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

Debate contribution by Mr Paul Givan on 15 September 2025.

MLA

Mr Paul Givan

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

15 September 2025

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill: Consideration Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5099701

Read the official Assembly record

Text

The message has been getting out to schools through what I, the Executive and the Committee have been doing through the process. I have been in schools recently, and the principal in one school indicated to me — this was a school where a blazer in sixth form was based on various honours — that it is changing its policy before we even pass the legislation. He said that the school had engaged with its student council, listened to the feedback and is changing its policy. That school is working through that. We are already making an impact on the schools that are outliers. I agree with the Chairman that the vast majority of schools do the right thing, but there are still some that have been required to go through this process now to give statutory force to the guidelines in order to make the change. I know from meeting schools — certainly one school at least — that they are making changes. The comments that I will make about the deficient nature of the amendments are not Paul Givan's view — I am not a legal expert — but are based on legal advice from senior legal advisers. I thank the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC) and the Departmental Solicitor's Office (DSO) for the detailed work that they have undertaken, the advice that they have provided and the pace at which they have done so. I am also aware that the Committee wishes to see draft guidelines. Some Members referred to that in their contributions, but such guidelines must follow the Bill. I am focused on getting the guidelines right for schools.

That is how we will make a difference for parents, and part of it requires legal advice. Members have asked for guidelines, but guidelines follow the law. I will be able to provide those guidelines. That work is already under way, and I will certainly be developing the guidelines. I have been doing so. That is in line with the law. The law must come first. I am happy to give way to Mr Sheehan.

I cannot comment on why that was said. As Minister, I was clear that guidelines follow the law. There are amendments that may or may not get voted through today. Guidance is, of course, being developed, but it would be premature to produce guidance until we know the basis on which that guidance has to be framed, and it is the law that does that. That is why the Committee did not get sight of the guidance in advance of us doing our job to pass the legislation. I have outlined the reason. Members may not agree with that, but the reason is that guidance follows the law. I am not prepared to rush through or share drafts of guidelines that have not had the benefit of due legal consideration. That is the stage that my officials are at, and it will result in clearer guidelines. The engagement and drafting will be ongoing until the final provisions of the Bill are determined in the Assembly, so I make no apology for doing things properly. It is not for my benefit but for the benefit of schools and parents. Legislation is there to make a specific provision in law. It is meant to bring about a legal state of affairs that would not otherwise exist. The Bill will operate in the context of existing law, and that includes all existing human rights and equality legislation. The Department is bound by law to act reasonably in exercising its statutory functions, and it should be borne in mind that that necessarily informs attitudes to fairness, dignity and equality. To be clear, that is expert opinion from legal advice. I invite the House to bear this in mind as we go through the debate: how the Department is allowed to go about preparing guidelines is necessarily informed by wider considerations that do not need to be expressly provided for in the Bill. We all know that words matter. In the Chamber, they are a matter of public record. In legislation, they are critical. I will turn to the amendments. Group 1 is about monitoring and enforcement of what will be statutory guidelines. Monitoring is extremely important. It is important that we ensure that the Bill delivers what it is intended to do: making school uniforms more affordable for parents. It is also important that we do not lose sight of the fact that I introduced the Bill for that fundamental reason. To achieve that, we need the Bill to support guidelines that work for schools in order to benefit parents and pupils. I will start with the group 1 amendments that are not of material impact, namely amendment Nos 1 and 4. Those amendments require the Department to review the guidelines at least every three years and lay them before the Assembly. Amendment No 4, in particular, seems unnecessary, given that the guidelines will always be published on the departmental website. However, amendment No 1 is not necessary either, since regular review is already required. Therefore, I invite the relevant Member not to press either amendment No 1 or amendment No 4. While I can appreciate the intention behind amendment No 8, my position is that it represents over-elaborate drafting in how it seems intended to operate in practice. It risks placing bureaucracy above a straightforward requirement to report on the impact of the Bill, which would be more logical; indeed, I assure Members that that would happen without any amendment on that point.

A straightforward requirement could be drafted in such a way that requires all the provisions of the Bill, including any cap, to be covered in a report.

