Debate contribution: Education (Holiday Meal Payments) Bill: Second Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Peter Martin on 13 April 2026.

MLA

Mr Peter Martin

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

13 April 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Education (Holiday Meal Payments) Bill: Second Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5483759

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I thank the Member for that contribution. He is exactly right that there was, at that time, a campaign by footballer Marcus Rashford — a Manchester United footballer, I believe. For transparency, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, at the time that that was introduced, I was a special adviser to the Education Minister who brought the measure through. It is probably best that I get that on the record. I do not necessarily disagree with what the Member said. I will make a little progress on the main point of what I am saying. There is no question about anyone in the Chamber's wanting to end child poverty or child hunger or wanting to support our children, regardless of how they were brought into this world and what part of society they inhabit. Surely, every Member wants the best for those children. As this is a legislative Chamber, however, we need to work within the bounds of reality, and part of that reality is budgets. Before I took that intervention, I was simply making the case that, as we move into next year, the Education budget is £600 million short. Before we do anything, the Executive and this Education Minister have to find £600 million to run education in Northern Ireland — that will be £620 million, if we put the Bill through.

I will expand on that point, but I will give way to the Bill sponsor.

I thank the Bill sponsor. I will pick up on that point. He made reference to the spend of £20 million being, I think, 0·6% of the Education budget. I will look across the Chamber to see whether anyone nods. OK, there is a wee bit of nodding from the far side. My understanding is that, when teachers' salaries and special educational needs spending are added together, they make up about 80% or 85% of the budget. I do not know the exact figure and am now looking at the Education Minister to see whether he is nodding, but SEN and salaries together are in the region of 80% to 85%. If we call it the "disposable income" that the Education Minister or any Minister has to do other things, it is quite a small amount. It is not 0·6% —

I will give way in one wee second, Danny. I do not have the maths — I was not planning to speak today, otherwise I would have had my iPhone out to do some maths — but I can say that it is considerably more than 0·6%. I just wanted to make that point, because the statutory functions of the Department are really important. The Minister has to pay teachers — that is a statutory function. SEN is statutory. Certain things have to be done for those children and rightly so. The Department of Education faces really significant spend on salaries and SEN. That leaves considerably smaller margins for other spend, some of which is really important. I will get on to that, but I will give way to the Bill sponsor first.

Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I will not stray outside your advice. I will do my best to answer the Bill sponsor. I do not dispute his comments, and I have learned a new word: "fugazi". I will put that into ChatGPT later and find out what it means. I accept the 0·6% figure or the figure that he quoted for the curriculum of 0·4%. I was simply making the point that, when we look at the Education budget, we see that the amount of what we might call "disposable income" or "extraneous income" that the Minister has to spend on given projects is considerably less than the entirety of the Education budget, which stands at £2·8 billion. You are right: it is about choices. I will finish on that point. I look at this mainly from an economics background. Our job involves lots of economics, because it is about making the best decisions that have the most impact on those whom we are trying to help and that provide value for money. If the money is not ring-fenced by the Executive and if there is a requirement in the Bill, which is the case as it stands, that the Department of Education, regardless of whether, after next May, it is this Minister or another Minister who inhabits the post, has to find that money — the question has been asked before — what do we not do in order to fund the additional payment? Let us say that it is £21 million. How do we fund that from the Education budget? How do we fund that from the 15% of, let us call it, "disposable income" that the Minister has to hand? There are some important things within that, one of which is the extended schools programme. Is this the sort of thing that, you would say, is more important or, framing it in the Bill sponsor's words, is this more of a priority than the extended schools programme?

I will give way.

I will always let the Deputy Chair of the Education Committee in. He is a very important person. Forgive me, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker; I will try to address his points, even if we are starting to stray. The curriculum is really important. That has been referenced by the Member and by the Bill sponsor. The curriculum is crucial. We must have the right curriculum in Northern Ireland so that children can learn really well. I have my views on what that curriculum should look like. My party colleague, who happens to be the Education Minister, has views as well, and you probably have them, but there are lots of experts out there who have agreed on the issue. We want the right curriculum for our kids in Northern Ireland so that they learn really well, and it will cost money to do that. It has been identified as a priority because the curriculum affects every child in Northern Ireland. No one will stand in the Chamber and say, "We do not want the best curriculum that we can have. We want something that is substandard when compared with Finland, Singapore or any other country in the world". We want the best.

