Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Joining us today are Dr Ernest Purvis, head of policy, Children in Northern Ireland (CINI); and Bethany Ebron, chief executive officer, Community Intercultural Programme (CIP). I will just let you guys get settled, and then we can make a start. Thank you for your comprehensive briefing paper and for joining us today. I invite you to make some opening remarks, and then we will hopefully have plenty of time for questions and answers.

Dr Ernest Purvis (Children in Northern Ireland): I thank the Committee for the opportunity to provide evidence on behalf of Children in Northern Ireland in relation to the Education (Holiday Meal Payments) Bill. I am joined by Bethany Ebron, the chief executive of the Community Intercultural Programme, which is one of our partners and an organisation that meets the needs of communities in the Armagh, Banbridge and Craigavon areas.

CINI is the regional umbrella organisation for the children's sector in Northern Ireland. We represent over 130 member organisations and work across policy, participation, training, safeguarding and direct family support. For almost a decade, we have also been directly involved in tackling holiday hunger and child food insecurity through community-based programmes that are delivered alongside local partners across Northern Ireland. We strongly support the overall intent and principles of the Bill. On our view, it represents a practical, proportionate and preventative intervention that will provide meaningful support for tens of thousands of children and families across Northern Ireland during the school holidays.

Our position is informed not only by policy analysis and research but by almost a decade of direct delivery experience working alongside children and young people, families and community organisations. Since 2016, CINI and its partners have delivered holiday programmes in response to concerns raised by youth clubs, family centres and local community groups about the increasing levels of food insecurity during the school holidays. Over time, we developed a community-based model that combines healthy food, physical activities, youth work and family support. In the last year alone, our main programmes supported over 1,600 children and young people, provided more than 32,000 meals and snacks, and distributed almost 2,500 food parcels to families across Northern Ireland. We work in Carrickfergus, Downpatrick, Portadown, Limavady and Irvinestown, and, from this summer, we will be providing additional support in Belfast and Dungannon. I put on record our sincere thanks and appreciation to all our funders, past and present — the National Lottery Community Fund, Meals and More and Sysco Ireland, the McClay Foundation, the Denis Lynn Foundation, BBC Children in Need and the Public Health Agency — without whom that support would not be possible.

Through this work, we have seen first-hand the scale of need and the positive impact that access to food and activities can have on children's well-being, confidence, health and social development. We have also seen the limitations of relying on charitable and community responses to address what is ultimately a structural issue linked to poverty and low income. The evidence presented in our written submission highlights the wider context facing many families in Northern Ireland today. Around 67,000 children are currently estimated to be living in absolute poverty, and more than 90,000 children are entitled to free school meals. Research also shows that children are disproportionately affected by poverty and food insecurity. Many families continue to experience significant pressures from rising food and energy costs. Through our work, we see the reality behind those statistics every day. We see children arriving at holiday programmes with empty lunchboxes. We see children asking to take food home to support their families. We see families struggling to replace basic clothing and shoes for their children because of financial hardship. That should not be happening, and every one of us should pause and reflect on why we are allowing that to happen.

At its core, the Bill raises the question of whether children in Northern Ireland should continue to receive less support during school holidays than children living elsewhere across these islands. In CINI's view, the evidence increasingly shows that Northern Ireland is lagging significantly behind other jurisdictions in both the scale of support available to children experiencing poverty and the ambition of policy responses to holiday hunger and food insecurity. Northern Ireland is now the only region in the UK without a dedicated government-funded holiday food and activities programme for children in need. We are also the only jurisdiction across the UK and Ireland without any form of universal free school meal provision.

Since 2023, when the decision was taken by the Department of Education in Northern Ireland to cease the school holiday food grant, the Irish Government have nearly completed a phased roll-out of universal school meals for primary schools, allocating €300 million to cover all remaining schools from 2025, and launched the holiday hunger pilot; the Scottish Government have continued to roll out universal free school meals for children up to primary 5 and have widened eligibility for older children through the Scottish child payment; the Welsh Government have completed the roll-out of universal free school meals, so that every child up to and including those in year 6 is now able to receive a free school meal every day; and the UK Government have committed £600 million to extend the holiday activities and food programme until 2028 and widened eligibility for free school meals to include every child in England whose household is in receipt of universal credit, supporting approximately half a million more children. It is completely unacceptable and unsustainable to allow the disparity in support available to children in Northern Ireland, compared to their peers elsewhere, to grow and the gap to widen. It is unfair, unjust and, frankly, shameful that children facing disadvantage and our lowest-income families are struggling and do not have access to support that is available elsewhere. Other Governments and Administrations have recognised the importance of these initiatives and acknowledged the harm that food insecurity inflicts on a child. So must we.

