Debate contribution: Cost-of-living Crisis
Debate contribution by Mrs Linda Dillon on .
- MLA
- Mrs Linda Dillon
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 21 April 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Opposition Business
- Heading
- Cost-of-living Crisis
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5497597
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Workers, families and businesses are under real pressure —. Actually, I will start by saying that I hope that the Member for South Belfast knows what he was trying to say because I have no idea what he was trying to say. In one part of the speech, he said that the Executive have everything that they need to deliver, but they need the British Government, but why are they writing to the British Government, why are they asking the British Government, the British Government need to give it to them. I am completely confused. I have never heard so many contradictions in one speech in all my life, and, coming from you, in this place, that is saying something. People are feeling the pressure every day in their homes, their workplaces and their communities, but we need to be honest in the debate about where the responsibility actually lies. The reality is that the key financial and taxation powers needed to respond to the crisis sit with the British Government. That is the truth. You always talk about honesty and transparency, so let us have a bit of it. When we talk about the crisis, we need to talk about real people. Domiciliary care workers, who are mentioned in the motion, are a clear example. Those workers are going from home to home in large, rural areas, such as the area that I represent of Mid Ulster, looking after some of our most vulnerable people. They want to do the job. They care about the people whom they look after, and they care about their families. However, they have their own families, and they have bills to pay, and the price of fuel means that it costs money for them to go to work. They were already struggling, and they are nowhere near close to being properly compensated for their mileage. That is not sustainable, and it is not fair. The same applies to other healthcare workers, childcare workers and people who have already given so much and are now being hit hardest by the rising costs. They cannot just absorb the increases; they are already stretched to their very limit. The Executive have stepped in where they can. The support package will help many low-income households, but we need to be straight about it: that is not funding that we can easily spare. They did not pull it out of their sleeve, Matthew. It had to come from somewhere. It had to come from Departments that also have rising costs — just to be clear about that. It comes at a time when public services are already under pressure because of ongoing underfunding from the British Government. We are making decisions to target that support towards those who need it most, but it will not reach everyone. There are many workers and families just above that threshold who are struggling just as much, but they will get no support. That is why further action from the British Government is essential. While people here are struggling to heat their homes, to get to work and to make ends meet, the British Government have made their priorities clear. I have to take issue with the point that the war is nothing to do with us and that we should not comment on it. The British Government are choosing to build up their war machine and to support others to make war above investing in people, communities and public services here. They have chosen to focus their resources on unjust wars while workers, families and essential services are left under pressure. They are quite happy to take our taxes — our hard-working people's money — to do that, but will not allow us to have any say in the decision on how that is spent. The British Government are more than happy to take our hard-earned taxes while offering no support to people, at a time when illegal wars are creating a cost-of-living crisis for people here. They have the power to implement fuel duty relief and they have the money to put in place a meaningful support package. As was mentioned, some of that money comes from the increased revenue that they are getting because of the rising cost of fuel.
Yes.
I absolutely agree with the Member and thank her for that information. Businesses, farmers, families and workers across our society are being impacted on, but the British Government are making a clear political choice not to prioritise people. The answer that we hear from some in the Chamber and many in the media is that we should raise revenue to alleviate the pressures on families here by increasing rates and student fees and introducing water charges. The answer to serious financial pressure on families and workers here is to come up with amazing and wonderful ideas to increase their financial burden. Nobody in their right mind would support that, and we certainly will not be supporting revenue-raising measures that put more pressure on people who are already at breaking point across our constituencies and communities. We will continue to do what we can, but how many times do we need to find ourselves in this position, dealing with the consequences of decisions that are taken elsewhere without having the power to respond properly?
Sorry, I cannot. That is the situation that we are in again. If we had the powers, we could act differently. We could respond more quickly and we could target support towards the people who need it. We could make decisions based on what is best for the people here. That is why the conversation about the future of Ireland matters.
946 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: 0.14 (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 (0.87).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.98).
- 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 | 0.10 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.04 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.08 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.09 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.87 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.14 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.98 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.02 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.52 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.45 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:21 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.