Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Joining us today from the Department of Education are Eamonn McConville, director of transport and food in schools; and Jonathan Boyd, head of the food in schools team. Thank you both for joining us. It is over to you for an initial presentation or any opening remarks that you wish to make, and we will then move into questions and answers.

Mr Eamonn McConville (Department of Education): Thanks, Chair. We are here to assist the Committee in its scrutiny of the Education (Holiday Meal Payments) Bill. We recently met the Bill sponsor and other Members. As you know, we await full legal advice, but we believe that there are quite a few technical issues that mean that the Bill as drafted is not practically workable. Other issues that the Committee will consider might best be described as policy issues; however, as officials, we may be able to provide some assistance to the Committee in its scrutiny of those matters.

I will begin by outlining the key issues that I have referred to, some of which were aired during the Second Stage debate on 13 April, which the Committee will consider from a policy, financial and operational perspective. If the Bill were to pass into law, it would create a recurring statutory obligation on the Department to fund, and on the Education Authority (EA) to deliver, financial payments during specified school holiday periods to families whose children are entitled to free school meals (FSM).

As members will be aware, the school holiday food grant scheme, which was operated by the Department on behalf of the Executive, ran from July 2020 until March 2023. There will be some read-across from that experience, but there are a number of crucial differences, at a policy and an operational level, between that scheme and what the Bill proposes.

One of the key differences between the Bill and the previous scheme relates to funding. The previous scheme was supported by additional, ring-fenced funding from the Executive, which meant that the Department of Education did not have to divert resources from other education priorities. However, the Bill does not include a funding mechanism, so, if it were to pass into law, the Department of Education would be required to find a substantial quantum of funding from its existing budget each year.

Decisions on how the Department's budget is to be allocated are for the Minister of the day, but the provision of education here would inevitably be harmed by the diversion of an initial sum of over £20 million to fund the legislation, and that would be in the context of the already substantial projected shortfall in the Education budget.

We looked closely at the cost estimates for the Bill in the explanatory and financial memorandum (EFM). It estimates the cost of the Bill at £20·6 million in 2026-27, rising to £23·2 million in 2033-34. We believe that those costs are significantly underestimated for a number of reasons. The estimates in the memorandum are based on there being 70 payment days; however, if payments are to be made from 1 July to 31 August each year, there would be 74 eligible days in most years, with 75 such days in a small number of other years.

The cost estimates for the Bill tie the value of the holiday meal payment to the price of a school meal. As members know, when the Education Authority announced the 50p rise in meal prices from January 2026, it explained that the cost of producing a meal remained significantly higher than the price that it charged. That reflects the fact that, since 2016-17, the average annual rise in the cost to the Education Authority of producing a meal has been 7·2%. In our modelling of the potential cost of the legislation, we used that average annual increase in the authority's costs.

We also looked in more detail, by school phase, at the number of children who would potentially be entitled to free school meals, including taking into account the higher entitlement rate among those in special provision in mainstream schools. That projection would see over 82,000 pupils entitled to free school meals and therefore holiday meal payments by 2033-34. The equivalent figure referred to in the memorandum is fewer than 80,000 children.

The culmination of those differences means that we project the cost of the Bill to be £20·8 million in 2026-27, rising to £31·5 million by 2033-34, which is significantly greater than the cost estimate in the memorandum. The Committee may want to take that into account when scrutinising the evidence base for the proposed approach and method of evaluating the purpose of the Bill.

As I mentioned earlier, we await full legal advice, but we have concerns about a number of technical issues that mean that the Bill as drafted is not practically workable. Time does not permit me to go into all the detail, but I will flag up some of the areas of concern.

First, there is no single price of a meal for a post-primary pupil. At primary level, there is a single price that can be used for a holiday meal payment if the Assembly so decides. Post primary, however, each food item has an individual price: a paying pupil chooses what they want and pays the corresponding amount at the till. The Education Authority sets a single meal allowance, which is currently £3·34, for those who are entitled to free school meals. Having engaged with the Bill sponsor, I think that he intends the value of that allowance to be the value of the holiday meal payment for post-primary pupils, but that is not in the Bill — Danny will keep me right on that.

