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

Debate contribution by Mr Paul Givan on 29 September 2025.

MLA

Mr Paul Givan

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

29 September 2025

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill: Further Consideration Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5138839

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I beg to move amendment No 1:

We begin Further Consideration Stage of the School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill with the amendments voted through at Consideration Stage now forming part of the Bill. I thank Members for their engagement with the legislation throughout the process so far and record my thanks to the Office of Legislative Counsel for the pace and professionalism with which its staff have again worked to enable amendments to be tabled for Further Consideration Stage. I will speak to the amendments in this group, but let me briefly preface that with the context of why I have tabled the 11 technical amendments that we debate today. I have been clear about two points throughout the process. The first is that the reason for introducing this legislation is to address the affordability of school uniforms for parents and families who, I know, struggle with the cost of living. The Bill contains many more powers than those recognised by the media coverage reflecting some Members' comments following Consideration Stage. Let me be clear that the Bill has the power to make a difference. The second point that I have consistently made is that the legislation that we make in the House needs to be excellent in how it is worded and structured to deliver the various intentions towards an overall resulting effect. As a Minister, I take seriously my duty to ensure that we make sound, accessible and workable legislation in all respects. Therefore, while I might have done things differently, I fully respect the decisions of the House in voting through 12 amendments at Consideration Stage. However, I considered it my duty to look at the provisions in the Bill as amended and have therefore taken a fresh look at how those amended provisions will be capable of being read and applied in practice. To make a difference for parents, the guidelines that will stem from the Bill must be workable for our schools, so, today, I propose a number of technical amendments that ensure that the legislation is left in the best shape that it can be. As well as the technicalities of my amendments, they are designed to ensure that positive differences can be made for families. I am sure that Members will agree that sound and workable legislation is vital to supporting families, and I trust that Members will support the technical amendments that I have brought to the House at Further Consideration Stage on the advice of my officials, including those with expertise in legislative drafting.

How the Bill flows is important, as are the words that it uses to achieve the policy intention that Members voted through. I reassure Members that the changes that will be made by the amendments that I have tabled, whether to language, style or structure, are designed to make the best legislation that the Assembly can produce. In all of this, I do not seek at all to undermine the intentions behind the relevant amendments that were made at Consideration Stage. Rather, I seek to make them effective. Amendment No 1 is necessary in order to allow amendment No 11 to move the requirement to lay guidelines before the Assembly to a new chapter dedicated to laying and reporting. Amendment No 1 lays the necessary groundwork for removing the requirement to lay the guidelines from where it currently sits in the Bill. To be absolutely clear, the requirement to lay the guidelines in the Assembly remains. My amendments give it greater prominence in a new chapter and by way of an independent clause. I trust that there is nothing in that to which Members will object. Amendment No 11 makes minor adjustments to the language used in order to provide legal clarity, by, for example, referring to the chapter rather than to the section, given the moving of the provision under amendment No 1, but the new clause still requires the Department of Education to lay the school uniform guidelines before the Assembly. The amendment also extends the reference to when guidelines are issued in order to recognise the subtle distinction between when they are issued and when they are reissued. Again, in order to have clear legislation, I trust that there is nothing in there to which Members will object. Amendment No 5 serves a similar purpose to amendment No 1 for the reporting clause that was voted in at Consideration Stage. It needs to be moved from its current location in clause 5 in order to allow amendment No 12 to place it in the proposed new chapter on laying and reporting. It will thus be a separate clause in that new chapter. The House will note in amendment No 12 some changes in language, which are to provide legal clarity while giving effect to the policy intent set out at Consideration Stage. To be clear, there is no attempt in amendment No 12 to dilute the impact of decisions that were taken at Consideration Stage. Under the amendment, the Department of Education must still publish a report:

