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

Debate contribution by Mr Colin McGrath on 15 September 2025.

MLA

Mr Colin McGrath

Party at the time

Social Democratic and Labour 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 5099808

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I am pleased to follow on from my colleague's earlier remarks. In the interests of this relating to school, I have had some extra homework to do by having to carry off these remarks on the Bill today, as my colleague who sits on the Education Committee is lounging on a beach on her honeymoon. I am sure that, if there is an excuse for being away from this place, that is certainly an acceptable one. I will comment quickly on the second group of amendments. The first group focused on accountability and enforcement, and this group goes to the heart of what the guidelines should contain and how parents and pupils will experience them. To begin, I will set out the principles that have guided the SDLP's approach to the Bill. We in the SDLP believe that education should be a great equaliser; it should not be a source of inequality. Every child, regardless of their background, should arrive at school with the same chance to learn, thrive and succeed. However, that principle is undermined when the cost of a school uniform becomes a barrier to attendance or when a child is made to feel lesser because their family cannot afford a specific item of clothing. Throughout the Committee scrutiny, I understand, the Committee heard the same themes from parents, pupils and stakeholders, which were that the costs are spiralling, families feel locked into exclusive supply arrangements and uniforms often prioritise appearance over practicality. The amendments are a direct response to that evidence. Amendment No 2 represents a seemingly small change but would make a big difference. Parents told the Committee that they are tired of warm words and promises that change might happen. They want certainty and a guarantee that guidelines will be issued and will not be left to departmental discretion and that there will be a duty to compel action. Amendment No 3 requires that pupils and parents be explicitly consulted. Again, that was something that, I understand, the Committee consistently heard. Families feel that decisions are being made about them and without them. The Minister has said that he intended to consult anyway, but parents should not have to rely on good intentions. Writing that into the Bill ensures that their voices are guaranteed a place in that process. Amendment No 5 addresses the practicality of uniforms, especially for children in Foundation Stage. Teachers' unions and parents all said that uniforms must support play-based learning and outdoor activity. A uniform that looks smart but prevents a child climbing, running or joining in with messy play is not, therefore, fit for purpose. That amendment reflects what was consistently heard, which was that clothing must support learning, not restrict it. Amendment Nos 6 and 7 tackle exclusive supply contracts. Time and again, parents expressed frustration at the fact that they are tied to a single supplier and forced to pay inflated prices for basic items. Stakeholder groups echoed that, pointing out that such contracts eliminate competition and ultimately remove choice. Amendment No 6 requires at least one open retail option unless the school can show that its contract truly delivers value for money. Amendment No 7 requires schools to publish their contracts annually. The Committee heard repeatedly that transparency is the best safeguard against unfair costs, and the amendments make that transparency a legal requirement. Finally, amendment No 13, while less high-profile than the others, still matters, because clarity about when provisions come into effect is essential. Parents need to know when that change will arrive. The Minister has suggested that some of the amendments are unnecessary or overly prescriptive, but that is not what was heard at the Committee. Voiced consistently was that families want certainty. They want clarity and affordability built into the system. They do not want to be told that something might be covered in some future guidelines. Time and again, the Committee heard about the stress caused by costs. Families told us about spending £100 on a blazer, £40 on a jumper and £15 on a tie, often when cheaper, perfectly adequate alternatives were available elsewhere. Parents told the Education Committee that they felt trapped by school supply arrangements that drive up prices. That is what the amendments address. Yes, many community groups are stepping in with pre-loved uniform schemes, and the Committee heard about some inspiring projects during its Committee Stage, but those schemes exist because families have been left with no alternative. Community goodwill should not have to fill the gaps that are left by substandard legislation. The amendments would significantly strengthen the Bill. They make sure that the Department has a duty, not a choice, to act. They guarantee parents and pupils a voice and ensure that uniforms are practical for learning. They shine a light on exclusive supplier contracts and provide clarity on when action will start. That is what was consistently heard at the Committee. It is what the parents have asked for, and that is why the SDLP is pleased to support group 2 and urges other Members to do so as well.

847 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