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 31 of 126.
“Many are housed in outdated and deteriorating buildings, spaces that lack adequate therapy rooms and fall short of the standards required to deliver modern, holistic care. All straightforward special school solutions have been exhausted. The vast majority of special schools have no physical internal or external space for further development, and new special schools and dual-campus sites of existing schools are therefore required across Northern Ireland. That is alongside the continued provision of specialist classes in our mainstream schools. Those small, dedicated classes provide higher levels of support, a modified curriculum and reduced class size compared with a standard mainstream class. That infrastructure is stretched to its limits, while demand for specialist facilities continues to surge.”
“As a Government, we are united in our commitment, as outlined in the Programme for Government (PFG), to work together to better support children and young people with special educational needs. We have pledged to transform our education system to deliver high-quality, efficient and sustainable services for every child with SEN. Today, I seek the Assembly's support for an Executive-led and funded SEN capital investment programme, one that will revolutionise the facilities available to our children and young people. <BR /> <BR />The choice facing the Executive is stark. Without decisive action across government, the system risks failing the very children whom it is meant to protect. Our special schools have reached capacity.”
“Last week, I wrote to ministerial colleagues to ask them to support detailed proposals for ring-fenced special educational needs (SEN) capital funding of around £1·7 billion, separate from the main Education capital budget. Today, I appeal to Members of the Assembly to back me in that call. Over the past 18 months, I have set a clear and determined strategic direction to address one of the most pressing challenges facing our education system: the urgent requirement for special educational needs placements and the long-term transformation of SEN provision across Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />It is not a challenge for one Department alone; it is a challenge for the Executive as a whole.”
“Let us make good legislation. Today, let our votes be for legislative provisions that will make a positive difference for families who are struggling. Let us do that without exposing our schools to unnecessarily complex guidelines that leave them more open to legal challenge because unclear and unnecessary provisions have been placed in the Bill. I will put families first and considering workability for schools as I vote. I trust that other Members will too, and, if we get this right, we can make a real and a positive difference with the legislation. I thank each Member for their engagement.”
“That will support a measured, informed approach that will be consulted on and will be focused on addressing affordability for parents in the most effective way. As with all primary legislation subject to commencement order, clauses 3 and 4 are for commencing in due course in light of the sorts of factors that I have mentioned. However, the amendment is not of such materiality that I intend to oppose it. <BR /> <BR />In closing, I bring the House back to the key underpinning reason for introducing the legislation: to help families who are struggling with costs associated with school uniforms. I repeat what I said in the group 1 debate: words matter. Wording in legislation is critical. I urge the House to consider what I have highlighted about amendment Nos 5, 6 and 7, and I ask that Members also vote against those amendments.”
“<BR /> <BR />Finally, on amendment No 13, the reason why clause 3 and clause 4 were drafted to come into operation via commencement order is to ensure that any cap, whether that is on the number of branded items or cost or, indeed, a combination, was properly thought through and workable; that unintended consequences were mitigated as far as is possible and that the cap can be invoked only where truly necessary and effective. My officials are working on a consultation about what a cap should be, how it should operate and who is best placed to develop, maintain, monitor and adapt it as necessary. That should come first. It will inform how any cap can be most effective and whether it should be deployed.”
“Amendment No 7 relates to the publication of information, and it does not really belong in clause 2. Clause 2 deals with particular matters for inclusion in guidelines of broadly similar types relating to unfair costs and practicality and sets of clothing. Even if amendment No 7 were in the right place, the amendment is not clear in its language. Again, it is simply not needed. Under clause 6, a manager of a school must publish whatever associated or additional explanation or information the guidelines require under clause 1, so, as the concern giving rise to amendment No 7 is already fully addressed by the Bill, it adds nothing except overlap. Let us not populate the Bill with unnecessary provisions based on misunderstanding of what matters are already covered. I urge the House not to vote for amendment Nos 6 or 7.”
“uniforms can be purchased. Amendment No 6 uses different terms. For example, who are "providers"? I remind the House of the importance of words in legislation. The amendment is not clear. It is, therefore, not suitable for being adopted into the Bill.”
