Nick Mathison
Strangford · Alliance Party · Northern Ireland
“That second part is important. In the scrutiny of the Minister's Bill on school uniforms, we got a little tied up over how we could build in provisions on PE, but, when we got to work on this Bill, we found that there is a simple formulation that will ensure that participation in sport and PE, which, we should remember, is a statutory par…”
“<BR /> <BR />On the basis of that feedback and the other evidence that we received, two draft approaches to developing the Bill were considered. The first was to create a separate, stand-alone Bill with a stand-alone right for pupils to be afforded the choice to wear trousers and to set that out in law.”
“Many schools do that really well, but others, regrettably, do not. To me, only legislation will guarantee the behaviour change that we need. It is not good enough for a Minister to say to young people, "But I give you permission to go and campaign. You run the campaign. Look at Rhea and Astrid: didn't they do so well?".”
“I will name a few: the school uniform must be affordable, so schools have no autonomy on that; and schools must consult with parents when they are changing their policy, so they have no autonomy on that. I could go through every one of the guidelines.”
“depending on the activity. That was to ensure that the need for appropriate clothing for sporting activities was reflected. <BR /> <BR />Ultimately, it is a permissive Bill. It is simply focused on creating a universal right to have the choice to wear trousers and enshrining that in the guidance.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will not speak for long, and I do not plan to rehearse everything that has been said. However, I begin by doing something that I overlooked when I spoke at the beginning: thanking the Deputy Chair of the Committee who first proposed the Bill.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,029 lines we hold for Nick Mathison, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 13 of 21.
“When are we going to see the direct outworkings of the investment that was announced? It seems that Greenhill and Lindsay House in the South Eastern Trust area are being suggested as part of the solution, and I am keen to hear when those beds will be available and what assurances we can get.”
“That sort of approach is not appropriate for a family that is in desperate need of support but also aware of all the other families in their community that desperately need support and that will not want to be seen to be taking that support away from them. We have to be conscious of the fact that there is so much guilt tied up in all of this for the families anyway, because nobody wants to admit that they are struggling to cope and that their life feels like it is in a crisis every day. Social services should be there to meet families as they present at their point of need, but that does not seem to happen at the moment. <BR /> <BR />We know that resource is under serious pressure, so these are my questions to the Minister, which have been echoed by other Members.”
“In my engagements with that individual, the sense of living in crisis every day has struck me. It is not a sense of things getting bad and of struggling to cope; it is crisis every day. My sense is that the services do not engage with those families on the basis that they are in crisis. Rather, there is a sense of there being gatekeeping and of people being pushed back from access to services. I am not trying to be critical of trust staff when I say this, but it has been shared with me — I have found this very concerning — that there is a sense of, "We can give you this, but that will take something away from another family. Are you sure that you're comfortable with that?".”
“<BR /> <BR />The 'Spotlight' documentary was referenced. Anyone who watched it could not have failed to have been moved by that depiction of the pressure that some of these families are under. It is clear that the Minister was moved. The Minister acted quickly, which should be acknowledged and welcomed. Now, however, we face the issue that the initial announcement of investment raised hopes and expectations that things would change, notwithstanding the Minister's caveats that the challenge was significant. There is now a risk that trust in this being delivered will be eroded. <BR /> <BR />I have had the privilege of being able to support one of the mums from the 'Spotlight' documentary through my office in some small way; obviously, I have not been able to deliver everything that the family needs, because the pressures are so great.”
“I thank my colleague Michelle Guy for bringing this important issue to the Floor. My party colleagues and every contributor to the debate have very clearly set out the issues, so I will do my best to be brief. I do not want to rehash the numbers and statistics that we have already been through: they have been set out clearly. I will speak from a personal perspective and as a local MLA. I am very conscious of the pressures that are on the South Eastern Trust's respite services. Those issues come through my constituency office regularly, and I have submitted many questions to the Minister on the matter, as I am sure that other Members have. As has been set out, there is a sense among Members that we are not clear on some of the timelines and on when the investment that was announced in October will deliver real impacts.”
“However, if we really want to find ways to ease the budgetary pressures in education in the long term, we need the Minister and the Department to take meaningful steps to look seriously at transformation and structural reform.”
