Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Joining us, we have Chris Quinn, the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People (NICCY), and Alex Tennant, the interim chief executive of NICCY. You are both very welcome. Thank you for reaching out to the Committee and offering to brief us on the Bill. I ask you to open your evidence with a presentation of up to 10 minutes. Then, we will move to questions. I ask witnesses and members to try, as far as possible, to keep comments focused on the Bill, so that we can cover all the business on the agenda in full. Over to you.

Mr Chris Quinn (Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People): Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this really important issue.

It is important to reflect. This is my first Committee appearance since the trouble that we saw over the past week — indeed, this time last week. I watched the Minister's input at Committee. That evening, we saw more horrific violence in my community. The point that I want to make to the Committee is that children are still missing school. Children are afraid to leave their communities and homes. Today, we have been contacted about such a family. We need to ask the Minister and his Department to be aware that the issue continues to prevail. Children are missing exams as well as part of that. Obviously, I condemn everything that has happened in the strongest possible terms.

I will kick off by contextualising the Education (Holiday Meal Payments) Bill from my perspective as the Children's Commissioner, and then I will pass to Alex to talk about its provisions.

NICCY's work is grounded in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). The Bill engages directly with article 27, which places a responsibility on the Government to assist parents in providing an adequate standard of living, including access to nutritious food. The Bill is not simply a policy piece; it relates to a clear children's rights obligation. The obligation is particularly important in Northern Ireland, where child poverty remains a significant issue.

The uncomfortable truth is that I visit far too many schools where children come in hungry — where families, parents and carers are doing the best but are simply struggling to provide the basics. We continue to live through a prolonged cost-of-living crisis: food prices continue to rise off the charts, and fuel prices have also been in the headlines. The price of school uniforms is another huge issue for families. For many families, it is no longer about managing but about coping from one day to the next. The impact of that can be seen clearly in schools. Staff, teachers, classroom assistants and support staff are quietly stepping in, often using their own money, to make sure that children have something to eat. Breakfast is a particular concern. Many children arrive at school hungry. Even where breakfast clubs are available, some families cannot afford the small daily cost — it is usually as little as 50p — and that becomes a barrier. It does not stop there. Some children are going without a snack at break time. Schools are stepping in to fill the gap, often at their own cost, by providing fruit as a healthy snack. When preparing for today, I spoke to a classroom assistant who told me:

That reflects a real concern, because, for many children, school is the only place where they can rely on having a healthy meal. When that disappears during the holidays, the pressure on families increases significantly. The impact is real; it is not some abstract theory. Children in your constituencies are living in poverty, and that impacts on their right to education, well-being, behaviour and ability to learn. We continue to see the impact of poverty very clearly in educational outcomes. For example, children who are entitled to free school meals are five times more likely — five times — to leave school without five GCSEs graded A* to C. That is the worst rate that we have known.

Poverty is not just about income; it is directly linked to educational inequality and life chances. Against that backdrop, the Bill is important, because it represents a specific, tangible intervention that can help reduce hardships for families, particularly during school holidays when costs increase. It aligns with long-standing recommendations that the Government should act to reduce outgoings for families and make education more affordable, including through holiday food provision.

It is also important to recognise that the Bill sits within the wider policy gap. There has been a statutory requirement for an anti-poverty strategy since 2006, yet it has still not been delivered. While a draft strategy has been published, it lacks strong new actions and a clear focus on child poverty. In that context, the Bill becomes even more significant, because it represents a concrete and deliverable action that the Executive can take to address child poverty. However, to fulfil that role effectively, the detail of the legislation matters. On that note, I will pause and bring in Alex, who has led NICCY's work on child poverty for almost two decades. I trust that you will value her input.

Mrs Alex Tennant (Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People): Our evidence focuses on clause 1's proposed new paragraphs 1A to 1D to be inserted into the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986.

