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

Debate contribution by Mr Paul Givan on 13 April 2026.

MLA

Mr Paul Givan

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

13 April 2026

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Education (Holiday Meal Payments) Bill: Second Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5483928

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the Second Stage debate on the Bill and perhaps introduce some reality and context. While Mr Baker and I have not seen eye to eye on every issue in the Chamber, I do not for one moment question his sincerity in introducing this private Member's Bill. I have been a Member of the Assembly for 16 years. I have watched many come and go. The overwhelming majority never introduce a private Member's Bill, seek to change the law or even bring forward an amendment to legislation. They often just table and speak to non-binding motions, knowing that there is no reality to them. Mr Baker is not one of them, because he has brought a private Member's Bill. That is not an easy thing to do, given the work that is involved in taking forward a Bill. He has engaged; he has consulted; he has researched. As he goes through the process — I have no doubt that the Bill will move to the next stage — he will have a huge amount of work to do. It is not an easy thing for any MLA to do. I disagree on the substance as to, "Is this the most effective way to do it?", and I will go through that. As Minister, I know that, when you try to bring forward legislation, people will be critical of it. At times, I maybe take that criticism too personally. Mr Baker will feel the same when his Bill is being criticised. You sometimes get into the habit of being defensive about what you are doing. It feels as though it is a personal attack, and you respond in kind. There is a skill set that he will develop. I am still trying to develop it some 16 years later. I have not mastered it, and it is something that he will need to work on. I therefore hope that he does not take what I will say in my substantive response as a personal criticism, because it is not. I understand the sincerity with which he has brought forward the Bill. I suspect that all Members of the House agree that no child in Northern Ireland should go hungry during term time or the school holidays — not at any time of the year. However, we are debating not a motion but legislation, which requires detailed scrutiny. The Bill, as a one-off measure that is taken free from the knock-on implications, is not an answer to that challenge. A private Member's Bill is not how such an issue should be addressed. If it is the desire of the Executive to address the issue — Mr Burrows made this point — why is there not an Executive scheme being delivered by the Executive? If it was the desire of the Executive to address the issue, it would be a core aspect of the Programme for Government. You would then make provision for it in the Budget, and you would legislate for it in a way that reflects that it is a societal welfare measure and not one for the Department of Education. It was not one of the priorities contained in the Programme for Government. Special educational needs and childcare are priorities, as is addressing hospital waiting lists, and budget allocations are flowing as a result. The Programme for Government was agreed by the Executive, which is led by Sinn Féin's First Minister, with the DUP in it. If, as Mr Sheehan says, this is the single most important issue, why did Sinn Féin not make it a Programme for Government priority? I was not involved in a single discussion around the Executive table about holiday hunger being a Programme for Government requirement to which funding should be allocated. If the issue was to be addressed comprehensively and coherently across all Departments, that is how it would have been taken forward. That is why a private Member's Bill, as well intentioned as it is, is not the best way to address the issue. Despite the Bill's worthy aspirations, there are many reasons to oppose its passage through the Assembly. I will begin with a fundamental issue: the cost of the Bill, which will place an additional burden on my Department's already deficient budget, and the consequential negative impact that such a burden would have on the education of our children. As I have said in the Chamber on many occasions, my Department faces an acute budget shortfall. The Finance Minister's draft three-year Budget would create a shortfall of around £600 million in 2026-27, and that increases to over £1 billion in 2028-29. The Sinn Féin Member for South Down said that Sinn Féin was "stepping up", but Sinn Féin is starving me of the funding that I need for Education. We cannot, on the one hand, come in here, grandstand, get the social media clip and roll it out with the line that Sinn Féin has stepped up when, in reality, it is starving my Department of funding in the Executive's budgetary allocation. The level of cuts required is simply not achievable without doing profound damage to the education provision that children and young people rely on each day. We have already had to make very difficult decisions in my Department's draft five-year budget strategy, which includes even more unpalatable cuts in expenditure. The Sinn Féin Member for South Down says that the DUP is holding back a multi-year Budget, but she does not say that the multi-year Budget creates a deficit of over £1 billion in Education. Are people saying that we should vote for that? Are people saying that the Executive should pass a Budget that would create a £1 billion deficit in Education? What would the devastation look like? It is not good enough for Sinn Féin to come in here and say that it is stepping up when the reality of its approach in the Executive is very different. Against that backdrop, the Bill would impose a new and recurring statutory duty on my Department and the Education Authority to make holiday meal payments without there being any funding mechanism. The Bill would have an estimated cost of £20·8 million in this financial year. That is not a one-off cost; it is a recurring annual cost that would rise further. My officials have estimated that it would cost £31·5 million a year by 2033-34. Without additional ring-fenced funding —.