A particularly important aspect of our evidence is the voice and experience of children and young people. Through our youth advisory group, young people with lived experience of poverty and food insecurity have undertaken research, engaged with policymakers and developed practical recommendations for change. Its 2023 research project surveyed over 200 young people across Northern Ireland and found that almost half were worried about their parents not having enough money for essentials. A fifth said that they were experiencing hunger more often. One in seven reported skipping meals because they could not afford food, and nearly one in five said that they struggled to concentrate in school because of hunger or worries about food. While these findings are not representative of all children, they remain deeply concerning, and they reinforce a fundamental truth: poverty and food insecurity are having a detrimental impact on children's health, well-being, education and participation in everyday life across Northern Ireland.

From CINI's perspective, the previous school holiday food grant scheme played an important role in helping families to manage those pressures. It was targeted and relatively straightforward to administer, and it reached families at scale. Its removal in 2023 was felt very quickly by many of the communities and families who we support. We therefore welcome the Bill's proposal to place holiday meal payments on a statutory footing. We believe that this will provide greater certainty and protection for families in the future while also recognising the importance of ensuring that children can access adequate nutrition during holiday periods. We also welcome the flexibility provided by the Bill around regulation-making powers and the provisions relating to commencement, particularly given the importance of ensuring that payments can continue during emergencies or periods of school closure, if necessary. There should be no delay in issuing payments to families as soon as the legislative process is complete. At the same time, we encourage continued consideration of wider issues that relate to free school meal eligibility. As outlined in our written evidence, a significant gap remains between the number of children who live in poverty and the number who are eligible for free school meals. While that may be outside the immediate scope of this Bill, it is an important issue for future policy development.

We believe that the Bill represents a much-needed preventative investment in children and families. For CINI, the core issue is straightforward: no child should experience hunger during school holidays because their family cannot afford enough food. We thank the Bill's sponsor, Danny Baker, for introducing the legislation and for meeting our youth advisory group last year to discuss these issues. I will finish with a quote from a young person whom we work with. Last week, at our youth advisory group meeting in Portadown, I told the young people that we would be giving evidence to the Committee on the Bill, and I asked them what they would like to say to the politicians who are working on it. The first young person turned to me and said:

Thank you. I am very happy to take any questions.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Thank you, Ernest. I am always conscious that, at Committee Stage, we have to deal with the Bill that is in front of us. It is probably not a great use of time to think of lots of other things that might have been great ideas at this stage. Sometimes, our conversations stray into saying, "What about this?" or "Would that not have been great?", but it is about the Bill that is in front of us. I will ask one question which may risk straying into that territory. You referenced some of the data and research on children who are and are not in receipt of free school meals. Is there any research around which groups of children are most likely to experience poverty or to be at risk of food insecurity specifically? We hear quite a bit about groups of children who are at the edge of free school meal entitlement and how they might even experience significantly more impact. I want to get a sense of whether there is data or research on that. I am thinking about the targeting of the Bill.

Dr Purvis: I point to two things there. The first is the equality impact assessment, or the human rights impact assessment, of the discontinuation of the previous food grant scheme that was published by the Department of Education. It highlighted that the loss of those payments would disproportionately impact children from black and minority ethnic communities, Traveller communities and disabled children. It is really important to highlight that first and foremost.

The other thing is the analysis and research around free school meal eligibility that was conducted by Dr Nicole Gleghorne from Queen's University and commissioned by the Northern Ireland Children's Commissioner. That was really important modelling that showed how many children living in poverty are missing out on that key support because of the current criteria. It is quite complex, and I encourage the Committee to look into that directly with the people involved in the research. It more or less relates to how we measure poverty and how the criteria are set out. The paper highlighted the fact that working families are disadvantaged by the current criteria and that the criteria do not take into account family size in the same way that measures of poverty do around equivalisation of income.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): I do not want to make a big thing of this, but, in acknowledging that free school meals are a bit of a blunt instrument and do not have that nuance, is your organisation content that the targeting through the Bill is as effective as it can be, given the measures available to us?