Paragraph 1A provides for financial payments in lieu of school meals during holiday periods. We fully support that measure. It is consistent with the fundamental purpose of the Bill, which is to ensure that children who rely on free school meals during term time are not left without equivalent support during school holidays. From a rights perspective, that measure is essential. It gives effect to the principle that children's needs for adequate nutrition do not stop when schools close, and it helps ensure continuity of support. In our view, paragraph 1A meets the Executive's obligations under article 27 of the UNCRC and provides a clear, legal basis for delivering support to families when it is most needed. We believe that paragraph 1A should be retained as drafted, as it delivers on the core intent of the Bill.

Paragraph 1B is on eligibility, which is based on free school meals entitlement. The effectiveness of paragraph 1A is heavily dependent on paragraph 1B, which defines eligibility and targets those who are entitled to free school meals. Our summary of the evidence sets out the findings of the analysis that we commissioned of free school meals eligibility, notably that around 41% of children living in poverty are not eligible for free school meals. That is a critical point: as it is currently structured, a substantial proportion of children in poverty would not benefit from the Bill, because free school meals eligibility is a blunt proxy for poverty that is largely linked to the receipt of specific benefits rather than to actual household income. Importantly though, paragraph 1B allows for the free school meals eligibility criteria to be reformed. It states that eligibility is:

We propose that paragraph 1B is retained, as drafted. At the same time, we request that the Department of Education revises the eligibility criteria for free school meals, removing the requirement for a family to be in receipt of means-tested benefits and moving towards a net income-based threshold that is adjusted for family size. We can provide more evidence on that. We also recommend introducing, if possible, data-sharing arrangements to support that, and an exploration of automatic enrolment, so that eligible families do not miss out due to complexity or lack of awareness. However, to be clear, the changes that we are asking of the Department of Education do not require any amendment to the Bill, as drafted.

Paragraph 1C covers the method of payment. It provides for payments to be made directly into a parent's bank account. Again, we strongly support that approach. In our written evidence, we set out three possible delivery mechanisms: direct cash payments; vouchers; or direct provision of food such as through food banks or food programmes. Our position is that direct payments are the best option. There are three reasons for that, the first of which is dignity and trust. Direct payments to parents is dignified and respectful and recognises parents' important role in making decisions in the best interests of their children. The alternative approaches, including vouchers and food parcels, can imply a lack of trust in parents, which is not consistent with a child's rights approach.

The second reason that we think that direct payments are the best delivery method is cost-effectiveness. There is considerable evidence from the World Bank Group and others on cash transfers versus vouchers versus direct provision. That evidence shows that direct payments have lower administrative costs than vouchers or direct provision, which is important given the current financial constraints on the Executive. The research shows that cash transfers make up around 2% to 10% of the total costs of any food delivery programme; vouchers are around 8% to 20%; and direct provision can be anywhere from 15% to 40%. I found a UK example of that in Healthy Start vouchers. A total of £86 million was paid out in those vouchers, but administration costs were £9·6 million, so around 10% of the costs of that programme were administration costs.

The final reason that we give in favour of direct payments is flexibility and accessibility. We have looked at evidence from, for example, the free school meal programme in England during COVID. Direct payments allow families to buy food that suits their needs, including dietary requirements. It avoids restrictions on where food can be purchased, so it can be purchased anywhere, including locally and in social supermarkets. Direct payments are generally easy to access and use. By contrast, vouchers can be restrictive and difficult to use, and direct provision models can be stigmatising and less responsive to individual needs. The free school meals programme in England during COVID was a voucher programme. Subsequent research has found that only around 51% of those who were eligible for it accessed it, in its earliest stages in particular. Therefore, our position is that paragraph 1C should be retained and that direct payments should remain the primary delivery method.

The final paragraph that we want to comment on — paragraph 1D — relates to the value of the payment. As drafted, that paragraph links the payment to the price that families are charged for school meals. There is a clear rationale for that, but we have concerns that it does not reflect the true cost of providing a meal. While school meal charges range from £3 to £3·34, the Education Authority (EA) estimated, in 2024-25, the cost of producing a meal to be around £4·28. That creates a gap. If payments are tied only to the price that is charged, rather than the actual cost, families may receive less support than is realistically needed to provide an equivalent meal. Our recommendation is that payments should reflect the full cost of providing a nutritious meal, not simply the subsidised price that is charged in schools. That is important to ensure that children receive equivalent nutritional support during holidays and that the policy achieves its intended anti-poverty impact.

