Debate contribution: School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill: Second Stage

Debate contribution by Mr David Brooks on 3 March 2025.

MLA

Mr David Brooks

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

3 March 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill: Second Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4826473

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Today's discussion, as we can already see, will be one where, while we may have some differences around the nuances and details, there is broad support for the direction of travel. On that basis, I thank the Minister for introducing and advancing the Bill, and I welcome the fact that he has done so. Like other Members, I look forward to the discussions at Committee and the scrutiny that we can give the Bill there. The Bill delivers on a DUP manifesto pledge that was made in recognition of the ongoing financial pressures on families and the need to better support working parents. We all understand the significant and recurring cost of school uniforms, which becomes even more burdensome for families with multiple children, some of whom may attend different schools. Many of us will remember from our childhood the financial strain on parents as they tried to afford expensive uniforms. I certainly recall visits to the local independent outfitters where blazers that were a little too big were bought in the hope that they would last a little longer. On top of that came the cost of school shoes, bags and stationery. Those trips to the local outfitters often coincided with visits to Eason or local sports shops for the other bits and pieces that you needed. There are costs upon costs at the tail end of a summer when parents have often faced the increased costs of meeting children's needs through the holiday period. The DUP wants to ensure that all schools and school leaders prioritise affordability and consider the financial burden on families when setting uniform requirements. That aligns, as the Minister said, with the public consultation in June 2024: over 77% of the 7,500 responses supported making school uniform policy guidance statutory. Like them, I welcome the Minister's clear and decisive action in advancing the policy through legislation. While the majority of schools already act responsibly in this regard, the Bill sends a clear message to any minority that may continue to prioritise image and vanity over family finances that such practices will no longer be tolerated. The purpose of a school uniform is, of course, to instil professionalism and discipline while ensuring pupil comfort, but, crucially, it is also meant to prevent children from being judged by what they wear and to avoid a stark contrast between the families who can afford expensive brands and the families who cannot. It is deeply counterproductive when uniforms themselves become a source of financial pressure, reinforcing rather than reducing social divides. No family should ever feel that the cost of a uniform determines whether they can send their child to a particular school. No child or parent should ever feel that the child's place on a school sports team is unattainable because the kit is not affordable. That is why I welcome the Minister's decision to require schools to consult parents and pupils. Thanks to the Bill, as has been said, schools will have to publish information on how they have met that obligation, along with the rationale behind their uniform policies. I strongly support the Minister's giving legal force to uniform guidance. Some naysayers have downplayed that move, but let us be clear about this: the Department is no longer asking schools to review their policies; it is mandating them to take action. The Minister is not only embedding the rules in legislation but ensuring that the ETI, in future school inspections, will hold our schools accountable, preventing any school ignoring the guidance without oversight. There is often talk of being able to buy generic items in supermarkets rather than buying from independent retailers because of the value of those items. The Bill will, helpfully, see schools publish the places where their uniform can be purchased, and it will guard against exclusivity agreements that, at times, can restrict a market and make parents captive to a set product and price. That can be an unacceptable practice. Rural Members, particularly but not exclusively, will know, however, that some of our independent retailers provide a great value-for-money service and can ensure the availability of items in a way that supermarkets and other providers ultimately cannot. It is important that we are fair in that. Most of us here have been pushing in the same direction on the issue; however, I recognise that some aspects are more complex than they may initially seem. I know from discussion on 'The Nolan Show' in recent weeks that there is some enthusiasm for completely banning branded goods. I support the Minister in his position that branded PE kits should not be made compulsory. There are some things to consider, however — we will probably bring this out in Committee — particularly on branded sports gear. There are different levels of brands, so it is about how we deal with that, because these things can sometimes make for simple sound bites. The likes of Adidas and Nike and so on are at the top of the chain. Other brands that we are familiar with from team wear that we have seen in schools, such as Kukri, O'Neills and others, are mid-level. I know, as do others who have played sport — it has been some time, admittedly, since I played sport, as you would know

; thanks to my colleague there — that some team wear, such as Prostar, from back in the day, provides very good value for money for sports kit at a low level, but, technically, it is branded. I fear that, in looking at these things, we sometimes simplify them and risk reducing choice and value. That is probably getting into the weeds of it, but it is important that we have those discussions at Committee Stage, because things that provide sound bites sometimes need further investigation. While the Minister is not proposing a price cap, he has reserved the power to do so if necessary, and that serves as a deterrent.

I appear to have lost the last sheet of my speech, which is helpful. The Minister, as he said, has future-proofed many aspects of the Bill so that, if schools do not comply in the initial stages, they know that the legislation will have teeth to ensure that they will and that there is fairness for all our families. I welcome the Bill, as I think that we all do, and I look forward to engaging with it at Committee Stage.

1,073 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:07 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 reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification