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

Debate contribution by Mr Nick Mathison on 15 September 2025.

MLA

Mr Nick Mathison

Party at the time

Alliance Party

Date

15 September 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill: Consideration Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5099200

Read the official Assembly record

Text

With your permission, I will make some comment on the Committee Stage of the School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill before speaking directly to the first group of amendments. The Committee ran a robust scrutiny stage despite the constrained timescales imposed on it, and I will give a brief overview of how that stage was conducted. The Bill was introduced on 18 February 2025 and referred to the Committee for Education for consideration after Second Stage on 3 March 2025. The Committee received 19 written submissions and took evidence from 14 stakeholders in oral evidence sessions. I record the Committee's thanks to all who took the time to engage with us on the Bill and to inform our deliberations. I turn to the timeline of our process. On 25 March 2025, the Minister wrote to the Committee outlining the process for the publication of information around school uniform policies by schools and the corresponding timelines being observed by the Department in an attempt to facilitate the publication of guidelines, which is a key part of the Bill and forthcoming Act. The Department flagged the tight turnaround times and urged the Committee to conduct a Committee Stage to complete by summer recess. The Committee set a longer Committee Stage, which was to complete in December 2025. The motion was agreed on 18 March. The motion and amendment in relation to the timeline was debated in a plenary session here on 7 April 2025. It proposed an extension of the Committee Stage to 30 August rather than the longer date proposed by the Committee. That was agreed as the end date of the Committee Stage. I put it on record again that I did not support that date of extension. I felt that the Committee needed more time to scrutinise the Bill, and we found that our processes became incredibly rushed towards the end. Undoubtedly in my mind, there was evidence that we would like to have heard from a range of stakeholders, particularly schools and school leaders, but that we were unable to hear. The shorter timeline meant that the Committee Stage required significant reorganisation of the Committee's schedule of work, and we had to consider the availability of members as well as the times and spaces required to facilitate our engagement with stakeholders in order to give us the opportunity to deliberate on the Bill. It was notable that, at the Committee Stage extension debate, members expressed their intention to be available to facilitate the shorter time frame. It is a credit to members that we remained quorate for the whole process when, at times, we were convening two or three times a week through May and June, often during plenary sittings. I pay tribute to the Clerk and Committee staff team, who facilitated every meeting with the administration and record-keeping needed to keep the process moving effectively. That is not to say that the shorter stage did not create challenges. For example, with the extension date running to 30 August, we considered how appropriate or feasible it would be to engage with education stakeholders during the holiday period for them. Therefore, we endeavoured to complete our task by 2 July 2025, and we succeeded. Later in the Committee Stage, concerns were expressed by some members around the Department's engagement on the Bill. There was a query about whether there had been a miscalculation of time frames and the necessary resourcing to deliver the Bill. For the sake of balance, I would add that, in its responses and engagement with the Committee, the Department strenuously contested that assertion. I am sure that this will get much debate today in the Chamber, but the Committee was not given sight of the Department's proposed guidelines for schools on their uniform policies. That is the principal outworking of the legislation. Initially, we were given a clear assurance that those would be provided. To my mind — I think all members agreed — that would have been a significant and substantial assistance to the scrutiny process, particularly for clarity with regard to the provisions of clause 7 and the enforceability of the guidelines. The Committee had no desire to create unnecessary levels of prescription in the Bill with any proposed amendment, but, without sight of the draft guidelines, it, at times, felt compelled to insist on prescription to satisfy members as to the effectiveness of the guidelines that would flow from the legislation. In delivering the Committee stage, the Committee's priorities were clear. We wanted to ensure that there would be robust measures to deliver affordability for parents. That was a priority for all members. Members will know from their constituency offices how much pressure the cost of school uniforms brings to bear on family finances. The Committee also sought to ensure the best interests of every child and non-discrimination principles in the Bill, and it was interested in limiting contracts with retailers that might amount to market dominance. The Committee sought to improve transparency around available sanctions for breaches of the guidelines on uniform policy and to improve complaint-handling and implementation reports for the future monitoring of the Bill's effectiveness. Those are the intended impacts of the proposed amendments that have been accepted for debate, notwithstanding the fact that a range of amendments that were put forward have not been accepted. Of course, that was a decision not for the Committee but for the Speaker. On 1 July, the Committee undertook its formal clause-by-clause consideration and agreed 23 amendments to the clauses drafted. Twelve of those amendments were selected for debate, plus an additional amendment from the Minister. With that summary of our process, I move to the Committee's proposed amendments in group 1, which, as the Speaker has referenced, refer to the monitoring and enforcement of the guidelines. Amendment No 1, which relates to clause 1, specifies the frequency of the review of guidelines. The Committee's research and stakeholder feedback quickly identified a widely held view that there was substantial appetite among stakeholders to have aspects of measures proposed in the Bill more precisely defined. Several witnesses highlighted concern about the wording of clause 1 regarding the proposed frequency of review of the guidelines. It is currently framed as "from time to time". The Committee was conscious that review mechanisms of the legislation would create milestones to improve efficiency and flexibility of the guidelines but would also create opportunities for reflection, post-legislation, on whether the implementation of the guidelines aligned with the objective of the legislation of reducing costs. The Committee felt that it was entirely reasonable that a period of at least once every three years for review would give clarity and continuity. We felt that that would likely result in a review being carried out each mandate, which, we felt, would be an appropriate and necessary measure to ensure that effectiveness was routinely given attention by the Department. Mindful of the importance of the guidelines, the Committee decided on amendment No 4 as a measure of post-legislative scrutiny to require the Department to formally lay them before the Assembly. That would ensure that the Committee and Members remained up to date and clearly informed in a timely manner about any changes to the guidelines made under the Bill. I turn to amendment No 8. Throughout the Committee's consideration of the Bill, repeated concern was raised by stakeholders and members across our evidence sessions about the cost of uniforms. There was also agreement on the need to monitor and report on those costs and for the Department to consider whether it was necessary to introduce a cap on uniform costs. The Committee agreed that introducing a regular report on that would identify areas of concern and improve our ability to scrutinise the impact of the Bill. The Bill had no such provisions. It created enabling powers around a cost cap. I must emphasise that the evidence that we heard from parents and anti-poverty groups was clear that the cost cap was where they would like to see the intervention of the legislation. There was a concern that the enabling powers around the cost cap could gather dust for years with no formal mechanism for Members to hold the Minister and Department to account on whether the Bill was delivering for parents and whether the cost cap needed to be implemented. The Committee believes that the new clause addresses that risk and puts in place robust accountability measures that, I hope, Members will support. I may, if given permission, speak to that amendment as a private Member later. The Committee's intention around amendment Nos 9, 11 and 12 is to improve accountability in situations where the Department is concerned that schools are not following the required guidelines. If the guidelines, as seems to be the case and as the Minister assures us — I am sure that he will set it out clearly — are what will deliver the meaningful changes in how schools manage their uniform policies and reduce costs, how schools are held accountable in how they follow or do not follow the guidelines is absolutely crucial. The Committee was satisfied, on balance, that the amendments struck a balance between requiring the Department to intervene when guidelines are breached and ensuring that the process is open and transparent. I understand that there is likely to be debate on the amendments. It was rehearsed at length in Committee how best to do this. How do you find the balance? Nobody wants to name and shame schools, but nobody wants an enforcement mechanism that has no teeth and cannot be utilised to ensure that the guidelines are adhered to. On balance, there was debate backward and forward and differences in opinion, but we feel that that balance has been struck with the amendments. That concludes my remarks on the group as Chair of the Committee. I hope that that contribution sets out clearly the rationale of the Committee in proposing the amendments. With you permission, Mr Speaker, I will speak to one amendment in particular in the group in my capacity as an Alliance MLA, and that is amendment No 8. To my mind, it is fundamentally important in ensuring that the Bill is effective. Amendment No 8 is the requirement that whoever holds the office of Minister of Education in future years come to the Assembly every three years and report clearly on the impact of the Bill and what it has done to the costs of school uniforms across Northern Ireland and, specifically, to address whether the cost-cap power will be utilised; if it has, what has been the impact; and, if not, whether there is the intention to do so.

Every Member of the Assembly will hear from their constituents about the impact of excessive school uniform costs on their family finances. At times, for some schools, those costs can be crippling and create huge stress and distress, particularly over the summer months. As the Bill is really fairly light on detail about what will be delivered as an outworking of the guidelines, we felt that it was vital that there was a mechanism to ensure accountability. To my mind, the Bill gives us no assurances of what the guidelines will specifically require schools to do.

We have not seen the draft guidelines. I assume that they have been drafted and are in place, but, for whatever reason, they have not been provided to us. We certainly do not have even a sense of what their content will be. I sincerely hope that the guidelines will provide a clear, enforceable framework that will require schools that still expect parents to pay excessive costs to get the situation under control. No Member wants to see £180 blazers in any school uniform policy. That price seems to be so disconnected from parents' lived financial realities as to make it hard for me to comprehend how it could be stood over.

The Bill is light on definitive elements that schools will be required to adhere to in guidelines, while the provisions to restrict branded items or to introduce a cost cap remain either "may" provisions that are subject to amendment today or, in the case of a cap, an enabling provision that may or may not be used in the future, so I am clear that there is a need for accountability. It therefore seems entirely reasonable to me that, once a mandate, whoever holds the office of Minister of Education should report to the House on the legislation's impact on reducing school uniform costs; on any intention to implement a cost cap, and if not, why not; and on any plans that the Department has to carry out a further review of the guidelines. Without amendment No 8, I fear that, regardless of its impact on cost — positive or negative — once it gains Royal Assent, there is a real risk that the Bill will be seen as the final destination when it comes to intervention from the Department on the cost of uniforms. It is therefore vital that there be accountability regarding its effectiveness and what the Department will do if the legislation does not deliver as promised. I wish to be clear. I have said this before, but it bears repeating: I sincerely hope that the legislation is effective, and I welcome the fact that it is being debated in the Assembly today. I will welcome its impact if that is the scenario in which we find ourselves, because if we are serious about doing our job, everybody here will want to see uniform costs be reduced for parents. It is not in any way about getting one up on any other party or winning but about making sure that parents win out of the process. If the Bill is not effective, or it is not as effective as it could be, the Assembly should have the opportunity to interrogate properly why that is the case and to hear how it will be corrected. I am satisfied that my remarks as Chair set out a clear rationale for the other amendments in the group, but I place firmly on the record my views on the importance of amendment No 8, which I was pleased to propose at Committee Stage. I am also pleased that it received support from all members when we went through our clause-by-clause deliberations. I look forward to the rest of the debate on the amendments in the group.

2,414 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:07 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