Debate contribution: Holiday Hunger and the High Cost of School Uniforms
Debate contribution by Ms Cara Hunter on .
- MLA
- Ms Cara Hunter
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- 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 4658728
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion. I will start with a number of harrowing statistics. Around 24% of children in Northern Ireland live in poverty, which is higher than in all other places across these islands. Over 100,000 children in the North qualify for free school meals. That is around 30%, which showcases the high level of need that is in this area. A 2023 survey found that, on average, primary-school uniforms cost around £173 and secondary-school uniforms cost around £378. That causes undoubted financial strain on families across the North, with 37% of parents in Northern Ireland going into debt to cover simple aspects of school expenses like uniforms, shoes and other necessary supplies. Yes, there are aspects of government assistance like uniform support grants, which we welcome, but they often do not go far enough and cover only the basics, meaning that parents still feel a level of distress, particularly if they have multiple children. Families work every hour that God sends but really struggle to cover the costs of electricity, uniforms, new school shoes and putting food on the table. Many feel that they have been suffocated and left without adequate support from the Government. In order to discuss holiday hunger and the cost of uniforms, I need to touch on the importance of the concern that there is about the lack of Executive legislation coming out of this Building. Since the restoration of Stormont in February, the majority of Assembly business has not been focused on the legislation that is desperately needed. This week, this important motion was tabled by colleagues across the House. It is the second time that the issues in the motion have been debated. That reflects the severity of the need for change through legislation. It also echoes the real sincerity across the Chamber on the issue and the urgent need to tackle child poverty. We see the struggle that our constituents face each and every day, particularly on that issue. We must see legislation brought in line with the asks of the motion. Less than half of the Executive's legislative programme for 2024 has been taken forward, and, coming up to Christmas, we have only a few sittings left. Sadly, child poverty continues to be a huge part of our society. Children endure food poverty and poor mental health and come from households and areas that are greatly deprived. We need tangible legislation to meet the needs of our children and young people, with timelines and targets to ensure that the best possible outcomes are available to them. Transparency about education is vital. We are no strangers to challenges, and we know the pressures that are on the Department and its budget, but I am deeply disappointed that we have not had the chance to catch up with the Minister at a Committee level. I have talked before about how that can open us up to things like cross-party collaboration that allow us to work collectively with the Minister and his Department. We do not need a strained relationship; we need to come together. Ultimately, that lack of communication is to the detriment of creating the best possible legislation from the Education Department. I echo the Chair of the Education Committee's comments, and we will not support the DUP amendment. We do not feel that there has been adequate support for children or their families who endure poverty, and we will support the Alliance amendment.
577 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: 0.05 (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 (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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.94 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | 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 | 0.72 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.11 |
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.07 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.06 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.02 |
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.