Debate contribution: Holiday Hunger and the High Cost of School Uniforms
Debate contribution by Mr Pat Sheehan on .
- MLA
- Mr Pat Sheehan
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 12 November 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Holiday Hunger and the High Cost of School Uniforms
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4658724
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I am grateful for the opportunity to, once again, talk about holiday hunger and the exorbitant cost of school uniforms. Indeed, it is only a little over six months since my party colleagues and I brought a similar motion to the Chamber to highlight the serious pressures facing so many families here. It is disappointing and frustrating that we come to debate those issues yet again with no meaningful solutions yet in place. It was the Minister's predecessor, Michelle McIlveen, who promised action on soaring uniform costs back in 2021. Over three years later, tens of thousands of families still wait for support. The research speaks for itself. The Irish League of Credit Unions investigated the issue and found that families forked out, on average, £918 for primary-school uniforms and £1,086 for secondary-school uniforms. That is an increase of £81 for parents of primary-school children and £97 for parents of secondary-school children, when compared with the 2023 research. The situation puts people into debt and forces them to go without other essentials, but it is entirely avoidable, if we make the right interventions now. It also creates a financial barrier to some young people attending particular schools, because, when parents see the cost of the uniform for a school and know that they cannot afford it, they do not even think about sending their child there. We need to legislate to drive down costs by insisting that schools have competitive tendering processes. We also need to remove the requirement for expensive branded items, especially PE gear. The Minister has the tools at his disposal to do that. He needs to get a move on and support families now. On the issue of free school meals, I commend my colleague Danny Baker. Danny has been a champion on the issue and, in the absence of a plan or any action from the Minister, is bringing forward a private Member's Bill (PMB) to ensure that children and families are supported during school holidays. If people are serious about ending holiday hunger, they should take the opportunity to feed back in the consultation on that PMB and support it when it comes to the Chamber. The issue is vital. The Department of Education's vision is for every child and young person to be happy, learning and succeeding. Can anyone explain to me how a child can be happy, learning and succeeding if they cannot get proper, nutritional meals during the school holidays? Holiday hunger affects around 100,000 children and young people. That is tens of thousands of families who face that cliff edge when each term ends.
The links between educational underachievement and deprivation are well known, and the evidence suggests that some children who return to school can often be intellectually or developmentally weeks or months behind classmates who have access to a more wholesome diet during the school holidays. Members will cite the financial situation that the Executive find themselves in as a reason not to support ending holiday hunger or not to provide support towards uniform costs, but what is the cost of not making an intervention? The reality is that society will pay for this situation in the long run, so let us intervene early. The evidence for early intervention is overwhelming. Get the families and their children the support that they need. We must strive to ensure that every single child and young person gets the opportunities to succeed and reach their full potential.
576 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 | 0.77 |
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.11 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.06 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.06 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:33 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.