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 9 of 21.
“I particularly welcome the reference to "play-based learning" in the revised wording in the amendment that the Minister has tabled. In fact, the wording has been broadened. It is important that we have confidence that school uniforms are appropriate for the whole range of activities that pupils undertake. Linked to that, there was a reference in the Committee amendment on the foundation curriculum, which Cheryl Brownlee contributed. That has been re-termed in amendment No 6, relaying the Committee's intention into the finalised Bill. Again, I have no issues to raise on that. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 3 proposes to delete four subsections of clause 2, and amendment No 4 then inserts them into a new clause. The Minister wrote to the Committee, and I will quote from that letter:”
“<BR /> <BR />I will pick up on some comments that were made about the amendment at Consideration Stage. I emphasise that it was never the Committee's intention that the amendment would require clothing additional to the core uniform; rather, it was to mean that the core uniform should be fit for purpose for all the activities that children take part in during a school day. It was absolutely never intended to place any additional burden on parents. <BR /> <BR />The Department proposes some revised wording, which I have no objection to. It appears to me that the proposal adheres to the Committee's intention, and I hope that it will get support on that basis. That, however, will ultimately be for Members to decide, as the Committee did not have the opportunity to come to a formal position on the amendment.”
“As Chair of the Education Committee, I will speak to the group 2 amendments. They are amendment Nos 2, 3, 4 and 6, all of which relate to the content of the guidelines. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 2 relates to the Committee amendment that was made at Consideration Stage to provide that school clothing is appropriate for the full range of activities that can be undertaken in a school day and within the curriculum, highlighting play-based learning and outdoor education. I was particularly struck by evidence from stakeholders about the limitations that can be placed on play-based learning if the clothing is not sufficiently suitable for that purpose. All members were engaged in framing that amendment at Committee Stage, with an emphasis on outdoor learning experiences.”
“This question highlighted the cross-cutting nature of this, and that is absolutely right. However, as for your Department's responsibilities, it is my understanding that, as of April this year, 9,000 young people in the system needed to avail themselves of the EA's transition service. Can you assure the Assembly that that service is properly resourced to meet the demand that is clearly in the system?”
“I thank the Minister for giving way. My sense from the debate is that the concern lies with the use of the phrase "best estimates". Members may feel on the basis of the everyday usage of that term that the Department will be guessing or relying on something more anecdotal. I said that I was largely content with what the Minister had laid out in his opening comments. Some assurances on the use of "best estimates" and what information the Department is likely to rely on in producing a report would be welcome.”
“NIPSO has engaged with the Department through correspondence, and there appears to be a difference of opinion on the extent to which the Bill interacts with NIPSO's powers. The amendment at least clarifies that evidence provided by NIPSO to the Department in a report is one of the types of evidence that the Department is permitted to consider when deciding whether to issue a direction. My concern is that the Bill as drafted and as amended at Consideration Stage could be interpreted as not permitting the Department to use a report from NIPSO to reach a decision on direction, and that seemed to be a significant oversight. I hope that Members can support amendment No 9 on that basis.”
“The Department can consider internally whether the participatory disadvantage is "undue", and I am reluctant to see another hurdle to be got over before the Department may intervene on participatory disadvantage or disciplinary measures. I am not, therefore, minded to support the amendment, but I will listen carefully to the Minister's winding-up speech to hear whether he says any more to allay those concerns. <BR /> <BR />I tabled amendment No 9 as a private Member. It reflects concerns brought to the Committee by NIPSO that clause 8 is not clear enough on NIPSO's role and could cause confusion for parents. I do not pretend that the amendment addresses all NIPSO's concerns.”
“I am content that I covered most of the other amendments in the group in the remarks that I made as Chair of the Committee, but I will revisit amendment No 8, which will potentially insert the word "undue" into clause 8(2), relating to "disciplinary measures or participatory disadvantages". I disagree with the Minister's remarks on that point. I understand the thinking behind it, which is to avoid the Department getting embroiled in the minutiae of the day-to-day running of schools — nobody wants departmental officials to be caught up in that — but I emphasise the importance of its being a "may" power and the Minister's assurances that, if directions are needed, they will be given. If that is the case, the use of the word "undue" just adds another layer and, potentially, another barrier to directions being issued.”
