Debate contribution: Holiday Hunger
Debate contribution by Ms Cheryl Brownlee on .
- MLA
- Ms Cheryl Brownlee
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 19 March 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Holiday Hunger
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4279620
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I support the motion and the amendment, and I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. It is the job of a Government to protect the most vulnerable in society. Children, by their nature, are vulnerable. They cannot support themselves by getting a job and securing an income, so they must rely on others to provide them with the basic necessities of life. It is a parent or a guardian's duty to provide that support, but, in the past few years, doing so has become very challenging for many, particularly those in low-income households. Poverty rarely has a single cause, and it can be difficult to separate causes and effects. It is clear, however, that factors including low wages, worklessness, childcare, opportunities and the rising cost of living are all significant drivers of child poverty. It can be a vicious circle: adults who grow up in poverty tend to earn less, to have a higher risk of unemployment, and therefore pay less tax over their lifetime, and to be more likely to need much more support. As a party, we are committed to working with the Executive to support children and young people and families who are in poverty and to breaking that cycle. It is therefore crucial that all Ministers take a collaborative approach to tackling the issue. As is stated in the recent Northern Ireland Audit Office report:
"Siloed working can lead to siloed interventions and ultimately to poorer outcomes. Children experiencing poverty interact with multiple services, across both the statutory and voluntary and community sectors, therefore effective partnership working is key to improving outcomes."
I welcome the earlier acknowledgement of Monkstown Boxing Club, which is very much at the heart of the community, helping everyone. I commend all the voluntary groups who do that daily. It is also critical that clear monitoring mechanisms be co-designed and understood in order to measure objectives and outcomes and to enable data to be collated and reported in a timely fashion, as well as for accountability and ownership from various Departments to be understood clearly by all involved. There is growing evidence of a link between poverty and educational underachievement. That evidence shows that there is a massive 24% gap in the attainment of GCSEs for those children who are receiving free school meals. The NIAO publication reports a gap of 11 to 15 years in healthy life expectancy between the most and least deprived areas. It also shows that children from deprived backgrounds are four times more likely to develop a mental health problem by the age of 11. It was also shocking to read that, in the past five years, the inequality gap in the proportion of P1 children who were classed as being obese widened from 45% to 93%, owing to the increase in obesity rates in the most deprived areas, while there was no notable change in the least deprived areas. Those facts are terrifying and cement my opinion that we need to take action to address the issue. The question is not whether we need to act but how we act. During the pandemic, direct payments were made to eligible families through the Education Authority (EA), partly because it was the most convenient and efficient means of delivering that vital lifeline in extremely difficult times. I want to recognise the work on that scheme by previous Education Ministers Peter Weir and Michelle McIlveen.
We need to deliver a sustainable, data-based plan to address holiday hunger at the point of need but also to address the range of factors that can cause this need. In other parts of the UK, including England and Wales, previous holiday food grant schemes have incorporated a number of delivery models, including vouchers that can be exchanged for food and combining access to good meals with holiday activities and summer schemes. It is vital that we address all available options to ensure that we deliver the best scheme here. We have spoken in the Chamber in recent weeks about the need to invest in special educational needs (SEN), the need to invest in our schools estate and the need to support families with uniform costs, these holiday payments and childcare. I know that the Minister will want to do all those things, but I know, of course, that we will need substantial funding to deliver on them. I reaffirm my support for the motion. I welcome it, and I want to see as much progress as possible on the matter.
749 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 (0.94).
- 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 | 0.02 | 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 | 0.94 | 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 |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.45 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.28 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.16 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.08 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.02 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:53 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.