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 5099935

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. We have debated seven amendments in group 1, and now we have turned to the group 2 amendments, which focus on the content of guidelines and the commencement. For the most part, I do not take particular issue with the policy intent of most of the amendments in group 2. Rather, my primary concern is for the integrity of the statute book and to ensure that what the Assembly seeks to do is clear.

Mr Sheehan said that we sometimes get it wrong but that so do legislators all over the world. The fact that others have got legislation wrong in the past and do things incorrectly is not a reason for us to continue to get it wrong. He talked about a mere Executive process, but I have been around the Executive long enough to know that it is not a mere tick-box exercise to get Sinn Féin's approval in order to get a Bill through. If that is Sinn Féin's approach, I look forward to other Bills that I want to introduce but that are being held up in the Executive being released.

No, because I am straying, as Members did, beyond what I am meant to be debating. I am just responding to the points that were raised. I will then get to the substance of what we need to do. Mr Sheehan also suggested that I was being disingenuous or insincere. This is the first Bill that I introduced as Minister of Education. On day 1, I announced that we would introduce a Bill to tackle the affordability of school uniforms. I am preparing legislation on a series of issues, but I introduced the Bill in order to facilitate Members. I introduced it not just because my party wanted to but because the issue was one that other Members had a real desire to address. People can question the motives behind my introducing it, but I did so because it was the right thing to do. Others will judge the intention behind the rationale for my introducing it. I only wish that Sinn Féin Ministers would introduce their Bills. I introduced one, and I have others in the system. With the greatest respect, where is the output from some of my Executive colleagues? It is not mere pedantry for me to talk about getting the legislation right. In evidence to the House of Lords Constitution Committee, our former Attorney General John Larkin KC set out why that is the case. He wrote, of a period before the precision of modern legislation was in vogue:

"In 1846 one witness to a Parliamentary Committee could complain, 'in the imperfect enactments which we find passed every session of parliament, that are necessarily, from their defects, the subject of professional investigation afterwards, and which require perhaps, if not in the same Session, in the following Session of Parliament, an Act introduced to explain the Act of the previous Session referred to, which Act also becomes the subject of professional and judicial consideration; and is followed perhaps in the next Session of Parliament, by another Act to amend an Act intituled "An Act to explain an Act passed during a previous Session of Parliament"; which last Act is probably also discovered not to accomplish the object had in view by the Legislature.'"

What I have heard today suggests that we have learnt nothing about passing effective legislation. I do not doubt the sincerity of Members who seek to do the right thing on affordability, but it is about not just doing something but doing the right thing. Members have decisions to take, but my position is clear when it comes to outlining why there was a better way in which to draft the Bill.

I will give way to Mr O'Toole.

I said that it is not me who holds that viewpoint. I relayed the professional opinion of experts on legislation. I recounted my experience, having previously been Chair of a Committee, of how to seek to engage the honesty of those who, with their best endeavour, seek to advise Committees. When I was Chair of a Committee, it was recognised that the professional expertise lay with the Office of the Legislative Counsel. I have shared that view, but it is for Members to decide whether they wish to take my word for it. I do not ask them to do so on trust, but, ultimately, they have to preside over the decisions that they will take in the Assembly.

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I trust that the Assembly will not lead us back down the path that I articulated in my concerns. We start the grouped amendments with some amendments — amendment Nos 2 and 3 — that, in my view, are unnecessary, although they are not damaging to the Bill. In the existing non-statutory guidance, schools are advised to consult their parents and pupils. That formed part of the policy consultation on uniforms. It is a matter of public record that, at Second Stage, I talked to the need for schools to consult parents and pupils. Such a requirement was always going to be in the guidelines. The amendments are likely to require guidelines to specify other consultees, and, while I am broadly content not to oppose the amendments, I query whether that was the intention. Good intentions do not automatically equate to good legislation. I caution Members that every unclear provision in the legislation will ultimately leave our schools open to legal challenge. Schools have so much work to do in teaching and nurturing our children and young people. That is their key purpose. Uniforms have a role in supporting ethos and school identity. Uniforms need to be comfortable and practical in order to support children in their learning, but let us not confuse what needs to be in legislation about guidelines that address the affordability of school uniforms with what may seem to be a good idea outside the legal framework. I am concerned about amendment No 5, which risks making statutory guidelines difficult or unworkable for schools. In addition, I am afraid that it does not make logical sense. Terms such as "play-based curricula" and "outdoor learning" are used in the amendment in reference to the 2006 Order but are not used in that legislation or in any Northern Ireland education legislation. Foundation Stage is defined in the 2006 Order in relation to the age of pupils in that stage and as covering two school years. All the necessary powers to differentiate guidelines between Key Stages are already in clause 5. It is not legally clear what the amendment means. I am aware of no reference in Northern Ireland education law to "curricula" of any type. The curriculum is defined in the 2006 Order in terms of, for example, the:

"moral, cultural, intellectual and physical development of pupils"

and as equipping pupils with the "knowledge, understanding and skills" that are needed for life — not clothing. As I have said, the terms "play-based curricula" and "outdoor learning" are not used in law. I presume that they are intended to relate to the pedagogy of the curriculum at Foundation Stage, but that is intentionally not set out in law. That is a matter of professional teacher training, development and ever-evolving best practice. The amendment overcomplicates what is already covered in the requirement in clause 2 for "comfort and practicality". I referenced clause 2 in response to Nuala McAllister when she raised a number of questions on some issues. Are "play-based curricula" and "outdoor learning" to be interpreted by the Department, and is that interpretation to then be included in guidelines about school uniforms that are meant to address affordability? Taken logically, the amendment runs the risk of requiring parents to pay for a different uniform at Foundation Stage. That risk has been highlighted by legal advice. Every time a school takes its pupils from year 1 to year 14 outside to help them to be active, is that outdoor learning and would it therefore require a specific uniform instruction in the guidelines? The amendment is unclear and is simply not necessary. The underpinning point is for uniforms to be affordable. Under the Bill, they must also be comfortable and practical within that context of affordability. Therefore, the amendment does not add to what is already covered in the Bill; indeed, it serves only to confuse matters with no associated benefits for parents or pupils, however well intentioned it may be. I have no reason to question the intention behind it. For those reasons, I will not support amendment No 5, and I urge the House not to vote for it. Again, amendment Nos 6 and 7 are not necessary. The Bill requires that the Department address "unfair costs aspects" in the guidelines and defines "unfair costs aspects" as including:

"any aspects of school uniform policies"

that could "raise questions" about:

"limited choice of places at which, or retailers from whom"

uniforms can be purchased. Amendment No 6 uses different terms. For example, who are "providers"? I remind the House of the importance of words in legislation. The amendment is not clear. It is, therefore, not suitable for being adopted into the Bill.

Amendment No 7 relates to the publication of information, and it does not really belong in clause 2. Clause 2 deals with particular matters for inclusion in guidelines of broadly similar types relating to unfair costs and practicality and sets of clothing. Even if amendment No 7 were in the right place, the amendment is not clear in its language. Again, it is simply not needed. Under clause 6, a manager of a school must publish whatever associated or additional explanation or information the guidelines require under clause 1, so, as the concern giving rise to amendment No 7 is already fully addressed by the Bill, it adds nothing except overlap. Let us not populate the Bill with unnecessary provisions based on misunderstanding of what matters are already covered. I urge the House not to vote for amendment Nos 6 or 7. Finally, on amendment No 13, the reason why clause 3 and clause 4 were drafted to come into operation via commencement order is to ensure that any cap, whether that is on the number of branded items or cost or, indeed, a combination, was properly thought through and workable; that unintended consequences were mitigated as far as is possible and that the cap can be invoked only where truly necessary and effective. My officials are working on a consultation about what a cap should be, how it should operate and who is best placed to develop, maintain, monitor and adapt it as necessary. That should come first. It will inform how any cap can be most effective and whether it should be deployed. That will support a measured, informed approach that will be consulted on and will be focused on addressing affordability for parents in the most effective way. As with all primary legislation subject to commencement order, clauses 3 and 4 are for commencing in due course in light of the sorts of factors that I have mentioned. However, the amendment is not of such materiality that I intend to oppose it. In closing, I bring the House back to the key underpinning reason for introducing the legislation: to help families who are struggling with costs associated with school uniforms. I repeat what I said in the group 1 debate: words matter. Wording in legislation is critical. I urge the House to consider what I have highlighted about amendment Nos 5, 6 and 7, and I ask that Members also vote against those amendments. Let us make good legislation. Today, let our votes be for legislative provisions that will make a positive difference for families who are struggling. Let us do that without exposing our schools to unnecessarily complex guidelines that leave them more open to legal challenge because unclear and unnecessary provisions have been placed in the Bill. I will put families first and considering workability for schools as I vote. I trust that other Members will too, and, if we get this right, we can make a real and a positive difference with the legislation. I thank each Member for their engagement.

2,050 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