Before I finish, I will comment on the financial considerations. We recognise that the estimated cost of the scheme — £20 million to £23 million — is significant and that that is a consideration. However, we believe that there are important reasons why the scheme needs to be taken forward. We think that direct payments are the most cost-effective delivery model. Alternative approaches could increase costs further. That needs to be considered in the decision on the delivery model and when you think about the financial implications. Barnett consequentials that have resulted from the holiday activities and food (HAF) programme in England could provide funding support. The response to a recent Assembly question brought some clarity there: a very rough estimation is that the Barnet consequentials could be £6 million to £7 million per annum. That is unhypothecated, but such an amount would go some way to contributing to this scheme. Most importantly, the scheme should be viewed as an investment in reducing child poverty and improving educational outcomes. We also note that reforming free school meals eligibility could lead to better targeting of resources and improve both their effectiveness and value for money.

We strongly support the Bill. We believe that it represents a practical step towards addressing child poverty. Its success, however, will depend on three things. The first is eligibility: we support retaining clause 1 as it stands, but we ask that the Department also looks at and reforms the free school meals criteria so that the scheme reaches all children in poverty. The second is delivery: we support retaining direct payments as the primary mechanism. The third is adequacy: we recommend that paragraph 1D be amended to ensure that payments reflect the real cost of a meal.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Thank you, both, for that. I want to get clarity on eligibility. As the Committee has considered the Bill and at Second Stage, there has been quite a bit of discussion on eligibility and the concept of free school meals. There is concern that, as a measure, it possibly does not reach the children who are most at risk of being in poverty. I want to ensure that I have understood your position correctly. Is your position that you support the Bill because free school meals is the only measure that we have, but that, if you were asking the Department to do something more, it would be to alter eligibility criteria for free school meals so that it reaches children who are most at risk of being in poverty? It is almost a caveat and something separate that you would like the Department to do, rather than a criticism of how the Bill is framed.

Mrs Tennant: Yes. It is a call to the Department. The Bill allows for the eligibility criteria to be amended. The Bill contains the mechanism to respond and for the Department to make the changes. The Bill should then allow those children to be targeted more directly.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): You support —

Mrs Tennant: We are in favour of maintaining that.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): — a fresh look being taken at the criteria for how eligibility for free school meals is assessed. You have mentioned auto-enrolment, but you did not mention universal roll-out. All of that is being said in a challenging financial context, as you have acknowledged. I assume that that is in the mix of any actions that you would like to see flowing from the Bill.

Mr Quinn: Yes. As Alex said, we acknowledge that the current system is not reaching as many children as we need it to reach. That reach needs to be extended, regardless of this Bill.

You mentioned roll-out. We have seen how it can work. We saw payments being made between 2020 and 2023, so there are ways in which to roll it out. There is a precedent. Alex, do you want to come in on the administrative side of it?

Mrs Tennant: You are talking about universal free school meals, Chair.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Yes. What happens next?

