Debate contribution: Holiday Hunger
Debate contribution by Lord Elliott on .
- MLA
- Lord Elliott
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 19 March 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Holiday Hunger
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4279627
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak in this significant debate. It is absolutely right that the Assembly and, indeed, the Executive coalesce on issues relating to any child going hungry — something that should not happen in today's society in Northern Ireland or, indeed, anywhere else throughout the world. It would be remiss in the extreme not to delve deeper and try to understand what is wrong. That, in 2024, we are aware that any child is going hungry suggests to me that we have much work to do and that we must not stop in our efforts to end childhood hunger in Northern Ireland. I will quote a short portion from an article in 'The BMJ':
"Holiday hunger is an under-researched phenomena; it is a contemporary term, but policy makers have been concerned about food insecurity during school holidays since the start of the 20th century. On 27 March 1914, for example, Bradford MP Fred Jowett proposed a bill to 'enable meals to be provided for underfed children during school holidays.' He became concerned about the problem after consulting with a school medical officer who observed a decrease in children’s weight during the school holidays."
Whilst we can rightly wonder at and appreciate the speed of modernisation, regrettably and bewilderingly, it is somewhat incomprehensible that, 110 years from the MP's proposed Bill, we are still debating holiday hunger in relation to children here in Northern Ireland. The reality is that, when we do delve deeper into the issue, it is not just the child who could go hungry. We know from research and true testimony that, in some instances, parents and carers also skip meals to ensure that their child is fed. I want to pay tribute to all those in community initiatives and groups who not only provide activities and, often, educational events during holidays but offer healthy meals to children the length and breadth of Northern Ireland. We have heard some of these referred to already. However, in regard to tackling the stigma and protecting the dignity of parents in low-income households, it is absolutely on our shoulders, in this Assembly and Executive, to develop strategies and interventions that ensure that no family has to make a decision on whether to eat due to finance. We have often heard the phrase "heat or eat". It is arguably worse that, in some instances, we have a parent or child who does not even have that choice. Skipping meals for growing children is not a decision that any parent should be faced with in 2024 in any part of the world, least of all here in Northern Ireland. In the longer term, I would love the education system to assess the full value of every child receiving at least one nutritious, balanced and tasty meal every day, not only ensuring that children have a full stomach but that they enjoy healthy, nutritious food and that we revisit and revalue the societal and psychological benefits of eating and sharing together. I am also concerned that we have the potential for the situation to get worse. If local food production here in Northern Ireland is significantly reduced due to climate change legislation, we could be faced with importing quite a number of food products from other parts of the world that would not be of the same quality as food that we produce here in Northern Ireland and would be more expensive and add many more food miles to the situation. I ask that Members support the motion and the amendment.
595 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: 0.03 (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 (0.90).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.90 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | 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 | 0.65 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.18 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.15 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.02 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
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.