You are very indulgent, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I was doing my best to answer Pat's question.

I am not allowed to. You strayed into the curriculum, and you are going to get me told off.

I will give way to my colleague.

I certainly agree with my colleague, and he has made the point well. I do not disagree with the Member opposite. He was absolutely right when he said that kids need to be fed. Not only is that an important thing to do but it helps children to learn. Other Members have referenced that point today, and it is what the free school meal payment is designed to do. Obviously, there is a difference between free school meal payments during term time and what we are discussing today. I have not explored my final point, but it is about what we choose not to do in order to fund the Bill. It is about the opportunity costs. The Chair of the Education Committee strayed into the area, although he focused more on how we would look at an evidence base to see whether the policy was working. If the Finance Minister came to the Education Minister and gave him £20 million and asked him how he would like to spend it, the Education Minister might have some ideas, and every member of the Education Committee, perhaps every Member in the Chamber, might have some ideas as well. However, we would want to make sure that the £20 million was spent in the most effective way to have the greatest impact on the children whom we wanted to help and that it brought the best outcomes for those children. The Chamber is being asked whether holiday hunger welfare payments are the best way to spend £21 million. Will they have the greatest impact on the kids whom we want to help? If we are not sure about that, it leaves us with a problem because that is what we call the "opportunity cost". It is spending in one area, which means that you cannot spend in another area. You cannot spend the money on additional educational psychologists or additional occupational therapists who can go into schools. You cannot spend it on the RAISE programme, the extended schools programme or the other things that the Department does that, we all agree, are incredibly worthwhile. When the money is spent somewhere else, it cannot be spent in the original area, and that, in essence, is my question today. If the Second Stage is agreed and the Bill goes through to Committee Stage, it will be scrutinised.

However, notwithstanding the fact that, for over 10 years, I worked in the area of addressing educational underachievement and trying to find the best ways to support our kids so that they can thrive and succeed in Northern Ireland — issues for which I have a passion — my question is this: if we got £20 million, is this how we would spend it? Is this the answer? The Bill sponsor is nodding. I am not convinced. I do not think that it is not a noble thing to do or that it is not a good thing to do. Members opposite have already highlighted that this came in as an Executive —.

I thank the Member. That is a good question. I will do my best. I thought that I had answered it, but I may not have answered it clearly enough. If we had a near-endless supply of money, I do not doubt that this would be an effectual thing — a good thing — to do. Would it have beneficial effects? There is no doubt in my mind that it would. It is a policy that has been introduced previously. However, that is not the question that I am asking today. The question that a legislative body has to ask around these areas is whether this is the absolute best way to spend the quantum of money that we are talking about. Will it deliver the best outcomes for the people whom that quantum of money is designed to help? Given the way in which the Bill is configured at Second Stage, we are saying that the Minister will have to find £21 million in the Education budget. The question that each individual should be asking themselves is, "Where would we find that money?". What would we not do, which we were doing beforehand — that is what an opportunity cost is — to enable the payments to be made? That is my concern. The extended schools programme is an amazing thing. Some of the additional support that we are seeing with changes around special educational needs — we are talking about resource spend —.

Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I apologise if I have strayed — I am pretty sure that I have. I hope that I have answered the Member for West Belfast's question. I have done my best to do so. I will conclude there. I know that the Member who has brought forward the Bill is heartfelt about its benefits — there is no doubt about that. However, it is not about whether this is a good thing to do or how good or amazing it is. The question that I have, which the Assembly and every Member should have — it is a simple question, because we know the quantum of the cost — is this: is this the best thing that we can do? Will it bring the most effectual change for the children whom we are willing to help? If there is something else that we could use that money for, we should do that. It is as simple as that. I thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, for the indulgence that you have shown to me.

2,026 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:18 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