Debate contribution: School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill: Extension of Committee Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Peter Martin on 7 April 2025.

MLA

Mr Peter Martin

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

7 April 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Committee Business

Heading

School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill: Extension of Committee Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4891098

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I thank the Committee Chair for the considered comments that he made. I will address a couple of those before making other comments. The date that he mentioned was 30 August, and he referenced the date that the Minister had previously suggested. We see the amendment as a compromise that gives scope to allow for the scrutiny role, which, as he said — I agree with him — is so important. He mentioned dividing the Committee. I appreciate that some of his comments were probably not levelled at me and my colleague, as we raised concerns in Committee about the length of the proposed Committee Stage. We did not divide the Committee, but I will point out that I have divided the Committee on three occasions and lost three times. It was fairly clear to the Education Committee members who were there where everyone stood, and I hope that other Committee members will know where David and I stood on the 38-week extension. The Committee Chair and I had a congenial debate on a BBC radio programme this morning. We mentioned scrutiny and the fact that we think that it is important, and I committed myself and my colleague, who is sitting behind me, to coming in during summer recess at some point and giving additional time to scrutinising the Bill, because there is no doubt — no one in the Chamber will argue otherwise — that scrutiny is crucial. We are committed to doing that; there is no doubt there. I appreciate that that could be problematic, but, if we could find full days — a couple of full days — it would probably be doable, and it would certainly be helpful in giving the Bill the due regard that it needs at Committee level. I will make other comments along the way. We have heard repeatedly in the Chamber of the need to support hard-working families, and we have rightly heard many call for a reform of school uniform and sportswear costs.

We have heard the SDLP Opposition call for Ministers to bring forward more legislation. Before us this afternoon is a Bill, which was introduced by, as referenced, a DUP Education Minister, that meets all those criteria.

I do not plan to go into the same detail as the Committee Chair, because we are not here to debate the Bill. However, we are here to debate how long the Committee should take to do its work. If the motion that the Committee Chair proposed is agreed, it could see the Education Committee debate the Bill for a possible 38 weeks, and that will have clear consequences for the families that the legislation undoubtedly seeks to support. As the Minister mentioned this afternoon in the Chamber, the Bill is a DUP manifesto commitment. We have been clear about that. We want to make sure that its benefits are realised for all people in Northern Ireland, regardless of creed, colour, faith or background. For the parents who are perhaps watching the debate this afternoon or those stakeholders who contributed to the Department's consultation last year, such as the Trussell Trust, Parentkind, Children in Northern Ireland (CiNI), the Children's Law Centre (CLC) and Carers NI — there were about 18, but I will pick those five — you heard that right: we are considering a Committee Stage of 38 weeks. I fully accept that, during the Committee's consideration, the Chair made it clear that 38 weeks was not the target date for completion and that we were not aiming towards that. However, if the Committee motion is agreed, the Committee can, if it so wishes, debate and consult on the Bill until 3 December. Following the close of the Department's consultation last year —.

I will indeed.

I thank the Committee Chair for his intervention. I can go only by the calendar weeks. I accept the point that he makes about Easter recess and summer recess, and I will address those comments a little bit later. I accept his point. The 38-week period is, however, the calendar period. Following the close of the Department's consultation last year, the Minister managed to get the prospective legislation drafted by, I assume, the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC) and tabled in the Assembly within 20 weeks. I pay tribute to the Minister for the enthusiasm and vigour that he has brought to his role, not least in this area. I also note the excellent work that was carried out on the policy area by departmental officials Shirley Sweeney and Margaret Rose McNaughton. The Department received 7,500 responses to its consultation. That is a staggering number for a government consultation. What really stuck out to me was the fact that 4,000 of those were received from children and young people in Northern Ireland. That illustrates the strength of feeling out there where the proverbial rubber hits the road. There were lots of views on some of the issues that the Committee Chair highlighted, such as the cost of uniforms, especially the cost of school sportswear, and the types of uniforms that we see in our schools. That further illustrates the need for this place to take the issue seriously and to prioritise the legislation. I will pick up on one other theme that the Committee Chair mentioned. Our amendment does not seek to limit scrutiny of the Bill by any stretch of the imagination. We are instead saying that this piece of legislation needs to get Committee priority. We all work in Committees, and we all know how they function. We are not saying that we should not scrutinise or pay due attention or due regard to the issues that are obviously very important to people in Northern Ireland. Instead, we are saying that the legislation should be prioritised and, to a degree, carry that weight, especially over the next few months. There are families in Northern Ireland right now counting every penny, and the Bill should significantly reduce at least one cost that they have to face on a year-to-year basis. Just this morning, I think that it was Sam's jumper that I put in the dryer, and it shrank to a size that no man could fit into, so that might be one more burden to bear, as I tumble-dried something that should not have been tumble-dried. We all accept that change is required in this area. I think that there is agreement in the Chamber that the Bill is non-contentious and that the benefits that it brings will be felt by all families, regardless of their religious background or political affiliation. It does not seek to advantage anyone. I find that exciting, and I hope that everyone agrees with that. In the Second Stage debate, the Alliance Member for Lagan Valley, Mrs Guy, said:

