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

Not flagged

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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.11No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.07No
Cultural grievance politics0.02No
Dog-whistle messaging0.16No
Controversy escalation0.15No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.72Yes
Overall judgement0.16At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)0.90
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it0.07
Adopts it0.03
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty0.72
No identity-related subject0.16
Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy0.12
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00
Parades, bonfires and commemorations0.00

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.

Challenge this classification