“The Bill has to deliver on costs for parents, so amendment No 12 is critical. I hope that the assurances from the Minister will go far enough. I have no desire to vote down amendments that have been drafted to tidy up wording or relocate an amendment. However, the key is that it delivers genuine accountability. I hope that, in his winding-up speech, the Minister can speak to that again.”
“As I mentioned, they are the final outworkings of the Committee amendment that was concerned exclusively with accountability. There has been scepticism — there is no point trying to gloss over that — about what the Bill's ultimate impact will be. Given those concerns, Committee members and I, as the individual member who brought the original amendment forward, were clear that accountability needed to be in the Bill. I have sought assurances in my capacity as Chair on best estimates and the kind of data that would be used. I hope that we can get that information. However, I want to be clear that, given that there is uncertainty about what will be in the guidelines — I will not rehearse those arguments today — we need a mechanism that delivers clear accountability.”
“While best estimates of the costs of school uniforms may produce a general picture, it would be helpful if could have assurances that the report that is set out in the duties in amendment No 12 will capture whether there are consistent outliers and schools that consistently arrive at higher-costing uniforms in comparison with other schools that are able to deliver them for a much cheaper cost. I just want to make sure that, if there are outliers, that is captured in the report. Perhaps the Minister can speak to that and provide clarity on those Committee concerns about the need for accountability. <BR /> <BR />I will now speak to the group 1 amendments in my capacity as an individual Member and as an Alliance education spokesperson. I will pick up on the issues with amendment Nos 5 and 12, which have been highlighted.”
“The Minister set out that that has been his approach. I am open to the arguments of any of my colleagues on the amendment. However, as I set out when referring to amendment No 5, it appears to me that the expectation has been met on this occasion. The Minister has addressed specifically the use of the phrase "best estimates" in the new clause, but he can perhaps provide further clarity on it. I would like to be clear that we will not be in the space of looking at guesswork or anecdotal evidence. He has referenced utilising school-level data, so I want to have it clearly on the record that that is what we will deal with in the report.”
“Members have been clear at Committee that, when there has been a material breach of the guidelines that the Department has published, naming really should be at the end of a process of trying to resolve that but, if a school remains wedded to the notion that it wants to breach those guidelines, naming is appropriate. Again, it was agreed by and large, with the exception of DUP members on the Committee, that that was the direction of travel. Other Members can speak to that. <BR /> <BR />The final amendment in the group, amendment No 12, deals in one place with the reporting on guidelines and costs. I am aware that it is convention for the Department to tidy up amendments at Further Consideration Stage and that that should be done without malice to the intention of any amendments made at Consideration Stage.”
“I will speak to that briefly from the Committee's perspective, because it was clear at Committee Stage and at Consideration Stage — not unanimously but as the ultimate will of the Assembly — that it was considered appropriate that schools be named when there has been a material breach and that that should be published. The Minister referenced that, but I will say this just so that Committee members can have clarity: amendment No 10 will still require a school to be named. It will not just be the text of a direction that is published in some sort of vacuum but the individual school will be named.”
“The Minister mentioned that the Committee wrote to him directly seeking a range of assurances on NIPSO's role. I note that the Minister has made it clear that he sees no conflict with the Bill and the arrangements already set out in legislation. However, with regard to amendment No 9, which I will speak to in a personal capacity a little later, there was a possible oversight in NIPSO's not being included as a source of evidence that the Department could use when making a decision on issuing a direction. I will speak to that later. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 10 deletes and inserts text about the publication of directions. The Minister proposes that it make no substantive change to the intention of the Committee's amendment. Again, I will quote from the Minister's letter to the Committee:”
“The Committee had some back and forth on that with NIPSO, but we were unable to reach any clear resolution on a suitable amendment by the time that we reached Consideration Stage.”