"School uniforms are important in ensuring a sense of community and equality." — [Official Report (Hansard), 3 March 2025, page 83, col 2].

I agree with her completely, about the issue itself and about the wider issue that equality is important. The last piece of legislation to come before the Committee for Education for scrutiny was the Integrated Education Bill, as my colleague behind me pointed out. That was brought as a private Member's Bill by a colleague of Mrs Guy's. On that occasion, the Education Committee took 18 weeks at Committee Stage. It should also be noticed that during that —

I will indeed.

I thank the Member for her comments. I will not claim authority on that; she probably should have authority on that. I did go to the Bill process and looked up the dates, and I got out my calculator. I did notice, however, that summer recess was in that period. It ran over that, and therefore this Bill has similarities in that the Integrated Education Bill's Committee Stage — the 18 weeks that I am referring to — did run through the summer recess, but I am happy to be corrected on that. This Bill is a similar length to the one that I have just discussed. This Bill is probably less complex than the Integrated Education Bill — Members can disagree, but I suffered it as well — and is certainly less contentious.

I always appreciate the comments of the Chair of the Education Committee. I cannot disagree with him. We are in a different place with regard to the mandate, and I think that there was a sense of urgency with the Integrated Education Bill. However, I again gently point out that we will receive no thanks if we do not manage to get this through. Many families are facing bills, and, for many of them, this is a large cost. I think that a Member opposite made the point in a recent debate — it was a good one — that in no way should the cost of school uniforms ever dictate which school a child ends up in. If a child wants to go to a certain school and has whatever he or she needs to get into that school, surely the last barrier that he or she should face is a large uniform bill that would somehow prohibit him or her from getting there. I will get back to my speech. Getting the Bill through the Chamber and Committee in a timely manner would be a win-win situation. If others decide not to support our amendment, as has already been noted, it is up to them to explain that. We have had some chat about that, even in the Chamber this afternoon. I am one of the parents who has kids at school and who wants to see the Bill progress. It is certainly my understanding — the Committee Chair mentioned it as well — that, if we can manage to get the Bill through Committee Stage by the end of August, which reflects our amendment and is a compromise between what the Minister initially suggested and what the Committee wants to see, there remains a chance — an open door — to complete the fourth and fifth stages during September 2025. It will be up to the Assembly to prioritise the scheduling of that, and that will be out of our hands, but it will at least give us that realistic opportunity to see some benefit for parents in 2026. Certainly, the feedback that I have received is that, if we leave the motion as it is, we will not see the benefits — parents will not see the benefits — until 2027.

I will give way.

I thank the Member for her question. I am not on a board of governors, but I think that I understand what she is saying. Certainly, if the Bill progresses in that time frame, as the Committee Chair mentioned, it might not get Royal Assent until after the things that the Member is talking about actually have to come into effect. However, if the Bill has been passed by the Assembly and is to become legislation, even if it has not got Royal Assent — we know that Bills that are passed by the Assembly always get Royal Assent — schools will know that that — I will not call it "policy intent" — legislative intent is coming into being. I accept that, as the Committee Chair said, some schools may just choose to ignore it, and maybe, at that point, they could do so, but, if there are any that do so, it will be a very small number. It would be silly of them to do that. I accept that, with those time frames, it will certainly be tight. There are few certainties in life. However, if Members support the amendment, I feel that the Bill has a good chance — or, at least, a chance — to be enacted in 2026. It would be marvellous for parents if we could get it passed. Let me be crystal clear: scrutiny is crucial in the Chamber and in Committee. That is an integral part of what we do. Agreeing to my party's tabled amendment will still leave the Committee time to do its job. Yes, we may need to have additional Committee sessions. My party is certainly up for that work. The schedule might need to be changed. Yes, the Bill may need to receive full priority over the next number of months, and the forward work programme may need some rejigging, but we are up for the challenge. The DUP absolutely believes that getting the Bill across the line is pivotal to supporting hard-working families in Northern Ireland. I commend our amendment to the House.

2,115 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:20 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