Dr Purvis: Yes. We recognise that the issues around eligibility are beyond the scope of the Bill. The Department will set out its rationale and justification for the current eligibility criteria. We have long argued that that should be expanded and cover all children impacted on by poverty.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): That is perhaps one for the Committee to look at another time. You referenced the things that are in place in other jurisdictions and characterised Northern Ireland as lagging behind quite significantly. Given the schemes that are in place in other jurisdictions, is there a good evidence base on the most effective interventions around holiday hunger in particular?

Dr Purvis: The investment that the UK Government made in the extension of the holiday activities and food programme until 2028 was based on a lot of evidence that was gathered on the impact and benefits of that for the young people engaged in it. It is a different model and a different context. My understanding is that £600 million is filtered down and distributed through local authorities in England, which have more powers and a wider remit than our local government. The short answer is yes, there are examples in England of how that support benefits young people. There are examples in Scotland and Wales too. We did something different here. We introduced the school holiday food grant, and there is research to back up the fact that it was effective and supported families' food security during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): You have no strong preference for a scheme over a cash payment?

Dr Purvis: We do not see that as an either/or. Those are policy choices, and there are pros and cons. As I mentioned, a direct payment reaches families at scale. It provides dignity and choice. The support that we provide through our holiday programmes and community-based work is difficult to do at scale — I will be honest about that — and it is resource intensive. We have invested a lot of time and effort in fundraising. It is a constant struggle to get the support and the grants that we need to sustain that work, but it is more holistic.

Our evaluations of the benefits for, and positive impacts on, young people cover a wide range of indicators: health and well-being, education, skills and even getting young people into employment. It is therefore important to consider that as well.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Thank you. The question of scalability is important, so that is helpful.

Mr Sheehan: Thanks for your presentation. I am sorry that I missed the start of it. It is true to say that not all children experience learning in exactly the same way. As you said yourself, some children come into the classroom hungry and cannot concentrate in the same way as their peers can. If, however, children are hungry during holiday periods, particularly during the summer when they are off school for a couple of months, surely that has some impact on the activities that they take part in during the summer or on their preparations for going back to school. Do you have anything to say about that?

Dr Purvis: Yes. I will bring in Bethany to talk more about the experience of the young people whom she is working with directly. The evidence shows that hunger harms children in multiple ways. It harms their physical health and their mental health and well-being. There is evidence of learning loss and of children who are impacted on by poverty and food insecurity falling behind when they are out of school. We consider it to be an education issue as well. Bethany, do you want to add anything?

Ms Bethany Ebron (Community Intercultural Programme): Thank you for having me here today as well. I am delighted to be a community partner for Children in Northern Ireland, delivering the Portadown Gets Active programme.

We have been delivering the programme since 2017, so, next year, it will have been running for 10 years. That initiative has been great for the children. In our area, we provide support for as far out as Lurgan, Banbridge and Armagh. The concept is that children come in and get their breakfast with the rest of the kids. No one says, "You're allowed a breakfast" or "You're not allowed a breakfast". Everybody is the same when they come through the door. The children take part in fun learning activities. The educational element of the programme can involve learning to cook, learning skills through courses such as Mini Medics and engaging in arts, sports and science activities. The children get a lunch as well. We encourage the kids to try eating vegetables. They have to eat from the salad bar in order to get their dessert. That has been a positive step forward in encouraging kids to have something healthy.

Another element of the programme involves supporting the family as a whole. When the kids take part, their parents know that they are in a safe space. There is no cost to parents. The programme is delivered completely free of charged, owing to the funding that we receive through Children in Northern Ireland from the likes of the McClay Foundation, the Public Health Agency and Meals and More. That wrap-around support has been really positive for the families whom we support.

We hold family days. The expense incurred to take the family for a day out during the summer, or, indeed, during any holiday period, is extortionate. On our family days, we provide food and get local organisations to come together to deliver information sessions to signpost families to support for simple things such as health checks. Everything can be done at the one time. We are building relationships with parents so that they can tell us what kind of support they need. We can then proactively bring in agencies to provide that support or signpost families to other services. The provision of food is so important in order for the kids to engage in those activities, but the wrap-around support that the programme itself provides takes things to a whole new level.

A further element of the programme is that our young leaders and our volunteers have to design and deliver the programme. What they get out of it is massive, too. That is an overview of Portadown Gets Active.

Mr Sheehan: To sum it up, if children are going hungry during holiday periods, when they are off school, it is a given that their learning will suffer in the longer term. The right thing to do therefore is ensure that there is food sustainability so that they are not going hungry. Thanks for that.

