Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): I welcome Karen Clarke and Sinead McMurray from the Assembly Research and Information Service (RaISe), who will provide a briefing on the Education (Holiday Meal Payments) Bill. Please brief the Committee on the paper, and then we can move to questions and answers. Over to you.

Ms Karen Clarke (Research and Information Service): Thank you for having us here today. My aim is to summarise the key elements of the holiday hunger Bill, to outline the evidence base behind it, and to highlight some of the financial and scrutiny considerations that the Committee may wish to explore as the Bill progresses.

As you know, the Bill responds to a well-documented and growing problem of holiday hunger amongst children from low-income families. In 2023-24, the Trussell Trust reported that it distributed more than 90,000 emergency food parcels in Northern Ireland, 60,000 of which were for children. Holiday hunger is most likely to affect children who are entitled to free school meals. The Trussell Trust's figures do not take into account food parcels that were distributed by non-Trussell Trust food banks.

Food insecurity rose sharply in Northern Ireland between 2018 and 2024, as highlighted by the fact that the number of food parcels distributed here increased by 143%. That is much higher than anywhere else in the UK. Research shows that food insecurity affects children's physical health, mental well-being and educational outcomes. Children who experience hunger during school holidays often return to school tired, less able to concentrate and at a greater risk of learning loss. At present, about 90,000 pupils are entitled to free school meals, which is about 26% of all pupils. However, uptake is only about 81%. Stigma has been identified as being a key barrier to uptake, so a discreet payment system with little or no stigma during the holidays could possibly reach more families than a term-time system.

The Executive Office previously funded the school holiday food grant scheme that was then delivered by the Department of Education. It provided £27 per child per fortnight to those who were entitled to free school meals. That cost about £20 million per year to run, and it ran from July 2020 to April 2023. Since then, there has been no government scheme to address holiday hunger.

The public consultation on the Bill received more than 1,100 responses, with exceptionally high levels of support. For example, 98% of respondents agreed that holiday payments would ease financial pressures on low-income families; 99% believed that the payments would improve children's health and well-being; 96% supported legislation for holiday meal payments; and 86% supported the previous school holiday food grant scheme. The stakeholder engagement process also showed very high levels of support across the community, voluntary and children's sectors. That is the background to the Bill.

I will move on to what the Bill proposes. As you know, it contains four clauses, and its purpose is straightforward: to place a statutory duty on the Minister of Education to provide, during all school holiday periods and exceptional closure days, direct payments to parents of children who are entitled to free school meals.

I will explain the key elements of clause 1. It amends the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 to allow payments to be made in lieu of meals. Payments must be equivalent to the cost to parents of "milk, meals or other refreshment" normally provided during term time; it is important to consider that, because it means that, if the cost of school meals changes, so do the payments. The payments should be made directly into a nominated bank account. The Department may set the value of payments through regulations, although that is attached to the provision that payments should be equivalent to the cost of meals or refreshments. The Department may also amend the definition of "the relevant periods", meaning that it may change which holidays qualify for payment.

As you can see from your papers, it is not clear whether the regulations set out in clause 1 are subject to affirmative or negative resolution. The level of scrutiny available has therefore not been specified. Members may wish to consider which form of resolution is most appropriate, given the potential impacts on benefits and costs.

Clause 2 clarifies record-keeping duties and defines the holiday periods covered. The Bill sets out:

Clause 3 clarifies that the Order referred to is the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986.

Clause 4 allows the Department to make incidental or transitional provisions when bringing the Act into force. That allows the Department to make minor changes to allow the Act to be practically applied and sets out the mechanisms for moving from the old Order to a new, amended Order.

The Bill aligns well with several Executive strategies. For example, the Programme for Government (PFG) states objectives for reducing poverty and inequalities and for improving outcomes for children. The draft anti-poverty strategy also aims to address socio-economic disadvantage, and the children and young people's strategy aims to tackle educational disadvantage. The Bill therefore sits comfortably within the Executive's stated priorities.

We will now consider the financial implications of the Bill. It has been introduced at a time of severe budgetary pressure. In 2026, the Education Minister highlighted an £800 million deficit in the 2026-27 draft Budget for his Department. The explanatory and financial memorandum (EFM) estimates that the annual cost to implement the Bill would be, on average, £21·9 million over the next eight years. A number of factors should be considered that will impact on the cost, including the number of eligible pupils, the uptake rates, and the value of payments, which will depend on the cost of school meal production.