Mrs Tennant: We need that measure; we need a way of identifying the most disadvantaged children in education. Whatever happens regarding the universal provision of free school meals in schools — and we are very supportive of that — the Bill would not necessarily mean that the payments would go out to all children over the summer. The Bill will still need to be targeted at those who are on low incomes, as opposed to all children. The free school meals measure allows for children to be identified for uniform grants through the additional payment to schools. It allows us to track disadvantage. When preparing this paper, we found that the most recent stats show that, while only one in 10 children who are not on free school meals leave school without five GCSEs at grades A* to C, including in English and maths, five in 10 of those on free school meals leave without that. I do not want it to seem as if I am being overly critical of the free school meal measure, because, clearly, it is able to distinguish disadvantage within education. Those who are not below the poverty line but are in receipt of free school meals are probably just above the poverty line, so it is able to identify real disadvantage within education. We still need a strong measure — a way of targeting our support to the most disadvantaged children — but we would also welcome a more universal roll-out of free school meals in schools.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): That is helpful. You raised the issue of the cost of providing a meal and whether the measure contained in the Bill for assessing that cost is appropriate. You suggest that it should be the actual cost of delivering a meal to the EA, rather than to the parent. Are you confident that that is still a reasonable comparison? I ask that because the EA has the cost of running a commercial kitchen, it has to pay staff, and it often has to pay the cost of transporting meals and the staff to serve the meals, not just prepare them. Does the cost to the EA of providing a meal reflect the cost to a parent? Are you confident about that? We are in a constrained position, and we need to get a sense of whether we are comparing like with like.

Mr Quinn: That is a good question, and I do not have the answer to it right now. Your point about the actual cost of preparing and delivering the food is well made. We want poor families to have more money in their pockets: that is the bottom line. Regardless of whether it is £3·24 or £4·28, it will make a big difference. Your point is worth exploring further: what is the actual cost to the EA in providing the meals, and could that full cost be transferred straight to the parent?

Mrs Tennant: There is a question of scalability. When you are producing meals for a large number of children, you are likely to be much more efficient.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): There are economies of scale.

Mrs Tennant: Yes, exactly. It is likely to cost the EA less to produce a meal for a child than it would cost a parent.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): We are probably getting into the territory of the sort of things that would need to be factored into a review, if the Bill were enacted: the costings, the actual costs to parents and all of that.

That is fine. I have nothing to add at this stage, so I am happy to bring in members.

Mr Brooks: I have expressed my opinion on the Bill a few times and, to some degree, it will not matter who comes into Committee: I will take a similar line, because I oppose the Bill in principle. I do not oppose feeding hungry children — everybody can get behind that — but I think that this is in the wrong place, with the wrong Department. Chris, you said:

I accept that that is a genuine interest in seeing families being lifted out of poverty. I understand that this is not where you are coming from, but my problem is that I see that as a welfare intervention. I feel that the Department of Education's link to this is really about the period in which the payments are supposed to take place, which is in the school holidays. That, however, is about the absence of school rather than school itself. Is it a fair summation that — this does not conflict with your support for the Bill — you are supportive of the outcome that the Bill would have and that you are supportive of what you see as the honouring of the Government's obligation to provide food to hungry children, but that you are not particularly focused on the how or through what mechanism or Department it is done?

Mr Quinn: The first thing that I will say to that is that the Assembly is bound, by the St Andrews Agreement and the Good Friday/Belfast Agreement, to deliver an anti-poverty strategy. Time and time again, we have heard that that is a cross-Executive strategy. The strategy that we have at the moment has no tangible outcomes. If the Executive's position is that anti-poverty strategy is a cross-Executive strategy, we cannot ping-pong on it. We cannot say, "We're not going to do this because —". I do not think that Gordon Lyons has extra money to put into welfare. This is a clear —.

Mr Brooks: It does matter that it is a welfare issue — and, by the way, it would still be for a DUP Minister. It does matter where it sits. We cannot just say, "These things need to happen. We don't care what Department does it". For responsible government, it matters that the right Department deals with the right thing. You might argue that there should be a welfare uplift for the same parents whom we are dealing with here: that would be a valid argument, and a debate on that would be valid. What I am saying is that this is not an educational intervention. Had we been talking about breakfast clubs assisting with educational attainment and helping children through the school day, as you hinted at earlier, there would definitely be a debate to be had about that, and that would be more relevant to the Department of Education. I just think that this is, essentially, a welfare uplift. After COVID, people wanted to maintain the £20 uplift; to me, this is based on the same principle. It should not sit with Education.

Mr Quinn: I disagree. I will go back to that statistic about one in five children. If that is not an educational outcome issue, I do not know what is. When —.

Mr Brooks: But —.

