Debate contribution: Cost-of-living Increase: Impact
Debate contribution by Ms Diana Armstrong on .
- MLA
- Ms Diana Armstrong
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 17 November 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Cost-of-living Increase: Impact
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5245862
Read the official Assembly record
Text
At the outset, I thank the proposer of the motion. I will speak principally on the amendment tabled by my colleagues and me. The rising cost of food in Northern Ireland is one of the most pressing issues facing households here, and it is having a devastating impact on families, especially children. As others have said, in the run-up to Christmas, many families will feel an even greater burden as the cost of Christmas presents and food stacks up. Recent statistics from the Trussell Trust are startling, to say the least. In the last five years, food prices have increased by 37%, while the cost of a frozen turkey has risen by 41%. The reality is that families may not even be able to afford a frozen turkey. The average cost of a Christmas dinner for four people has increased by around 15% as of 2024. As my colleague Andy Allen said, in 2024, the charity found that 520,000 people across Northern Ireland were food-insecure. To put the figures into perspective, that is almost one in four people in Northern Ireland, and, even more worryingly, 130,000 of that number were children. Furthermore, National Energy Action found that, in 2024, 40% of adults were experiencing food poverty and spent more than 10% of their salary on household energy costs. The rising cost of living is pushing more families into poverty and deepening health inequalities. Parents are being forced to choose between heating their home and putting food on the table. Members, we are failing in our duty to protect the most vulnerable. The recent 50% hike in the cost of school meals by the Education Authority adds yet another layer of pressure on already stretched household budgets. Fifty pence might not seem like much, but, when you factor in five school days, alongside multiple children in a family, the cost quickly adds up. For many children, the school dinner is the most substantial meal that they receive in a day and making those meals less affordable risks worsening child health and child poverty. Our party's amendment aptly calls for departmental decisions to
"align with the objectives of the Executive's anti-poverty strategy"
and develop practical measures to reduce poverty. Making important decisions on school meal pricing and increasing the eligibility threshold for free school meals would go a long way in reflecting those commitments.
I thank the Member for her intervention. Yes, that is critical. In many cases, that is the principal meal of the day for a child, and so the nutritional elements in it need to be considered. As I said, making important decisions on school meal prices and increasing the eligibility threshold for school meals are important first steps that would make a real difference for low-income families. Beyond those simple measures, the draft anti-poverty strategy must be strengthened to include ambitious but achievable poverty reduction targets with clear actions to address food and fuel poverty. I urge Members to back the amendment and the motion and send a message to the Education and Communities Ministers and indeed to the Executive that they must help to ensure that no child goes hungry this winter.
525 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 (0.96).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.96 | 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 | 0.68 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.20 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.09 |
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:58 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.