I will give way to Mr Baker.

Of course the Member raises that question. I do not want to get into a situation in which it is said to me, "The Assembly's researchers have all said that that is what it would cost, and you are now casting aspersions on their professional judgement". I am saying to you that that is what my officials have said, and I will not go through that. However, I will give you the basis on which we reached our conclusion on the costs associated with the Bill, and I will tell you how that process was informed. I will address that point, and I am happy to be questioned on the substance of that. Unless additional ring-fenced funding is provided to the Executive, the costs will have to be met entirely from my Department's existing budget. That is why I asked Members this question: will you put your hands up for an amendment that takes funding from other Departments to pay for the Bill's provisions?

Will you walk through the Yes Lobby to support an amendment that states that this is ring-fenced, and thus protected, funding before funding is allocated to any other Department? That could be the Department of Justice, the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs or the Department for Infrastructure. Will we be saying, as an Assembly, that this is the most important priority, after which we will allocate funding to the rest of the Departments? We did not get an answer when that question was posed. Members cannot simply keep passing legislation and then say, "It's up to the Department of Education to figure out how it's going to fund this". That is not credible. The public do not buy that. They expect our propositions to be realistic. To be clear, if Members vote for the Bill, they are potentially removing £21 million from core education provision in this current year. To put that in context, that is over half the present Youth Service budget, and that £21 million will rise to almost £32 million by 2033-34, resulting in real and damaging cuts being made to priorities that will harm the education of our children. That is not a treat. Rather, it is a harm that will be caused. I do not understand how any Member could consider that to be a good outcome. I say directly to those Members who do that it would then be difficult for them to stand up in the Chamber and object to any cuts that would inevitably result. Make no mistake that, by voting for the Bill, in the absence of additional funding for the Department of Education budget, Members are in essence voting to cut education spending. We have been here before — I referenced it — with hospital parking charges. I was in the Assembly and voted for the Bill that Sinn Féin brought through the House just before the election. I put my hand up for it, but I wish that I had not. It was a mistake that I did. That is why we deferred commencing that legislation once and will do so a second time. The Health Minister rightly came forward and said, "Here are the cuts that will be made in my Department if we implement it".

The decision has been taken. All parties on the Executive supported the legislation to defer the commencement of the 2022 Act, the costs from which do not come close to the financial implications of this Bill. Sorry, Mr Sheehan. I will give way.

