Debate contribution: Child Poverty
Debate contribution by Mrs Ciara Ferguson on .
- MLA
- Mrs Ciara Ferguson
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 15 April 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Child Poverty
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4482980
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I very much welcome the opportunity to speak. I thank those who proposed the motion and the amendment. No child should live in poverty: that is the bottom line for me and, I am sure, for most of us in the Assembly. We must make sure that every child gets a good start in life. That is not only the right thing to do but the smartest thing to do when it comes to investing for the future. As a colleague on my left mentioned, in my constituency in Derry, more than 9,000 children live in poverty, which is over 23%. What does that mean? It means our young people living in cold homes. Some go to bed hungry, go to school hungry in the morning and miss out on everyday essentials. That is totally unacceptable and shocking, and it should be shocking for every Member of the Assembly. Poverty impacts on every aspect of a child's life. It denies children chances to try new things and develop their interests and talents. For many children, poverty also means growing up too quickly, as they have to deal with their parents' worries and anxieties. As we well know, it is harmful to their future and their childhood. Some have very little, if any, experience of a positive childhood. The consequences of child poverty are clear. It has a severe, sustained and lifelong negative impact on our children's health, their social and emotional well-being, their education and their life chances. A lot of stats have been given today, but I will mention just a few. As Robbie mentioned, children in poverty are more likely to have poorer mental health and are at a higher risk of psychological distress. They are four times more likely to have poor mental health by the age of 11. That should not be happening here today. Children growing up in poverty, on average, do less well in education. The gaps open up very early, even before children start school. As someone who worked for 20-plus years in the community and voluntary sector, I know that the importance of early intervention in our communities cannot be overestimated. The likes of our Sure Start programmes, preschool programmes and family support early intervention programmes are absolutely critical. You may not see the poverty in our communities, physically, but, when you go behind closed doors, you can see the poverty that some of our families are facing. The resilience of our families and children is remarkable. Poverty is much greater in certain households — not all households are the same. For families with dependent children at home, household needs are greater and expenditure rises. Some 36% of lone parents live in poverty, and 93% of those are females. Lone parents tend to work fewer hours due to childcare needs and have a lower hourly wage, reflecting the gender pay gap. As my colleague Colm Gildernew mentioned, 29% of families with someone in the household who has a disability live in poverty, compared to 17% of families who do not have someone with a disability in the home. Between 32% and 46% of children in families with three or more children live in poverty. As mentioned, the two-child limit for universal credit is just not common sense. For the UK Government to do that just does not make sense.
A really important fact is that, as we all know, households with working parents are increasingly moving into poverty. Thousands of families work night and day just to get by, working two or sometimes three jobs, juggling childcare and ending up with hardly anything to show for it.
Finally, I will mention disadvantaged areas and neighbourhoods. We probably all have in our constituencies neighbourhoods such as the 36 neighbourhood renewal areas across the North that require ongoing investment and support. The programme in those areas plays a vital role as the glue that brings all the services and agencies together to work to deliver for children and young people and make life better. I strongly agree that the Minister must prioritise the anti-poverty strategy to ensure its effectiveness and take the learning from the Audit Office report. There is a range —.
Yes. I would just go forward with the range of recommendations that are there, such as increasing family incomes, providing accessible and affordable childcare, addressing the gender pay gap and building social and affordable homes. We know what we need to do —
— we just need to drive forward.
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: 0.03 (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 (0.93).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups.
- 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 | 0.04 | 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 | 0.93 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.62 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.20 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.17 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:00 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.