Paul Givan
Lagan Valley · Democratic Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“The EA's enhanced support model has been out for consultation. The Member's party is the largest political grouping on the Education Authority, so his party supported the model's being consulted on.”
“Protections around strike action and action short of strike are firmly established in statute for all workers, including teachers. If the Member is referring to the Education Inspections Bill, let me be clear: nothing in that legislation removes or undermines that right.”
“The issue was covered at length at the Education Committee. The position is still not where it ought to be. When I came into office, the position that I inherited was much worse than it is today.”
“It is an area that I have had to navigate, as have many previous Education Ministers. Industrial relations is an area that needs ongoing work. I have outlined how we can address it, but I come back to saying that, when workload was undefined, trade unions struggled to specify the challenge.”
“That is not a fair characterisation. In fact, I was with Justin McCamphill, the leader of NASUWT, at the launch of the curriculum reform, at which he commended me for it and said that he thought that it was good. I have sat in many a meeting with trade union representatives during which they have said, "This is a good initiative.”
“That is exactly why there is a 16-week consultation period, rather than the normal 12 weeks or the minimum eight weeks; to allow the public and teaching profession to very much engage in that curriculum, which I commend to all Members.”
The complete record
Every one of 6,258 lines we hold for Paul Givan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 29 of 126.
“There is an opportunity for everybody to participate in the consultation. The process that was followed before we went out to consultation included engagement with a range of stakeholders, including pupils — their voices were heard on the matter — and teachers. <BR /> <BR />I recognise that there is increased anxiety in relation to the issue, given the amount of testing of our young people that takes place, particularly in years 11, 12, 13 and 14. They are on a constant conveyor belt of examinations. They are prepped for those examinations and are often taught to the test. We need to recalibrate that so that they have the opportunity to engage in a rich curriculum and gain a detailed understanding of the subject matter. Assessment will, of course, always be a part of our qualifications system. <BR /> <BR />Take AS levels as an example.”
“I intend to confirm my policy framework intentions in early 2026. Following that, CCEA Regulation would be required to prepare a regulatory framework from which CCEA, being the awarding organisation, would undertake a full revision of its qualifications. Prior to the roll-out of new specifications, that process took a minimum of two years. Once we get the consultation responses, we will assess them and determine the way forward. I intend to do that in early 2026.”
“I have an open mind on this, but I see the merit in the proposals in that they would reduce the number of times that our young people are tested and increase the amount of time that they get to learn and be taught in the classroom.”
“If they wish, schools would be able to bring in other awarding bodies and qualifications. <BR /> <BR />It is a consultation exercise. I have listened to principals, some of whom are very passionate about removing AS levels because of the increased time that is spent preparing for tests and the pressure that that puts on teachers and pupils. I have also heard from principals who are strong advocates for the retention of AS levels. I have gone out to consultation to get the views of the sector. <BR /> <BR />Where there would be implications for entry into courses in the Republic of Ireland, that would need to be taken into account before any decision were taken on the matter.”
“<BR /> <BR />On the concerns about applying for higher education in the Republic of Ireland, I can confirm that, if the decision is made to remove the CCEA AS levels, stand-alone AS levels from other awarding organisations will still be available for the very small number of students who require them. <BR /> <BR />Consideration will be given to any concerns that are raised through the consultation process.”
“My Department’s consultation on the future of the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment's (CCEA) GCSEs, AS levels and A levels is an opportunity for students, parents, educators, employers and other stakeholders to contribute by sharing their views on how to improve the structure, content and assessment of those qualifications. The consultation includes a proposal to remove AS levels in order to reduce pressure on students and teachers and to free up time for teaching and deeper learning. My proposals reflect a clear ambition to ensure that CCEA's GCSEs, AS levels and A levels remain relevant, nationally and internationally relevant.”
“It is incumbent on every Member to pay heed to the need to make good, workable legislation. I have taken that responsibility seriously and have tabled the necessary amendments. They are technical amendments that do not interfere with the impact of decisions that were taken at Consideration Stage. It is parents who are placing their trust in us as legislators to make legislation that will work. Supporting my amendments today is an opportunity to do just that. It is an opportunity that, I trust and hope, Members will take, and I commend all the group 1 amendments to the House.”