“I will speak further to that amendment in my capacity as an Alliance Member in due course, but, at this stage, I ask on the Committee's behalf whether the Minister — he referenced this, but I ask for a little more specifically — can assure me that his planned guidelines will clearly and unequivocally inhibit schools from imposing participatory disadvantage in relation to uniform policy, as I think that that will impact on whether Members are content with the insertion of "undue". I will reserve my remarks on that to my contribution as a private Member later, when I will cover my views on that. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 9 has been tabled in my name. It would delineate and give legal clarity to the respective complaints jurisdictions of the Department and the Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsman (NIPSO).”
“Those were the Minister's comments in his letter to the Committee. <BR /> <BR />In many of our meetings at Committee Stage, the Committee was very clear that it did not want to see the disproportionate disciplining of pupils on the basis of factors that are beyond their control, particularly for reasons related to the affordability of uniforms. The Committee was similarly concerned about exclusion, attendance at school and participatory disadvantage being linked to any breach of school uniform policy, particularly if it were on the grounds of affordability.”
“Again, I see no issues arising from a Committee perspective. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 8 reruns a ministerial amendment that was not put to a vote at Consideration Stage, because it was deemed to be mutually exclusive to the amendment that was passed. It inserts the word "undue" on the grounds of giving legal balance to the expectations around the policing of school uniform policies. I quote directly from the Minister's correspondence to the Committee on that:”
“The content of that is now imported via amendment No 12 through a new clause. That requires some discussion from the Committee's perspective. The Minister set out the detail of why he has chosen to table the amendment regarding the new clause and the new location. I was going to refer to some correspondence that the Minister had sent the Committee on that point, but, at this stage, that is probably overkill. Committee members will, I think, recognise the key elements of their amendment, which was made at Consideration Stage, but it will be for individual Members to decide whether they are content with the newly worded clause. I might speak to some of those issues as an Alliance Member later. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 7 is a minor textual amendment so that the language at clause 8(1) and (2) scans similarly.”
“There is, therefore, no agreed Committee position on the amendments, but I can comment on some of them to the extent that they relate to the Committee's processes up to this point and are intended, as the Minister set out, to tidy up and implement the amendments made at Consideration Stage. I will speak to them briefly unless there is any need for more detailed comment. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 1, along with amendment No 11, deletes and replaces the Committee-led requirement for guidelines to be laid in the Assembly at a more appropriate location in the Bill. As the Minister set out, it seems to me that it makes no material change to the effect of the original amendment. I can see no reason that any Committee member would feel the need to object to it. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 5 proposes to delete clause 5 as amended.”
“I will speak first in my capacity as Chair of the Education Committee on the group 1 amendments for Further Consideration Stage of the School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill. As the Minister set out, group 1 addresses the monitoring and enforcement of guidelines and includes the introduction of some new clauses. <BR /> <BR />The Committee received notice of the Department's amendments just before its meeting on Wednesday. It did not take a briefing on them, given the demands of previously scheduled business. However, my understanding is that officials have assisted individual members in the meantime, and I thank officials for engaging, often at short notice, with me and my party colleagues on queries about the amendments tabled by the Minister and the Department.”
“I thank the Minister for that comprehensive answer. Will she outline how those proposals fit within the wider work that she is undertaking to protect people from sexually motivated behaviours and the work on the eradication of violence against women and girls?”
“I thank the Minister for his statement. A focus in the Chamber on special educational needs is always welcome. Should money flow for that ambitious capital plan, which notes 500 new specialist provision classes as part of its ambition, how will the Minister ensure that those classes can be delivered, given the challenges that we have had in seeing them established when the EA and his Department reached out to schools? Will he therefore respond to the call from the National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT) for urgent talks now to get on to a planned strategic footing at this stage in the year, rather than leaving it till later?”
