Debate contribution: Emergency Food Parcels for Children
Debate contribution by Mr Mark Durkan on .
- MLA
- Mr Mark Durkan
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 27 January 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Emergency Food Parcels for Children
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4758849
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I am disappointed that we are still here debating the same issue of food insecurity and poverty. In September, Executive parties stood in the Chamber lamenting rising child poverty. Last year, the same parties vowed to tackle holiday hunger and reduce dependency on food banks. What has been done and what has changed? If a Government are to be judged on how they treat their most vulnerable citizens, surely the fact that one in five children lives in relative poverty — rising to one in four in areas of high deprivation — is a damning indictment of their leadership. Every Member who has spoken has referred to statistical increases in just about every area that we do not want to see them in. Those figures are even more striking in areas of high deprivation and in communities, like my constituency, where families feel the pain of political failure the most. Behind those figures are families — starving and freezing families. How is that being allowed to happen? Poverty is a reality for far too many families and it is exacerbated here because the leadership parties have, in the not-too-distant past, put short-term political popularity over doing what is right for the people whom they purport to represent. As of 2023, 109,000 children were deprived of the basic necessities. To those who have held these institutions to ransom and prevented action for five out of the past eight years, you should be ashamed of the Dickensian conditions that your actions have compounded. Understanding why child poverty exists here is not a difficult equation. The child poverty strategy ended in 2022 in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis and an economy reeling in a post-pandemic landscape. The strategy was a bit of an empty vessel. It made a lot of noise but did not hold a wild pile of substance. There were no clear targets, no prevention or early intervention and no understanding or appreciation of cross-cutting responsibilities. We have been denied an anti-poverty strategy for two decades. The previous Communities Minister gave assurances that it would be implemented within the previous mandate. I appreciate that we have been told that it is now ready to go. I fear that it might be coming just a bit late in the day, but better late than never. Where is the sense of urgency? The lackadaisical approach to date is an insult. I know that we are talking about child poverty here today, but when I talk about a lack of urgency, I want to draw attention to the lack of urgency around older people and fuel poverty. It has just been revealed to me today in an answer from the Minister that, to date, not one penny of the much-heralded £100 winter fuel support payment has been paid out. If that does not exemplify a lack of urgency, I do not know what does. The two-child policy, as others have said, is inflicted on tens of thousands of households here, and we will see that bite more acutely as more people move to universal credit. Of claimants here, 42% are either behind on bills and credit payments or find it a constant struggle to keep up. Yet, the Minister has no plans to address the debt-inducing five-week wait for universal credit. The proposer of the motion, quite rightly, identified the role that that is actually playing in driving people towards unscrupulous, illegal and immoral moneylenders. Families are no longer just about managing. Under callous Tory policy, compounded by Executive absence and apathy, they are working on the breadline. It will take a long time and a real commitment to undo that damage. Certainly, the Labour Party has not got off to a good start in doing so. It is important that, as an Assembly, we look at what we can do here to protect our citizens and at what we can do to influence and improve policy in that other place and how it impacts on our most vulnerable citizens. My party will support the motion and, indeed, the amendment. We will support any initiatives that come from the Minister and the Executive to tackle the rising scourge of poverty across our communities.
700 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: 0.07 (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 (0.91).
- 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
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.05 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.04 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.08 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.91 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.07 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.99 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.01 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.64 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.23 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.12 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:46 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.