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 5138890

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I will get straight into addressing some of the questions that Members raised. Mr Mathison asked whether, under amendment No 10, it will still be a requirement to name a school: I can confirm that, yes, it will be a requirement. I indicated that, whilst I do not agree with that, I respect the will of the House. That amendment will require that to occur. I do not know whether there is some confusion about amendment No 5. Mr McGrath spoke to it, as did Mr Sheehan. If Members have a copy of the Bill as amended at Consideration Stage, they might want to turn to page 3, where they will see clause 5 and the heading:

"Reporting on school uniform costs and capping of expense".

That is what I seek to omit from the Bill by way of the amendment that I have tabled. I seek to replace it, through the amendment that I have tabled, with a new clause titled, "Reporting on guidelines and costs". The new clause is more expansive and goes into greater detail. I outlined in my contribution that the Bill as amended at Consideration Stage does not, for example, make the distinction between a primary school and a post-primary school. It does not allow for that differential so that we can look at the increased cost at post-primary schools. That is where we have branded PE kits, multiple PE kits, blazers, which are a much greater expense, and distinctive blazers that are based on whether you are in an honours choir, your academic success or the sport that you play. I know of no primary school that engages in that kind of activity. Without that change, the Bill will not go into that level of detail. Rather than, as Mr Sheehan said, weakening the Bill, I have enhanced and strengthened it. However, if I cannot convince Members of that and if they do not want to have a stronger Bill in that area, they will vote against it. The intent behind the new clause is to make that much clearer and give more detail.

I thank Mr Mathison for that point. On "best estimates" and the information that we will gather, he asked whether we would capture outliers and whether we would be able to identify schools whose uniform costs were excessive and beyond the norm or the medium range: the answer is, "Yes, we will be able to do that". There is a subsequent question around whether that will be published and whether we will be able to identify schools in the way that we have talked about the direction naming. Will we be able, through "best estimates", to gather that information and data? Yes, we will. Will that allow us to have those outliers? Yes, it will. That is the intent behind "best estimates".

Sinn Féin and the SDLP might want to reflect on what I have said. The amendment is longer than what is currently in the Bill. It is more detailed, and it will allow us to be more effective in determining the issue between primary settings and post-primary settings, which the Bill, if it goes through unamended, will not allow us to do. I give way to Mr Sheehan.

540 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