“<BR /> <BR />I indicated that, while I do not think that amendment No 9 is necessary, I will not oppose that amendment from Mr Mathison. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 10 simply tidies language and relates to the requirements that the Department "must publish" directions:”
“Language has been updated throughout the Bill by my amendments, which provide greater legal clarity and greater consistency in the existing clauses in the Bill and other existing legislation. Nothing has been taken away from the intentions that were voted through in the amendments at Consideration Stage; in fact, in places, I have expanded references to them so that they are included and more effective. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 7 moves the words "as follows" for absolute consistency. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 8 re-tables that minor amendment from Consideration Stage on the word "undue" as the parameter when directions are being considered. That has been done to be consistent with the materiality parameter at clause 8(1), which is to help protect pupils and schools.”
“The argument will remain around the necessity for the word "undue". That is the position that I take in respect of it. <BR /> <BR />To summarise, I have tabled 11 amendments, which we have debated. They are technical amendments. They improve the language, style and structure of the School Uniforms Bill following Consideration Stage. They are technical amendments that deliver the intention that was stated by Members at Consideration Stage when we debated them and what the impact of those amendments would be. <BR /> <BR />Within the group, amendment Nos 1 and 5 leave out a subsection and a clause in order for the subsequent amendments, which are Nos 11 and 12, to place them elsewhere in the Bill in their own clauses and in a new chapter.”
“He misses the point that I have raised, which is that that section of the Bill, which, as currently drafted, is around 13 lines in length — not that we should use quantity to judge quality — and we are replacing it with a longer, more detailed clause that allows the assessment or, with the change of terminology, the "best estimates" to include a differential approach for primary and post-primary. The Bill currently does not do that. I have enhanced the provision to make it stronger, and I trust that the majority of Members will understand the purpose of what I am trying to do in respect of that. <BR /> <BR />Those were the key issues that were raised. Members commented on the word "undue". I have given the reasons why I think that that is appropriate. Mr Burrows gave a good explanation of why he supports that.”
“I do not think that the Member has any genuine interest in trying not to understand it, whether that is deliberate or not, but the Bill, as currently proposed, talks about the Department's "assessment": I seek to change the wording around "assessment" to "best estimates". I think the point that he is making is that what I am doing will not address the wider issue, but neither will the Bill as drafted, which he supported. <BR /> <BR />We have taken advice on the terminology around "assessment". We believe that that wording should be replaced with "best estimates". I have outlined the purpose of what we are going to do.”
“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. <BR /> <BR />I give way to Mr Sheehan.”
“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".”
“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.”
“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. <BR /> <BR />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 will get straight into addressing some of the questions that Members raised. <BR /> <BR />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. <BR /> <BR />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:”
“I would be interested in hearing the Member give detail on how amendment No 12 is in any way weaker than what was passed at Consideration Stage. I have outlined the purpose of amendment No 5 and of replacing clause 5 through amendment No 12. Doing so gives greater clarity and strengthens the provision, as opposed to what the Member has just articulated. I would be interested to hear him pinpoint the evidence for what he has said.”
“<BR /> <BR />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.”
“— 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. <BR /> <BR />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.”
“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. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 10 simply tidies language relating to the requirement that the Department must publish directions within three months of giving them.”
“<BR /> <BR />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. <BR /> <BR />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.”
“<BR /> <BR />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.”
“<BR /> <BR />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".”
“It is a very straightforward matter that, again, I trust no one will find difficulty with. <BR /> <BR />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.”
“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. <BR /> <BR />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).”
“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 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. <BR /> <BR />My officials will collect and analyse school-level data in order to provide a report every three 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. <BR /> <BR />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.”
“Again, in order to have clear legislation, I trust that there is nothing in there to which Members will object. <BR /> <BR />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:”
“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. <BR /> <BR />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.”
“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. <BR /> <BR />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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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. <BR /> <BR />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.”
“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. <BR /> <BR />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.”
“He is right, however: without resources, the plan will not deliver what we need. It needs to be resourced. I will not make any apology for seeking the support of all MLAs for the plan. I have engaged with principals. I hope, trust and know that those principals will engage with every MLA in their constituency and advocate for the approach that I have outlined. I trust that to be the case, so I will not make an apology for seeking to get the plan supported at the Executive, because it is the only way in which we will meet the needs of the most vulnerable in our society.”
“I get the politics at times in here, but I pay tribute to the Member for his genuine interest in this.”
