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 5099727

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I am happy to give way, because, on legislation, we have to get it right, and it is through discourse that, I trust, people engage, listen, reflect and potentially change position. I include myself in that: if I am wrong, I am open to being persuaded. The problem that I have with "must" and "may" is that it entirely removes the ability of the Department to deviate from "must": we have to do it. Some Members indicated that one of the reasons why they wanted this in primary legislation is that one does not know what approach any Minister may take. A Minister may wish to give a bye ball and decide that they will not go down that route. Members would, rightly, challenge any Minister of the Department where there was such a breach of the statutory guidance that got us into the areas covered by the amendments. That is where you would apply pressure on the Minister and the Department by saying, "You have the power to enforce this". The amendment, when it comes to "may" and "must", would remove that ability. I have highlighted that the terminology is inconsistent with other parts of the Bill.

The Chairman outlines part of the rationale when it comes to "must": it would certainly give the leverage to force a school. Before the point at which you have to have the "must", however, why would a Minister or the departmental official responsible not have exercised the authority that will exist because the Department "may" be able to do it? There is a point at which you would remove any ability to have the power of flexibility. Circumstances that we do not know may apply in that situation. The amendment, if passed, will say "must". Amendment No 9 is mutually exclusive to amendment No 10, and I have indicated, that, if you do not move amendment No 9, what I am proposing in amendment No 10 provides consistency. The issue of "may" and "must" is a matter for Members to reach a view on, but I seek to address that in amendment No 10. If amendment No 9 is passed — I am sure that the Speaker will outline this — amendment No 10 will not be called, and we will not be able to address that matter, so we will need to look at doing so at Further Consideration Stage, if that is possible.

I will give way to Mr Burrows.

I am aware — given his experience, the Member also knows this — from precedent in court settings that the courts will seek to understand, by reviewing debate in the Assembly and in Committee, what was meant, if they need to analyse it because the wording is not clear. It will be left to a judge to figure out what the intent behind it was. Members really need to take cognisance of that when they make decisions on the precise wording in legislation. The Bill's purpose is affordability. I have said repeatedly that we do not want a scenario in which any child, whether they are applying to a school or, indeed, are already at a school, is excluded on the grounds of affordability. Placing the guidelines on a statutory footing will help drive the change that is needed in the small number of schools in which it is a real problem. I want to make some progress on amendment No 11, which would remove the requirement for the Department to consult schools on draft directions before it issues them. Including that requirement in the Bill was, again, based on consistency with the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 but also on best practice. If the Committee's argument for tabling amendment No 11 is that it would shorten the time taken to issue a direction, I can say only that cutting the school voice out of that part of the process is unlikely to be helpful and would reduce the opportunity for a quicker resolution without the need for direction. For those reasons, I will not support amendment No 11 and will seek to divide the House and ask it to vote against the amendment. I also question the rationale behind amendment No 12. I am clear that I want to work with schools. I respect our schools and those who work so hard in them to support our young people. I do not wish to name and shame any school for which a school uniform direction has been issued, because I appreciate the risk of reputational damage. The amendment would do just that. I caution that we need to consider what actual and identifiable benefit there would be from publishing that information. Members will also wish to reflect on the potential precedent that such an approach could represent, and Mr Burrows referred to that. If a direction is issued, it is legally enforceable through court proceedings, if needs be. Publishing information about the number of directions issued and the matters about which the direction was issued seems much more reasonable to me, yet that is not what amendment No 12 would achieve: the entire direction must be published, and that will naturally include the school's name. I will not support that, and I urge Members to think about the schools in their constituency when they vote. If Members find it helpful, I can include the requirement to report on the numbers of and the reasons for directions in the alternative amendment that I am offering to prepare for Further Consideration Stage. It comes back to the significant importance of each word in legislation. We can achieve the intention more effectively through taking a slightly different approach. I ask that the House support me and our schools in taking that different approach and not to vote amendment No 12 through today. I ask the House to pause before voting and to consider whether the amendment in question would lead to meaningful monitoring and enforcement. Would it assist schools to adhere to the statutory guidelines or risk embarrassing them? I commend amendment No 10 to the House. I ask that Members do not vote through amendment Nos 8 and 12. I give a commitment on the Floor of the Assembly that I will table an amendment at Further Consideration Stage that delivers the intent behind those amendments in a reasonable and workable way. I ask that the House carefully consider the reasons why I will not vote for amendment Nos 9 and 11 and that Members pay due attention to the legal advice on which those amendments are based. I ask that Members take a sensible and measured approach, with parents, pupils and schools at the forefront of their thinking. I know that everyone in the Chamber wishes to make school uniforms more affordable for parents and to enable the Department to provide clear guidelines that are workable for schools. Let us make good legislation, and, in doing so, let us make a real difference for parents.

1,167 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