Debate contribution: Holiday Hunger
Debate contribution by Mr Gerry Carroll on .
- MLA
- Mr Gerry Carroll
- Party at the time
- People Before Profit Alliance
- Date
- 19 March 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Holiday Hunger
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4279646
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Is there anything more abhorrent than the fact that at least 100,000 children have gone hungry, thanks to the action and inaction of government parties here? Can you imagine the hardship and suffering faced by 100,000 children with empty bellies and their families? Despite the motion before us today, do the new Executive care? If they do, what will they do about it? When the cut to holiday hunger payments was implemented and the DUP persisted with its reckless boycott, we had at least a partial answer to that question. However, that still does not account for the punishing and anti-working-class policies that have been pursued by parties here when Stormont was functioning and up and running. One hundred thousand kids are just the tip of the iceberg. Conservative estimates tell us, as Members have mentioned, that one in five children here lives in poverty. In working-class areas, which have been decimated by years of austerity, the figure is even higher. There is no way to explain that figure without reference to low wages, service cuts, the deepening housing crisis and the devastating welfare reforms, like the two-child tax limit, that were implemented by parties in this Building. Just recently, I saw a shocking report by the End Child Poverty Coalition that said that one in 10 children here lives in a household impacted by the two-child tax limit. That means that at least one in 10 children here has been plunged into poverty by the policies and actions of the DUP, Sinn Féin, Alliance and others. I agree with anti-poverty campaigners that it is time for welfare reforms like the two-child tax limit to be scrapped. If the Executive are truly committed to lifting people out of poverty, they need to give people more than empty words. It goes without saying that I endorse today's motion and amendment, but it is important to stress that the number of families who might receive holiday hunger payments pales in comparison with the number of children and families who go hungry daily. Today's debate has already been outstripped by the hardship and poverty facing our communities. Members will know that some schools — youth organisations were also mentioned — already offer free meals to all pupils. I commend those schools for taking practical steps to alleviate child hunger — fair play to them. However, is it not a shame that those schools are being forced to absorb costs that should be covered by the state and the Department of Education? I reiterate my support for today's motion, but it lacks a bit of ambition. It is a missed opportunity to call for universal free school meals. That would not only lift people out of poverty but give pupils the best chance at a decent education. I have no doubt that most MLAs and Ministers here, with their big salaries, have no idea what it is like to truly go hungry and no idea what it is like to try to think, learn or function on an empty stomach. That is the reality facing countless working-class people here every day. That is the reality for workers who have to skip meals to feed their kids while their pay is cut directly by the Executive. That is what life looks like for the family of four who have had their meagre benefits slashed and a safety net removed by parties here. Universal free school meals is not an outlandish proposition. It has been a long-term demand of trade unions like Unison and others, which represent thousands of working-class adults and children across these islands. The Welsh Government plan to offer free school meals for all pupils. Stormont needs to urgently follow suit. The failure to do so is not about a lack of foresight. Parties here, who have failed to alleviated poverty for more than a decade, know what is required to stop people going hungry but refuse to do what is required, because doing that would mean challenging the right-wing economic logic that underpins the actions of the Executive and their regressive counterparts in the Tory Administration. Parents across the North struggle to put food on the table. Universal free school meals is an effective and invaluable way to start addressing that problem. I ask all Executive parties to seriously consider that as a mechanism for feeding the hungry and addressing the poverty that Stormont has wrought, or are they too afraid of upsetting the Tory bean counters?
745 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 (0.93).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.99).
- 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 | 0.06 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.06 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.11 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.93 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.07 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.99 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.01 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.55 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.19 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.16 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.07 |
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.01 |
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.