“Therefore, the amendment does not add to what is already covered in the Bill; indeed, it serves only to confuse matters with no associated benefits for parents or pupils, however well intentioned it may be. I have no reason to question the intention behind it. For those reasons, I will not support amendment No 5, and I urge the House not to vote for it. <BR /> <BR />Again, amendment Nos 6 and 7 are not necessary. The Bill requires that the Department address "unfair costs aspects" in the guidelines and defines "unfair costs aspects" as including:”
“<BR /> <BR />Are "play-based curricula" and "outdoor learning" to be interpreted by the Department, and is that interpretation to then be included in guidelines about school uniforms that are meant to address affordability? Taken logically, the amendment runs the risk of requiring parents to pay for a different uniform at Foundation Stage. That risk has been highlighted by legal advice. Every time a school takes its pupils from year 1 to year 14 outside to help them to be active, is that outdoor learning and would it therefore require a specific uniform instruction in the guidelines? The amendment is unclear and is simply not necessary. <BR /> <BR />The underpinning point is for uniforms to be affordable. Under the Bill, they must also be comfortable and practical within that context of affordability.”
“and as equipping pupils with the "knowledge, understanding and skills" that are needed for life — not clothing. <BR /> <BR />As I have said, the terms "play-based curricula" and "outdoor learning" are not used in law. I presume that they are intended to relate to the pedagogy of the curriculum at Foundation Stage, but that is intentionally not set out in law. That is a matter of professional teacher training, development and ever-evolving best practice. The amendment overcomplicates what is already covered in the requirement in clause 2 for "comfort and practicality". I referenced clause 2 in response to Nuala McAllister when she raised a number of questions on some issues.”
“In addition, I am afraid that it does not make logical sense. Terms such as "play-based curricula" and "outdoor learning" are used in the amendment in reference to the 2006 Order but are not used in that legislation or in any Northern Ireland education legislation. Foundation Stage is defined in the 2006 Order in relation to the age of pupils in that stage and as covering two school years. All the necessary powers to differentiate guidelines between Key Stages are already in clause 5. It is not legally clear what the amendment means. I am aware of no reference in Northern Ireland education law to "curricula" of any type. The curriculum is defined in the 2006 Order in terms of, for example, the:”
“<BR /> <BR />Good intentions do not automatically equate to good legislation. I caution Members that every unclear provision in the legislation will ultimately leave our schools open to legal challenge. Schools have so much work to do in teaching and nurturing our children and young people. That is their key purpose. Uniforms have a role in supporting ethos and school identity. Uniforms need to be comfortable and practical in order to support children in their learning, but let us not confuse what needs to be in legislation about guidelines that address the affordability of school uniforms with what may seem to be a good idea outside the legal framework. <BR /> <BR />I am concerned about amendment No 5, which risks making statutory guidelines difficult or unworkable for schools.”
“Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I trust that the Assembly will not lead us back down the path that I articulated in my concerns. <BR /> <BR />We start the grouped amendments with some amendments — amendment Nos 2 and 3 — that, in my view, are unnecessary, although they are not damaging to the Bill. In the existing non-statutory guidance, schools are advised to consult their parents and pupils. That formed part of the policy consultation on uniforms. It is a matter of public record that, at Second Stage, I talked to the need for schools to consult parents and pupils. Such a requirement was always going to be in the guidelines. The amendments are likely to require guidelines to specify other consultees, and, while I am broadly content not to oppose the amendments, I query whether that was the intention.”
“I said that it is not me who holds that viewpoint. I relayed the professional opinion of experts on legislation. I recounted my experience, having previously been Chair of a Committee, of how to seek to engage the honesty of those who, with their best endeavour, seek to advise Committees. When I was Chair of a Committee, it was recognised that the professional expertise lay with the Office of the Legislative Counsel. I have shared that view, but it is for Members to decide whether they wish to take my word for it. I do not ask them to do so on trust, but, ultimately, they have to preside over the decisions that they will take in the Assembly.”
“What I have heard today suggests that we have learnt nothing about passing effective legislation. I do not doubt the sincerity of Members who seek to do the right thing on affordability, but it is about not just doing something but doing the right thing. Members have decisions to take, but my position is clear when it comes to outlining why there was a better way in which to draft the Bill.”
“Others will judge the intention behind the rationale for my introducing it. I only wish that Sinn Féin Ministers would introduce their Bills. I introduced one, and I have others in the system. With the greatest respect, where is the output from some of my Executive colleagues? <BR /> <BR />It is not mere pedantry for me to talk about getting the legislation right. In evidence to the House of Lords Constitution Committee, our former Attorney General John Larkin KC set out why that is the case. He wrote, of a period before the precision of modern legislation was in vogue:”
“No, because I am straying, as Members did, beyond what I am meant to be debating. I am just responding to the points that were raised. I will then get to the substance of what we need to do. <BR /> <BR />Mr Sheehan also suggested that I was being disingenuous or insincere. This is the first Bill that I introduced as Minister of Education. On day 1, I announced that we would introduce a Bill to tackle the affordability of school uniforms. I am preparing legislation on a series of issues, but I introduced the Bill in order to facilitate Members. I introduced it not just because my party wanted to but because the issue was one that other Members had a real desire to address. People can question the motives behind my introducing it, but I did so because it was the right thing to do.”