“For example, we have no clarity on when or, indeed, if an independent area planning commission will be established to ensure that we have the right number of schools to deliver a truly sustainable school estate. We have seen no clear move to act on the independent review of education recommendation to look at models to address pairs of unsustainable schools located next to each other, often serving different communities. The Minister has been clear that he sees no need to carry out an audit of the cost of division in his Department. Then, we have the huge capital cost of the Strule campus, for which, as far as I am aware, no value for money case has been set out. <BR /> <BR />I am entirely content to note the reports and support the ask for the Finance Minister to take them into account.”
“<BR /> <BR />In short, the Committee is fully cognisant of the budgetary challenge ahead in this financial year and notes the reports highlighted in the motion, which have been provided to it in that context. <BR /> <BR />Mr Deputy Speaker, with your permission, I will speak briefly as an Alliance Member. Clearly, the Education Department's budget is under pressure — that is accepted across the House — but Alliance has been consistently clear about the need for real ambition to deliver a transformation of how our education system is delivered, if we are really to address the financial challenge. Regrettably, the Education Minister does not seem to have a significant appetite to look at how the structures of the system drive financial pressures.”
“However, the Committee has regularly emphasised the need to see delivery of that long-overdue strategy and expressed the view that future investment in childcare should be targeted towards the parents most in need of support. <BR /> <BR />The Committee has also identified SEN services and transformation as a key area of focus, and it received recent updates on the scale of the financial challenge in delivering the Department's plan. I note, therefore, the Finance Committee's report, which highlighted the need to align the draft Budget with the PFG priorities, among which SEN, childcare and early years are listed. The Committee would encourage any resource that can be targeted at SEN on that basis to be made available.”
“<BR /> <BR />The key theme of both reports is the need to move to a multi-year Budget, which has been visited by the Committee on many occasions, most recently when we were briefed by the Department on its five-year SEN delivery plan. The challenge of delivering a five-year plan of that complexity on a single-year budgetary cycle cannot be overstated. The Committee would welcome measures to allow the Department to plan more strategically on a multi-year cycle. <BR /> <BR />The Committee has identified early years and childcare as a key strategic priority and therefore welcomed the £50 million investment that was confirmed in the draft Budget.”
“<BR /> <BR />Concerns about the rise in employers' National Insurance contributions were also noted, and we are aware of the Finance Committee's report that specifically highlights that matter. The Department estimates that, even if, as suggested, two thirds of the cost were met centrally, pressures of £17 million would arise. Similarly, the Department stated that capital budgets would fall short of the likely requirements by £91 million, and it was noted that, as highlighted by the Fiscal Council report, approximately 43% of that is already allocated. The Committee noted all those pressures and sought further clarity from the Department about whether an equality impact assessment (EQIA) had been undertaken. The Committee has now been assured that an EQIA is being taken forward.”
“I will speak to the motion first in my capacity as Chair of the Education Committee. The Committee has been provided with Fiscal Council and Finance Committee reports, which members have noted. In February of this year, the Committee received a written briefing from the Department of Education on the 2025-26 draft Budget position. Further to its allocations of £3·219 billion resource DEL and £380 million capital DEL, it set out a challenging picture. Officials outlined a likely unavoidable resource DEL pressure of £260 million and highlighted further high-priority pressures in the region of £64 million, with further pressures of £29 million relating to strategy delivery plans.”
“I thank the Minister for his answer. He alluded to the fact that it has been a long and complicated process. It is a complex condition. It is my understanding that funding was released to the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust to deliver an in-reach service from GB to support patients in the interim. As yet, I am not aware of that service having been established. Will the Minister provide any background to that and an assurance that that is still on his Department's agenda?”
“We need to know what she will do tangibly and legislatively to address the cliff edge. While we wait for progress, the Education Minister cannot let the EA transition service flounder in its current form. He must act to rectify the position, which was set out so clearly at the Education Committee last week. It is unacceptable and cannot be allowed to continue in its current form, otherwise we will profoundly let down our young people with SEN.”
