Debate contribution: Education (Holiday Meal Payments) Bill: Further Consideration Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Danny Baker on 12 October 2026.

MLA: Mr Danny Baker
Party at the time: Sinn Féin
Date: 12 October 2026
Type: Debate contribution
Business: Private Members' Business
Heading: Education (Holiday Meal Payments) Bill: Further Consideration Stage
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 5786460

Text

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
I thank those Members who have contributed to the debate and those who have supported the legislation throughout. I thank the Bill Office for its professional support and guidance throughout. That is why I am going to reject all the amendments, because I have real faith and trust in the legislation as it now stands. I said at the end of Second Stage that it was no longer my Bill but that of the House. I have been honest and not tried to hoodwink anyone. I have been open about the Bill's policy intent and said that I would work with everybody, which I have done through the subsequent legislative stages. I welcome the fact that the Minister is here today. It was very disrespectful that he did not bother to come to the Chamber for Consideration Stage. It would have been particularly beneficial for amendment No 1 — proposed new clause 1 — to have been tabled at that stage, because that would have allowed us time to scrutinise it in order to produce the best legislation that we could, even though I believe that we got there in the end anyway. I take on board the Chair's points, and I understand his position. What has come from the Minister and the Department has been disappointing, however. When the amendments landed at the very last second last Wednesday, I considered what we could possibly do to scrutinise them in order to have the best legislation possible, but that would have meant my delaying Further Consideration Stage. We heard earlier from the Minister himself that he has already factored in the possibility of making Christmas payments. To me, that is amazing. It would be great if, with a fair wind, we could get payments to people this Christmas. Even if I had wanted to delay Further Consideration Stage and return to Committee, even to hear from departmental officials on the direction of travel that we might go in, we do not have any officials coming to the Committee, because the Minister has thrown his toys out of the pram. That is where we are today. I will not support any of the amendments, and I am particularly concerned about amendment No 6. We all know what that is: a Minister putting a dead hand on a piece of draft legislation. The DUP is not even hiding it — it does not support the principle — and we heard Peter say that, even if he had the money, he would not spend it on this.
No.
It was said. If there was an abundance of money, you would not do it. You would think of other ways of not doing it. You call it welfare, but you ignore the evidence.
No, I will not. No.
I will tell you why I will not take interventions from that side of the House. When the Minister did not bother turning up to Consideration Stage, he showed absolute disregard for the draft legislation, for the Committee and for the work that has been put in. In fact, there was a lack of engagement from DUP MLAs throughout the process. That is why. I will not get into another debate on the principle of the Bill, because that is all that you have done. You will do everything that you can not to spend the money on those who need it most. You ignore the evidence. You ignore the fact that there are children who return to school malnourished after the holidays, particularly in the summer, and that those children are four and a half months behind their peers who are not on free school meals. You ignore the fact that children on free school meals are five times more likely to leave school without five GCSEs at grades A to C. The link between poverty and educational underachievement is there for all to see, but you keep ignoring it. I will never be able to convince the DUP otherwise —
I will not take it. I will not even try to convince you any more.
Yes.
Yes, 100%, because that is what it comes back to. On amendment No 6, we are talking about budgetary pressures, but it is OK for the Minister to spend 30 grand, 43 grand, 19 grand, 12 grand, 16 grand or 27 grand on English consultants on the curriculum; money on a football pitch that no one asked for; £800,000 on an e-safety app that no one uses; £83 per mile on private taxi companies; or money on mobile phone pouches. Do you want to find £7 million for this? There you go: mobile phone pouches. Stop telling schools that they can spend tens of thousands of pounds from their budgets on it. That is how you do it. Let us go to TransformED. Your senior officials say that it takes up 0·04% of the budget, like it is no big deal; you then come here and say, "I have no money; there is a big deficit". It is about prioritising. That is what I want to do. I want to prioritise the children who are most in need. I want to give them the best chance in life; they cannot take it if they are hungry. With amendment No 6, you are trying to kill that. I will not let you do it. The Members who support the Bill will not let you do it, which is brilliant. Amendment No 6 is a Henry VIII power. I had a wee giggle at that because I have listened to DUP contributions to debates on many private Members' Bills and other draft legislation: you are critical of Henry VIII powers, yet you want them for this. On the surface, some of the other amendments that have been tabled could be OK, but I have not had time to scrutinise them. That is why I will vote against them all. I trust the work that the Committee did with the Bill Office. The Bill, as it stands, would make good legislation. I like the Committee Chairman's amendment better than amendment No 1. That is another reason, Michelle, why I do not really want amendment No 1: I like amendment No 3 better than the Minister's amendment that introduces the phrase "equal to". There are two reasons: I have no trust; and Nick's amendment is better. I will finish by speaking briefly about where the Ulster Unionist Party is on this. Jon, I do not have a clue what you said: I could not follow it. I will say that one of the first amendments that the Ulster Unionist Party tabled was to reinstate these payments exactly as they were. It was proposed by your Health Minister, Robbie Butler, and he was so passionate about it. I can see why your former leader says that you are a man of style and no substance. When I tried to educate you on that out in the Great Hall, you were more interested in whether I had got a letter about being on Garvaghy Road than in 90,000 children who need support. That is the difference between me and you, sir.
That is the difference. That is me finished.

1,212 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Awaiting analysis

This record has not been analysed yet. It is not counted in any total until it has been assessed.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification