Debate contribution: Child Poverty
Debate contribution by Ms Sian Mulholland on .
- MLA
- Ms Sian Mulholland
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 15 April 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Child Poverty
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4482940
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member who moved the motion. We know that the issue strikes at the very core of our society. There will not be a single MLA in the Chamber today who has not, in their constituency office, dealt with the ramifications of poverty.
Apologies. I beg to move the following amendment:
Apologies; I thought that we did that already. I thank the Member who moved the motion. Child poverty strikes at the very core of our society. There will not be a single MLA in the Chamber who has not, in their constituency office, dealt with the ramifications of poverty. We know that those who are most vulnerable to the effects and impacts of poverty are the children who are growing up in homes that experience poverty. The revelations in the recent Northern Ireland Audit Office report are stomach-turning: one in every five children is living in relative poverty. For the benefit of the Member who asked about this, relative poverty is classed as being below 60% of the median of a year, with absolute being 60% of a baseline, which, I think, was 2010-11. However, I imagine that the Member is aware of that.
The Northern Ireland poverty and income inequality report that the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) released two weeks ago paints an even bleaker picture. It states that the percentage of children who are in relative poverty before housing costs are included has risen to 24%. That is approximately 109,000 children, which is a significant increase from 18% the year before. The number of children who are living in absolute poverty, according to that NISRA report, has increased to 19%, which is approximately 86,000 children. That is up from 15% the year before. The simple fact is that the number of children who are growing up in poverty here is rising. We are bombarded with statistics in the Chamber, but I had to stop for a moment to let that one sink in. Children whose basic needs are not being met are going to school hungry and to bed hungry. Their parents have to make heartbreaking decisions that no parent should ever have to make. I am thankful that, because of my privilege, I do not have to make those decisions. It is a distressing fact that, in 2024, that is the reality for more than 100,000 young people in our communities. The void of governance that was created when the Assembly was down has only exacerbated an already inexcusable situation. We have talked about many priorities since the Assembly's restoration. Lifting families out of poverty should be at the top of that list. A rising tide lifts all boats, and there can be none more in need of lifting from a life of poverty than the more than 100,000 children. As I said, we can be so desensitized to those statistics because we hear them so often, but behind each of those statistics lies a child whose potential is stifled by the chains of the poverty that they live in. Colleagues and I have not been silent about the need for the Minister for Communities to take decisive action. That has to be effective action that will impact families most quickly and in the most useful way. We want to see tackling poverty and deprivation underpinned in any future Programme for Government. We want the implementation of an integrated and cross-departmental poverty strategy to be presented to the Assembly without delay. We will continue to put pressure on the Minister to do that. There is a statutory obligation, which all parties signed up to previously, that just is not being met. We tabled the amendment, which removes the reference to a specific child poverty strategy, because, as we have heard from campaigners, we need to have a holistic approach that addresses poverty comprehensively, including by considering the multifaceted factors that contribute to the measures of poverty. That includes addressing issues such as unemployment and support for work-limited parents; housing affordability; healthcare access; and education. Those all impact families and children. Children do not exist in silos, and, as such, we should not address such an interconnected issue with a singular frame of reference. Poverty often has a multigenerational element, so by tackling poverty across all demographics, we will ensure that our interventions are comprehensive and will break the cycle of poverty more effectively. A broader anti-poverty strategy can provide support to entire families. That approach recognises that improving the economic stability of parents can positively impact on children's well-being. By combining efforts to combat poverty across various demographics, we can push for a joined-up approach to have policy coherence and, hopefully, mitigate the fragmentation and siloism that we so often see. I hope that budgetary elements, too, will allow for a better coordination of resources and services, maximising their impact on reducing poverty, thereby ultimately improving outcomes for children. That is why we are calling for specific and measurable targets to be established within an anti-poverty strategy: targets that translate into tangible outcomes for children; actions that employ cross-departmental intervention; and prevention strategies that work collaboratively to break the cycle of poverty and forge a future where every child has the opportunity to thrive. Just as crucially, we need rigorous monitoring mechanisms to track the progress of any anti-poverty strategy. It cannot be another document to languish on a shelf. Regular data collection, reporting and analysis across all impacted Departments and services will enable us to identify areas of success and areas where we need to improve. However, we know that merely setting targets is not enough. We must also ensure that adequate resources are allocated to them. I am acutely aware of the financial burden on the Executive. I know that all Departments have urgent priorities, but, right now, the question that we will continue to ask the Minister is not how much this will cost but how much it would cost not to do. The long-term economic and social costs of allowing rates of child poverty to continue to rise are stark. They are estimated to be between £825 million and £1 billion a year. I urge the Minister to collaborate closely with the Minister of Finance to secure an ambitious budget dedicated solely to achieving the poverty reduction targets. We cannot compromise any longer on the eradication of poverty. A strategy must also address an immediate and pressing issue that will have significant implications for families, so we need to talk about the benefit cap mitigations cliff edge. It all plays a part. The significance of the mitigations must not be understated. They were put in place to offer essential support for absolute necessities such as housing, food or utilities. The adverse effects of the Tory benefit cap policy have been recognised, and steps have been taken, but we absolutely need to have something in place for the cliff edge next year. Recent statistics from NISRA on the benefit cap reports in Northern Ireland break down the number of children living in households receiving benefit cap mitigations. Whilst we cannot provide exact figures, on the basis of those categories, Advice NI estimates that at least 2,240 children will be immediately impacted if we do not extend the current mitigation regulations. Furthermore, some of those families do not even know that they are in receipt of mitigations and are therefore not prepared at all for the impending cliff edge. I call on the Minister for Communities, along with Executive colleagues, as we look towards budgets for the next year — hopefully, multi-year budgets after that — to act immediately to avert the looming cliff edge in the welfare mitigation schemes, particularly that benefit cap mitigation. In saying that, we recognise that those mitigations are not a cure-all. They are a temporary solution to a systemic problem that needs a more comprehensive approach. Whilst they provide crucial support to families in need, they do not address the root causes of poverty. They are just one way of easing an imminent threat. That is why we understand that poverty cannot be tackled by addressing just one facet. We have to push for that cross-departmental commitment to eradicating poverty; addressing a social security system that is simply not fit for purpose; developing affordable and social housing solutions; investing in education and skills development and in early years and child care; ensuring timely and universal access to healthcare services; extending access to nutritious meals in schools; and investing in our community and voluntary sector, which is already on the ground dealing with families, and its support services. It would be as a result of working on each piece of that interconnected jigsaw puzzle of services and policies that we could build a brighter future for all children. There will not be a Member in the Chamber who will disagree that any investment in children's long-term future can only benefit us all as a society, but it needs to be done in a holistic and cross-departmental manner.
1,503 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not qualifying”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.03 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.97).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-qualifying 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 | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.97 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-qualifying 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 | 0.71 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.19 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.09 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:58 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 reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.