Debate contribution: School Uniforms: Affordability
Debate contribution by Mr Paul Givan on .
- MLA
- Mr Paul Givan
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 5 March 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- School Uniforms: Affordability
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4252568
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is apt to have some young people come in at this stage, when we are debating school uniform policies. My daughter was playing hockey against Ballyclare High School yesterday. They managed to get a draw out of us this time. The last time we played them, we were successful, but they played well yesterday. The issues that we are speaking about are hugely important. On day 1, when I came into office, I raised this as being, for me, a priority area that we need to address. I welcome the commitment to the issue from other parties in tabling the motion and the amendment. It is one that I share and have been leading on. Like others, I have an interest, as I have three daughters, of whom two are in post-primary education and the third will go into post-primary education next September. The cost of uniforms and PE kits and so on is real to me, albeit I doubt that many in the public will have a lot of sympathy for politicians in meeting the costs. I know from growing up in a family of five children that, when it came to June, July and August — Dad was working, and Mum was a full-time housewife — we would have been saving up the child benefit stamps and those would have to be collected in order to get us all ready to get out to school. I was the second child in the family. I had an older brother, which was always convenient as I got a hand-me-down from him. My next brother in line got the third hand-me-down, so he was not always particularly keen on getting another hand-me-down. That is a reality for a lot of families. Much as my parents wanted to turn us out in the best uniform when we were growing up — I, as a parent, want that — with brand-new shoes every term, that was often not the reality for a lot of people. There were second-hand uniforms and hand-me-downs within a family, and that has been a reality for a lot of people. When I went to school at Laurelhill Community College, I was proud of my uniform. I was proud to walk into Lisburn and have the emblem emblazoned on my blazer. I identified with the school and had a commonality with everybody in the school, because we all wore the same uniform and were proud of it. That is why I think that uniforms are important. I support uniforms being worn, and I do not believe that we should get rid of them in our schools. That would be a retrograde step and would create a huge inequality, as those who could afford to dress themselves in the best gear would do so, and others would not. You would really see a difference in our school communities if that was the case, so uniforms are important.
Uniforms play a valuable role in setting the tone in a school, and they support positive behaviour and discipline. They encourage pupils to identify with and support the ethos of their school, ensuring that pupils of all backgrounds, including different socio-economic backgrounds, are welcome in the school. School uniforms also help to create a level playing field for families where they do not have to try to ensure that their children are dressed in line with the latest fashions. That helps to protect children from social pressures to dress in a particular way.
However, it is clear that there are significant challenges in this area that potentially undermine the basis for the policy. We are all aware of the increasing costs of school uniforms, particularly with the use of branded items or parents only being able to buy uniforms from a single supplier. That undermines the intention of school uniforms to remove barriers to education. Instead, expensive uniform requirements place an unnecessary burden on parents and children, particularly those from a low-income household. School governing bodies are responsible for setting their own school uniform policy, and my Department has issued guidance to support schools in setting that policy. However, that guidance is only of assistance if it is followed by schools. The current guidance makes it clear that, in setting their uniform requirements, schools should ensure that they represent value for money. It recommends that schools enable uniform costs to be as low as possible through minimising branded items and ensuring that items are available from a number of retailers. It is important to put on record the fact that many schools have followed this guidance, and I welcome that. However, it also has to be said that there are other schools that have not. That is not a situation that I am going to permit to continue. Pending any longer-term decisions, my overarching aim in this area is to ensure that all school governing bodies put affordability, comfort, sustainability and best value at the core of their decision-making when they set their school uniform requirements. I want to ensure that uniform policies are transparent and have been developed with the input and support of parents and children. That has the potential to make lives easier for children and parents by reducing the burden of the costs of attending school. We must ensure that the cost of uniform is not a barrier to children accessing education. The credit union report referenced in the motion provides figures for the cost of going back to school. Unsurprisingly, according to the report, school uniforms are the top expense for primary- and post-primary-school parents, followed by school lunches, extra-curricular activities, transport costs and books. While the cost breakdown is not given for each of those, my officials have completed a pre-consultation on uniform costs, and it is clear, albeit from only a sample of schools, that there is a wide variation in uniform policies both between sectors and within sectors. For example, across post-primary schools, the cost of a girl's blazer can range from £50 to over £120. I am aware that no standard list of uniform items applies across schools. The number of items of clothing required at the beginning of the school year also varies. We should aim to ensure that schools itemise the essential school uniform items as far as possible and that second-hand uniforms are available. Uniforms should be affordable, comfortable and sustainable, with the uniform policy being developed with parents and children and published on the school website. Uniform policy should also be open to changes, subject, again, to the agreement of parents and children.