“We also learned that, even after a plan is provided to those young people, once they leave the school system, no Department or other statutory agency owns the plan or has any legal duty to deliver on it. The legal protections that a student with special educational needs has at school are simply lost overnight. Is it right for us to present our young people with special educational needs with that sort of cliff edge as they plan to leave school? <BR /> <BR />I fully support the calls from Caleb's cause for legislation to put in place the legal protections that our young people with SEN need at 19 or whenever they leave the school system. I call on the Economy Minister in the first instance to urgently update the Assembly on the outcome of her Department's review of the matter.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee previously heard evidence from Alma White, who has spearheaded the Caleb's cause campaign, and she powerfully set out how unsupported many parents and young people feel as they navigate the transition. We all know that the budgets of every Department are under pressure, but this is a statutory service. It is not an add-on or an optional extra. Those young people are entitled to a transition plan to support their educational journey. I urge the EA, in the first instance, to urgently bring forward a business case for the resources that it needs for the service, and the Education Minister should look seriously at whether the right financial support is targeted at that vital service. <BR /> <BR />The concern is about more than the understaffing.”
“I rise to highlight the deeply concerning evidence that the Education Committee received last week about the Education Authority's (EA) 14-plus transitions service. The service is tasked to deliver a statutory function to prepare young people with a statement of special educational needs (SEN) for their transition out of statutory education and on to the next step in their journey. We learned that just 10 staff support the service, which aims to support 9,000 young people in the 14-plus age bracket with a SEN statement. Each staff member will end up with caseloads of around 900 young people to support. Is it any wonder that parents report simply not receiving the service at all?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. He has been very generous in taking interventions. Would he accept, however, that we are not in the same context as when the Integrated Education Bill came forward, when we were at the end of a mandate and time in this place was under huge pressure? I am sure that the Education Committee would have welcomed more time to scrutinise it, but, as was referenced by the Deputy Chair of the Committee in our discussions on this, we are not at the end of the mandate, so we should not feel the need to shorten our scrutiny stage.”
“Does the Member agree that, as he highlighted, I have been very clear that 3 December is not a target and that, when we were factoring in our considerations, the option of sitting over summer recess and, indeed, Easter recess was not set out? Does the Member agree that characterising the Committee Stage by its length in weeks is not entirely accurate in reflecting the Committee's deliberations on that?”
“They will look back in years to come — we have to be honest about it — and they will not ask how quickly the Minister delivered the school uniforms Bill. That will not be the question that they will ask. They will ask whether he delivered something that was effective and made a difference where they felt it: in their pockets. I hope that Members will consider giving the Committee time to do that work properly, appropriately and in the best interests of the parents who need the legislation to be effective.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. Both DUP Committee members expressed their concerns about the time, but they acknowledged the critical importance of good scrutiny and acknowledged that there was a balance to be struck. That is important to note. <BR /> <BR />Ultimately, this is about ensuring that parents are protected from rising uniform costs. All Members agree on that. I want to be very clear: I have welcomed the Minister's legislation. I am glad to see that we have a Minister who has finally brought something forward for the Assembly to look at, but parents want the law to be enacted as soon as possible. That is right and appropriate. I imagine, however, that they will also want that law to have been fully scrutinised to ensure that it achieves what it sets out to do: bring down the costs of uniforms.”
“<BR /> <BR />I encourage Members to consider supporting the motion and not to vote for a truncated Committee Stage, particularly as that truncated stage runs over a summer recess and it remains entirely unclear whether Committee members would have the Assembly staff support available to allow us to reliably deliver a Committee Stage. Regrettably, on the basis of what has gone out in the media today, I suggest that minds are already made up. Despite some members speaking in Committee in clear, unequivocal support for the motion, they will choose not to support it in the Chamber. However, those Committee members can articulate that for themselves.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Minister has been clear that he wants to deliver the process quickly so that the new guidance can be in the prospectuses by November. We have already discussed that point regarding the amendment, so I will not labour it. We have to be realistic about whether that is deliverable. Will we rush through our Committee Stage with undue haste, fail to deliver the scrutiny and potentially still not have the changes reflected properly, appropriately and meaningfully in a way that makes a difference for parents in those prospectuses? We could end up doing neither, and, again, I am not sure that the public will thank us for that.”
“I have given way a number of times. <BR /> <BR />Should we now rush through our scrutiny to meet a deadline for this academic year while failing to assure ourselves that the legislation will deliver? Parents will not thank us for acting quickly, if the law does not make a difference. I am committed to ensuring that the legislation is, first and foremost, robust and effective. I emphasise again — I want it on the record — that I sincerely hope that the Committee will deliver its scrutiny in advance of 3 December, and I will do all that I can to ensure that it does. However, no Member should apologise for building in time to ask hard questions of legislation, because the good scrutiny work that we do now will protect parents' pockets in the future.”