“Mr Sheehan said that we sometimes get it wrong but that so do legislators all over the world. The fact that others have got legislation wrong in the past and do things incorrectly is not a reason for us to continue to get it wrong. He talked about a mere Executive process, but I have been around the Executive long enough to know that it is not a mere tick-box exercise to get Sinn Féin's approval in order to get a Bill through. If that is Sinn Féin's approach, I look forward to other Bills that I want to introduce but that are being held up in the Executive being released.”
“Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. We have debated seven amendments in group 1, and now we have turned to the group 2 amendments, which focus on the content of guidelines and the commencement. For the most part, I do not take particular issue with the policy intent of most of the amendments in group 2. Rather, my primary concern is for the integrity of the statute book and to ensure that what the Assembly seeks to do is clear.”
“Ultimately, it is a decision that a school will have to take, but that will have to be informed through the consultation process, listening to pupils and giving them a real, meaningful voice. That may well lead to change in some of those schools that currently do not make that provision.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, in answer to her question around the issue of skirts and trousers, yes, schools do have the freedom and liberty to put in place a policy that would make provision for that. I have attended schools and visits where I can see it: it is obvious that there are trousers and skirts being worn. That is a choice that is made available to them. Under that approach, I am seeking to compel schools to engage with their pupils and parents, have that consultation, devise policy and, if the school chooses to have that provision — again, that is the difference: I am not advocating a prescriptive approach — I say clearly that it will have my support in making that provision.”
“I trust that that will give the Member some assurance that that is an issue that schools will be able to consider. Certainly, when I publish the guidance, people will see that.”
“That is partly why Mr Mathison's Committee amendment on curricula, which I will come to, is, in my view, unnecessary. That is a very wide provision in the legislation. The guidance that has to be implemented by schools must take into account:”
“I thank the Member for raising that valid point, which allows me to address some other points that the Members have made. Cathy Mason made a point earlier and gave some examples that, erroneously, suggested that those children could not be catered for. Clause 2(2) states:”
“I am happy with your ruling that we stick to the amendments, and I will speak on them in due course.”
“I appreciate the Member giving way. I also appreciate that we have not spoken about any of the amendments, but that is a matter for those chairing proceedings.”
“That, to me, does not seem to be the best way in which to utilise the Assembly. I am determined to deliver on the guidance, and Members will see that in due course. The culmination of the process, however, will be more easily attained through what I have outlined than through what the Chairman seems to be indicating on behalf of the Committee.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. On the broad principle that he is trying to outline about wanting the legislation to be very prescriptive, does he believe that the detail on how schools operate their uniform policy should be in primary legislation or in statutory guidance that can be updated with much greater ease than taking primary legislation through the Assembly? Primary legislation is the foundation on which we can do what follows. That is why we have secondary legislation and why we vote on regulations. They are much easier to update, as the guidance will be. If I follow the argument from the Member and others, they want to specify the guidance in primary legislation, which would mean that, should the circumstance arise that we got it wrong, we would need to introduce primary legislation.”
“I ask that the House carefully consider the reasons why I will not vote for amendment Nos 9 and 11 and that Members pay due attention to the legal advice on which those amendments are based. I ask that Members take a sensible and measured approach, with parents, pupils and schools at the forefront of their thinking. <BR /> <BR />I know that everyone in the Chamber wishes to make school uniforms more affordable for parents and to enable the Department to provide clear guidelines that are workable for schools. Let us make good legislation, and, in doing so, let us make a real difference for parents.”
“I ask that the House support me and our schools in taking that different approach and not to vote amendment No 12 through today. I ask the House to pause before voting and to consider whether the amendment in question would lead to meaningful monitoring and enforcement. Would it assist schools to adhere to the statutory guidelines or risk embarrassing them? <BR /> <BR />I commend amendment No 10 to the House. I ask that Members do not vote through amendment Nos 8 and 12. I give a commitment on the Floor of the Assembly that I will table an amendment at Further Consideration Stage that delivers the intent behind those amendments in a reasonable and workable way.”
