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 5139344

Text

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will go straight to some of the comments and questions that Members raised in order to aid them in their consideration of how they will vote. I welcome Mr Mathison's approach to play-based learning. He could have taken the view that the amendment that he tabled on that had to stand and that he was right, but he has actually listened to how we can make legislation more effective. He has reflected on that and acknowledged that, actually, the amendment that I tabled broadens the provision on that as well. That is a demonstration of an MLA who can bring forward an idea, get support in the Assembly, which I objected to at the time but have now refined, and recognise that it will make the Bill better. That is what Members are meant to do. I am concerned, though, that some MLAs come in with a predetermined position and a script that they already have and from which they will not deviate. They acknowledge that they are not experts, but the ordinary person on the street will not know what a declaration means. Take advice from the experts. Do not necessarily take advice from me if you do not want to, but take it from the experts who actually know what they are talking about in those areas. Mr Sheehan acknowledged in the previous debate that legislators make mistakes and that it happens all over the world as though it is OK for us to continue doing that. He has an opportunity, and Sinn Féin has an opportunity, to actually put effective law into place, which I believe that those in that party all want to do. I believe that they want the legislation to be effective, but, for whatever reason, on a couple of amendments, they are determined to say, "I am going to get my way, and I am not going to listen to the Minister."
Mr Sheehan has made the point for me from a sedentary position. He would rather make a point than listen to the experts. I will give way to the Member in a moment. I welcome that approach to play-based learning, therefore. Mr Mathison has rightly identified the issue on the declaration and value for money. I have highlighted why a school manager, who is responsible for getting in the uniform, could just make a declaration and say, "We have value for money" without having to provide any evidence. I tabled an amendment that will actually ensure that they have to provide evidence of that. My amendment is stronger than the position that Sinn Féin and the SDLP outlined. They want to let schools off the hook, and I do not know why — maybe it is because they have a misconception about my motivations. I will say this to them: listen, you are going to let schools off the hook by not supporting the amendment on this issue if that is the approach that you take. Evidence will be required. I assure Mr Mathison that I will ensure that we affirm that providing such evidence will be required and that that will be placed into the guidance. Daniel McCrossan spoke on behalf of the SDLP and, again, outlined the fact that he does not want loopholes and or vague wording in amendment No 3. I am sorry; he is not actually in the Chamber. OK. If that is the case, the SDLP will vote against those amendments. When it comes to it, it will vote to stop getting clear legislation in place and will seek to retain vagueness and loopholes, such as a loophole that means that a school can declare that it has achieved value for money without having evidence of that. Those were the two main points about that group.

636 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

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: 0.10 (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 (0.85).
No identity-based framing was identified (0.98).
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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
Question	Probability	Met?
Identity framing	0.06	No
Sectarian or communal antagonism	0.08	No
Cultural grievance politics	0.02	No
Dog-whistle messaging	0.13	No
Controversy escalation	0.07	No
Legitimate policy scrutiny	0.85	Yes
Overall judgement	0.10	At or below not-flagging threshold

Context and attribution (stance)
Option	Probability
No identity-based framing (chosen)	0.98
Reports or questions it	0.00
Criticises or condemns it	0.00
Adopts it	0.02

Subject area (top five)
Subject	Probability
No identity-related subject	0.57
Education structures, integration and community division	0.31
Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations	0.08
Another identity-related subject	0.03
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials	0.00

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:18 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