Mr Quinn: If you let me finish. When children are off school during the summer, things are harder for families.

Mr Brooks: That is welfare.

Mr Quinn: Those children come back to school less ready to learn. It is the Department's responsibility to deliver educational outcomes. The other thing — I cannot let it go — is that, if we are being told that the anti-poverty strategy is a cross-Executive strategy, what does DE have responsibility for delivering? This would be a clear and tangible outcome. The anti-poverty strategy lacks those things, and this Bill provides a solution.

Do you want to come in on that, Alex?

Mrs Tennant: It is really positive to hear that people are supportive of feeding poor children during the school holidays. That is our primary concern, and it is for legislators to make it happen. It is for you to decide the best mechanism for that, but make it happen — it goes back to you.

Mr Brooks: You touched on the different payment methods — direct provision and so on — and there was some discussion around that. At the heart of it, I feel that we should not be having this debate. It largely comes from the emergency response during COVID, which is not an example that we should follow. During COVID, decisions were made, as part of an emergency response, based on who had the most appropriate systems to get payments out quickly. This Bill follows in that line. It is about the principle. Eighty per cent of the arguments that you have made here today are valid, but they are arguments that are based largely on —. We can have an argument about the anti-poverty strategy, but I am not having it here and now; that is a perfectly good argument for the Committee for Communities to have.

I just do not think that the Bill sits in the right place at a time when our Education budget is so hugely pressured. We need to have that discussion. Is it an Education intervention? Should it be a priority for the Department of Education when our schools are falling down around us? That really has to be considered. We can certainly talk about whether welfare is at an appropriate level, but that is a different debate for a different place.

Mrs Tennant: I suppose —.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Briefly, because we may not have a meeting of minds here, but to round things off.

Mrs Tennant: The Minister of Education has responsibility for the children's strategy and the CSCA —

Mr Quinn: The Children's Services Co-operation Act (Northern Ireland) 2015.

Mrs Tennant: — which is about government joining up. It puts a duty on government to join up to deliver for children, and the Education Minister leads on that, so I put the challenge back.

Mr Brooks: I completely agree with joined-up government. I have raised that issue many times, and we have discussed it here. However, I am clear in my own mind that holiday meal payments are a welfare intervention. I do not understand why it sits with the Department of Education. We do not agree on that, but I agree in principle with much of what you say about joined-up government. I have no problem with that.

Mrs Guy: Thanks, folks, for the evidence. I will pick up on David's point. Educational underachievement and the attainment gap are certainly in the Education Minister's remit. The proportion of young people leaving school who were entitled to free school meals and who got five GCSEs with A* to C grades has decreased from 51·8% in 2023-24 to 48·7%. It is going down. The idea that children going hungry during holiday periods is not a disadvantage to their education when they come back to school does not seem to track. You believe, I suspect, that this measure will help to close the attainment gap or be a tool in the Minister's toolkit for achieving his goals on educational underachievement. I want to understand how it will do that.

Mr Quinn: When I was preparing for this session, I thought about how you could function if you came into Stormont today without food in your tummy; how you could function if that happened every day; how you could function if the only place in which you could get a meal was the Stormont canteen; and what would happen during recess.

Food is a basic human need. Hunger is a real issue that is exacerbated for families over the summer. I am conscious that I am going off on a tangent, but it is important. Through my career in youth work, and before I left the Northern Ireland Youth Forum, I saw more children turning up for food, bringing food home and being shy about taking food out of the fridge in our facilities. That is the reality. Children are worried about mummy and daddy or their carer putting food on the table in the evening and putting a uniform on their back. When I talk to little children in school and go to breakfast clubs and see children who are hungry, I think, "How can these children be in the best possible place to learn?". Hunger absolutely impacts on their educational outcomes. We have seen that. We have seen the gap growing. I emphasise the point that, for many children, things get worse over the summer months, which means that they go back to school in September way behind their peers. I am not sure whether I have answered your question. Alex, please come in on that.

