Debate contribution: Holiday Hunger and the High Cost of School Uniforms

Debate contribution by Mrs Michelle Guy on .

MLA
Mrs Michelle Guy
Party at the time
Alliance 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 4658784

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. As others have done, I thank UUP colleagues for tabling the motion. It has given us an opportunity, so close to Christmas, to talk about an important issue. My colleague explained why we had tabled our amendment and why we will not support the DUP amendment. I echo the Minister's words about the tone of the debate and acknowledge his willingness to take a bit of challenge on the issues. Members have, rightly, vividly articulated the impact of poverty generally on families and the need for an Executive-level resource strategy to deal with that. We should look to the child poverty strategy for lessons on what not to do. Recent Audit Office/Public Accounts Committee findings have highlighted some of the lessons to learn around accountability, monitoring and partnership working. A lot of Members highlighted some of the statistics. Mark Durkan mentioned the 71% of parents in Northern Ireland in the Parentkind survey who were concerned about the overall cost of school uniforms. David Brooks noted figures from the Trussell Trust, and Cara Hunter highlighted the fact that 24% of children in Northern Ireland are in poverty. The removal of the holiday hunger scheme was discussed, and the chronology around it was noted. That scheme ended on 31 March, and a long-term plan was not agreed, so the collapse of the Executive meant that that had to be withdrawn. When the Executive were restored, there was a choice to reinstate that funding, but that choice was not made. Other Members have talked about Ministers facing choices, and that was a choice that the Minister opted not to make. Yesterday, in response to a question that I asked about the childcare strategy, the Minister said that he was about action and not strategies, yet action here is being delayed while we wait for a strategy. We all recognise the major resource constraints on all of our Departments, and I agreed with Timothy Gaston when he remarked that we are not properly funded in Northern Ireland and need to address that. Danny Baker raised the issue of how our community and voluntary sector picks up the slack from some of the government failure. We then looked at some of the actions that have been taken. There has been a change to the eligibility criteria for free school meals and uniform grants, but that was an interim measure and we still wait for the outworking of the full review. We want to see that. We also want to see, as people have noted, the expansion of free school meals and an aspiration to a universal model for that. Gerry Carroll noted the benefits of expanded provision in other areas, such as health. Action is being taken on school uniforms, and we have all welcomed that. The school uniforms consultation was published in 2024, and Cara Hunter noted the urgency of action here and was right to note the multiplier effect on families with more than one child. Cathy Mason highlighted the issue of parents getting into debt paying the cost of sending their child to school and how that is just not acceptable. The new ground that has been broken here on uniforms is to be welcomed, and Pat Sheehan noted the commitment of the previous DUP Minister to bringing this forward. Andy Allen raised the issue of not having an Executive or an Assembly in place and the difference that that could have made to progressing the issues. I think that there is agreement — it was certainly reflected in the consultation — on a statutory cap on school uniform costs and bringing that within statutory guidance. That is welcomed. Removing branded items from PE kits seems to be something that Members reflected across the Chamber that they want to see. We have also asked for additional support for extra uniform costs for children with special educational needs. In summary, I believe that everybody here is on the same page in terms of supporting actions. We want to see action on holiday hunger. We know that it will improve educational attainment and health outcomes and will reflect a measure of early intervention. We want to see funded policy proposals coming forward, and I underline again the need to reform these institutions so that the circumstances that saw withdrawal will not happen again. We cannot go backwards on issues such as poverty because of our political disagreements. I welcome the positive engagement described by the Minister in how we have conducted the debate today, and I agree with him —

OK. Certainly. — on the need to have holistic solutions to this.

773 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: 0.04 (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 (0.95).
  • 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

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 framing0.04No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.02No
Cultural grievance politics0.02No
Dog-whistle messaging0.02No
Controversy escalation0.03No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.95Yes
Overall judgement0.04At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)1.00
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it0.00
Adopts it0.00
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
No identity-related subject0.54
Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits0.35
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues0.04
Education structures, integration and community division0.03
Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups0.02

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.

Challenge this classification