Debate contribution: School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill: Consideration Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Danny Baker on .
- MLA
- Mr Danny Baker
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- 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 5099869
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I suppose that, the whole way through this, we have been blind because we did not get the guidelines. I completely understand why the Minister had a good weekend and something to be cheerful about, because, when the Marshalled List came through on Friday afternoon, all the hard work that we had done in the Committee had been very much thrown in the bin, if I am being brutally honest. It was disappointing. We are being asked to trust the Minister and to have faith in him, if I remember correctly. Trust is earned. I have been here long enough to have heard it shouted across the Chamber that the Education Committee needs to work harder and to have heard derogatory comments about work that we have partaken in such as the relationships and sexuality education (RSE) inquiry. I bring up the RSE inquiry because, in the evidence, young people told us how important it would be in tackling violence against women and girls. It also included upskirting.
I had not really moved away from the amendments. I was dealing with amendment No 3 when I was talking about the rights of the child. It all fits into it, as does the evidence that is taken in Committee. That is the whole point of a Committee. When we saw the Marshalled List come through on Friday, I asked whether there was any point to the Committee when the Minister just wants the Bill to be as is. We have not seen the guidelines. That is the principal point of it. I will go back to the amendments. Amendment No 2 changes "may" to "must". That places a duty on the Department to issue guidelines, which means that families will have more clarity on the school uniform policy. Amendment No 3 requires consultation with pupils and parents or guardians. That is a step in the right direction, making school uniform policy more compliant with children's rights, including articles 2, 3 and 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Amendment No 6 ensures that uniform items are available from at least one non-exclusive retailer. Schools can keep contracts if they offer value for money; otherwise, parents must have choice. Amendment No 7 requires schools to publish contract details annually. Transparency is essential. That is the whole ethos of what we have been trying to say. All the amendments that were well researched and based on evidence. They were drafted in close consultation with the Bill Clerks, who are experts in that field. The amendments complemented each other as we went through the Bill. I am confident that all amendments were relevant, competent and entirely within the scope of the Bill. I would be keen to see the advice that the Speaker received in the process that led to the amendments' exclusion from the debate.
That is exactly what I was doing. I was pointing out that the amendments were drafted in close consultation with the Bill Clerks, who are experts in the field. Other Members commented that amendments were not within the scope of the Bill: how would they know? I suppose that it drives it back to that. That is why I was doing that. I want a child-centred approach to education. That includes the uniforms Bill. The Bill has the potential to be good for parents and young people.
At the minute, it falls way short. Looking at Members across the Chamber and thinking about what happened in Committee, I see that they do not get the child-centred part of the legislation. The Minister has to prove, by his actions, that we can trust him. As it stands, based on my experience in the Chamber, I do not have that trust. That is why we needed the amendments that did not come through; that is the reality.
641 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.07 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.84).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.99).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.05 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.07 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.84 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.07 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.99 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.56 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.20 |
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.16 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.07 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
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.