“Lectures about how hard Members need to work will, at the very least, raise an eyebrow among the public.”
“I am not sure, given the Minister's timescales, that that is what we would be dealing with. <BR /> <BR />I will speak more broadly now. The issue of school uniform costs has sat at the desks of successive Sinn Féin and DUP Education Ministers for years. It has sat with DUP Ministers since 2016, who watched costs spiral in that time. No action was taken. We were assured that the guidance was OK and appropriate and that, if schools just followed it, there would be no issue. No action was taken to address it. That is the context and the timeline, and I factor in the times that the Assembly was not sitting. There were comments made in the Chamber earlier to the effect of, "Maybe Members just need to work harder". What about the two years in which nobody sat in this place?”
“Do we want schools to be revising policies on a matter as important as this on the basis of something that has been cobbled together and rushed and, at that stage, would not be law? It would still be waiting for Royal Assent. We have to be realistic about that. <BR /> <BR />I will not name and shame, but we all know the very worst offenders on the cost of school uniforms, the ones that genuinely price some parents out of even considering sending their children to them. I am not convinced that those schools will do the Minister a favour and redo guidance on the basis of something that does not yet have Royal Assent and is not on the statute book. We have to be realistic. We want the legislation to be effective, and, as the first step, there has to be a law to which schools are compelled to adhere.”
“I thank the Member for her intervention. The Minister has suggested that, if the Committee could conclude the process by, he hoped, the end of June or, let us say, given the amendment that is before us, the end of August, the Bill would then move through all of its stages in the Assembly in a number of weeks. I think that four weeks was suggested to the Committee as the timescale that the Minister was hoping for, which would be a very rapid progression through this place. If that was done, the Minister is confident that, between October and the publication of their prospectuses in November, all the consultation that schools would be required to do with parents and young people and their engagement with suppliers on lead-in times would be delivered in time for November. I am sceptical about whether that is deliverable.”
“It is not helpful to draw comparisons and say that one piece of legislation is simple and another is complex. I highlight the fact that this Bill's Committee Stage includes three recess periods, so comparisons of time are not necessarily accurate. If we do not sit over summer recess, the Committee Stage will be considerably shorter than what is being proposed.”
“I want to be clear: as an individual Member, I give my assurance that I will do nothing to stand in the way of delivering the scrutiny work well ahead of 3 December to facilitate, I hope, getting this into those prospectuses in time. If we rush to get this done to a timeline that is being imposed by the Minister just to make sure that we do not miss the cut-off for one academic year, we would, ultimately, run the risk of delivering ineffective legislation. I do not believe that parents would forgive us; it would represent a real failure.”
“Are we to accept the departmental assurance that the Committee has had that all those things will be dealt with in the guidance and that we should not get too hung up on the detail of what that will look like? <BR /> <BR />Ultimately, we can deliver the legislation quickly by trusting the Minister that the Bill is the finished article and does not require amending, or we can do it right. We can ensure that the legislation, which will impact on parents' pockets for years to come, not just for the next academic year, is fit for purpose, effective and comprehensive. The timings around the publication of school prospectuses are not in our control.”
“It is concerning that the Minister has put it forward as a simple Bill. It has been presented as something so straightforward that we might ask why the Committee would require the time. No legislation ever turns out to be so simple that we can just nod it through. The purpose of this place is to ask hard questions. Some questions about the Bill stand out. How will its effectiveness be measured and monitored? Will there be a way of assessing objectively whether costs have come down? Will the enforcement regime be robust and effective enough? What exactly will that enforcement regime look like? Are we clear about what will be in the new guidance? What will it look like when it lands on the desks of boards of governors who will then have to revise their policies?”
