Debate contribution: Child Poverty
Debate contribution by Ms Kellie Armstrong on .
- MLA
- Ms Kellie Armstrong
- 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 4483069
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The cost of poverty impacts the whole of the Executive. It impacts society from birth to grave. The Northern Ireland poverty and income inequality report for 2022-23, which was released on 27 March, confirms that one in four children is living in relative poverty in Northern Ireland. That is something that I am ashamed of. I think that everyone in the House agrees that it is shameful. Poverty and child poverty will only get worse in Northern Ireland unless we take deliberate actions to address the issue. As my colleague Sian Mulholland stated, poverty is multigenerational and cross-community. We need a holistic approach that looks at unemployment, housing, education and all of the areas in which we can make improvements to the cost of living for people in Northern Ireland. We need to break the cycle of poverty by having an anti-poverty strategy. That, of course, must include child poverty actions. There is a direct link between working-age adults who are in poverty and the number of children in Northern Ireland who are in poverty. Action for Children, which, very kindly, met me last week, outlined that over 58% of children in poverty are living in work-constrained families and that 12,000 children in poverty are living in families in which both parents are working. That says something about this place. It is not just about families who are unemployed or families who are on benefits; this is an issue that cuts across all Departments in Northern Ireland. There are multiple barriers, of course, to people getting to work. The Department for the Economy needs to deliver access to skills. The Department of Education needs to deliver early years and childcare. The Department for Infrastructure needs to provide affordable access to services. An anti-poverty strategy is an opportunity to bring all of that together. That may take a little bit of time. We tabled the amendment in the way that we did for a reason, and Mr O'Toole asked why we did not go for the target of September. To be honest, I worked in the community and voluntary sector for a long time before I came to the House, and I know that somebody who does not want to know what you have to say puts a consultation out over the summer months. September is too quick for this. We need to have co-production and co-design in order to bring forward an effective anti-poverty strategy that can be monitored and responded to and that will bring forward actions that will make a change.
I have only five minutes, so I will not give way. I believe in co-production and co-design, and there are a wealth of organisations that can help the Minister and the Executive to bring forward a clear and precise anti-poverty strategy that has measurable targets that we can achieve before the end of the mandate. The Northern Ireland Office confirms that some of the many reasons for child poverty are linked to low wages, worklessness and the rising cost of living. If you talk to any Department, you will find that those issues impact on all of them. The Northern Ireland Audit Office, on page10 of the 'Child Poverty in Northern Ireland' report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, states:
"It is proposed that child poverty will be included within a new, over-arching anti-poverty strategy."
The Minister mentioned that he might bring that forward. We also need to learn from what has happened before, because we need specific actions and interventions, not need a strategy that is going to sit on a shelf somewhere. The cliff edge on mitigations that is coming next year was brought up before today. An anti-poverty strategy that is developed now can, hopefully, bring forward measures that will influence what we will do with mitigations in 2025. Therefore, we need to take forward clear actions to deliver those anti-poverty measures so that we no longer have people falling off that cliff edge. Children do not apply for benefits, but they suffer when their family is unable to access support. We need to have one particular thing — this was suggested to me by the British Association of Social Workers — and that is an audit of poverty. An audit of poverty will look once and for all at Northern Ireland to see exactly what the issues are with poverty across all society. Anything that affects adults, affects children; anything that affects children, affects adults. We need to see what that looks like. The Minister is right: poverty is a blight on society. It limits opportunity. There is an opportunity today for the House to support the amendment. We agree with the original proposers' indications, but we just think that they need to go further. Let us not limit this to just children; let us get rid of poverty in Northern Ireland for everyone.
811 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 (0.96).
- 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 | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.96 | 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 | 0.62 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.17 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.12 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.08 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
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.