Mrs Guy: Thanks, folks, for your presentation. I will pick up on a couple of things. First, I have a more general question. The Bill has been challenged, and one premise on which it has been challenged is that if we spend money on addressing holiday hunger, something else in education will have to be sacrificed. What is your response to that criticism?

Dr Purvis: Are you talking about the Department of Education's budget?

Mrs Guy: Yes, its budget and the idea that something will have to give in order for money to be spent on this intervention.

Dr Purvis: We recognise that there are currently pressures on public finances. They have been well rehearsed, so we understand them. We, however, view this as a preventative investment rather than simply as a cost pressure. The long-term costs of child poverty and food insecurity, including their impacts on health, on educational attainment and on public services, are substantial. Last year, I saw some estimates from organisations such as the Trussell Trust, although I may be wrong, that the impact is around £1 billion a year. The previous scheme demonstrated that that kind of targeted support could be delivered relatively efficiently and at scale, so it is important that I mention that. We would really encourage there to be consideration of cross-departmental approaches, given that the issue that we are talking about — holiday hunger — impacts on education, health and well-being simultaneously. Under the Children’s Services Co-operation Act (Northern Ireland) 2015, there is a legal duty for public authorities to collaborate and a legal imperative to pool resources, where necessary, in order to improve children's well-being. All of that should be considered.

Mrs Guy: You mentioned the previous school holiday food grant and said that, following its removal, there was good evidence that it had been effective. Will you speak more about that evidence base? I am interested in hearing about how that evidence was collated.

Dr Purvis: Again, the Committee may want to look into that in more detail with Trussell. I think that it has some evidence data and evidence that show increased use of food banks following the end of the scheme. I mentioned the Department of Education's equality screening, which acknowledged a range of impacts. An academic study by Eleni Spyreli and colleagues, which was published in the journal 'BMC Public Health', found that the payments supported food security among low-income families during the COVID-19 pandemic. That is potentially another thing for the Committee to look into in more detail.

Mrs Guy: Thank you. I appreciate that.

Mr Brooks: Thanks for your presentation. You will not find a politician, at least not an elected one, who will argue against feeding hungry children. The debate that we have had in the Committee is largely about the "how". What I am hearing from you, based on what you have said about programmes, is that you are about outcomes. You are saying that there are hungry children out there and families living in poverty, and you believe that they need that extra support, during holiday periods or at other times, in order to help them deal with poverty, be that done through welfare interventions or whatever. Do you agree with my assessment? Is that where you are at? Is it about outcomes? You said that it would be better to take a cross-departmental approach. Our Minister is the Minister in the Department for Communities at the minute, so that is not a party political point. It seems to me that such a Bill would sit more naturally with the Department for Communities. It should be the lead Department, but the issue should be a cross-Executive priority. That is why I asked that the Committee write to the Executive about that. Given that the Bill deals with a number of issues, do you agree that it would be better if a number of Departments were involved?

Dr Purvis: Absolutely. The legal framework is in place to support and facilitate that. I mentioned the 2015 Act, and I will make one very simple point about what you have said, which is that the child does not care about whom the accounting officer is, what the departmental process is or what specific Department has the remit or policy responsibility for the Bill. For the family in need of support, whoever is in charge of delivering the policy, getting it delivered and seeing action on the ground is the most important thing.

Mr Brooks: I agree with you that those who will benefit in the end are children and families, because a child is not living in poverty on their own. Rather, it is as a result of their family living in poverty. Children will not care from where the policy has come. As legislators, our view is that the "how" does matter. Where the money comes from and what it is being taken from matters.

You talked about the programmes that you provide that offer people opportunities to exercise, training and life coaching. They need those things as well, and the Minister talked about that in the Chamber. Do you think that investment in such programmes would be better? I heard you say that making direct payments gives people a degree of dignity, but how do we make sure that that money goes to where it needs to go, which is to get food? I say that not to demonise parents, because the vast majority of parents make the right choices. We all have constituency offices and have worked in our communities, however, and we know that there are some parents who do not make the right choices. Some do not make the right choices because they do not have the parenting skills, while others are making bad choices. Would we not be better doing such work through programmes such as yours rather than through making direct payments?

Dr Purvis: We are trying to deal with the Bill that is in front of us. If we had seen government investment in a scheme that equated to investment in even half the schemes that exist in England, or if there were any proposals with which we could engage or that we could scrutinise, we could look at doing that. We are straying into hypothetical scenarios about what could or should be funded. The short answer is that we support what is in the Bill and the effect that it will have on reinstating the school holiday food grant, which is the scheme that was in place previously.