As I noted earlier, under the Bill, if the cost of school meals — the cost to parents — rises, so will the payments. As you can see — it is noted in more detail in your papers — that will create a challenge for the Department, as it will require significant annual expenditure by DE, and, as the Budget process has highlighted, the Department is under substantial funding pressure. On that basis, members may wish to consider the affordability and sustainability of the Bill. Can DE absorb recurring costs on that scale without additional Executive funding?

We can then consider a potential increase in costs. The payments must be equivalent to meal costs to parents, which means that, if the EA increases the cost of school meals, for example owing to inflation or energy prices, that will directly increase the cost of implementing the Bill.

If free school meal uptakes increase above the current 80%, there is a potential for greater uptake rates for the school holiday payments, due to the potential for reduced stigma because they are discrete payments. Again, that will increase the cost of implementing the Bill. Furthermore, any future changes to free school meal eligibility rates or criteria will automatically affect the number of children eligible for holiday payments. Therefore, a number of direct and indirect impacts should be considered. For example, increases to the statutory minimum wage could reduce the number of pupils entitled to free school meals, as their families' income will rise above that threshold, reducing the overall cost.

We will take a minute to consider delegated powers and scrutiny issues. The Bill contains a few significant delegated powers. It has the power to set the payment's value, although that is in the context that it should reflect the cost to parents of school meals; it also has the power to redefine school holidays. As I said before, the Bill does not specify whether those are subject to affirmative or negative resolution, so you may wish to consider whether greater Assembly oversight is appropriate or required.

To support your scrutiny, there are a few issues that you may wish to explore. Should the Assembly require affirmative resolution for changes to payments or holiday periods? How will the Department ensure accurate and timely data on eligible pupils? Should families who do not take up free school meals during term time still receive holiday payments? What funding model would ensure long-term sustainability? How will the Bill interact with wider anti-poverty and child well-being measures?

In conclusion, the Education (Holiday Meal Payments) Bill addresses an evident social need and enjoys strong public and stakeholder support. It has the potential to improve children's health, well-being and educational outcomes. However, its success and implementation will depend on affordability, clarity on delegated powers, and the robustness of the administrative systems that would support it.

That was a very quick run-through. I hope that it has been of some help.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Thank you, Karen. It is a very helpful report. It is worth noting at this stage — I was just checking with the Clerk as you were going through your report — that the Committee will engage with the Examiner of Statutory Rules for advice on the issues concerning delegated powers.

However, I wanted to check: as there is no specification in the Bill on what form of resolution the regulations are subject to, where does the decision on that sit? If the Bill goes through as drafted, can the Department decide on the form of resolution?

Ms Clarke: You would need to check with the Examiner of Statutory Rules. However, as it sits, that is what it sounds like: it gives the Department the automatic power. However, it is definitely worth checking.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Danny do you want to come in?

Mr Baker: Can I quickly clarify that? Because it is under the 1986 Order, it is subject to negative resolution, and we did not specify beyond that. There are pros and cons for its being either affirmative or negative, so I believe that that is something that we can work through in the Committee. However, as it sits, it is negative.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Thank you. Again, we can hear from the Examiner on that. I want to check about the regulations, because you highlighted the power to make regulations to amend the definition of the relevant periods. Your interpretation of that is fairly open-ended, so the Department has quite open-ended powers, based on the Bill as drafted, to alter the holiday periods for when they need to make payments.

Ms Clarke: That is what it sounds like. It has not defined which holiday periods would fall under the timetable for the payments.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): We may want to pick up on that. There are consequential amendments that define those periods, but they are subject to change. Is that right?

Ms Clarke: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): I have understood that. They could be changed by the Department. Again, that may be an issue for the Committee. We can decide on actions. We may want to write to the Bill team or the Bill sponsor to clarify that.

My other question is about clause 4. You mentioned transitional provisions. Is there scope for such provisions to alter the commencement date significantly? I know what the intention is. Danny provided the Committee with evidence that the intent of the Bill is for payments to kick in for the first holiday period after the Bill receives Royal Assent. Could the provisions in clause 4 delay or alter that?