I can address the point about making sure that funding for any scheme to tackle poverty goes towards food, but we are discussing the principle. We are talking about passing a private Member's Bill that has financial implications. It is not legislation that is free from financial resources needing to be allocated to it. In the same way, the private Member's Bill that we passed in the final months of the previous mandate has not been commenced because of the costs associated with it. In my view, private Members' Bills are not best placed to deal with tens of millions of pounds of public funding. They are not best placed to ensure that funding is discharged in the most effective way. As I said, we have not been able to commence another private Member's Bill that the Assembly passed. When it comes to funding this Bill, there are real implications for the Department of Education. Members therefore cannot have it both ways. They cannot vote for the Bill and then express any surprise about the resulting cuts to education provision. Alternatively, if we were to maintain the present level of spending on free school meals, we would have to reduce the number of children who would be entitled to benefit from that scheme. If the Bill were to be funded from the centre, Members should be honest enough to identify where cuts would then be made. If they believe that funding the Bill is justified, they should perhaps propose an increase in the regional rate in order to fund it. They should say to the public, "It's the right thing to do, so we're going to put up your rates to pay for it". Members are not saying that, however. I am not saying that we should put up our rates. In fact, we are sending letters to the Treasury and the Prime Minister demanding cuts in order to allow us to address the cost-of-living crisis with which we are dealing. We also want to see more spent on public services. When making propositions, we therefore need to be honest with the public about their implications. The Bill's explanatory and financial memorandum states that the purpose of the scheme is to "alleviate food poverty". I have said that that is noble, and it is something that we should all support and want to see addressed, as it is a direct financial payment to low-income families to cover food costs when children are on school holidays.

At the risk of pointing out the obvious, the Bill does not inevitably alleviate food poverty any more than it alleviates fuel poverty. It provides a cash payment to parents, not food for children. Parents will, understandably, spend the money on whatever is the greatest priority in the family budget at any given time. I think that it was the Alliance Member for Lagan Valley who indicated that it would potentially help ease the financial burden around childcare costs, heating costs and essentials. The Member is right; I am not disagreeing with the Member. Of course any funding that is provided will be able to offset costs associated with other financial burdens that families are dealing with. Therefore, we need to be clear that this will not inevitably deal with holiday hunger and food provision, because there is no mechanism to ensure that that is how the payment will be utilised. We can hope that it will be utilised for that purpose, but we cannot guarantee it. Therefore, I believe that, de facto, this is a social welfare intervention. We can debate the rights or wrongs associated with that, and many would want to introduce that. I accept that children being adequately fed during the school holidays will help them when they return to school, but that does not make the payment itself an educational intervention any more than a housing benefit becomes an educational intervention because children learn better when they have a stable and good home. The issues experienced by some low-income families during school holidays are essentially the same issues that they face at any other time: they have insufficient income to meet their needs. That is not a problem that the education system is designed or resourced to address. Education can and does play a vital role in supporting disadvantaged pupils during the school day, but the Education budget is not a welfare fund. The Member for East Londonderry, who spoke just before me, made the connection about how this can be an education issue. The basis upon which she makes that argument is not beyond credibility, but education also has a role in reducing offending in the criminal justice system, so should I take over the Department of Justice? Education has responsibilities that go into so many other departmental areas. Should we emasculate and bring them all into the Department of Education?

I absolutely have a role in addressing these issues, but to vote in favour of the Bill because there is a connection and say that that means that the responsibility for dealing with it and resourcing it would come out of only the Department of Education's resources is not credible. I will give way to the Member.

