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

Debate contribution by Mr Paul Givan on 13 October 2025.

MLA

Mr Paul Givan

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

13 October 2025

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill: Final Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5175994

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I thank the Member for her intervention. A number of Members have touched on that issue, and I addressed it earlier in the debate. I am getting to the point at which I will speak about equality-related matters. The Bill speaks about comfort and practicality. Those measures are in the Bill and will be reflected in the guidance. The guidelines will not, however, mandatorily require every school to make such provision. That will still be a decision for schools.

There is always a balance to be struck as to where that should lie. Should we force that uniform policy on all schools, or do we allow them to develop it, engage with parents and pupils on it, and come forward with it? I err on the side of allowing our schools to navigate the issue, but it is part of the guidance when it comes to comfort and practicality. They should engage on those issues as part of that process. Mr Sheehan referred to it, saying, I think, that it should not be subject to the "whim" of a principal. That is not correct. No principal operates on a whim. Every principal has a board of governors. Every principal is accountable to the school's board of governors. They have to have policies in place. It cannot just be the case that somebody decides one day, "This is the policy, and I am going to enforce it in my school setting". That is certainly not the practice that I had from principals when I was on the boards of governors for schools.

Again, I say this to people: campaign on those issues when you are being consulted in your school setting. Change the policy of your school, if you feel that that is the most appropriate for your school setting. That is a matter that is entirely for schools. There is a degree of autonomy — I call it "appropriate autonomy" — in matters of education, where schools should be able to take those decisions. They now have a clear framework through which those decisions have to be taken. Therefore, engage with your schools. Make sure that your pupil voice is heard, because the law now requires that school to take into account the voices of pupils and parents. The fundamental purpose of the Bill is notable. Some Members have majored on the gender-related issue — should it be trousers or a skirt? — when, actually, the biggest issue for hard-working families is affordability. It is the cost;

it is the financial burden that is placed upon them. Sinn Féin can shout at me if it wishes. That is fine. Sinn Féin does not believe in school uniform at all. I have heard the Member Mr Sheehan say that he believes that you should not have school uniform.

Well, I have heard the Member say it.

I stand corrected.

I may have misheard the Member before. It was my recollection that that comment was made. I am happy to retract it on the basis of the Member's testimony. Let me make some progress so that we can bring the matter to a conclusion. The Bill contains strong duties and powers. It works in conjunction with all existing legislation, including that on human rights and equality law. As I said, it focuses on ensuring that the guidance has to cover affordability, comfort and practicality, and it allows for provisions to be put in place to cap costs or branded items. It also differentiates between school types, year groups and Key Stages and supports uniform banks or the lending of uniform items to pupils. If Members are looking to see scope for reasonable adjustments to be made for pupils with special educational needs and disabilities, the Bill covers that. If Members are looking for school uniform equity, regardless of gender, the Bill works in tandem with existing human rights and equality legislation. In addition to that, schools will have to consult with their pupils and parents. There are no barriers to uniform equity on any grounds in the Bill. Information will have to be published about the consultation process and the outcome, about costs and about rationale for uniform design, which, again, I remind Members, parents and pupils will be consulted on. It seems somewhat odd to suggest that the Bill lacks anything that is needed in good legislation to deliver the purpose for which it has been introduced: addressing the affordability of school uniforms. I would not introduce legislation unless I were absolutely confident that it will deliver. Let me say that I am confident that it will deliver. It will make a difference for parents, and I can assure Members that it is effective legislation. I had to bring a number of tidying-up amendments through at Further Consideration Stage to ensure that it can work. I have consistently worked at pace to bring the legislation to the Assembly — not to rush, but to make a difference for families who need us to do so and need us to do so now, not in two school years' time. The best interests of the child and the voice of the child are already enshrined in other provisions. They already apply to any departmental guidance that is produced. To suggest that they will be missing from the statutory guidelines on school uniform policies that will follow this Bill is misleading and simply wrong, regardless of whether Members have had sight of draft guidelines. As I have stated, the Bill will operate in the context of existing law, including all existing human rights and equality legislation. The Department of Education is bound by law to act reasonably in exercising its statutory functions, and it should be borne in mind that that necessarily informs attitudes towards fairness, dignity and equality. That is based on legal expertise; it is based on fact, not misunderstanding of legislation. As we prepare to vote on the Bill, let me say this: there is nothing that should concern Members about the content and coverage of the School Uniforms Bill. I brought the Bill in to address the affordability of school uniforms. It will address the affordability of school uniforms. It has all the necessary powers and duties to ensure that it will do that. In addition, comfort, practicality and the adequacy of uniform requirements to support pupils in their learning and to participate fully in all aspects of school life are provided for in the Bill. The Bill places a duty on school managers to adhere to the guidelines, and it will be reported on at least every three years. It appears to me that Committee members who are most exercised would benefit from going through Hansard and looking at what has been shared about what the Bill will do, remembering that those points are all based on legal advice. I keep saying how important words are. Every word in the Bill following Further Consideration Stage has purpose and is important. Those words are not there to take up space on a page but to make a real difference. I welcome the fact that Members will be reviewing how the Bill is implemented. I will be reviewing its impact for parents. I would welcome a greater focus from Members on that impact, because that is the area that I believe that we agree on: the need to address the affordability of school uniforms for parents. I assure the House that it will. I urge Members to vote in support of the Bill. I am confident that scrutiny of its impact will bear out everything that I have said throughout the debates in the Chamber. It is time to put aside party politics. Put parents first. That is what we will achieve in voting for the School Uniforms Bill. I commend the Bill to the House.

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am happy to correct the record. I am very clear. The Member knows entirely why he went after Lisneal College: because it caters for a mainly Protestant community. I stand over that.

1,346 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Second assessment

Jev’s answers did not settle this record, so a second model, claude-opus-5-5, read the same text (without the MLA’s name or party) and gave its reasons on 21 October 2026. How the second assessment works

Verdict

Not flagged

Public interest or divisiveness

Mainly advances the public interest

Against the published rubric

Almost all of the contribution is a minister's closing defence of the School Uniforms Bill. It deals with affordability, cost caps, uniform banks, consultation with pupils and parents, reasonable adjustments for pupils with special educational needs, and how the Bill interacts with existing equality law. Gender-related uniform equity is answered on its merits, with the claim that the Bill 'works in tandem with existing human rights and equality legislation', not by attacking any group. The closing remark that another Member 'went after Lisneal College: because it caters for a mainly Protestant community' does put a sectarian motive on the record, but it is aimed at one Member's conduct, not a whole community, and is a single line in a substantive legislative speech.

Public interest or divisiveness

The main function is to explain and defend legislation meant to reduce the 'financial burden' of uniforms on families, and to answer scrutiny about what the Bill covers. The final accusation of sectarian targeting, which the speaker says they 'stand over', is a divisive note. So is a brief, retracted claim about a party's view of uniforms. Neither changes the character of the contribution, which is overwhelmingly about policy substance.

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:28 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