Mr Brooks: You are supporting the outcome of the Bill rather than necessarily the belief that this should be an educational intervention. You talked earlier about how having food before they go into classroom helps children concentrate. I absolutely agree, but the Bill will not do that, nor is that its aim. Rather, it is about providing food during holiday periods. My contention is that the Bill is not an educational intervention but a welfare intervention. I have no problem with there being an intervention. I have no problem with the fact that those in poverty would get an uplift and be helped by it, but I do not think that the right way in which to do it is to take money from one Department, and for that Department to be the Department of Education, because, for me, the issue does not seem to fit that easily into that Department.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Please make a final comment, after which I will bring in the next member.

Dr Purvis: The main thing that I will say in response is that, from our perspective, the Bill will effectively reinstate a scheme that was previously administered by the Department of Education and supported by —.

Mr Brooks: Yes, during an emergency period. I am not challenging you, but I have to put that on the record. That is an issue that I have with the Bill. Pat built the case for how the legislation could, in the longer term, help a child's educational outcomes, but it would also help their health outcomes and help them fulfil their economic potential. There are therefore all sorts of lines that we could draw.

Given the financial struggles that the Department of Education is facing, with £600 million of pressures into next year, it is not the Department that can carry the cost from the Bill. It certainly cannot carry it alone. That is why we should look at making the issue an Executive priority rather than necessarily a priority for the Department of Education. I do not disagree with the principle behind the Bill, however.

Mr Baker: Ernest, thank you so much for coming here today. We met a number of times way back, even before the Assembly came back. I met you specifically about this issue and what I hoped to achieve as a Back-Bench MLA. Unfortunately, you are probably seeing and hearing a bit of what I am up against. The previous questioning was pure gaslighting, because the DUP voted against the Bill in principle at Second Stage. It had no interest in its going forward to Committee.

It needs to be put on the record that the Bill is the very least that the Department of Education should be doing. It is only one piece of a much bigger puzzle to end child poverty. It is not a silver bullet: far from it. In fact, we will need programmes such as the one that you have been running to coincide with it, and much more. We can talk about funding and say that the pressures are well documented, but Ministers have their own budgets and priorities. Spending £11 million on AI and tens of millions of pounds on TransformED is the Minister of Education's priority, yet he says that he does not have the money in his budget to support children.

I have been involved in similar schemes to the one that you run, so I know that children go back to school malnourished. When they are malnourished, they are weeks and months behind they peers. My first question therefore is this: how can children reach their full educational potential if they are hungry?

Dr Purvis: The evidence that we have set out shows that hunger affects children's concentration, behaviour and participation. There is evidence concerning educational attainment as well, so I agree with your point. I also call for there to be greater investment in community-based support and in the types of programmes that we run, which provide a holistic view of the child and support them on a range of levels so that, when they return to school or start to think about moving into employment, we are strengthening them on so many levels. We have seen the transformative effect of our programmes. The work that we deliver is about breaking the vicious cycle of poverty. We view the Bill as being part of the jigsaw.

Mr Baker: The Bill is just one piece of legislation in front of us, but it is the only legislation to address poverty that I see coming forward. Other Departments really are not delivering on ending child poverty, or poverty in general. Are you concerned about that?

Dr Purvis: Since the Assembly and the Executive were restored in 2024, we have continually highlighted the disparities that I have talked about today between what happens here and the support that is available in other jurisdictions — places very close to us — that have recognised the issues and acted on them. That is included in our response to the consultation on the draft anti-poverty strategy. We have highlighted issues with the Department's consultation and with the review of free school meal eligibility. I have tried to set out as clearly as possible today the support that is available elsewhere and how we are lagging behind. Our position is that that is not acceptable or sustainable. Families here need so much more support from government.

Mr Baker: An issue that has cropped up in Committee, although, if I am being brutally honest, not so much from my consultation, is that of vouchers versus cash payments. What is your view on that?

Dr Purvis: Using vouchers is a more restrictive approach that limits a parent's ability or a family's ability to meet their child's needs. We will never be able to respond the circumstances of any particular child or family, but a direct payment offers someone who is really struggling the dignity of being able to respond to whatever situation they are in. During holiday periods in the winter months, families grapple with high energy costs and other issues, depending on when they do food shopping and when they are hit with other bills. Direct payments therefore give families choice and dignity, and that is really important for our lowest-income families.