I say to the Member and to other Members that we have an anti-poverty strategy. Where is the funding for that strategy? Why is there not an amendment or legislation to say, "Fund the anti-poverty strategy"? It has not been given the resources by the Executive. I am part of the Executive, and so are other Members in the Assembly. I know that the Member is not part of the Executive, but there is an anti-poverty strategy. I engaged with the Minister for Communities, and, as part of that engagement, I said to the Minister, "Education has a role in tackling hunger. Is there a way that we could open up schools and canteens outside school term time? Could we utilise our school estate to make sure that we are part of the solution and that we can provide access to those facilities outside school term time? Is there a way for other community organisations to assist? We can fund those community organisations to ensure that any investment —". The question was posed by the Member from my party Mr Martin: if we had £20 million and wanted to make it effective for dealing with hunger, is this the way that we would do it? I would say that it is not, but could you use £20 million a year, if you had it, to open up schools and have canteens available for children to come in and make sure that it is being used for the purposes of feeding them? Could you fund community organisations and council facilities outside term time to make sure that that funding actually fulfils the purpose for which it is intended? I fed in all of that, as Minister, to say that Education is part of the solution. By no means am I trying to absolve myself of any responsibility or trying not to provide answers to this. I have, and I have fed them in officially from my Department to the Department for Communities and provided suggestions on how we can assist in tackling those issues. There are ways in which we are seeking to address the issue across the Departments. Education can, and does, play a vital role in supporting disadvantaged pupils during the school day. However, as I have said before, the Education budget is not a welfare fund. The fact that the Education system holds the data on free school meals entitlement does not make my Department the right one to provide what is effectively a form of welfare support to those families. The history of the previous school holiday food hunger grant scheme matters, as it exposes a fundamental misunderstanding at the heart of the Bill. Between 2020 and 2023, the previous Executive agreed to deliver that scheme, and it was established at pace in unique circumstances at the outset of the global pandemic. The Executive wanted a scheme introduced to ensure that children from low-income families had access to food during their school holidays. As the Education Authority had the data and payment infrastructure to get money to families quickly, Education was given the operational role of delivering the scheme on behalf of the Executive. It was not because food poverty outside term time was primarily an Education matter, nor was it because the Executive had made a considered, long-term, strategic decision that DE was the correct home for that policy. My Department — before I was there — led on that scheme on behalf of the Executive simply because the EA could do it at speed, and speed was required in response to a global pandemic. I do not believe that what was effectively an emergency response should then set future precedent, which the Bill would introduce. The Department of Education's leading on the delivery of that scheme was based on additional ring-fenced funding that was provided to my Department so that the funding did not have to be diverted from educational priorities. It is clear that, even in times of a global pandemic, the Executive recognised that those payments were direct financial support to low-income families to cover food costs when children were not in school. That is income support, not education. The Executive acted at that time to protect education. The Bill does not. Not for the first time with a Member's Bill, I also have real concerns that it has significant technical and legislative shortcomings and that it would require significant amendment to become workable, particularly for the most problematic issues in the basis and design of the core provisions. I have no doubt that the Committee could look at that and that my Department could assist the Bill sponsor with its drafting and the need to address its flaws. However, at Second Stage, I will outline where I believe that the Bill, as drafted, is unworkable when it comes to the amount of payment that would be calculated. The value of the payment would be based on what a parent would pay for a meal if their child was not entitled to free school meals. In post-primary schools, there is no single value for that, as pupils select the individual items that they wish to buy and pay the corresponding amount at the till. It is therefore not possible, in the Bill as drafted, to identify a single amount for the EA to pay to those families. The Bill also refers to the cost of "milk, meals or other refreshment". A free school meal does not include a drink, as fresh drinking water is available for free. That wording creates a direct mismatch with existing free school meals provision, with no rationale for that discrepancy. Those are fundamental flaws that go to the heart of whether the Bill can be consistently and fairly implemented in practice. As legislators, we have a duty to ensure that legislation is technically sound and workable. The Bill as drafted is neither. The Bill also significantly underestimates the likely cost of payments in the years ahead, which compounds the affordability problem that I have already set out. The explanatory and financial memorandum states that the costs will rise:

"from an estimated £20.6 million in 2026/27 to £23.2 million in 2033/34."

Members, that is based on a 3·5% level of inflation. The reality for the Education Authority is that, since 2016-17, its cost of producing a meal has risen each year on average by 7·2%.

Yes, I am happy to give way to Mr Baker.

No, you are OK.