“We do not know what criteria the Minister or his departmental officials will apply to assess when it would be appropriate to use the enabling power. The provisions will receive no serious scrutiny, even though they are, undoubtedly, complex, and will, undoubtedly, raise a range of issues about the potential consequences of delivering a cap and what it should look like. There will also be questions about when and how it should be brought forward. The idea that the Education Committee will not interrogate the reasons for the absence of a cap from the Bill or look seriously at how it could operate is completely unacceptable, given the huge public support that was demonstrated in the Department's consultation. <BR /> <BR />There are many other issues that require attention.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. I am not an expert on the staffing structures around the Windsor framework Committee. My understanding is that those staff are engaged on a different set of terms and conditions, but I am happy to be corrected on that point. <BR /> <BR />I will move on. There are many questions about the Bill, even from an initial cursory reading of it, before we get into any of the detail. Surely the biggest question is about what the Minister intends to do in relation to a cap on costs. That proposal received wholehearted support across the board from the majority of parental respondents to the Department's consultation, but the Bill provides only for an enabling power. We have no idea whether the Minister will ever use that power or what a proposed cap would look like, were he to do so.”
“I am clear that I am ready to do the work over the summer if required, but that needs to be supported appropriately and effectively by the Assembly staff who are put in place to deliver that.”
“Assembly staff — we have to deal with facts — are on leave over recess and, in many cases, are unable to take leave at any other time, and it will be the same for many of the Minister's officials. Are we potentially proposing an extension of a Committee Stage without any support staff to deliver it effectively? Is it a smokescreen so that it looks as though we are going to do the scrutiny work? From any Member who is proposing it, I would like to hear whether Assembly staff may be asked to cancel holidays in order to make that happen.”
“Once our call for evidence had closed, we would not have been able to hear from stakeholders, and we certainly would not have had time to reflect on the evidence that they had brought to us. Members would have had no time to seek further engagement or clarification from the Department, and the need for clarification will undoubtedly arise. There would have been no time to discuss and agree amendments. To me, the Minister's position therefore seems predicated on the assumption that the Bill is the finished article and that it cannot be improved and should not be amended. <BR /> <BR />The amendment that is before us proposes a date of 30 August and leaves us, as I have already referenced, in an equally unclear position.”
“I welcome the fact that, here in the Assembly, we will have the opportunity to do something about the costs involved, and I hope that, once we have it on the statute book, the law will tangibly and meaningfully address the challenges that parents face. <BR /> <BR />It is not enough just to legislate, however. The legislation must be effective, and Alliance is clear that it wants to see legislation in that space that meaningfully delivers on bringing down costs. It is therefore entirely appropriate that the Education Committee take the time that it needs to scrutinise the Bill, and that goes for any Committee that has legislation in front of it. The Minister's initial proposal that we should finish our Committee Stage by 30 May was his effectively saying that there should be no scrutiny of the Bill at all.”
“Instead, we have before us the rather unorthodox approach of an amendment having been tabled. With all that having been said, I am content to have moved the motion that the Committee agreed previously. <BR /> <BR />I will now make some remarks in my capacity as an Alliance Party MLA and as one of our education spokespeople. First, I make it abundantly clear that Alliance fully supports legislation to address the cost of school uniforms. Had the Minister not introduced the Bill, I was already working on a private Member's Bill on the exact same issue, so I welcome the Bill's being introduced and welcome the fact that the Committee is getting the opportunity to look at it.”
“<BR /> <BR />Either way, it is clear from the Committee's deliberations that the Members who tabled the amendment did not divide the Committee at any stage to propose their alternative date, so the Committee does not have a record of their intentions in that regard. Furthermore, they have not, as far as I am aware, engaged directly with Assembly staff to understand their capacity to support a Committee Stage over the summer. I trust that they will have clear proposals at our next Committee meeting for how that will be delivered. It is worth noting, as I have already, that there were two separate Committee meetings at which we discussed the motion and the proposed date. Those were two separate opportunities to divide the Committee that were not taken.”
“Rather, the concern is that it is unclear at this stage whether the necessary support from Assembly staff, via the Committee Clerk, her team and the Bill Office, and, indeed, departmental officials will be available over the summer recess in order to allow the process to be delivered effectively. We are aware that staff in the Building are often required to take their leave during recess periods because they are not permitted to take leave when the Assembly is sitting, so I am concerned that, if we were to attempt to run a Committee Stage over recess, we could be severely constrained by staffing resource and availability.”
