Motion or amendment: Holiday Hunger and the High Cost of School Uniforms - Amendment 3
Motion or amendment by Mr Timothy Gaston on .
- MLA
- Mr Timothy Gaston
- Party at the time
- Traditional Unionist Voice
- Date
- 6 November 2024
- Type
- Motion or amendment
- Business
- Motion Amendment · Private Members' Motion · to “Holiday Hunger and the High Cost of School Uniforms”
- Heading
- Holiday Hunger and the High Cost of School Uniforms - Amendment 3
- Assembly identifier
- Document 416635
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
Holiday Hunger and the High Cost of School Uniforms - Amendment 3
Leave out all after ‘withdrawn’ and insert:
‘in March 2023 after Northern Ireland became the first part of the UK to be funded below the UK Government’s definition of need from April 2022; expresses concern over the continued lack of action to address these issues and that despite the restoration of the Executive, the failure to negotiate with HM Treasury prior to the Executive being formed means that Northern Ireland is still denied the basic fiscal protections afforded to Wales; regrets that the lack of an equivalent fiscal settlement means that our current funding has fallen below need and that we are currently projected to be funded below need once again, from 2026-27, when the recurring baseline deficit from the financial years 2022-23 and 2023-23 kicks in; recognises that the ongoing rise in the cost of living, including the high cost of school uniforms, is pushing many families beyond the brink; and calls on the Minister of Education to provide an urgent update on the steps his Department is taking to tackle holiday hunger and reduce the financial burden of school uniforms and PE kits on struggling families.
200 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: 0.07 (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 (0.88).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- 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 | 0.05 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.88 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.07 | 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 |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.76 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.18 |
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.04 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 08:58 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.