The amendment before us is also not clear about what "mean" or "median costs" relate to. That is the wording in the Committee amendment: "mean" or "median costs". It ignores any potential differences between primary and post-primary uniforms, and we know that there can be significant price differences between those two. It is unnecessary in its prescription. Parts of the amendment that relate to the Department —

It is not that the Department has any reluctance about trying to capture data on that. The Chairman makes the point for me: the Committee is using an amendment to try to achieve an outcome to do with data collection. That seems to be one of the underlying reasons. Determining whether or not the Department is serious about having an ability to capture data is not what the primary legislation should be designed to do. We have to use primary legislation for the right purposes and understand the intent behind it. That comment reveals to me that a cause for concern that I have about the Bill is justified. The part of the amendment that relates to the Department reporting on its plans to review and amend the guidelines is rendered unnecessary. Indeed, in legal terms, it potentially clashes with amendment No 1, which requires that the guidelines are reviewed:

"‘at least once every three years".

That all illustrates, again, the importance of getting the provisions exactly right for the sake of legislative accuracy and the real-life effects. As my position is that the amendment will need to be redrafted if it proceeds, I offer an alternative way forward. I will, subject to Executive agreement, table a more straightforward but equally effective reporting amendment at Further Consideration Stage that will result in all the relevant provisions, impact and outworkings of the Bill being reported on, with the first report to happen within three years of Royal Assent's being received. That improved amendment will sit alongside and work with the other amendments and provisions in the Bill. I offer the House that alternative as a pragmatic means of delivering what, I believe, the Education Committee seeks but without the problems that I identified with amendment No 8. I therefore ask that the House votes against amendment No 8 or that the Committee Chair does not move amendment No 8. That will enable me to table a better amendment at Further Consideration Stage. Pressing on with amendment No 8 and then seeking me to provide at Further Consideration Stage an amendment that tidies it up is not the normal democratic process. I fear that we are at risk of losing our parliamentary protocols in this. When a Member of Parliament — albeit we are not at Westminster — or a Committee pushes an amendment and a Minister gets up and says, "I agree with what the Committee or Member is trying to achieve, but there is a better way to do it and to frame the legislation", the normal convention is for that to be accepted. I fear, however, that Members are more determined to prove a point than to get the right point in legislation. If Members wish to follow that process, that would be a cause for concern.

There are two points. The Chairman has made one of them for me: we did not have a Marshalled List until decisions were taken in respect of which amendments were deemed admissible by the Speaker. That is the first point. The second point is that my officials made clear to the Committee our concern in respect of that. I have not only served as a Minister in a number of Departments; I have been Chairman of a Committee and served alongside other Members on that Committee. I can speak only to my experience of being a Chairman. A Bill Clerk would have advised the Committee. Often, the Bill Clerk would have said to me, "I am not the expert. We will engage the Department, which has the resources of the Office of the Legislative Counsel and the Departmental Solicitor's Office". I cannot speak for how the Committee has been advised on tabling Committee amendments and how it would engage with the Department, but my officials did raise our concerns with the Committee as it considered its amendments. Clearly, there is still an opportunity before Members vote. I have put it on the record: I will deliver what the Committee wants on the content of amendment No 8. However, there is a better way to do that, and I will bring it forward, subject to the Executive's approval, at Further Consideration Stage. That will allow the amendment and its content to be sequenced properly in the Bill, as opposed to where it is currently proposed to be. On amendment No 9, clause 7 is permissive, just as is the general power of direction in article 101 of the 1986 Order. The use of "may" in that sort of context is precedented in a similar context, and, in each context, enables a robust, but reasonable, system for giving directions. Adopting the mandatory "must" instead risks an overly rigid system where directions are required in every case where the power to issue them is triggered, whereas, in my view, they should be used as a last resort in the appropriate cases. Leaving some degree of flexibility by keeping "may" is therefore important so that intervention by way of directions occurs only where that is clearly the right choice for the Department when assessing things reasonably. In addition, making a distinction whereby "the Department must" give a non-adherence direction but "may" give a pupil disciplinary direction seems to me to be inconsistent without providing material benefit. The conditions for the Department to assess whether a direction is needed must be fulfilled in either circumstance. That leads me to amendment No 10, which I present having reflected on the balance to be achieved in clause 7. Amendment No 10 provides a proportionate parameter in clause 7(1)(b) by including the word "undue" with regard to any directions about undue pupil discipline and participatory disadvantage. I have already mentioned the issue of consistency. Amendment No 10 ensures that there is consistency with the parameter that is already included in clause 7(1)(a) with regard to directions about material school non-adherence to the statutory guidelines. Taken together, the result is that the Department is not forced to consider resorting to directions, except in the right cases or circumstances that relate to each of the disciplinary measures and participatory disadvantages. That allows schools to operate their discipline policies but protects pupils from being excluded in unjust circumstances where uniform items are not affordable for their families. I ask that the House supports that minor, but important, amendment.

2,079 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:08 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