"At least once every 3 years",

and the clock will begin once the Bill obtains Royal Assent. The requirement to set out the Department's plans to review and revise guidelines is still explicit. The requirement to report on a cap or to provide the reasons why if no cap is in place is still explicit. Albeit in a different place, the requirement for the report to set out plans to include provision or an explanation of why no provision or an altered provision for a cap remains. That was previously covered in clause 5(1)(c)(ii) after Consideration Stage. I understand that some Members have concerns about what the Department's report will cover, given any changes in language that are made. I assure the House that any difference in terminology is to provide legal clarity and not to reduce reporting requirements. The departmental report has to focus on the Bill's provisions and impact, which means the impact that it is having on the cost of school uniforms. The term "best estimates" needs to be read against the remainder of that new subsection, as "best estimates" simply means departmental officials utilising the information available on school uniform costs and the typical or average cost of uniforms either in total or for individual items. That is explicit in the wording of the amendment. In real-world terms, using the Department's "best estimates" instead of its "assessment" makes no difference other than to be more consistent with wording used in legal drafting. My officials will collect and analyse school-level data in order to provide a report every three years. The terms "mean costs" and "median costs" now read as "typical or average costs", with greater clarity being provided that the report can differentiate between the cost of a uniform for different types of schools or year groups. That will allow for a more meaningful report. As I said at Consideration Stage, we know that costs at post-primary level are normally higher than at primary level. Being clear in the Bill that the Department's report can look at the average cost of a primary-school uniform or uniform items, and separately at the average cost of a post-primary-school uniform or uniform items, provides for much more meaningful information for everyone but especially for parents. The requirement for the Department to report on the various factors contributing to such costs remains but with greater detail, in that the amendment states that the factors can relate to increased costs, static costs or decreased costs, insofar as the contributory factors are known to the Department. The slightly different wording replaces the wording stating that it is the Department's "assessment" of the contributory factors that will be included in the report. Nothing will be lost by making amendment No 12. Rather, the amendment simply uses language that is consistent with that already used in the Bill and provides greater legal clarity. Amendment No 7 is a minor correction that moves the words "as follows" to the same place in the sentence as in clause 8(1) and 8(2). It is a very straightforward matter that, again, I trust no one will find difficulty with. The House will recognise amendment No 8. It is the amendment that I tabled at Consideration Stage but that was mutually exclusive with a Committee amendment that was agreed to and, therefore, could not be called. I will reiterate my reasons for tabling this relatively minor amendment. Simply put, it provides consistency with the materiality consideration in clause 8(1). It also seeks to ensure balance for pupils and schools. I assure Members that the amendment is not there to seek to avoid giving a direction; it is only to enable schools to operate their day-to-day running and discipline policies effectively. Members, I am sure, will all have heard of instances where schools are trying to manage pupil behaviour that may manifest in rebellion against school rules, including uniform policies. It is important that we take every step to allow schools to manage such situations appropriately. However, it is equally important that behaviours, such as a school not allowing a pupil to participate in PE or games because they do not have the right black leggings, for example, are not permitted to go unchecked. I understand that some Members have questioned the need for this amendment, given that clause 8(2) remains a "may" provision rather than a "must". However, to be clear, where direction is needed, it will be given regardless of whether the provision is "must" or "may". Amendment No 8 seeks only to ensure that cases raised to be considered for direction relate to actual issues with affording or tolerating — with regard to comfort, practicality and sensory issues, for example — the uniform that is required. It seeks to protect pupils and schools in allowing genuine matters of running the school to be addressed by that school in the context of uniform, whilst ensuring that pupils are not prevented from taking part in any aspect of school life due to expensive or rigidly applied uniform requirements that do not take account of the practical realities for a pupil or their family. Including the parameter of the word "undue" with regard to pupil discipline or participatory disadvantage is a small but important change, and I hope that the House will support it in the interest of balance. Amendment No 9, which has been tabled by Nick Mathison, seeks to make explicit reference to the Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsman (NIPSO) as a source of evidence for the Department in assessing whether a direction is needed, and does not cause me particular concern. I do not think that it is needed; however, I do not intend to oppose it. The Education Committee wrote to me asking me to outline how the Bill works with the role of NIPSO on complaints, and how I envisage the complaints procedure in clause 8 working. Whilst I do not intend to digress beyond the focus of Further Consideration Stage, in considering amendment No 9, I trust that any concerns about the visibility of NIPSO as a complaints handler are now addressed. To be clear, there is nothing in the Bill, either as introduced or as amended at Consideration Stage, that I consider creates a tension with the role of NIPSO. That role is enshrined in other existing legislation and does not benefit from being repeated in this Bill. Amendment No 9 does not do that; rather, it highlights that a NIPSO report can also be a source of information when the Department is making an assessment about whether to give a direction. My assessment is that that was always going to be the case, which is why I stated that I do not think the amendment is necessary. However, I have also stated that I do not intend to oppose its inclusion. Amendment No 10 simply tidies language relating to the requirement that the Department must publish directions within three months of giving them. The wording in this amendment —

"must publish the text of them"

— relates to the full text of the direction, as it was made explicit at Consideration Stage that that is the will of the House. The fact that I do not support the naming and shaming of schools in that way is not relevant to the wording of amendment No 10, and I trust that the House will support the tidying up of the language that it delivers. I have spoken to amendment Nos 11 and 12 in relation to amendment Nos 1 and 5, which I remind Members leave provisions relating to the laying and reporting out of their current place in the Bill, and thus allow for amendment Nos 11 and 12 to be placed in a new chapter, with new clauses, for clarity and flow. Each amendment that I have tabled has been tabled in good faith to ensure that the language and structure, on the location of provisions and the overall style of the Bill, support us in making good legislation. I trust that Members will enter the debate in the same spirit of working towards that common goal — a common goal that will ultimately benefit parents who are struggling with the cost of school uniforms.

2,218 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:17 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