“At no point did the Finance Minister say to me that the money was not there. He welcomed the work that had been undertaken and the engagement that I have had with him. He indicated that he is looking at a three-year plan for what we are doing around capital expenditure. I appeal to Members of the House to get behind the plan. Let us support this. I am seeking the support of Members. You all have the ability to influence those who take decisions within your parties. <BR /> <BR />I agree with the Member on one thing. I know that this is a genuine concern for him. He has brought me to visit schools and he has a real interest in making provision for the schools in his constituency. He has had me there, I have seen it, and he engages with me outside the Chamber.”
“It may be that although some schools have said that they will provide a place, the provision may not be needed in that locality. I do not know, genuinely, whether that is the case. In other areas, where we have an acute need and where we have not been able to provide specialist provision, we have sought to engage with schools to see whether we can meet the need. If a school wants to offer specialist provision, I very much want to see that accommodated, unless there are really good reasons why it is not appropriate. I am happy to engage with the Member on the particular schools that he referred to.”
“I thank the Member for that question. It is an issue that I had experience of soon after taking up office. A school in my constituency said that it would provide specialist provision, and that was turned down. Subsequent to getting involved in that one, they looked at it again and said, "Yes, we will provide specialist provision". I believe that, this year, they have taken a second unit at the school. I will be very interested to look into the detail of those particular schools. <BR /> <BR />At times, there can be some policies that the EA will look at around sustainable schools: what is the enrolment level and, most importantly, where is the level of need? It is more acute in some particular areas. I do not know the particular circumstances of the schools that the Member highlighted.”
“<BR /> <BR />We can go down the route that the Member wants to go down. He provides no solution, no plan as to what he would do. I have not heard the SDLP articulate its plan. I have outlined a plan through detailed work, through the EA engaging with educationalists and school principals, and they have come up with a plan. Given the amount of work that has gone into this, particularly from those within the profession, it merits a higher level of contribution than the Member has just articulated and the SDLP has advocated.”
“We can engage in the blame game or we can get on with a plan that is going to make an impact. <BR /> <BR />Due to advances in medicine, children are being born now, thankfully, with much greater and higher levels of complexity of need. Thank the Lord that they are living longer than they would have done otherwise. However, the facilities have not kept pace with the complexities that exist. We have more children presenting with issues around autism, ADHD and various issues who need to get support. I do not know what the causation factors are as to why we have higher numbers of children with additional need. I do not know what has caused that. However, we have had an exponential growth in the number of children with SEN over the past five years, never mind 10 years, and long before other Ministers were in this Department.”
“The funding cannot be met — I have repeated that ad nauseam — from within the normal conventional spend of the Department of Education. This initiative has to be a dedicated, ring-fenced, Executive, flagship, priority project, and that will then align with the demand for a SEN-first approach, not just in my Department but in the Executive.”
“I thank the Member for her question. As I outlined to Mr Sheehan, I have already met the Finance Minister. We went through the financial pressures in the Department, and I highlighted my plan for special schools. This is not a shock. It is not that I have come to the Assembly without already going to my Executive colleagues. I have gone to my Executive colleagues. Every Minister in the Executive has received the paper, which is there. I hope that the paper will be placed on the agenda and that we can agree and approve the plan. The paper is there, but it is right for me, as the Minister of Education, to assure the public, principals and pupils that I am in their corner. I am fighting for them. I will be their champion, as I promised, when it comes to getting the financial support that the Department of Education needs.”
“Let us get behind it and support those who need it most.”
“<BR /> <BR />The plan will deliver purpose-built, brand new schools — not modular but new schools — the enhancement of existing schools and physical construction. Of course, there will continue to be specialist provision that we need to meet. Next year, we will need to put in place modular buildings. I say to Members, however, that new modular buildings are very different from the mobile classrooms in the school that I went to. There are still some schools where the mobile classrooms are appalling, but brand new modular buildings are very good and of a high standard. Yes, there will be a mix of physical, bricks-and-mortar new builds and extension works, and modular units will also be provided to meet the need. However, this is the plan to achieve the objectives that I believe, at heart, everyone wants us to achieve.”
“Having brought me to a number of schools, the Member, rightly, challenged me about what I am doing to support those schools. What I have done is develop this plan. I encourage the Member to look at the master plan for the schools in his constituency. He will see the detailed work that has now been completed. He will see the pathway to deliver for those children and young people who he, rightly, asked me to visit, and he has my support for what he is trying to do in his constituency. We need to rise above the idea of challenge just because it is the party political thing to do. We need to, on occasion, rise above that. I get that there will be a degree of knockabout. This should not be a knockabout issue in the Assembly Chamber.”
“He brought me to some schools in his constituency —”
“He brought me to some schools in his constituency —”