“<BR /> <BR />On the scope and capacity for a Committee Stage to be delivered over the summer period, I draw Members' attention to the fact that, last Tuesday, we received notification from the Business Committee that the Assembly will be in recess from 4 July until 31 August 2025. I hope that the Members who tabled the amendment will clarify precisely how they foresee the situation playing out, because it will require the Committee either to complete its deliberations by 4 July or to sit through the summer recess. There is not, as was suggested in the Chamber earlier today, any unwillingness on the part of the Committee to engage in that kind of work.”
“I caveat that with the clear information that was included in the Committee correspondence that the hope and intention was to complete the Committee Stage well in advance of 3 December. <BR /> <BR />I will turn to the amendment that my Committee colleagues Peter Martin and David Brooks tabled, which proposes that the Committee Stage end on 30 August. I do not have a Committee position to reflect other than that in the agreed motion. I therefore reiterate my comments about the rigour of a process that potentially does not duly allocate time to the work that is required. Other Committee members have today clarified their position through media channels, and they will have the opportunity to speak to that position during the debate. It is not for me, as Committee Chair, to do so.”
“The Committee was clear that the scheduling of those stages would be a matter for the Minister and the Executive Committee, but it was highlighted that delivering the stages so close together could seriously constrain Members' ability to bring amendments and contemplate the Bill fully before Final Stage. <BR /> <BR />I am therefore content that, on balance, what I have set out reflects the Committee's deliberations and that, in full awareness of the Department's assurances about working to effect positive outcomes for pupils and parents in the context of a cost-of-living crisis, a Committee Stage extension to 3 December is reasonable and serious, representing the Committee's good faith and commitment to making good law for every constituent who will be affected by it.”
“It was clear from our discussions that members were likely to have an appetite for amendments across several areas of the Bill, not least its central planks relating to uniform styles and a potential cap on costs, which, from the Bill as drafted, it seems that the Minister is not in a position to commence, if, indeed, we have any assurance that they will be commenced at all. Committee members were keen to receive more information from the Department on that point. <BR /> <BR />Completing the Committee Stage by 30 May would leave the Assembly just five weeks in which to pass the Bill through all its stages before summer recess, which was the Minister's request. That means five weeks in which to complete Consideration Stage, Further Consideration Stage and Final Stage.”
“When that was being considered by the Committee, members expressed concern that, once the Bill was passed, the timescales in which to channel new guidance, through various layers of consultation and communication via parents and boards of governors, into prospectuses by November, for application next year, would be extremely pressured, and that did not even factor in engagement with suppliers and their supply chains, which need to be taken into account — unless, of course, the guidance is ready now and would remain, at that point, completely unchanged, but we should not assume that that will be the case. <BR /> <BR />That aside, the Committee was interested in the effectiveness and comprehensiveness of the provisions of the primary legislation.”
“That was the Committee's agreed position at that time on the response to the Minister. It reflected our conversations around his request to close the Committee Stage on 30 May. <BR /> <BR />It is, of course, not for the Minister to determine the length of the Committee Stage of any Bill. The Committee reassured him in that correspondence that it will proceed with urgency but apply appropriate scrutiny and allow enough time to do so. Neither is it for the Committee to determine the next steps that the Minister may envisage, but he has been clear, including in his correspondence, that he hopes to have the law in effect to permit schools to reflect it in their prospectuses, which must be published in November.”
“It will be helpful for me to set out how the Committee responded to the Minister, so that Members understand how the Committee's discussions gave rise to, and were reflected in, the response, which clearly sets out what was agreed:”
“In their contributions, Committee members emphasised that we were not yet at the end of the mandate and that, therefore, there was time to fully consider stakeholders' views and ensure, on behalf of the Assembly, that the legislation being made would take account of all the factors in the round to enable good, effective law to be enacted without, we hoped, any unintended consequences. <BR /> <BR />Further to the Committee's deliberations on the matter and its agreement to the date of 3 December, factoring in all the timescales, the Minister wrote to the Committee to express his disappointment at the proposed timetable. He formally proposed, in writing to the Committee, a truncated Committee Stage ending on 30 May.”
“The Committee agreed to take those steps, and all members agreed that they were the appropriate stages of a Committee's scrutiny when considering any Bill. <BR /> <BR />The timelines allocated a window of time that would not prejudge any of those stages or the outcomes. It is entirely usual for the Committee Stage to be extended and, in fact, highly unusual for the 30-day term set out in Standing Order 33(2) to be applied. Members will be aware that it is rarely, if ever, applied in practice.”