The Member raises a point that I will come to. I will speak to that issue shortly. During the pre-consultation, officials engaged with a wide range of stakeholders. Officials are completing a consultation document setting out a number of proposals for public consultation. Those include putting our current guidance on a statutory basis, which Mr Carroll just referred to, to strengthen measures such as avoiding single suppliers and expensive branded items; ensuring that schools develop policies with the agreement of parents and children; and issues relating specifically to the uniform, for example avoiding or limiting the number of branded items required, avoiding variation in colour and style for different year groups and avoiding dry-clean-only items, which make it more expensive for parents. The proposals will also include how the guidance will be enforced. I am keen to ensure that school governing bodies engage with parents and children when setting their school uniform policy. That is vital for establishing a uniform that is affordable, comfortable and sustainable but that still maintains the values of the school. The proposed amendment to the motion references the introduction of an annual price cap on the total cost of uniforms. In considering a cap, there are a number of issues that need to be resolved, and I will seek the views of all stakeholders as part of the consultation. It will be important that, whatever changes we make to the current guidance, we ensure that school governing bodies are required to adhere to them. The best outcome for all is that the Department, schools, parents and children work together to ensure that uniform policies are developed with the best interests of the child and young person at heart. I will wish to hear the views of parents, children and other interested parties on the proposals as they are more fully developed. I am advised by officials that we will be in a position to consult in late spring of this year, and I am keen for us to be in a position to take decisions later in the year. Work is ongoing on the review of the eligibility criteria for free school meals and uniform grants. My officials continue to examine a range of options for increasing the number of children and young people who are able to access free school meals and uniform grants. Options being considered include raising the income threshold that applies to some of the means-tested criteria and the introduction of universal free school meal provision to pupils in some school years, and options that are a combination of the two. I will consider the next steps of the review in the time ahead. In doing so, I will take account of the potential budgetary implications of any change to the eligibility criteria. The motion references the rates of uniform grant that are available to low-income families in Northern Ireland. My predecessor as Minister of Education increased the rates by 20% ahead of the 2022-23 academic year. It should be noted that the uniform grant had not increased from 2010 until the DUP Minister acted. That was for how long the uniform grant had stayed at the level at which it was set. It was the DUP that increased the rates. I recognise, however, that there are other jurisdictions in the United Kingdom where higher rates of uniform grant are available. Those rates of uniform grant are being considered as part of the ongoing review that seeks to make school uniforms more affordable, and, although increasing the rates of grant is one way in which to reduce the impact on families, I believe that schools seeking to minimise the cost of their uniform will potentially be of even greater benefit. I therefore again urge schools to align their uniform requirements with the Department's guidance circular that encourages them to keep school uniform costs to a minimum. I will briefly pick up on a couple of points that Members raised. Ms Hunter mentioned the level of the uniform grant. I am not sure whether her figure was accurate, but, to put it on the record, for primary schools it is £42·90, while for post-primary schools it is £93·60, of which £26·40 is for PE costs, and the total cost of grants is £6 million. Do I want to do more? Yes, I do. That is something that will form part of my bid during the budgetary process. Colleagues highlighted the issue of statutory guidance. Yes, there is guidance in England and Wales, but Scotland does not have statutory guidance in this area, although it is something that it wishes to have in place by August of this year. The Republic of Ireland has no legislation on the issue, and there is no statutory guidance. There is no price cap in place anywhere in these islands. That does not mean that we should not have one. It is something that we need to look at, and that is why the introduction of a price cap will be part of the consultation that I am undertaking. The current guidance, as I have highlighted, is there for schools to follow. I will now move to a consultation process to place that guidance on a statutory footing, and that will include looking at a price cap. Doing that will allow me to take decisions later this year. Where there is to be legislative provision, I will need to take that to the Executive. I have no doubt that the Education Committee will work with me to expedite the issue as efficiently as possible to try to get that legislative provision in place.
2,035 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not qualifying”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.04 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.96).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-qualifying threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.96 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | At or below not-qualifying threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.38 |
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.35 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.14 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.06 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.03 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:46 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.