Mrs Tennant: As you said, outcomes for children on free school meals have dropped. In some ways, the drop is marginal — it is a couple of percentage points over the past year — but more children who are on free school meals are now leaving without GCSEs than with them. For children who are not on free school meals, there have been improvements, and that should be celebrated. Their outcomes have improved. More than 92% of children who are not on free school meals leave school with good GCSEs. That is to be celebrated.

However, I have produced briefings for 20 years on poverty and its outcomes, and I go to the stats again and again, but it was shocking to find that drop. It is the first time that we have said that. Previously, we would have said that such children are twice as likely to leave school without GCSEs, but this is the first time that we have said that they are five times as likely. That is after 'A Fair Start' and other initatives that the Department of Education has taken forward. That is something that should be looked at or scrutinised to see why we have such a gap.

We understand that the resources are stretched and that the Minister has tough decisions to make. We are not supporting this lightly. We know that the money will have to come from somewhere. Money has come through from holiday activities and food programmes, so about a third of it should be covered already. We are seeing inequalities within the system growing, so resources need to be targeted at the most disadvantaged children.

Mrs Guy: I am not suggesting for a second, David, that you do not want to see those kids get fed at all, but it is about pushing back a bit on the premise that there is no role for Education or the Education Minister or that it will have no impact on educational outcomes. The evidence shows that it can, and that in itself is, perhaps, a counter-argument to what David is saying.

You said that the direct payment method is the best option regarding scale and the cost of delivery. Others have suggested that the holiday activities and food programme model in England delivers better outcomes. Is that a direction of travel that the Department should be looking at?

Mr Quinn: I feel strongly about direct payments. That is based on what I saw during my term in office at NICCY as well as in my previous role in community youth work. Direct cash transfers are probably one of the most effective ways of addressing poverty. We saw that in the USA and GB. There have been studies. I think that one of the big Manchester universities did a big study into the impact of direct cash transfers. There are agencies here embarking on a pilot programme with young people experiencing homelessness because there is a growing body of evidence and support for the direct cash transfer model.

I sometimes get frustrated that there seems to be a lack of trust in parents to use that money to the best of their disposal. Usually, support goes with direct transfer programmes. When you are talking about homeless-experienced young people, there is a support package. For families in extreme need, you would hope that there would be social services, welfare or other support available. To answer your question, direct cash transfer is the most effective and efficient. Alex may want to add to that.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Just a brief final point and then we will have to move on. Sorry. We are always on about timing.

Mrs Tennant: There are benefits to holiday programmes as well. It is not to say that they are not beneficial and do not deliver positive outcomes. Both of us come from a youth work background. We have worked with young people in disadvantaged areas and have seen the benefits of summer activities. We are supportive of that, too. I remember hearing an evaluation of one of those programmes that stated that parents were broken by not being able to provide the most basic things for their children to be able feed them over the summer. They sank into despair and depression and were broken by financial problems and by not being able to provide for their children. We need to address that as well as other programmes.

Mrs Guy: Thank you. I am not going to ask a second question. My remarks on that at Second Stage were about the concept of children and their childhood, and parents having the flexibility of direct payments. Yes, we are talking about educational attainment, and such things are relevant, but parents can make those choices for kids and their childhood. Having flexibility is a good thing so that children go back to school after the holidays refreshed and regenerated having had a break and a good time. That has to be a benefit for the kids as well.

Ms Hunter: Thank you so much, panel, for your detailed opening remarks. My question is about the broader conversation about educational disadvantage. Children from low-income and poverty-stricken families are more likely to have adverse childhood experiences, which can undoubtedly affect how they fare in their education. The RAISE programme is designed to tackle educational disadvantage and break the link between poverty and underachievement. Given the attainment gap between those who are on free school meals and those who are not, is the holiday meal payment scheme complementary to that agenda rather than separate?

Mr Quinn: My very short answer to that is yes. The evidence is very clear. You are quite right to highlight the problems that we have with educational disadvantage. That has been an issue in this place for a long time. Alex, do you have anything to add?