Ms Clarke: Drafters tend to write such clauses into a Bill to provide flexibility for the practical application of the provisions, but that is something that you will need to check with the Examiner of Statutory Rules, because it seems quite open.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): The Department could stall this indefinitely. Maybe "indefinitely" is too strong a word, but there is potential for that.

Ms Clarke: It is definitely worth checking with the Examiner.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): We will note that for the Examiner.

That is everything that I want to ask at this stage. Do other members want to come in? Peter.

Mr Martin: Ladies first.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Deputy Chair, had you wanted to come in?

Mr Sheehan: No.

Mrs Guy: Thank you, Peter. You are being very chivalrous on your last day on the Committee.

Mr Martin: That is probably because it is my last day.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): You are feeling magnanimous.

Mrs Guy: Thank you for your paper. Your estimate of the annual cost of implementation differs from the costs projected in the EFM for the Bill. Where does the variation come from?

Ms Clarke: The costings are based on the DE's statisticians' school population projections, which is why they cover only eight years — that is as far as we can go — and the most recent estimate of the cost of school meals. As you know, the Education Authority updated its prices in January this year. That is where the figures come from. They may have been revised in line with the latest cost and population projections.

Mrs Guy: You mentioned the potential impact on benefits. We will ask about that, but did you get a steer on whether there could be an impact on benefits?

Ms Clarke: The lifting of the two-child limit on child benefit could have put families outside the threshold for free school meal entitlement (FSME), but child benefit does not count as household income for the purposes of free school meal entitlement, so that is OK. We do not know what other amendments might come from Westminster.

Mrs Guy: You noted that there is little research that demonstrates the effectiveness of holiday food programmes in improving food security. Did you find any other jurisdictions that make a direct payment to families?

Ms Clarke: Not since COVID.

Mrs Guy: It was just COVID.

Ms Clarke: There were a few COVID payments. I noted in another paper — I have a number of papers on this; I will check — that there are mixed layers of evidence. In the north-west of England, for example, the implementation of a few community and voluntary sector schemes, rather than government schemes, has had very positive outcomes for children.

Mrs Guy: There was no analysis that I could find of the scheme that we had when it closed. The only thing that I found — I do not know whether you looked at it and did not think it relevant — was an equality impact assessment of the decision to remove it that showed a lot of negative impacts. I am not criticising you but genuinely asking why you did not think that it was relevant to highlight that in your paper.

Ms Clarke: Negative impacts of removing the scheme?

Mrs Guy: The closure of the scheme.

Ms Clarke: There is lots of evidence that such schemes are beneficial in the short term, which is covered in the paper.

Mrs Guy: No worries. Thank you.

Mr Martin: Thanks, Karen, for your evidence today. I will pick up where Michelle left off. Did you identify any research to suggest that, when such a payment is made, it will carry through on the policy intent of the Bill to ensure that kids are fed during holiday periods? Is there any research to suggest whether the policy intent of the cash system is carried through in the legislation or the policy?

Ms Clarke: Do you mean whether the payment results in children being fed, as opposed to it going to something else?

Mr Martin: Yes.

Ms Clarke: The short answer is that I have not seen any studies that identify that. In the previous school holiday meal payment scheme, a pre-loaded debit card was provided for parents who did not have an appropriate bank account; it could be used only for basic necessities, such as food, clothing and toiletries. That is as close as we have got.

Mr Martin: Different jurisdictions in the UK do it slightly differently. You talked about the holiday activities and food (HAF) scheme in England, which is like a school holiday club. Kids go to it and not only do they get fed, but they get a lot of other social benefits. I have done some research on it, and it might be a bit more expensive than this scheme, but the benefits of social interaction are considerably more. Did you look at the HAF scheme? I hope that I have got the name right.

Ms Clarke: I know the one that you mean. It is almost like a summer scheme. There are activities for the kids.

Mr Martin: Yes, and they get fed at the same time.

Ms Clarke: In that respect, it reduces stigma because the kids attend for the activities. The reported benefits and outcomes of that were very positive, but because there were so many other things going on around that, it is not like for like. That is the challenge.

Mr Martin: You flagged that there is only 80% uptake of free school meals by those entitled to them. Is there any research on the reason for that?

Ms Clarke: The research shows that stigma is one of the big issues, particularly with older children. They do not want to be stigmatised for getting free school meals.