No, your explanatory and financial memorandum says that. I am highlighting what you have introduced. It says that it is £20·6 million in the current financial year, and then your Bill says that it is going to be £23·2 million by 2033-34. That is based on an inflationary increase of 3·5%. That figure is not my figure; it is the Bill sponsor's figure. I am saying that the more accurate figure — I am now going to give you the details as to what it is and the basis on which I provided it — is that it will rise to £31·5 million by 2033. From 2016-17, the cost to the Education Authority of producing a meal has risen each year on average by 7·2%. That is more than double the rate that is being used by the Bill sponsor in his cost estimates. As was explained in my Department's draft five-year financial strategy, the EA will need to implement a planned multi-year programme of price increases to narrow the gap between its prices and its cost of producing the meals. That is essential to ensure the long-term sustainability of the EA school meals service. Under the Bill as drafted, such rises will result in higher holiday meal payments, increasing the overall funding that is required to implement it year after year. That will go well beyond the 3·5% annual increase that is referenced in the explanatory and financial memorandum. That memorandum also underestimates the likely number of pupils who will be entitled to free school meals in the coming years and the number of eligible days per year when the payments would be required. Using more realistic projections and the 7·2% level of inflation, my officials estimate that the figure of £20·8 million in this financial year would rise to £31·5 million by 2033-34. That cost for 2033-34 is over a third higher than what is estimated by the Bill sponsor, but I have no doubt that the Committee will want to explore that area to make sure that there is accuracy around the figure. I am happy for my officials to engage in that process. Not only is the Bill unaffordable based upon the financial context that faces the Department that I outlined, it is even more unaffordable than the explanatory and financial memorandum estimates. Members are therefore being asked to vote for a Bill that imposes a permanent duty at a substantial cost without any certainty as to how it will be paid for at a time when the Education budget is already under unprecedented strain. I believe that the Bill also misdiagnoses the problem that it seeks to solve. If a child is hungry, it is not because schools are closed during holiday periods. The cause is that the child's family does not have sufficient income to meet their basic food needs. That poverty did not begin when the school term ended or end when it resumed. It also exists on weekends, in the evenings and throughout the whole year. A child who experiences food poverty is not experiencing it alone. The rest of their family also experiences it, and some parents may be quietly skipping meals so that their children can eat. Food poverty is a household problem that belongs to the whole family, and the Bill does not address that. I also ask Members to consider what the Bill leaves out: the children who are below school age; the parents who manage the household budget and sometimes go without; the food poverty that exists every evening and weekend; and the many families who are just above the eligibility threshold for free school meals but are nonetheless struggling.