Another area of concern is the detail of holiday periods. Schools have autonomy to determine their holiday periods, meaning that, for example, schools may start the academic year on different dates at the end of August, and some schools may even have individual year groups start on different dates. Under the school holiday food grant scheme, the same dates for each holiday period applied to all recipients. It would be unworkable for the Education Authority to adjust payments to take account of the holiday calendar of each of over 1,000 schools.

Another concern about the practicality of the Bill as drafted relates to the payment needing to be made to a bank account. Whilst that will inevitably be the method of payment in the overwhelming majority of cases, experience from the school holiday food grant scheme suggests that there will be a need for some flexibility on the payment method. For example, the Education Authority could issue cheques to those without a bank account, or payments to the Asylum Support Enablement (ASPEN) cards of asylum seekers.

We also believe that some of the references to existing legislation in the Bill are not needed, but, at this stage, we are simply flagging up all the issues that I have just mentioned so that the Committee is aware of them, as you may want to take them into account during your scrutiny of the Bill.

That concludes my very quick run-through. I am happy to take any questions.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Thank you. You said that the Department has not had full legal advice on the Bill yet. I assume that, once you have that, you will be able to return to the Committee to deal with some of the Bill's provisions in more detail. I think that the Committee would hope to engage in that regard, once you have the advice.

You opened your presentation with reference to funding, so, clearly, there is a big price tag for the Bill. Has the Department, even at this early stage, given any consideration to how you could utilise the Children's Services Co-operation Act 2015 to bring other Departments to the table to pool resources? There are other Departments that have duties in tackling poverty.

Mr McConville: We have not worked through the Bill in its entirety. As you say, we are waiting for legal advice. The answer is no, but the duty in the Bill means that it will be for the Minister to decide how he resources it, regardless of our advice.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Therefore, you have not considered whether other Departments could be brought to the table for any of the funding.

Mr McConville: Not at this stage.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): You made a particular point about the cost of a meal in post-primary schools. The Bill sponsor has taken a different position to that of the Department's. When the previous scheme ran, there must have been a mechanism to deal with the post-primary issue. How did it operate under that scheme?

Mr McConville: It was the allowance that the EA published.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Do you believe that the Bill needs to be amended to make that clear and give it the effect that is intended?

Mr McConville: Yes. Given how it is drafted, it would be impossible administratively to calculate or record the amount that each individual child spends on differing items, whereas, with the holiday food scheme, there was one amount that the EA deemed for allowance.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Therefore, from the Department's perspective, in order to give the Bill practical effect, an amendment is needed.

Mr McConville: Yes. As drafted, it is just not practical.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): OK.

I have one other quick question, after which I will bring in other members. Does the Department have a view on the commencement provisions in the Bill? Is the next holiday period something that you feel that the Department would be in a position to deliver?

Mr McConville: We do not have a view on that at this stage.

Mr Sheehan: Eamonn, you said that the provision of education would be "harmed" by the diversion of funding to this issue. How can you stand over that statement?

Mr McConville: Given the duty that the Bill places on the Education Minister, it will be for the Minister to decide —.

Mr Sheehan: The Minister could prioritise this issue and take funding from other areas. If he wanted to, he could take money from TransformED, the phone pouch pilot or from other areas. To say that the proposal would harm the provision of education is a slight exaggeration, is it not?

Mr McConville: As you say, the Minister would have to decide what does not get funded.

Mr Sheehan: That is OK, but you are saying that it would harm the provision of education. I am asking you to explain how. Let us say, for the sake of argument, that the Minister decided to withdraw the funding from the phone pouch project. Would that harm education?

Mr McConville: Any advantages for education that are applied through the phone pouch project would not be achieved, but, again, it would be the Minister's choice on what to prioritise.

Mr Sheehan: Yes, but he is running a pilot in a small number of schools. Even if that pilot is successful, it will cost many millions of pounds to roll it out. If that funding was withdrawn from the phone pouch project and put into this holiday hunger Bill, there would be payments for children who are on free school meals. You are using emotive vocabulary and terminology and saying that our education system will be harmed if this Bill is passed, but that is just not true. I am asking you to stand over that, and I do not think that you can, but I will give you another opportunity.

Mr McConville: If funds have to be diverted, any advantages or benefits from any part of the Minister's responsibilities that do not get funded would be lost.

Mr Sheehan: Let me turn this around then. Bear in mind that education does not finish during the school holidays. There are summer schemes going on, and kids take part in them. My kids get loads of stuff home with them during holidays to work on and all of that. If kids are undernourished during school holidays, they will not be able to perform to an optimal level. However, if they are being well fed and properly nourished, that could have an advantageous effect on our education system, could it not?

