Debate contribution: Committee for Communities: Report on Engagement with Local Government on the Draft Anti-poverty Strategy

Debate contribution by Mr Robbie Butler on .

MLA
Mr Robbie Butler
Party at the time
Ulster Unionist Party
Date
26 May 2026
Type
Debate contribution
Business
Committee Business
Heading
Committee for Communities: Report on Engagement with Local Government on the Draft Anti-poverty Strategy
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 5582549

Read the official Assembly record

Text

The Ulster Unionist Party welcomes the report and the engagement that led to it that was carried out by the Communities Committee with councils from across Northern Ireland. What comes through clearly from the evidence is that councils already deal with the realities of poverty every day. We know that, we see it, and we hear it from our council colleagues throughout Northern Ireland. As we have heard, poverty is not a nuanced issue. It has been discussed in reports, but it is more than statistics. In reality, it is families struggling with the price of food, and we know about the one-way trajectory of the price of food at the moment, given the geopolitics in the Strait of Hormuz. The price of fuel and oil is an issue that we face almost annually because of our dependence on oil, and there are further escalating housing costs. That predominantly sits with older people, single-parent families and individuals with disabilities who cannot work. Crucially, it really incapacitates parents, who find themselves each summer worrying about how they will get their kids back to school and how they will feed them over the summer. We have had to battle for summer activities for special schools here. The list goes on. The report is also right to highlight the growing issue of the working poor. Many people experiencing poverty are already in employment but do not have a high enough wage to meet their mounting bills. The reality is that poverty can affect people in a wide range of circumstances. There are people who work hard every day but still struggle to make ends meet. There are others who are not in work due to ill health or disability or, crucially, due to caring responsibilities. We must never overlook the role of our carers, particularly young carers. It is really important that we support them. Difficult life circumstances and personal pressures can place an enormous burden on some individuals and families. That is important, because, too often, commentary can become overly simplistic and political points can be made when, in reality, as the previous debate on baby loss certificates highlighted, poverty pervades every community in Northern Ireland. It is imperative that those in positions of responsibility be careful in their approach to poverty and hardship and in the language that they use. The issues affect real people, real families and, often, sensitive personal circumstances. Public debate should seek to reduce division and stigma, rather than contribute to it. Good anti-poverty policy should not be about drawing lines between people or suggesting that some forms of hardship matter more than others; it should be about recognising need, reducing poverty and ensuring that people are treated with dignity and supported during difficult periods in their life. One of the strongest themes running through the report is that too much of the current response remains focused on crisis management and firefighting, rather than prevention and tackling root causes. I know that the Minister has stated that tackling those root causes is a priority for him and the Department. We cannot continue waiting until people reach crisis point. The failure to tackle poverty properly does not result in the problem disappearing; it simply creates greater pressures elsewhere, particularly in our health and social care system. That is a really important point, because there is a direct link between poverty and poor physical health, poor mental health outcomes, social isolation and educational attainment. Fuel poverty, poor housing and financial stress all contribute to worsening outcomes and increase pressure on individual families and already stretched public services. That is why we need an invest-to-save approach that is focused on prevention and early intervention. Investment in housing, childcare, employability, transport and poverty measures should not simply be viewed as expenditure or expensive. It was good to see in the earlier debate about the allocation of moneys that £16 million is being allocated to employability. Preventative investment will improve lives while helping to reduce long-term pressures elsewhere in the system. The debate on holiday hunger reflects that clearly. Whether people view the legislation as workable or not, the issue is there, and it is a valid debate in which we will engage. The report is also right to call for a genuinely joined-up approach across government. Poverty does not fit neatly into one Department and certainly not the Department for Communities on its own. Housing, health, education, childcare, transport and the economy — to mention a few of the issues — are all interconnected policy needs. We really need to accept that reality. Things need to change. Ultimately, the report should be utilised to shape a more joined-up, preventative and person-centred anti-poverty strategy that is focused on —

— tackling hardship.

790 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

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: 0.04 (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 (0.87).
  • 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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.03No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.02No
Cultural grievance politics0.01No
Dog-whistle messaging0.02No
Controversy escalation0.02No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.95Yes
Overall judgement0.04At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)0.87
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it0.13
Adopts it0.00
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits0.88
Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups0.06
No identity-related subject0.04
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues0.02
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:40 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.

Challenge this classification