Debate contribution: Cost-of-living Increase: Impact
Debate contribution by Mr Maurice Bradley on .
- MLA
- Mr Maurice Bradley
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 17 November 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Cost-of-living Increase: Impact
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5245793
Read the official Assembly record
Text
In considering the motion and the amendment, we can agree that the cost-of-living crisis is still real for workers and families across Northern Ireland. Inflation may have fallen from its peak, but, at 3·8%, it remains higher than the EU average and is almost double the target set by the Bank of England. Families do not need those statistics to tell them what they already know; they see it in their grocery bill, their heating oil delivery and now, potentially, in the cost of school meals. For us, the key question is not just how we help people cope with rising prices but how we help them move beyond long-term reliance on benefits. We have heard stark figures about poverty from the proposer of the motion, Mr Gildernew, and the proposer of the amendment, Mr Allen. The best long-term defence against poverty is meaningful, fairly paid employment, supported by a strong safety net for those who cannot work or face additional barriers. Work, when it pays, changes lives. A secure job gives parents the ability to plan ahead, manage their bills and provide stability for their children. That is why we welcome the focus on getting more less able people into better jobs and reducing the disability pay gap. It is why we have supported measures such as the childcare subsidy scheme, intermediate rent, co-ownership and investment in skills and apprenticeships, all of which help people get into work and stay in employment. Employment alone is not enough, however. The amendment rightly highlights the sharp rise in food prices and the importance of:
"affordable access to food, including school meals"
in tackling child poverty and health inequalities. Any increase in the cost of school meals would be deeply worrying for already stretched families. That is why we agree that decisions by Departments and arm's-length bodies (ALBs), including the Education Authority, must align with the Executive's anti-poverty strategy and why the Minister of Education and the Minister for Communities must take a coordinated approach to supporting those on low incomes. At the same time, we cannot ignore the reality of constrained budgets and statutory duties. Difficult choices are having to be made across our public services. That is why it is essential that every pound spent is clearly focused on reducing poverty, supporting families and enabling people to move into and progress in work. We also recognise the crucial role of the voluntary and community sector, which is often on the front line of the crisis, reaching people in places where government alone does not. The anti-poverty strategy must set out not only high-level ambitions but measurable targets and clear actions on employment, on food and fuel poverty and on supporting the organisations that work directly with vulnerable households. Our approach is clear: help as many people as possible into good, sustainable employment; maintain a strong, targeted safety net that includes welfare mitigations; and ensure a coordinated, Executive-wide strategy that turns warm words into real, practical help for families. If we get that right, we will not only help people through this winter and this cost-of-living crisis but give families across Northern Ireland a realistic route out of poverty and away from long-term dependence on benefits. I am happy to support the motion or the motion as amended.
547 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: 0.02 (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: 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 | 0.96 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | 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 | 0.99 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| 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 13:58 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.