same SEN children as they approach adulthood and no longer have any support services; families struggling without the respite services that they need; or people in older age who, through an accident or a disability that they have had since birth, are unable to manage their daily living needs at home and cannot access the domiciliary care that they need. In my constituency, that is a particular problem that is exacerbated by the rurality of the area. You see families really struggle at the coalface. We need support for the unpaid carers who live with that daily and are left to do so without any financial or practical help, which puts real pressure on families. It puts a particular pressure on women, as the unpaid care role falls to the females in most families. I commend the motion to the House. On the DUP amendment, which has been referred to, we do not agree with termination in cases of non-fatal fetal abnormality. However, the DUP amendment is clearly a deliberately divisive and cynical intervention in what should be a clear and unequivocal call on a DUP Minister to bring forward the necessary legislation to incorporate the UNCRPD into law. For that reason, we will not support the DUP amendment. Instead, I would like to see the House united in support of people living with disability.
562 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: 0.10 (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 (0.92).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.69).
- 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 | 0.09 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.09 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.14 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.92 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.10 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.69 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.29 |
| Adopts it | 0.01 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 1.00 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:40 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.