Mr Martin: Lastly, the cost will be about £22 million. Your research paper describes the Bill's financial implications as significant, and they are significant for a private Member's Bill. Keeping within the policy intent, which is to feed children during holiday periods, have you come across any other methodologies that would carry through that policy intent better if that were a single policy intent? If we leave aside the summer scheme idea, and the Bill's intent were simply to make sure that kids get food during a holiday period, are there any other ways of tightening this up to ensure that the policy intent is carried through? Have you identified any other schemes in the UK or Ireland?

Ms Clarke: The most obvious one was the prepaid debit card that some parents got during the previous scheme that operated during COVID.

Mr Martin: Is there a reason that that scheme cannot be used again? I am aware of that scheme because I was the special adviser in the Department of Education, which delivered the holiday hunger payment scheme. Is there any reason that a similar scheme cannot be reintroduced to ensure that payments go towards the things on the list that you gave: food, toiletries, drinks and stuff like that? Is there any reason why that cannot be scoped out again?

Ms Clarke: I do not know of any immediate reasons. The previous scheme was funded by the Executive Office. When that funding stopped, the scheme stopped. As you know, at that time, there was the Secretary of State's Budget, and a lot of cuts were made in the Department.

Mr Martin: That is OK. Thank you, Chair, for your extra indulgence.

Mr Burrows: Thank you for that useful evidence. My questions follow on from what we have discussed. Giving cash is an issue in itself, but say that the money is used to buy food. Is there any research on whether it is the right type of food? Getting nutritious food for children is very important. One of the difficulties that we have is that poverty is linked to health inequalities. That is sometimes not because people starve to death but because there is an issue with the quality of food. That is not a judgement, but ensuring that children get quality, nutritious food is a real issue. Is there any evidence on whether the money ends up going towards buying nutritious food? Is there any way in which we can increase the likelihood of that?

Ms Clarke: I take your point. That was not a focus of the paper, so I did not look into that. There has been some research around that. Academics at Ulster University have done some research on, for example, food poverty and food deserts. Some work was done for the Consumer Council for Northern Ireland on the establishment of social supermarkets, which the Department for Communities piloted and rolled out. There is some work on that, but I did not look at it as part of the paper.

Mr Burrows: I am just conscious of your role in giving impartial information. I was a food bank volunteer for a couple of years. I went around not just giving out food parcels but bringing people into the social supermarket. One of the challenges is education around healthy eating. I noted the number of people at those doors who said, "No, do not give us anything like that. We do not want vegetables". Again, that is not a judgement; it is a concern of mine. Does the extra income that goes into households end up being used to buy food to get nutritious food into children's stomachs? Is there no research that indicates or gives us a sense of whether that happens?

Ms Clarke: As I said, Jon, I have not looked at that as part of the paper. Academics at Ulster University have looked at that issue in Northern Ireland and at the challenge that some parents have in accessing any sort of nutritious food. If parents rely on food banks, they take what they can get. Sometimes, that means baked beans and cornflakes. I did not look at that as part of the paper, but there is some research.

Mr Burrows: OK. There is no solid evidence that, if the money is provided, it ends up being used to purchase healthy food.

Ms Clarke: I have not seen any research on the particular type of food that is purchased.

Mr Burrows: Is there any evidence that relates to houses where people have addiction problems or how extra direct payments that become part of the household income are distributed, if there are underlying addictions?

Ms Clarke: I do not know. That is quite a specific question. I would need to go and look at that, if you felt that my doing so was needed.

Mr Burrows: There is a risk here. We all want the same thing, but I wonder about how it will operate. Does every pound end up being spent on ensuring that a child eats well? There has to be a connection there, because money that is spent in one place cannot be spent somewhere else. There are lots of things that are good. I am teasing out those issues because there could be alternatives such as a voucher for the social supermarket or a voucher that could only be used in a supermarket or whatever.

Ms Clarke: As I say, I have not personally seen any evidence of whether, in the case of children whose parents, maybe, have addiction problems, the support goes to the children directly. I would need to look into that specifically.

Mr Burrows: There are parents who have very little who provide the very best that they can and often go without. There are parents who have a lot of money and who neglect. Therefore, it is not about class. I want to tease out the detail of whether this scheme is the best way to use the money to help the children.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Peter, you wanted to come in for a brief comment or question, and I am happy that you do so in the interests of scrutiny. Sorry, Danny, you had indicated. I will bring in Peter in a minute.