Mr McConville: Again, those are matters for the Assembly and the Minister, Pat.

Mr Sheehan: I am putting a proposition to you. If kids who are currently undernourished during school holidays are fed, will that not have an advantageous effect on the education system?

Mr McConville: Again, the issue there is whether it should be done by the Department of Education or whether that is —.

Mr Sheehan: I am not asking who should do it. I am asking whether it would be advantageous.

Mr McConville: Absolutely.

Mr Sheehan: So it would not be harmful and could actually be advantageous.

Mr McConville: During the Second Stage debate, I do not think that anybody disagreed on a point of principle with the fact that children should be fed.

Mr Sheehan: That is all from me, Chair. Thanks.

Mr Brooks: I completely understand the idea that, if the money goes into this scheme, it has to come from somewhere else. You outlined in your presentation that the previous scheme was achieved with a ring-fenced sum that was agreed by the Executive. The logic that Pat used in his questioning was that, because children are doing worksheets or something of that ilk in the summer, the Department of Education should pay for what is, essentially, a welfare intervention. Kids would be healthier if they were getting a good meal during the day during the summer, but surely that would involve the Department of Health. We can draw those abstract lines everywhere. The reality is that poverty is a wider issue. It is a welfare issue and an issue that covers numerous Departments, and the right way to do this, if we want to do it, is to look at it as an Executive priority. Do you agree with that?

Mr McConville: I certainly do not disagree with it. Obviously, I cannot talk —.

Mr Brooks: Are you aware of any conversations taking place with other Departments or of any other Departments expressing an interest in carrying their part of the load on this?

Mr McConville: We have not had any conversations specifically about this Bill, but we contribute to various working groups on, for example, the anti-poverty strategy and the food strategy framework. Going back to your point about the legislation, there is work going on across many Departments that would be classed under the Children's Services Co-operation Act.

Mr Brooks: Yes. You are absolutely right to observe that nobody in the Chamber argued against children being fed. Nobody argued that we do not have an issue with poverty, particularly child poverty, which comes as a result of families being in poverty, that needs to be addressed. It is a wider issue, and we all think that it should be addressed. However, if Ministers, including Sinn Féin Ministers, want to address it, there is an appropriate way for them to do that, which is to bring it to the Executive and work towards it as an Executive priority. I understand that Danny's motivation is valid and genuine, but, personally, I maintain the view that it is a welfare intervention by any other name and that the Bill is not the appropriate route to deal with it.

Mr Baker: To be honest, I am a wee bit disappointed in how you portrayed that. You said that the Bill will disadvantage the provision of education. Based on my evidence and what I heard from all the groups that I spoke to, children come back to school weeks, if not months, behind their peers. That is why I believe that the Department of Education has a part in it. I have no doubt that, if Department for Communities officials were sitting in front of me, they would say exactly the same thing — "It should not be for us; it should be for Education" — and it would be passed back and forth. I have no doubt of that.

From the outset, I have said that I am happy to work with the Department on its concerns, but I need to hear the legal side of it and those technicalities. I am not a drafter. I gave my policy intent to the drafter, and the Bill is what we came up with. My view is different from your analysis of the Bill, but I see how you came to your view.

I was in a school the other day, and I asked about the £3·34 amount. You know what my intent is, so if there is a better way of doing that, and if you are up for it, then, 100%, we will do it together. It would be brilliant to do it as a Committee. In that school, the teacher was giving off, saying, "I went to buy a burger. The burger, chips and a dessert cost £3·34, but I only wanted the burger". The burger might only have been £1·50, but he was still charged £3·34. There is a set meal in secondary schools, according to the evidence that I gathered. That is how I came to that. If we need to tweak a word here and there, 100%, let us do it.

I have tried to future-proof the Bill, but I do not think that any legislation is ready on its first go. That is why we have a Committee Stage. I am rambling a bit because I want to explain things, but I want a commitment from the departmental officials that you will come back and try to work with the Committee. Let us get to amendments that you would like through the Committee Stage, if possible. Is that possible for you?

Mr McConville: Obviously, we are still working through it ourselves. We still have to take legal advice and brief the Minister. We are due to be at Committee on 3 June or thereabouts.

