I'm grateful to everybody who has taken part in this important debate. Time does not allow me to respond to all of every Member's contributions, but there are some points that I feel that I do need to make, particularly in response to Mick Antoniw and to the Minister.

Of course, we'd all commend the voluntary work that Mick Antoniw describes, but does he really think these families and their children should be depending on charity? I hardly think that that's consistent with a person's socialist principles. He says that we all agree to the principle that no child in Wales should be going hungry. Well, I have to say that the Child Poverty Action Group, supported by the Bevan Foundation and that hotbed of nationalist politics the National Education Union, estimate that 70,000 children are going hungry today. So, it's no good us talking about the principle. I can't imagine that anybody in this room or practically anybody in Wales thinks that, in principle, children shouldn't be fed, but those children are not being fed today. I'll repeat what other Members have already said: research from the Child Poverty Action Group shows that in terms of access to free school meals, the Welsh Government has a tighter means test and less generous universal infant provision than other UK nations. That's not us saying that; that is the most respected research and influencing bodies in this field.

I was very pleased, I must say, to hear what the Minister has said about those with no recourse to public funds, and I think it's very helpful that she has reiterated that local authorities who make those discretionary decisions will be reimbursed. That was clear before; it's nice to hear it reiterated. But other than that, I have to say to her that this debate is not about what the Government has done, it is about what the Government has not done. It's interesting every time we have this debate—and I do take Suzy Davies's point, we've talked about this many times, but we will keep talking about it until something gets done. If you look at the tone of the Government's amendment this time, it's softened from the Government's amendment last time. So, I make no apology for banging on about wanting hungry children to be fed; I've been doing it for 40 years and will propose to continue doing so until we can.

The Government moves the financial goalposts about what we're including every time we discuss this, and about the risks, and that's a legitimate way for them to respond to the debate. Of course, Kirsty Williams's position is honourable and consistent; Kirsty doesn't present herself as a socialist. But I have to say to the Labour Members in this Chamber and those Labour MPs who've been making statements about this today that you can't look both ways on this. The people of Wales will not be fooled. They will not believe you when you say, 'We want to extend the criteria, but we can't', because now we know that the money is there. You can't keep looking both ways on this matter and expect to get away with it. And while you are looking both ways on this matter, 70,000—well, 76,000 if we include those will no access to public resources—are not being funded. 

I'll reiterate, Llywydd: the tightest means test and the least generous infant provision of any UK nation. Is this something that any of us in this Chamber can be proud of, and is this something that Labour Members are prepared to tolerate? Of course, politics is about priorities, and I can assure this Chamber today that feeding those hungry children—children that the Tory UK Government has acknowledged are poor and in need of support because their families are receiving universal credit—will be a priority for a Plaid Cymru Government. And if you won't feed them, it's time to get out of the way and make room for a Government that will.