Mrs Tennant: No, I think that you have covered it.

Ms Hunter: Sometimes the simple answers are the most clear ones. Thank you so much, and thank you, Chris, especially, for focusing on kids who are often overlooked. That is something that we have been talking about at length in the Committee. I wholeheartedly support the Bill, and, having spoken to young people who are struggling financially, I recognise that it cannot be understated how much food poverty shapes the outcomes and ability of our young people to focus. Thank you for being here today.

Mr Baker: Thank you for all your work and for your engagement with all the stakeholders. It has helped to inform where we are today. Alex, to be honest, if I were critiquing my own legislation, I would have done it in exactly the same way. I have always said that it is only one piece of a wider puzzle. I grappled with the £4.28, and some of the things that the Chair highlighted were part of the discussions.

Not everyone supports my Bill, and there is already disagreement on how much it would cost overall. We had the programme the last time and know the way that it was fixed, which gave me an evidence base. That was the starting point. I have future-proofed the Bill, as I am conscious that I do not just want to stop here. I want to push for universal free school meals. If I am lucky enough to get back in next time, it is something that could be introduced through a phased approach. Hopefully, a Minister will say that they want to do it and will commit to it.

We can talk all day about budget constraints, but all Ministers have priorities. I have asked a number of questions in recent months that have highlighted some of the priorities for any Minister, but particularly Education, and the information comes back to say that there is no impact on educational outcomes, as long as it is the Minister's priority. However, when officials came here to talk about my Bill for the first time, they said that it would be harmful to the education system, which I do not think is a good place to start. However, we got through that.

That was not a question. It was just providing a bit of clarity as the Bill's sponsor. You covered a lot of ground, and, as the Bill's sponsor, I am glad that you have done that. We got through the Second Stage, but you have to win the arguments all the way through, and I think that we have had a really good Committee Stage so far.

However, in light of what has happened, and I will direct this at you, Chris, as the Children's Commissioner, are you concerned that, with the deployment of a veto by unionist parties this week, such a mechanism could be used against any piece of legislation, including this one, just because they do not really like it and are losing the argument overall? The evidence will then be completely ignored in favour of their concerns, which is an abuse of power. It is something that really came to light this week. I had hoped that I would have gone through this mandate without a petition of concern (POC) being used, but, unfortunately, it was used this week.

Mr Brooks: Sinn Féin has used it before.

Mr Baker: Excuse me?

Mr Brooks: Sinn Féin has used —.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Through the Chair, please.

Mr Brooks: Sinn Féin has used the petition of concern before.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Let the witness respond.

Mr Quinn: To be honest, I am concerned about how the petition of concern was used this week. I would be concerned if Sinn Féin used it, if the DUP used it and if the SDLP used it. My big disappointment this week was that a huge body of evidence was presented. There was an excellent opportunity to debate something that has been really important for decades in this jurisdiction, and it was vetoed. That is not good for democracy, it is not good for children, and it is not good for how his place works.

The way that it played out was unfortunate. To be candid, it is a worry that the Bill could stumble. I hope that that does not happen and that the Bill gets through to its next stage to be debated and voted on. I was disappointed at what I saw. I hope that the petition of concern is not used again to veto something that needs to be discussed.

Mr Baker: Would that be your message to MLAs? Let us have the debate and a democratic vote and not use mechanisms to stop it. The Bill has taken three years' work, but it contains decades of evidence from people like Alex. NICCY is not the only organisation that has engaged with me; the evidence has come from many groups. The Bill did not pop up out of nowhere; it is very much evidence-based.

Mrs Tennant: I worked on the issue 20 years ago at Save the Children, and there was a call then for holiday payments to be made to families living in poverty in the summer and winter. Holiday hunger was recognised as a problem 20 years ago. The payment has been called for since then, and in the discussions on the anti-poverty strategy. I have heard a lot of support for the Bill across the board because it is important to feed children who will be hungry during holidays. We put our hope in our MLAs to take it forward in whatever way is needed to make it happen.