Mr Baker: That would be good, because, as I said and will always say, it is the very least that Education should do, and other Departments need to do a lot more to tackle child poverty. It is only one piece of a wider puzzle.

I have the figures for every constituency. In my constituency, the Bill would support nearly 10,000 children. In East Belfast, it would be 2,766. In Foyle, it would be 6,880. We and the Department of Education could support a significant number of children to give them the best possible future.

Nothing really jumps out at or surprises me in what you have said. I want to work with you. I will push back about the figures. They are not my figures; they came from the internal Research and Information Service (RaISe) team. It is working from the inflation level of 3·5% in the Treasury's green book. I get that you are putting a different number to it, but I cannot get into that argument. I can only work with the numbers that the researchers gave me. There will be that gap.
You raised operational issues. I wrote to the Education Authority to ask for meetings to talk through some of those. It said that, at this point, it does not feel that there is even a need for a meeting. Some of the concerns that you raised today could be sorted out operationally. There is enough flexibility in the Bill to do that. I think that that will play out.

On a policy point, if the House decides to pass the legislation, I would like to think that the Department and any other Department would work hand in hand to make sure that no one loses out. I take your point on asylum seekers. I had that conversation with the Department for Communities. There is no recourse at the moment. It is a Home Office issue. I think that it can be resolved between the Department and the Home Office. I do not think that it should be a big hurdle, to be honest, but it is good that it has been flagged up. We should work towards that, because we do not want to leave anyone behind.

I think that that is all I wanted to say. I just do not want officials to come in and say, "You are having a bad impact on education by doing this". This is to support children, and we need to give children the best pathways. If we do not deal with poverty, we will not give children the best future. It is putting the cart before the horse a lot of the time. I want to end child poverty, and doing this though Education is the start of that. I look forward to seeing more from all of the Departments. I put something down on paper. It is a Bill. To be brutally honest, I wish more Members would do that. That is my wee bit. I am sorry that there were not many questions in there, Chair.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): That is all right, Danny.

Mrs Guy: Thank you for the evidence. You have raised some useful technical points. On the face of it, it does not look as though any issues are insurmountable, but it is helpful for us to have heard that today.

We are aware that the target audience is those who qualify for free school meals. Obviously, we know of the links between free school meals and educational underachievement. Has the Minister ever asked for any proposals around holiday hunger as a tool to address educational underachievement?

Mr McConville: Because I am relatively new in the Department, I will —.

Mrs Guy: In his time in office, has the Minister ever actually asked for any solutions to holiday hunger?

Mr Jonathan Boyd (Department of Education): Not specifically with the ambition of tackling educational underachievement.

Mrs Guy: OK. That is all I wanted to ask. I was just curious whether that was something that [Inaudible.]

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): There is no danger of going over time. That is all good. Thank you for that.

As there are no other indications, I would like to pick up on and check something. When you come back to give evidence once you have had the legal advice, I would like to see if it is possible to have constructive engagement with you on what could be amended in clause 1 to tidy up the issue of payments to post-primary children. Regardless of the position on the Bill of anybody who is around the table, it will be good for members to have an alternative proposition in front of us if there is a better way to do it. The Bill's sponsor has said that he is open to that, so I would certainly like to put on record that we are keen to see those proposals. You have raised the technical issue — Michelle also highlighted it — in regard to asylum seekers. You have administered a scheme similar to this in the past, which could be used to see what can be done practically to overcome some of those hurdles. That request is on the record so, as long as other members are content with that, we should get something back.

Mrs Middleton: I wonder whether any other interventions, such as breakfast clubs, have been looked at when it comes to free school meals during holiday periods.

Mr McConville: Not by the Department, no.

Mr Boyd: The focus has always been on the free school meal provision.

Mrs Middleton: OK, thank you. Is there no plausible link between having a free school meal and having breakfast in a breakfast club?

Mr Boyd: The Department already provides funding through the extended schools programme that is used by many schools to provide —.

Mrs Middleton: They can choose whether to use it for that.

Mr Boyd: Yes. They can choose what they wish to use it for.

Mrs Middleton: That clarifies that. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): OK. That is the end of that evidence session. I have not had any other indications from any other members. Thank you for your time, and we hope to have you back to go into some of the more technical aspects of the drafting of the Bill.

Mr McConville: Thank you, Chair.