Just to clarify, Danny, if it is in relation to material that you want to share as part of the Bill team bringing the Bill forward, that might be better done in writing through Committee channels. Perhaps the Clerk can keep me right.

The Committee Clerk: We can do it this way as well. I spoke to Danny beforehand to say that the Committee would write for any points of clarification, but the guidance states that having the sponsor of the Bill on the Committee may be beneficial as it allows them to digest and respond to issues in real time. Arguably, it supports the efficient conduct of Committee business.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): That is straightforward, Danny. OK, over to you.

Mr Baker: Thank you. That is why I consulted the Committee at the very start on the regulations being subject to negative resolution, because the Bill would amend the 1986 Order. I wanted to keep it that way because, when you talk to the Bill Office, there are a lot of pros and cons to setting it whatever way you want to set it. That would be a good one for the Committee to thrash out and land on. Thank you for the research. I think you just told me there that it was the best Bill you had ever seen.

The issue that I want to home in on is the engagement that I have had with the Department and something that I am not clear about: the 90,000 children who are entitled to free school meals and the 20% of them who do not avail of them. The Department will say that the 20% are actually missing from the uptake at the till rather than enrolment. Did you pick that up in your research?

Ms Clarke: No. So, do they enrol for it but not use it in school?

Mr Baker: Yes. The Department told me that that is where the 20% comes form, but I struggled to find evidence of that.

Ms Clarke: It was not clear to me, either, which is why I thought that if they were getting a discrete payment, and it was just going into a bank account, and other kids could not see what was happening, there would be 100% uptake.

Mr Baker: Yes. The way it was described to me was that the figure of 90,000 for those who are entitled to free school meals does not really take account of those who could be entitled to them. The Department thinks that the numbers could be higher because people do not enrol. There is no auto-enrolment: in June, you fill out your forms. The Department says that 20% of those who successfully enrol do not take up the provision. That is my understanding of the Department's rationale, but it is something that, maybe, we can get out of the officials when they come in.

As for the costings, there was the research that you did. The pricing included inflation at 3·5%. It is the same in the Treasury's handbook, so that is where that is coming from. The Department and the Minister were talking around 7% or 8% inflation, but, as I said when giving my evidence, that is very much hypothetical. I have no control over that. However, if they are going to start putting up the price of a meal over a number of years, then of course it is logical that they will be paying families on holiday an amount that reflects that. As the sponsor of the Bill, that parallel makes sense.

I have another question on the cost that I want to delve into a wee bit, which I might need your help on after this meeting. The Minister's team also picked up on this issue. If it is primary school, it is very simple — the cost is £3·10p. Obviously, in special schools and nurseries, they are given their meals.

However, in my research and from working with the drafters, I am aware that the price for post-primary schools that has been set by the EA is £3·34. The language of the amendment is "milk, meals or other refreshment", but that is the language of the 1986 Order. When it comes to the value, the EA's argument is that you can add to the cost for the parent and make it a lot more expensive. My research looks only at Belfast, I suppose. I was in a school again this morning. The set meal in the post-primary school costs £3·34, but you can add to it; you could buy other things. The way in which the Bill is drafted covers it. The EFM explains that. Are you saying that schools are doing it so differently that the way in which the Bill is currently drafted does not cover it?

Ms Clarke: How else would you implement it if you did not pick a number for nurseries and primary and post-primary schools?

Mr Baker: Yes.

Ms Clarke: Otherwise, the administration of it could become very complicated.

Mr Baker: Yes. I will make a final point on that. It sort of goes back to the holiday times and allowing that flexibility. Originally, I was going to name every single holiday in the Bill, but I had to take into consideration advice that there could come a time when a Minister decides to align the holidays differently. Our midterm breaks, in particular, could change. If you look across the water, you see that their midterms are completely different from ours. That could happen. Therefore, the Bill was drafted in a way that gave the Minister and Department that very limited Henry VIII power to allow that wee bit of flexibility and almost future-proof it.

The other thing to explain is the costing. It is to do with what the parent pays. If it ever comes to the point where the parent is not paying — say, if there were universal free school meals — the Minister has the power there to set a price. Someone will have to set a price because, even if we were to bring in universal free school meals from tomorrow morning, the legislation would always be there because we have to target the most vulnerable children, low-income families and holiday hunger. If there were universal free school meals in the morning, the price to the parent would be zero, so someone has to set a price.

