Debate contribution: Holiday Hunger and the High Cost of School Uniforms
Debate contribution by Mr Peter Martin on .
- MLA
- Mr Peter Martin
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist 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 4658792
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I apologise to you for my phone going off. It was on silent, but my 13-year-old daughter has found a way to override that function. If any Member knows how to un-override it, I would really appreciate knowing that. You can see me afterwards. Thanks for that, Lucy. She will be watching this later. As I listened to the debate this afternoon, I was heartened that everyone in the Chamber essentially wants the same thing: movement on food poverty and uniform grants. We agree that those things need to be addressed. I concur with the Minister and Mrs Guy that the debate has been positive. I suppose that the context of that is how we move on the issues. That is where, perhaps, there have been different views, but I certainly welcome the Minister's commitment, especially to legislating on school uniforms. I will not rehearse all the debate around that. I will quickly summarise some things that were said and make some general comments about our amendment. The Member for West Belfast highlighted Mr Baker's work on holiday hunger, and I acknowledge it too. He is passionate about it, and I thank him for that. My friend the Member for Lagan Valley asked about clear movement on this, and that is something that we all want to see. The Minister and our party want to see that, but, again, it led us into the frame of, essentially, how we pay for this, and that is one of the key things that came out this afternoon. Mr Durkan, who has disappeared, warned of the current and future challenges around parents who are facing poverty. One thing that maybe was not mentioned much was low-income families or the working poor and how we incorporate them into any future measures. Mr Carroll, I think, suggested that Moy Park should pay for holiday hunger.
I hope that Moy Park already pays corporation tax; I am sure it does. However, that is a kind of —
Do I have an extra minute, Mr Deputy Speaker?
No? Oh, no. I would have loved to get into fiscal policy with Mr Carroll, but perhaps we can do so over a cup of coffee at some other time. I have two minutes left. I will summarise the arguments that we have discussed. Every Minister has budget choices. Mrs Guy mentioned that, when the Executive were re-established, the Minister did not reinstate this scheme. However, the Minister did reinstate lots of other things. Two such schemes that are very close to my heart are extended schools and nurture funding, which provide amazing interventions for kids who are really challenged in school. As I look around the Chamber, I see that the majority of Members here have Ministers in the Executive. They all have really tough decisions to make about how they use their funding and how it would be most effectively targeted. I am really glad that this Minister is protecting the most vulnerable kids in our schools. I have cited just two things that he has done to make sure that they are protected. A uniform grant has been talked about this afternoon, and I welcome the Minister's commitment to bring forward legislation in that regard. Finally, in the 40 seconds that I have left, I will address our amendment. We are clear that the best place to do this is in the Executive's anti-poverty strategy. I know that Members do not agree with that. However, isolating holiday hunger from food poverty in a wider sense is disjointed. In fact. some Members did talk about that: the Committee Chair talked about joint working between Departments and connected policy. That is what the anti-poverty strategy will seek to do. It is probably the best place to achieve what everyone in the Chamber wants.
639 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 (0.89).
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.89 | 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 | 0.79 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.11 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.05 |
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.04 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
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.