Mr Baker: I appreciate that. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): I do not have any other indications. Thank you for your evidence today. I will pick up on your opening comments about the disorder last week and the climate of fear for a lot of children and young people and their families from ethnic minority communities. I was pleased that the Committee issued a clear statement in support of families that have experienced horrendous things over the last week and condemning the attack in north Belfast. It is important to note the ongoing impact of what has happened and that it has not just been in the snapshot of a week. The disorder and fear continue, and it is important to keep that on the agenda.

Chris was at Barnardo's Wear Our Courage event in the Long Gallery yesterday. It is important to note that the young people from ethnic minority communities who came to that event were frightened because they had to travel from various parts of Northern Ireland to get here. We should not be casual about our response to that situation. I pay tribute to those young people for their contribution; they were absolutely amazing. They brought grace and dignity to their contributions after a week that had been filled with hate. It was something to be seen, and it was remarkable. It is important to put that on the record.

Mrs Guy: I echo your comments. I was at the event, and the young people who spoke were incredibly impressive. They did not come looking for sympathy; they are articulate and motivated. I have an email in front of me from a group of those young people that clearly expresses some educational issues that they are experiencing. I will share it with the Committee at some point. It is worth noting that the children and young people were an inspiration, considering the bleak week we have had.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): They were a ray of hope.

Mr Quinn: I have the postcard with me from last night. This is the third year in a row that there has been racist violence. What have we learned from that? What are we doing to prevent it? Everyone in the room will agree that we need to do more. Perhaps we could continue those conversations in other forums because it is a serious issue. I worry about how it will transpire next year and beyond.

Mr Baker: I echo your comments. There is fear in all our communities. I have met families in my constituency whose children have still not returned to school. I have had conversations with my children about it. Children were afraid because they saw what happened on social media and the news. They saw the images of children running into the back of a Land Rover to get to safety, and there is a video of a child running out of a burning building. Those images should be in a movie, not real life. The fear will take a while to go away. Collectively, we can use the positive language that needs to be heard. Unfortunately, some people are still trying to aggravate the situation, but we have to make sure that life becomes better for everybody.

Mr Quinn: I agree with you 100%. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): You thought that you were getting away. [Laughter.]

The Clerk has just prompted me on an issue that came through in previous correspondence to the Committee. It is about the resource picture for your office. Is that something that you want to speak to? You had raised with the Committee the fact that you were unable to look into some areas of inquiry because of resource constraints. Is that something that you would be content to speak about?

Mr Quinn: Yes, it is concerning. I thank the Committee Clerk for reminding us about that. It is a very challenging time for everyone, financially, but the stark reality is that my office and I are under extreme pressure. My staff team in Equality House is struggling to fulfil its day-to-day duties. The impact on me is that I cannot fulfil my statutory duties in full. We are getting squeezed.

We also have a New Decade, New Approach (NDNA) review of my office. Elements of it further threaten the independence of my office, so we had to take the unfortunate and unprecedented step of writing to the Committee to say that we cannot fulfil our statutory duty in full. That presents a risk to me and to the Minister in the Department that sponsors my organisation, because if we cannot fulfil statutory duties, we are vulnerable to judicial review.

It is stark. Alex is our chief executive. She works tirelessly with our staff team, but we have had to cut back on everything. It is exhausting. Do you want to add to that, Alex?

Mrs Tennant: I can give an example. This morning, we were texting to try to access a news item for which Chris had been interviewed in 'The Irish News'. We have had to give up our media monitoring service. We are cutting back on everything. We know that there are challenges everywhere, but it has got to the point where it is difficult to get access to a news story because of the cost of doing so. It is about us wanting to do our best and delivering as effectively as we can. We know that the Department is doing its best and trying to make an argument for more resources, but, at the moment, it is particularly challenging.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): We will note that. The Committee might want to have a brief discussion on any response to that. We continue to value your input to the Committee. I hope that you can find a way through those resource challenges.

Mr Quinn: Thank you, and thank you for raising it.