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

Debate contribution by Mr Paul Givan on 12 October 2026.

MLA: Mr Paul Givan
Party at the time: Democratic Unionist Party
Date: 12 October 2026
Type: Debate contribution (made as a minister)
Business: Private Members' Business
Heading: Education (Holiday Meal Payments) Bill: Further Consideration Stage
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 5786508

Text

I am always happy to give way, and I will continue to give way, even though Mr Baker did not do so. Let me jump straight to Mr Baker's comment. He said, "If you want to get your £7 million, take it off your mobile phone pouches. There it is". Some £200,000 in capital expenditure: that is how much was spent on mobile phone pouches. Yet Mr Baker casually throws out the line, "There's your £7 million". That is who is leading the Alliance Party by the nose through the Lobby to vote in favour of the Bill. It is quite remarkable how the Alliance Party has franchised its responsibility on fiscal matters to Sinn Féin. Where was the same approach when the Assembly voted on car parking charges at hospitals? That was delayed not once but twice because of financial pressures in the Department of Health. It would appear, however, that when it comes to education matters, the Alliance Party is an educational arsonist. It is quite happy to burn down the system and be led by Mr Baker. I expect it from Mr Baker.
I will. On amendment No 6, which is about being fiscally responsible, it is disappointing that the Alliance Party has chosen to act incredibly irresponsibly by outsourcing such decisions to Sinn Féin. Let me speak to some of the other points more substantively. First, on the tidying-up amendments, Sinn Féin has taken the view that it does not need them. I will reflect on that before deciding whether or not to move the amendments, because, if it is quite happy with the legislation, it may be the will of the House that those amendments are not moved. It was the First Legislative Counsel that wanted them; I did not, but I decided that I would bring them forward. If the Member is entirely content with the Bill and Sinn Féin is confident in it, I will reflect on that.
The Member wants to have his cake and eat it when it comes to the approach. Let us look at that in due course. First, the Bill was not drafted as effectively as possible. My amendments, however, provide for its delivery in a more effective manner. The First Legislative Counsel presented amendments with the intent of keeping them in line with the substance of the private Member's Bill, but, ultimately, those amendments are a matter for the House. They do not seek to change any of the fundamentals of the Bill that were agreed at Consideration Stage. Given that the initial draft was so poorly conceived and ineptly drafted, we had little choice but to dismantle and rebuild it, transforming it into something capable of functioning as legislation. Sinn Féin and, I think, the SDLP have made it clear, however, that they do not believe that to be the case and that they are content with the Bill as drafted. That is their position. I do not believe that supporters of the Bill should have any reason to object to the substance of those amendments, but I have heard what Sinn Féin have said: it believes that they are wholly unnecessary. That is, ultimately, the position that it has adopted. Finally, on amendment No 6 and amendment Nos 11 and 12, which I will move, there have been unjustified comments from Members and in the local media about my intentions. I want to deal directly with the suggestion that they are a way of blocking the Bill: they are not. I fully accept that the Bill, despite my opposition to it, has successfully progressed through the Assembly's legislative stages. If it ultimately receives Royal Assent, it will become law, and it must be implemented. That is the will of the Assembly. The purpose of those amendments is not to prevent implementation but to ensure that implementation is responsible, affordable and properly planned.
Amendment No 6 answers the question: when should these payments responsibly begin? It does not remove the Bill, nor does it reduce the value of a single payment; rather, it provides that the first payment date is set in regulations that must be approved by the Assembly. My Department would undertake a review to examine how and when payments can be made.
That is an important issue for society, but it cannot be tackled by making cuts to education services. Mr Mathison singled out TransformED for criticism. Should that area be cut in order to fund these payments? We should be honest about what that means: 90% of all TransformED funding is invested directly in the professional development of teachers and school leaders. It is addressing teacher workload. That is what TransformED is funding. However, the Chairman of the Committee put it out there as expenditure that is not necessary. He should follow up his opposition to amendment No 6 by stating that he wants to cut investment in the professional development of our teachers. That would be the honest thing to do. TransformED is not about bureaucracy. It is not administrative. It is an investment in the people who stand in front of our children every day. For too long, professional development was neglected and underfunded. TransformED is beginning to address that deficit, and if Members wish to cut that funding, they should be honest about the message that it sends. The message to teachers and school leaders would be simple: your development is not a priority, improving teaching is not a priority and raising standards is not a priority. To cut such funding for the teaching workforce now would tell our teachers that, despite all the rhetoric about raising standards and supporting schools, investment in their skills and leadership is dispensable. I do not accept that, and the Assembly should not accept it either. Earlier, I spoke about the enormous pressures on the Education budget and the very significant shortfall between the funding available and the funding required. Difficult decisions have already been taken and will continue to be taken, and we cannot simply close our eyes and wish it were not so. We cannot ignore that reality. I ask Members to consider the alternatives. It is estimated that this will require an additional £22 million in the next financial year, and that will rise to about £32 million by 2033. Where is that funding coming from? Nobody who supports the Bill has said, "It should be taken off x", apart from the Chairman, who wants to deal with TransformED and has called its validity into question. Amendment No 6 is financially responsible because it allows for an examination of the Bill’s costs so that the consequences are understood by Members before they vote for payments to begin. We should identify the funding first, then agree the date, and then the Assembly can decide with its eyes wide open. That is what amendment No 6 and the connected amendments relate to. Again, it is for Members to decide why they believe that money should be taken from already overstretched education services to make a welfare payment. There is absolutely no guarantee that the funding provided will be used for the purposes it has been designed for. Noble as it is to frame it as a holiday hunger payment, there is no way to guarantee that that is how the funding would be used, because the children will not be in school. So it can be presented as a holiday hunger payment, but the funding can be used for whatever purpose the recipients decide to spend it on. In some circumstances, that may well be providing food, but there is no guarantee that that is all that it would be used for. It could be used for other things, and that is why the Chairman of the Committee was right that the whole Executive should pull together. The anti-poverty strategy is the vehicle to do that, yet Sinn Féin, which holds the Finance Ministry, has not contributed one penny towards the anti-poverty strategy, despite requests from my ministerial colleague in the Department for Communities, who has responsibility for that area. That is the dilemma that Members should have. At the end of a previous mandate, the Assembly rushed through legislation that was populist in its appeal, the hospital car parking Bill being one example. We voted for that — I voted for it, too — and we subsequently passed legislation to delay its implementation because of the financial pressures in the Department of Health. Why do Members not believe that the same approach should be applied when it comes to Education? It is important that Members reflect on that when it comes to the relevant amendments, particularly amendment No 6, before deciding on their position. I trust that Members will be able to reflect on that.
Does it still stand? Does it get moved after amendment No 6 was voted down? Is amendment No 11 not connected to amendment No 6?
I think amendment No 11 is consequential to amendment No 6, which was not made.

1,504 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