“Publishing information about the number of directions issued and the matters about which the direction was issued seems much more reasonable to me, yet that is not what amendment No 12 would achieve: the entire direction must be published, and that will naturally include the school's name. I will not support that, and I urge Members to think about the schools in their constituency when they vote. <BR /> <BR />If Members find it helpful, I can include the requirement to report on the numbers of and the reasons for directions in the alternative amendment that I am offering to prepare for Further Consideration Stage. It comes back to the significant importance of each word in legislation. We can achieve the intention more effectively through taking a slightly different approach.”
“I am clear that I want to work with schools. I respect our schools and those who work so hard in them to support our young people. I do not wish to name and shame any school for which a school uniform direction has been issued, because I appreciate the risk of reputational damage. The amendment would do just that. I caution that we need to consider what actual and identifiable benefit there would be from publishing that information. <BR /> <BR />Members will also wish to reflect on the potential precedent that such an approach could represent, and Mr Burrows referred to that. If a direction is issued, it is legally enforceable through court proceedings, if needs be.”
“<BR /> <BR />I want to make some progress on amendment No 11, which would remove the requirement for the Department to consult schools on draft directions before it issues them. Including that requirement in the Bill was, again, based on consistency with the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 but also on best practice. If the Committee's argument for tabling amendment No 11 is that it would shorten the time taken to issue a direction, I can say only that cutting the school voice out of that part of the process is unlikely to be helpful and would reduce the opportunity for a quicker resolution without the need for direction. For those reasons, I will not support amendment No 11 and will seek to divide the House and ask it to vote against the amendment. <BR /> <BR />I also question the rationale behind amendment No 12.”
“I am aware — given his experience, the Member also knows this — from precedent in court settings that the courts will seek to understand, by reviewing debate in the Assembly and in Committee, what was meant, if they need to analyse it because the wording is not clear. It will be left to a judge to figure out what the intent behind it was. Members really need to take cognisance of that when they make decisions on the precise wording in legislation. <BR /> <BR />The Bill's purpose is affordability. I have said repeatedly that we do not want a scenario in which any child, whether they are applying to a school or, indeed, are already at a school, is excluded on the grounds of affordability. Placing the guidelines on a statutory footing will help drive the change that is needed in the small number of schools in which it is a real problem.”
“If amendment No 9 is passed — I am sure that the Speaker will outline this — amendment No 10 will not be called, and we will not be able to address that matter, so we will need to look at doing so at Further Consideration Stage, if that is possible.”
“The Chairman outlines part of the rationale when it comes to "must": it would certainly give the leverage to force a school. Before the point at which you have to have the "must", however, why would a Minister or the departmental official responsible not have exercised the authority that will exist because the Department "may" be able to do it? There is a point at which you would remove any ability to have the power of flexibility. Circumstances that we do not know may apply in that situation. The amendment, if passed, will say "must". Amendment No 9 is mutually exclusive to amendment No 10, and I have indicated, that, if you do not move amendment No 9, what I am proposing in amendment No 10 provides consistency. The issue of "may" and "must" is a matter for Members to reach a view on, but I seek to address that in amendment No 10.”
“That is where you would apply pressure on the Minister and the Department by saying, "You have the power to enforce this". The amendment, when it comes to "may" and "must", would remove that ability. I have highlighted that the terminology is inconsistent with other parts of the Bill.”
“I am happy to give way, because, on legislation, we have to get it right, and it is through discourse that, I trust, people engage, listen, reflect and potentially change position. I include myself in that: if I am wrong, I am open to being persuaded. The problem that I have with "must" and "may" is that it entirely removes the ability of the Department to deviate from "must": we have to do it. Some Members indicated that one of the reasons why they wanted this in primary legislation is that one does not know what approach any Minister may take. A Minister may wish to give a bye ball and decide that they will not go down that route. Members would, rightly, challenge any Minister of the Department where there was such a breach of the statutory guidance that got us into the areas covered by the amendments.”
“Taken together, the result is that the Department is not forced to consider resorting to directions, except in the right cases or circumstances that relate to each of the disciplinary measures and participatory disadvantages. That allows schools to operate their discipline policies but protects pupils from being excluded in unjust circumstances where uniform items are not affordable for their families. I ask that the House supports that minor, but important, amendment.”
“The conditions for the Department to assess whether a direction is needed must be fulfilled in either circumstance. <BR /> <BR />That leads me to amendment No 10, which I present having reflected on the balance to be achieved in clause 7. Amendment No 10 provides a proportionate parameter in clause 7(1)(b) by including the word "undue" with regard to any directions about undue pupil discipline and participatory disadvantage. I have already mentioned the issue of consistency. Amendment No 10 ensures that there is consistency with the parameter that is already included in clause 7(1)(a) with regard to directions about material school non-adherence to the statutory guidelines.”
