Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): I welcome Eamonn McConville, the Department of Education's director of transport and food in schools, and Jonathan Boyd, head of the Department's food in schools team. We have just come out of a closed session briefing with the Examiner of Statutory Rules in which a couple of technical issues were discussed. It was noted in that session that all members very much appreciated your briefing, which was presented in a constructive spirit. I invite you to brief the Committee, after which we will move to questions and answers.

Mr Eamonn McConville (Department of Education): My remarks will be short, Chair. As you said, the Committee has received the Department's letter, which highlights the drafting issues that we have identified on the basis of our consideration of the legal advice that we have received since we were last here. All of the information in the accompanying table is, we think, important for the Committee's scrutiny, but a few points are particularly worth highlighting. We may well go over ground that has already been covered.

The first issue arises in clause 1, which inserts new paragraphs after article 58(1)(b) of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986. In proposed new paragraph 1A, we believe that the phrase "in lieu of" could have an unintended consequence, insofar as it could prevent a pupil who has already received a payment from receiving a free school meal if they return to school at an earlier date. The example that we have used is that, if a holiday meal payment has been made for all weekdays over the summer holiday period from 1 July to 31 August but the child returns to school on 31 August, under the Bill, technically, that could mean that the child is not entitled to a free school meal. In legal terms, "in lieu of" means "in place of".

Secondly, the Bill refers to "milk, meals or other refreshment". That text is used in article 58 of the 1986 Order but not specifically in the context of what comprises a free school meal. A free school meal enables a pupil to access a main course and dessert or fruit. It does not include a drink, as fresh drinking water is available in the canteens.

Our next issue with the Bill relates to the single identifiable value for a holiday meal payment to be determined for post-primary pupils. The Education Authority's (EA's) current post-primary canteen list has 44 individually priced items. The meal of the day is currently priced at £2·60 and can be combined with a dessert at £0·74. That comes to £3·34, which is the daily allowance given to a free school meal pupil. In the Bill there is a single price paid for a meal by all paying post-primary pupils, but that is not the case in practice, because a pupil could, for example, choose a soup and a filled baked potato for £3. We believe that, for the Bill to be workable, there needs to be a clearly defined price point that can be used for the value of a holiday meal payment.

Our final point is on new paragraph (1E) and the keeping of records. There is already an established legislative framework in place that covers the retention and disposal of records by all public bodies in Northern Ireland. Restating that is not best drafting practice.

Chair, I am conscious that we have provided a table of all the drafting issues that we have identified. I am also conscious that the Committee asked for a proposed amended text. At this stage, I am not able to provide that to the Committee.

I just wanted to highlight those matters. I am happy to take questions.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): That has been helpful. I reiterate that your correspondence with Committee was helpful and clear. I am clear in my mind of the issues that are being highlighted. I may want to separate those issues into two categories: there are things that are all very technical and around ensuring that the Bill has the intended effect; then, there is commencement, which I also want to flag. I do not want to speak for the Bill sponsor — I am sure that he will raise it himself — but, in evidence that he gave to the Committee, he highlighted that that commencement was deliberately chosen. However, it has been flagged by the Department that there could be issues regarding timings of commencement orders, so I will separate the two.

Leaving commencement aside, the question that arises from this briefing and the previous briefing that we heard is this: is the Department of a mind to provide technical amendments for the Committee to consider, or is it a case of, "We'll leave it with you. Now, go and tidy it up"? That is a genuine question. Does the Department anticipate working with the Committee on the Bill, do we need to make a decision, or would we be better to engage with the Bill Office at this stage?

Mr McConville: As you will know, it is up to a Minister to decide whether to table an amendment, so —.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Has the Minister given you a steer on that? Has the Minister provided any direction?

Mr McConville: We provided the analysis, but, at this stage, no instructions have been sent to the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC).

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): OK. We will pick up that issue of how we proceed.

You did not speak directly to commencement. Are you able to clarify the Department's concerns on that? We can then have a consideration of where the Committee sits with it. What are the Department's specific concerns about how commencement is set out in the Bill?

Mr McConville: It is more about the timing. The Bill could be passed by the Assembly before it rises for the election. The normal timescale for Royal Assent is around one month. In those circumstances, the issue that we have raised would not be relevant. However, if Royal Assent were to be received just before a holiday period, for example on 30 June, the practicalities of laying a commencement order before the first day of the next relevant holiday period — 1 July — would be problematic. There is a formulation whereby it comes in automatically with Royal Assent, and, commencement is looked at afterwards, but —.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): That is helpful. There is clearly no offer of amendment drafts on the table, and I appreciate that that sits with the Minister.

From hearing the Department's evidence and the Bill sponsor's intent, I understand that there is potentially not a meeting of minds on how quickly commencement should kick in to allow the Department to prepare. You think, however, that removing the requirement of the commencement order so that it just comes in automatically with Royal Assent is a way through the technical issue. Have I understood correctly?

Mr McConville: Yes. It would be about getting everything in place. We talked about the fact that, if it were to come so late in the day, there would have to be a back payment or something like that.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): There are potential layers of complexity.

Mr Jonathan Boyd (Department of Education): I am not sure that having the commencement order adds anything, if it can come into effect earlier.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): That is helpful and clear.

Mr Baker: Thank you. That is what I wanted: constructive feedback so that we can work to get the best draft of the Bill. I have met you before to lay out my policy intent. I knew that some aspects of the Bill would have to be tidied up. I will work with the Committee and do work myself on that. I have said that I will always work with the Department and the Minister. I get that there may be other priorities. It is my desire to do this myself or through the Committee, rather than to wait for the Minister making a call on the amendments. I may not agree with everything, but there is certainly some really good stuff in what you have given us. I can work with the Committee on that to make sure that we get what we want. Nothing that you have said takes away from the policy intent.

On the point about the commencement order, I just thought it would be unfair on children and families if the commencement fell in such a way that they did not get payments over the summer period in particular. It would be great if it were in place for this Christmas — that may be wishful thinking — but it could probably be done by Easter and definitely by summer. I do not want to miss summer '27. That is why the commencement side is important to me, but I take the point that we can maybe do it in a different way that would still make sure that it happens. I will certainly work to the best of my ability to address everything that you have brought forward.

I take your point and your examples on the £3·34 payment. In the past couple of weeks, I was in three schools, and it is different in all of them. You said that you can get a meal for £2·50, but a teacher was giving off to me, saying, "I only want to go down and grab the burger, but I'm still charged £3·34". There are things like that. Secondary schools are clearly doing different things. I am happy to work on it.

I appreciate your constructive evidence. That was a lot better than you coming in and saying that my Bill would be harmful. Thank you.

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

Thank you for your time. We will move into a discussion on how to proceed.

Mr McConville: You got back on track a wee bit with your time.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): That has been brilliant, yes. [Laughter.]

It has brought my blood pressure down a bit.