Debate contribution: Cost-of-living Increase: Impact
Debate contribution by Ms Emma Sheerin on .
- MLA
- Ms Emma Sheerin
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 17 November 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Cost-of-living Increase: Impact
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5245939
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.
I am glad to hear a somewhat united voice in response to the motion that we tabled, because we want everyone to work together in support of the workers and families whom we all represent. As has been said by others throughout the debate, poverty is, indeed, a political choice. At the heart of my politics and the reason for my getting involved in political life is my rejection of the fact that we in the North are forever at the whim of whatever British Government are in office, and, as a result of their decisions, the people whom we represent often suffer. We call on the Minister to work with colleagues in order to mitigate the worst impacts of the latest British Government and the decisions that they make.
We see the impact of our having been pulled out of the EU and the loss of all the EU funding from which we were able to benefit previously, particularly in such areas as mine in Mid Ulster. There has been the loss of CAP funding, which supported working farmers and their families, and the rural development programme, which has had an impact on our local community groups and small communities across the North. We have also seen the cliff edge that has come about due to the replacement of the European social fund and the European regional development fund, which helped local groups and people who needed support to get into the workplace; the pressure that has been heaped upon working people by the threat of the inheritance tax on our farming families, which compounds the pressures that they are already under; and the planned rise to the pension age, which has seen the elderly and most vulnerable worrying about how they are going to fund the last years of their life. At the same time, there is always money to fund billionaires' interests; there is always money for capitalist projects. That is what we object to. We watch as the British Government tell us, very proudly, that they are increasing their defence spending, year-on-year, and that they aim to spend 2·5% of GDP on defence by 2027. How disgusting is that? Today, we had DUP Member after DUP Member question a Minister who attempts to prevent public funding going towards the creation of Israeli genocidal war weapons —
— in this jurisdiction — something that I object to. The British Government have shown us that they will always prioritise weapons over workers. They prioritise warfare — not in any of our names. They contribute to famine in a foreign land, as opposed to contributing to families here at home. We want to see a common voice coming from the Assembly, and we want to work together to mitigate those worst impacts and support the families and workers whom we all represent.
480 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: 0.16 (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 (0.72).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.90).
- Subject area: Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty.
- 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 | 0.11 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.07 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.16 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.15 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.72 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.16 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.90 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.07 |
| Adopts it | 0.03 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.72 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.16 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.12 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:01 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.