I agree, and I made the point at the start of my contribution that it is a noble, worthy cause, and all of us should want to ensure that no child is hungry. It is a wider societal problem, and, in many homes, there are multiple reasons why there is food poverty and poverty. There are many causation factors that result in that. No parent or family ever wants to find themselves in poverty, so there can be no scapegoating and trying to blame parents for somehow getting themselves into that situation; no thinking that we, as a society, should somehow preside over and judge them and dismiss them, saying that it is their fault and that we should not support them. That is an appalling attitude for anybody to take, and it is one that I would never subscribe to. It is about finding the most effective way to address the issues. It is also about being honest around the limited financial resources that we have to make sure that those resources are spent in the most effective way. I am not disputing the premise on which the Member made his intervention — I agree with it — but it is about how effectively we address it. We could pass the legislation and address a small part of the wider problem for a small part of the affected population for a small part of the year, but I believe that legislating in that way would create more problems than it would solve. I also believe that it is important to recognise that the Bill tackles the symptoms of food poverty not the causes. Food poverty affects families in different ways and for different reasons. Some experience it for long periods, others periodically. The causes are multiple, and the solutions that are needed to address it are multiple. The Bill does nothing to make it less likely that the same families will need support with food poverty next year or the year after or, indeed, even in a decade's time. It introduces a statutory duty in response to a symptom, while leaving the causes entirely untouched. That is not a sustainable approach to a serious social challenge. Food poverty is rooted fundamentally in the issue of inadequate household income and wider social disadvantage. That requires a social welfare solution that is led collectively by the Executive. My Department and the EA will be ready to work with all other Departments to support any properly funded Executive-wide actions to tackle food poverty, but it would be much better if they help to tackle the root causes rather than the symptoms. Another area of concern that I have with the Bill is that it would remove future flexibility. The Executive currently retain full flexibility to introduce measures that tackle food poverty. That flexibility matters because, as circumstances evolve, our response to food poverty needs to be able to evolve. That point has a consequence that has not yet been sufficiently acknowledged in the debate. It is not simply that a future, potentially more effective policy to support families in food poverty would have to work around the statutory duty; it is that the existence of the duty could make a future, potentially more effective policy less likely to be implemented. Any Executive considering their response to household food poverty would look at the cost of that response on top of the £21 million-plus required through the Bill. That makes the financial case for a more ambitious response harder to make, not easier. I have no doubt that all Members genuinely want to see food poverty addressed comprehensively, but they should understand that passing the Bill may entrench an inadequate response rather than help to deliver a better one. It is not just about doing things right; it is about doing the right things. Everyone here can agree with the sentiment that has been expressed. We can all emotionally subscribe to wanting to address holiday hunger, but we have to ask whether the Bill will do that and do it effectively. That requires us to be dispassionate and not emotionally attached and to critically analyse whether we will achieve the objective. I believe that, when Members do that, they will say that there is a better way for it to be addressed. I am not here simply to oppose the Bill. I want to be clear about what, I believe, the right response looks like. Northern Ireland needs a comprehensive approach to tackling food poverty for everyone. It is an approach that delivers a whole-family, year-round, Executive-wide and properly funded solution to food poverty that treats it as a consequence of households having insufficient income. That means more holistic actions to support all members of households in food poverty, not just focusing on a small cohort of school-age children on weekdays during school holidays. It means Executive-wide commitment and funding so that the cost is not borne by our schools and our children's education. The Department of Education will play its full part in any properly structured Executive-wide response. What is unreasonable and reckless, however, is to expect that my Department should carry the cost of the Bill alone. It would be an unfunded statutory duty that we do not have the budget to deliver without damaging the educational services that those same families' children depend on. I have outlined clear reasons why the Bill should be opposed, the most important being that it would cause great harm by diverting funding from the Education budget to deliver the payments. I understand the aim of the Bill and the need for a solution to be found for families in food poverty. However, this is a blunt instrument that is being applied to a complex and wide-ranging problem that goes far beyond school-age children and school holiday periods. There may be merit in Members saying, "If only the Executive were bringing forward this legislation". I have outlined why that has not happened: it was not in the Programme for Government. More than 90% of MLAs are in parties that are in that Government, but that proposal was not included. However, just because it has not been brought forward and Members are frustrated, that does not justify coming forward with a private Member's Bill and wanting the Assembly to vote for that in order to somehow send the message, "If somebody else had done that, I would not have had to bring it forward". Were this effective legislation that would address the core challenges of food poverty in our society, I would vote for it. It would create a financial problem for the Executive, but, if I felt that it would fundamentally change food poverty in Northern Ireland for families who need that help, I would say that it was a priority. However, Members, this is not the best way to do that, and we should be careful about proceeding down this route. As legislators, we have a duty to ensure that legislation is well conceived, technically sound, appropriately funded and directed at the correct public bodies. In my view, the Bill fails on all of those counts. It tackles the symptoms but not the causes, and it ignores more than it addresses. It is currently unworkable in practice, and it distorts the primary purpose of the Department of Education. Crucially, it risks making an already massively underfunded education system even less able to deliver for our children. It robs from the education of Peter to fund the holiday meal payments of Paul. That does not make good law, nor would it deliver the outcomes that are genuinely needed for families who are in food poverty. We owe it to families in food poverty to get this right, and we owe it to children to protect the education system that they depend on. The Bill does not meet that test. Therefore, Members, I am unable to support it and will vote against it. However, I know that it will go to the Committee for Education, whose members will be able to interrogate it further. I trust that they, in carrying out the scrutiny role that we, as legislators, have to do, will come to the same conclusion as I came to on the Bill. In no way is that to detract from the Bill sponsor's genuine motivation in bringing it forward. I commend him for that work. It is an honourable thing that he seeks to do, but, on this occasion, I do not believe that it is the most effective way to do it.

5,668 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:21 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