“The use of "may" in that sort of context is precedented in a similar context, and, in each context, enables a robust, but reasonable, system for giving directions. Adopting the mandatory "must" instead risks an overly rigid system where directions are required in every case where the power to issue them is triggered, whereas, in my view, they should be used as a last resort in the appropriate cases. Leaving some degree of flexibility by keeping "may" is therefore important so that intervention by way of directions occurs only where that is clearly the right choice for the Department when assessing things reasonably. In addition, making a distinction whereby "the Department must" give a non-adherence direction but "may" give a pupil disciplinary direction seems to me to be inconsistent without providing material benefit.”
“I cannot speak for how the Committee has been advised on tabling Committee amendments and how it would engage with the Department, but my officials did raise our concerns with the Committee as it considered its amendments. <BR /> <BR />Clearly, there is still an opportunity before Members vote. I have put it on the record: I will deliver what the Committee wants on the content of amendment No 8. However, there is a better way to do that, and I will bring it forward, subject to the Executive's approval, at Further Consideration Stage. That will allow the amendment and its content to be sequenced properly in the Bill, as opposed to where it is currently proposed to be. <BR /> <BR />On amendment No 9, clause 7 is permissive, just as is the general power of direction in article 101 of the 1986 Order.”
“There are two points. The Chairman has made one of them for me: we did not have a Marshalled List until decisions were taken in respect of which amendments were deemed admissible by the Speaker. That is the first point. The second point is that my officials made clear to the Committee our concern in respect of that. I have not only served as a Minister in a number of Departments; I have been Chairman of a Committee and served alongside other Members on that Committee. I can speak only to my experience of being a Chairman. A Bill Clerk would have advised the Committee. Often, the Bill Clerk would have said to me, "I am not the expert. We will engage the Department, which has the resources of the Office of the Legislative Counsel and the Departmental Solicitor's Office".”
“When a Member of Parliament — albeit we are not at Westminster — or a Committee pushes an amendment and a Minister gets up and says, "I agree with what the Committee or Member is trying to achieve, but there is a better way to do it and to frame the legislation", the normal convention is for that to be accepted. I fear, however, that Members are more determined to prove a point than to get the right point in legislation. If Members wish to follow that process, that would be a cause for concern.”
“I offer the House that alternative as a pragmatic means of delivering what, I believe, the Education Committee seeks but without the problems that I identified with amendment No 8. I therefore ask that the House votes against amendment No 8 or that the Committee Chair does not move amendment No 8. That will enable me to table a better amendment at Further Consideration Stage. <BR /> <BR />Pressing on with amendment No 8 and then seeking me to provide at Further Consideration Stage an amendment that tidies it up is not the normal democratic process. I fear that we are at risk of losing our parliamentary protocols in this.”
“That all illustrates, again, the importance of getting the provisions exactly right for the sake of legislative accuracy and the real-life effects. As my position is that the amendment will need to be redrafted if it proceeds, I offer an alternative way forward. I will, subject to Executive agreement, table a more straightforward but equally effective reporting amendment at Further Consideration Stage that will result in all the relevant provisions, impact and outworkings of the Bill being reported on, with the first report to happen within three years of Royal Assent's being received. That improved amendment will sit alongside and work with the other amendments and provisions in the Bill.”
“Indeed, in legal terms, it potentially clashes with amendment No 1, which requires that the guidelines are reviewed:”
“It is not that the Department has any reluctance about trying to capture data on that. The Chairman makes the point for me: the Committee is using an amendment to try to achieve an outcome to do with data collection. That seems to be one of the underlying reasons. Determining whether or not the Department is serious about having an ability to capture data is not what the primary legislation should be designed to do. We have to use primary legislation for the right purposes and understand the intent behind it. That comment reveals to me that a cause for concern that I have about the Bill is justified. <BR /> <BR />The part of the amendment that relates to the Department reporting on its plans to review and amend the guidelines is rendered unnecessary.”
“The amendment before us is also not clear about what "mean" or "median costs" relate to. That is the wording in the Committee amendment: "mean" or "median costs". It ignores any potential differences between primary and post-primary uniforms, and we know that there can be significant price differences between those two. It is unnecessary in its prescription. Parts of the amendment that relate to the Department —”