Debate contribution: Free School Meals Provision
Debate contribution by Mr Danny Baker on .
- MLA
- Mr Danny Baker
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 25 November 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Opposition Business
- Heading
- Free School Meals Provision
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5258864
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for proposing this very important motion. Sadly, we have debated this issue, and the relevant statistics, a lot in the near two years since we have been back. There is a lot of support around the House for addressing the issue. However, we have not had action. We cannot have any more missed opportunities. There are Ministers in post. We know that there are constraints because of the Budget, how we are set up and austerity, but Ministers have a budget, and they should be prioritising those who need it the most. We cannot have those missed opportunities. Families are feeling the cost of education. In the past number of weeks, the School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill completed its passage through the Assembly. Sadly, that will not go far enough: it will not bring down the cost of the average post-primary uniform. Far from it. We are going to face that challenge time and time again, rather than working together, listening to the evidence of those who are in the sector and delivering something tangible. I hope that, with a fair wind, my private Member's Bill will be before the House early in the new year. I hope that everyone will support it, because I want to end holiday hunger. The Bill will impact on 90,000 children. While it will not be the panacea for the problems that we have in this place or a silver bullet for tackling child poverty, it will go some way in doing that. It will be one piece of a very wide puzzle. We need Ministers to be in listening mode, particularly the Minister for Communities, His anti-poverty strategy does not go far enough. That has been well documented by those at the coalface. When we come back in the new year, I hope that we see a recommitment and desire to be partners and to work together to deliver for the people in all our communities who are suffering. I wanted to sponsor a private Member's Bill to end holiday hunger because of what I have seen in my volunteer youth work. We run a number of programmes throughout the summer months, when we see a rise in what would be described as, for want of a better term, antisocial behaviour. A lot of our children are crying out for attention and help, and it comes down to poverty. When we run the schemes — we run them in Lagmore, but I know that they are run in Monkstown and across the country — we see what the children face. In the summer, we had an eight-year-old wee lad who was filling his pockets with food to bring home to his sibling, because there was not enough food in the cupboards at home. If that eight-year-old is facing that challenge, how do we expect him to go to school and achieve what other children are achieving. It is not going to happen. We must work together across the Chamber to make sure that we prioritise our budgets. I hope that Members support me when I bring my Bill to the house. It will cost money to deliver on the Bill's provisions, but, with all due respect to the motions that come here for debate — they are important in highlighting issues — we need action. That is what families need and it is what children need to reach their full potential. In the remaining 18 months that we have in this place, I hope that we can deliver legislation that will help people. Then, in the next mandate, we can go even further. That is what we need to do.
612 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).
- 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 | 0.03 | 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 |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.77 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.10 |
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.07 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.06 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:51 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.