Ms Clarke: Right, yes.

Mr Baker: I hope that that is covered. That was the intent, anyway.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Thank you, Danny. We will have the Department here next week, I believe, to present on the Bill. Some of those issues around how you would operationalise that could be picked up.
Peter, you can have a brief question or comment. Then, we will wrap the session up.

Mr Martin: Thank you very much, Chair, for letting me back in. I just want to continue on the theme of the voucher payments. I have been thinking about the sizeable cost of the Bill — £20 million. You could easily stand up 20 social supermarkets in Northern Ireland — just pop them up — at a cost of £2 million. You could found a scheme, along the lines of what Danny has suggested, whereby FSME parents could easily go and pick up food. It would be food, deodorants, drinks and stuff like that. Has that ever been done anywhere in the UK — that concept of trying to tie together, essentially, a voucher payment directly with something like a social supermarket scheme?

Ms Clarke: Not that I am aware of. I would need to do a bit of a deeper dive into that. I am certainly not aware of any government scheme.

Mr Martin: OK. That is great. Thank you, Chair.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Thank you. That is all the indications from members. It would be worth having the Clerk summarise any actions arising. We will have the Department coming in. We have asked the Examiner of Statutory Rules to come and provide advice on the regulation-making powers. Do we need to pick up any other actions arising from that?

The Committee Clerk: We will listen to the recording, recap any queries for the Bill sponsor and put them in writing.

Mr Burrows: I have one point, Chair, on the existing economies of scale with social supermarkets. They get food — it is, generally, quality, healthy food — at a discounted rate. Whatever the cost per household, you get more food for your money there than you would if you bought it from a normal supermarket. Can that be captured in research? At a social supermarket, £10 buys you about £20 worth of food, whereas if we give parents £10 in their bank account, it will buy, at best, £10 worth of food. I reiterate the point that the social supermarket idea would provide more food for the parents.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Thank you, Jon. I am just checking whether you are making a specific proposal for a follow-up action.

Mr Burrows: Yes, it is a follow-up action. It would be good to know the average discount at our social supermarkets. I know that, for example, a tin of beans at one of the supermarkets is £1. At a social supermarket, it is about 40p or 30p. Can that be quantified in some way? If we are looking at options here, and if someone says, "Food and household essentials are 60% cheaper at a social supermarket", we can then look at whether we can deliver the scheme more cheaply, because you can get the same amount of food and support into a household with much cheaper food from a social supermarket, because they are subsidised through donations.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): I may take advice and hear from RaISe on that. I am slightly concerned that we may be straying from the principles of the Bill and discussing other ways of doing it. I am not sure that it is within the Committee's gift to produce a different Bill. The task is to scrutinise the Bill in front of us. Ultimately, if members do not like it, they do not need to vote in support of it. I am happy to have the conversation. Is detailed exploration of social supermarkets likely to aid our clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill? I will get the view of other members before we send RaISe on a research task.

The Committee Clerk: I am not aware of the scope for amendment of the Bill at this early stage. It would be helpful if RaISe could do that in the first instance.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): OK.

Mr Martin: In light of the Clerk's comments, I think that it is certainly in scope. Danny has rightly cited the 1986 Order. I am looking at clause 1. There could be a Committee amendment to:

That could be easily changed to "a voucher scheme for a designated outlet". That is amendable within the broad scope of what we are talking about. As an action, we should reach out to the Department for Communities, give it the Hansard report of this session and ask whether it is viable or feasible to use a similar scheme that would provide more food for £30 than you would get at Lidl, Tesco or wherever to the kids who really need it.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Thank you, Peter.

Mr Baker: I really want us to focus on there being compassion rather than a bit of judgement. We have to allow parents that flexibility and have a bit of trust in them and not go straight for the headlines. There is not a social supermarket on every corner in Belfast, never mind across the North or in rural communities. This is about helping children not just in Belfast or Derry but right across the North. To me, doing that is not within the scope of the Bill, because I know for a fact that some rural settings do not even have a social supermarket, so you would be excluding so many people through that.

There is a judgement to that, folks, if that is what you are doing with it. It would be a waste of time for the researchers to look into that, because that is not what the Bill is about. You should have a conversation with the Department for Communities, because it should be investing in social supermarkets to help. This is always going to be needed and will need to come through Education, but there needs to be more stuff.

