Debate contribution: Emergency Food Parcels for Children
Debate contribution by Mrs Ciara Ferguson on .
- MLA
- Mrs Ciara Ferguson
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 27 January 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Emergency Food Parcels for Children
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4759193
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Poverty does not take away just material things; it forces people to make impossible choices between paying housing costs, paying heating and other utility bills and putting food on the table. Poverty chips away at the belief that tomorrow could be better than today. It steals opportunities, potential and dreams. One in five children here lives in poverty. We have a duty to realise, for them all, real hope for the future. As was stated in the Audit report on child poverty in March, there has been little sustained reduction in almost a decade. I thank colleagues for tabling today's motion and for the focus that it rightly gives to people who need and deserve a much fairer social security system. To end poverty, hunger and food insecurity, we must tackle the root causes of poverty: rising costs, including for food and essentials; unjustifiable practices by our big corporations, including "skimpflation"; housing and childcare prices, alongside a low-wage economy; and an inadequate British social security system that has placed a real income squeeze on thousands of people, workers and families. It is no surprise that the Trussell Trust has reported that, in the past five years, usage of emergency food parcels for children has increased by 90%. I have met Karen and Bethany from the Foyle Network Foundation in my constituency. They alerted us to the fact that, since the same period last year — April to September — there has been an 8% increase. In the past year, the Foyle Network Foundation has supported over 9,000 adults and over 4,000 children. If inadequate social security cannot supplement income, pressures will, unsurprisingly, be felt most by those living with a disability, carers, parents and children. We are aware of the national parent survey, which found that two fifths of respondents — parents — were rationing food; 35% were struggling financially; and almost one in five was getting themselves into debt and skipping meals. We cannot overstate the impact of poverty, hunger and hardship on our children, who have to skip school and miss out on extracurricular activities. They carry a weight of worry on their shoulders. Together, with many organisations, I want to be clear that inaction denies thousands of children a chance. We have a duty to end child poverty and the reliance on food banks for current and future generations. On that note, let us look at the barriers that need to be broken. We must tackle existing income inequality and target resources to those most in need. As in the Programme for Government, we must ensure that children, young people and those on low incomes are at the forefront of everything that we do across every Department. We need to agree a plan for the effective implementation of the Children’s Services Co-operation Act 2015. We must push for an "essentials guarantee" to protect people from going without essentials. We must mitigate the cruel two-child limit and strengthen existing welfare mitigations. We need to increase the awareness of discretionary support and lobby for an increase in local housing allowances. We must publish and implement the anti-poverty strategy, which must have a clear direction, monitoring and time-bound targets. That is all about providing a social safety net that helps people to bounce back from setbacks. The motion presents an opportunity to get it right this time. I thank the incredible range of organisations, including the Foyle Network Foundation; the Trussell Trust; the Child Poverty Action Group; the Child Poverty Alliance; Save the Children; Action for Children; the Churches Trust, where I worked for 15 years to deliver food parcels to families; and the wide range of community and voluntary groups and individuals who give their time, commitment, compassion and energy to bring smiles to children and give families so much hope.
632 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 (0.95).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits.
- 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 | 0.95 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.69 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.14 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.07 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.07 |
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.02 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:50 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.