Debate contribution: Universal, Affordable Child-centred Childcare

Debate contribution by Mr Peter Martin on .

MLA
Mr Peter Martin
Party at the time
Democratic Unionist Party
Date
18 November 2024
Type
Debate contribution
Business
Opposition Business
Heading
Universal, Affordable Child-centred Childcare
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 4656543

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I thank the Members opposite for tabling this important motion. I do not doubt their sincerity in proposing it. Our amendment reflects the original motion but recognises the significant progress that has been made on the issue since the establishment of the Executive earlier this year. The implementation of the Executive early learning and childcare strategy has been a priority, and work on it is progressing. That work, however, will be informed by emerging survey data and further stakeholder engagement. I will touch on something that the Member for Foyle mentioned. She called for action, effectively, and said that she wanted something, but she did not want the English model. That plays into our debate on the issue, and, at this point, I simply remind Members that we want the right strategy, not a rushed strategy. I will briefly touch on what has been delivered recently. The Northern Ireland childcare subsidy, which the Member referenced, is easing financial pressures on working households by providing a 15% subsidy towards parents' bills that is paid directly to providers, with parents still being able to claim 20% tax-free childcare on the remaining bill.

Just eight weeks ago, over 11,000 parents were benefiting from the scheme, including 700 in my constituency.

The standardisation of the preschool education programme was called for in the 'A Fair Start' report. Some £5 million has already been allocated, and an additional 2,200 full-time places are expected by September 2025 via 107 preschool settings. It should be noted by Members that this is the most significant expansion of early years education in Northern Ireland for decades. It will have a positive impact on thousands of children every year and, as such, the hard work of the Education Minister and his Department should be warmly welcomed. I will quickly mention three other schemes that are in the package we are discussing today. Sure Start, for example, has an additional £3·1 million, and that has allowed a 10% uplift in the programme. In fact, this year, it has brought 22 additional disadvantaged areas in Northern Ireland into the programme on a permanent basis. An additional £473,000 has been added to the Pathway funding. That intervention now supports over 10,000 children who are at risk of educational underachievement, and the total funding stream sits at nearly £4·5 million. We know that many preschool education settings are facing challenges as they support children who are undergoing special needs assessment. Some £1·6 million has been allocated to support children with emerging SEN in the early years. However, more widely, we must be cognisant of the pitfalls of simply demanding fast action on the issue, not least because we need to be aware that the policy driver is the correct one and not just a fast one.

I will.

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I concur with my colleague. I referenced the evidence-driven model earlier, and it is incredibly important. I will touch on it shortly in my statement. I also ask the proposer of the motion to accept that capital and resource need to be in place, in addition to funding, to facilitate the positive transition that we are all looking to achieve. We have already clearly indicated in our amendment that building the evidence base for the most appropriate model for Northern Ireland is crucial. On the 50% figure my colleague referenced, I believe the figure came from the Opposition's 'A Plan for Change' document and the subsequent 'A Childcare Guarantee' document. I read both, but it was not clear to me whether the 50% figure was evidence-based, sectorally driven or just an arbitrary figure that Opposition Members had landed on, and perhaps they can mention that in their closing statements. However, in closing, I ask Members to pragmatically accept that significant progress has been made on:

"affordable and child-centred childcare",

as referenced in the motion, since the re-establishment of the Assembly. The progress is remarkable, given the Education Minister's constrained budget. The growth will continue if the Executive continue to fund the strategy. Finally, achieving affordable childcare, with a tailored model for Northern Ireland, is probably something that we all want. We want the best model. It cannot be rushed. It must be tailored to this place. Our amendment seeks to achieve that, and, as such, I ask Members to support it.

722 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

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 (0.94).
  • 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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.03No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.02No
Cultural grievance politics0.01No
Dog-whistle messaging0.05No
Controversy escalation0.04No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.94Yes
Overall judgement0.03At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)0.99
Reports or questions it0.01
Criticises or condemns it0.00
Adopts it0.00
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
No identity-related subject0.67
Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits0.25
Education structures, integration and community division0.05
Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups0.02
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues0.01

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:31 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.

Challenge this classification