If I am being brutally honest, it is the only show in town, which is a sad indictment of the Communities Minister. We will hear that when groups come to the Committee to give evidence. However, if you think that a social supermarket solves the problem, you are not living in the real world. I am not just saying that as the sponsor of the Bill. You are just not listening. You are not catching a grip of the situation.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): I would like clarity from Jon about his proposal. I share a concern about the scalability of a social supermarket intervention if it is to cover every parent who is entitled to free school meals. It just may not be available to every parent. Jon, can you clarify the suggested action? We can go from there.

Mr Burrows: First, the context is that the proposed scheme will cost £20 million to £30 million, which is serious money that could be spent in different ways. Danny said that it is about compassion, not judgement. No. It is about proper scrutiny and how we achieve the best value for the people of Northern Ireland. So to —

Mr Baker: With all due respect, Jon, where is your or your party's legislation? I have not seen it.

Mr Burrows: Through the Chair, Danny.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Excuse me, Jon and Danny. Especially for anyone who is joining the meeting remotely, it will not function if people talk over each other. It has to come through the Chair, otherwise anyone who is observing the meeting will not be able to hear what is being said. Jon, can you give clarity on the proposed action?

Mr Burrows: I did go through you, Chair.

First, is it feasible? We may need to look at Communities for a social supermarket scheme or other schemes if there is not a local social supermarket. Secondly, could it be a scheme that is generally tied into supermarket vouchers? Thirdly, do you get better value from a social supermarket than an ordinary supermarket?

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): My sense is that those are all issues that the Department for Communities could respond to. I am content that we send correspondence to the Department for Communities, as it is better resourced to answer that question if we agree.

Mr Burrows: Perfect.

Mr Martin: In light of Danny's comments, I accept that there are not nearly enough social supermarkets in Northern Ireland to service what has been suggested. To put it into context, you could have 50 social supermarkets running throughout the province for less than a quarter of the price of the Bill, and that is just simple maths. I agree that there is no capacity at this point in time, but for a quarter of the price of what has been suggested, you could set up 50 social supermarkets that will provide more food at a lower cost for the parents of the children you want to benefit from the scheme.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Cara had indicated, but the Deputy Chair has not contributed yet.

Mr Sheehan: I am not sure what sort of plan Peter is talking about. You set up supermarkets, but people go into them and pay for the food. I do not know what it would cost to set up 50 supermarkets, but your figure of £2 million to £3 million is a wee bit light. The parents will then go in and pay for the food. If you are talking about saving money, I am not sure how that can be done with that plan.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): I have no objection to a letter going to the Department for Communities, and we can see what it comes back with. I am not sure where it will take us with any viable amendment, but we will see what comes back in the response. I will bring Cara in, and then we will draw this to a close.

Ms Hunter: I have a couple of interesting points. It is valid to scrutinise and ensure that our children receive adequate nutrition, but we have heard from parents who have children with autism that they are more likely to have avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder, which means that they prefer beige, bland foods that may not be perceived as nutritious, but that is all that they want to eat. To be fair to Danny, dignity is at the core of the Bill, as well as feeding our young people. The best way to do that is with the least amount of stigma attached. Yes, the social supermarkets are unbelievably important, and there are not enough of them, but there will have to be a rural impact assessment. In my constituency, people could travel 20 or 30 miles and still not find one of those supermarkets. I want to add those points because I take the perspectives of other members, but in reality, we are dealing with a completely different thing.

Mr Baker: Chair, can I make one last point?

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): A final point.

Mr Baker: If you do have a social supermarket close to you, the fact that you have a cash payment to get better bang for your buck, as Jon was saying, means that you can do that with this Bill. That is what I mean about compassion and not judgement. You are talking about vouchers for the wrong reasons. You are not talking about them being better value for families because, with this Bill, they can access social supermarkets with a cash payment. That is already there. If you want to set up more social supermarkets, that is brilliant. Go and speak to the Communities Minister. Go and do it, because I am waiting for him to bring some proposals to help children by ending child poverty. That would be great. This Bill does all that.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Thank you, Danny. There are no further indications. We are agreed on the actions to be taken. Is there anything else that we need to note on actions?

The Committee Clerk: Just that we will approach the Examiner of Statutory Rules for her delegated technical analysis on the regulatory powers.