Mr Baker: Ernest, this is the final point that I will make.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Be quick, Danny. Make it a brief point.

Mr Baker: I just want the Bill to become law. I genuinely do not care in what way that happens, but it must happen. What would you say if the Bill were to be voted down in this mandate? What would that say about the Assembly and the Executive?

Dr Purvis: We would be disappointed if the Bill were not to progress. Our understanding is that the Assembly agreed to the Bill in principle when it voted at its Second Stage. We understood that it supported the principle of introducing the payment. It would be incredibly disappointing for the families and children whom we support if it were not to progress.

Mr Baker: Thank you.

Mr Burrows: Thank you for what was a very good presentation. The principle behind the Bill is meritorious. I used to do food bank deliveries, and it was heartbreaking for me to see hunger throughout the year.

You said that it does not matter how this happens, as long as it happens, and Danny replicated that view. It is disturbing to hear that from a legislator. That is probably why we have so many problems in Stormont. How things are delivered does matter. Who pays for them and whether they are affordable also matters. No one in the room wants children to go hungry. Do you understand, however, why some people are concerned that the money may end up not being spent on food to go on the dinner table?

Dr Purvis: The same argument applies to social security and to other direct financial assistance that we provide to families. We have to trust parents. I have never met a parent who would not do anything to meet their child's needs and who would not go out of their way to do so. Some parents whom we support skip meals and go without in order to feed their children and provide them with what they need. We therefore need to trust them and give them dignity.

Mr Burrows: I hear all of that, but the first thing that I will say is that there are parents who do not do the best for their children. You may never have met them in the course of your professional experience, but I have. They do exist. We need to see the world as it is, not how we would like it to be, especially when drafting legislation.

A telling part of your testimony was when you said that the payment should be made in the form of cash, not food vouchers, because the recipients may need it for heating or energy costs or something else during the week. It therefore seems to me, that, in your mind, this is not simply about ending holiday hunger but about providing an additional benefit. That is where we get into problems with delivery, because, if that were the case, the Bill should sit with the Department for Communities. Will you give me more of your understanding of why providing food vouchers would not be a suitable approach to take, considering that that would at least ensure that it was food that was being purchased?

Dr Purvis: On the issue of how you can guarantee that the money will be spent on food, you need to go back and consider and understand food insecurity: what causes it, why children are going hungry, and why so many people in Northern Ireland are using food banks. It is an issue of low income. It is because those on the lowest incomes are struggling to meet the costs of essentials. Food cannot be looked at in isolation. The issue has to be looked at in the round. That is what we mean when we talk about poverty and food insecurity. Being overly prescriptive and going down —.

Mr Burrows: The Bill, with respect, is overly prescriptive. It is a holiday hunger Bill. It is for holidays, it is for hunger, and, therefore, it is for food. This is where Stormont gets itself into difficulties. We should be precise and clear when it comes to legislation. This is serious stuff. This is public money, and we need to make sure that it is spent in the most sustainable and effective way. The answers that you are giving me are rather vague. That is not a criticism. I would absolutely expect you to want children to get more support. The question for us, as legislators, is about what the best way to do that is. Money spent somewhere is money not spent somewhere else. I see this as a top-up to benefits as opposed to being specifically targeted at holiday hunger, which is how you are describing it.

Dr Purvis: I disagree with that characterisation. The Bill seeks to address — we support it in doing so — the following issue. When children are at school, they have access to school meals. We, as a society and Government, have accepted that a proportion of families needs that support, and that we should provide food for children when they are at school. However, for some reason, we accept that those children should not receive that support when they are not in school. That is what the food grant is about, and that is why we talk about holiday hunger. The payment would support families that do not have access to school meals.

Mr Burrows: I have one vital follow-up. You make a very good point, but the money for school meals is guaranteed to be spent on school meals. We do not put in parents' bank accounts the value of the school meals and say that they can spend it as they wish; we actually provide the free school meal. If we were to use that comparison and try to do something similar, it would be more analogous to provide food or food vouchers as opposed to cash.
.

Dr Purvis: Of course we could do that.

Mr Burrows: We could do it.

Dr Purvis: Yes. That is short answer. The Department could design any sort of scheme to provide food, but this is the Bill that we have in front of us.

Mr Burrows: OK. I genuinely want to thank you for what you do. My heart is in the same place as yours. We just need to get the legislation right.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Thank you, both, for your evidence. We appreciate your time today. There are plenty of things to pick up, even going beyond the Bill.