Member's statement: Food Insecurity
Member's statement by Ms Kellie Armstrong on .
- MLA
- Ms Kellie Armstrong
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 16 September 2025
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Food Insecurity
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5110895
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Since each of us was elected to the House in 2022, we have seen an unprecedented rise in the number of people in Northern Ireland who are living in hunger. In 2022, 370,000 people were living with food insecurity, and, in the Trussell Trust report that came out today, 'Hunger in the UK 2025', we see that the figure for Northern Ireland has risen to 520,000. On our watch, more people are hungry in Northern Ireland. We are heading in the wrong direction, and it is escalating. That is important to me. It is not just those who are out of work. One in three people referred to food banks in Northern Ireland come from households where someone is in employment. They are bus drivers, factory workers, hospitality staff and nurses. The people who keep our society and economy moving are finding that paid work is no longer enough to protect them from hunger. Work should be a safeguard against poverty, and, too often now, it is not. Of the 520,000 people who are living with food insecurity, 130,000 are children. Some 130,000 children in Northern Ireland today are hungry. The human stories behind the figures are sobering. A nurse who was hurt in a car accident told of how disability had pushed her into hunger. Single-parent families, which make up just 4% of households here, account for 22% of food bank referrals. Three quarters of the disabled people who are referred to food banks cannot afford the essentials. Carers, those from minority communities, LGBTQIA+ people and those who grew up in care are also reported to be disproportionately at risk. It is not a fringe issue; it is structural. When one in five households go hungry, we are looking at a system that is not working. Members, we are all responsible for that system. We know that Westminster has a role to play. Ending the cruel two-child cap would certainly help people; operating the local housing allowance to reflect real rents would certainly help people; and an essentials guarantee in universal credit could help people. However, we cannot just look to London. The Northern Ireland Executive have a central role to play. We cannot hide behind the excuse of reserved powers. We have to be brave enough to return to the drawing board on the draft anti-poverty strategy. We need to be ambitious and set targets. We need to look to our people to stop them being hungry. I am ashamed today to be an elected representative who is sitting over a growing number of people in Northern Ireland who are hungry. That is not what we were elected to do. We were elected to make people's lives better.
450 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 (0.92).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.99).
- 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 | 0.04 | 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 | 0.92 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.99 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| 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 | 0.68 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.19 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.06 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.05 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:12 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.