“If everybody is on the same page in wanting to deal with costs and if schools want to work with the Department, I have no doubt that, if there is a little bit of prescription in the Bill that gives the Department pause for thought to ensure that the guidance includes additional things that it had perhaps not considered, to move beyond permission and into requiring schools to do certain things, the system will step up and engage with that guidance. Nobody here is trying to act or vote irresponsibly. Every Member in the Chamber wants to see the costs brought down. <BR /> <BR />I commend the group 2 amendments to the House as positive interventions on affordability — we are all clear that some of the single-supplier arrangements need to be dealt with — and comfort and practicality.”
“<BR /> <BR />The debate has made it clear where we have landed. We have, on the one hand, the Minister and the Department, who want a Bill that does not prescribe and relies entirely on the guidelines, and, on the other, Members who are keen on certain areas to ensure that the Bill is clear about what it will ask schools to deliver and the interventions that will be required in school uniform policies. I remain on the side that would like clarity about what schools will be asked to do, because it is that clarity that will give us assurances that the costs will come down. <BR /> <BR />I will finish on a point about the Minister's sense that Members are, perhaps, behaving irresponsibly or weighing in to do something that will cause some sort of crisis in our school system.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee's interest in bringing that degree of prescription was to ensure that we were doing the right thing and not just doing something. However, in fact, what we have before us today, in terms of the amendments selected, is not a huge suite of prescriptive interventions. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, when we look at the group 2 amendments and the content of the guidelines, we see that the Bill is still largely as it was when the Minister brought it to us, with some changes that should not keep anybody awake at night. I will add that there is the option of Further Consideration Stage. The Minister referenced concerns about language, ordering and sequencing. There is every opportunity for those issues to be ironed out at Further Consideration Stage, and I am sure that Members will engage in that process.”
“and not just being seen to do something: I absolutely take his point on that. We are all concerned that the outworking of the legislation does the right thing. The right thing is that it brings down the cost of school uniforms, and the right thing should also be that it improves the comfort and practicality of uniforms for children. I am struggling a little in that I am not quite sure what the Bill will do, other than create the guidelines, because we just do not know what the Minister will ask schools to do. He used the phrase "unfair costs", which is the language of the Bill. We all want to see unfair costs tackled, but I go back to my point that it is not clear how that will be done.”
“I thank the Member for the intervention. Absolutely. When we give permission to do certain things that are right and appropriate, that still leaves others who may not be afforded that right, if the school chooses not to exercise that permission. That is not an acceptable scenario. <BR /> <BR />The Minister also said that there is a concern about:”
“There is a range of things, and the Minister suggested that permission would be given for schools to take those kinds of steps and decisions. The phrase "if the school so chooses" does not, to me, give enough comfort that the guidelines will require the schools to make interventions in those spaces. When we are thinking about the content, I would like to move beyond "if the school so chooses" and into the space of guidelines that really create a clear direction of travel in areas that the school needs to follow and must follow. That is where there is maybe some divergence around this group of amendments.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank all Members for their contributions to the debate. There has been a lot of openness to take interventions and to go through the issues in considerable detail. That has helped the debate and the considerations that are now before us. <BR /> <BR />First, I want to highlight the phrase that the Minister used in response to my colleague Nuala McAllister: "if the school so chooses". That is a telling phrase when we are looking at amendments that are concerned with the content of the guidelines. It has always been the Committee's concern that guidelines will come forward, particularly in the space around comfort and practicality, that may give schools permission to do certain things. We have talked about girls being able to wear trousers, and we have talked about play-based learning.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I know that he was keen to make a wee bit of progress in the debate. As a point of clarity, though, does the Member accept that it was never proposed at Committee that a number would be put into primary legislation, but simply the principle of whether it must be done or not? That is an important point of clarity.”
“Ultimately, what has been selected is fairly limited in that space. The Minister's approach is ultimately the one that we will see working through the legislation. I emphasise again that I sincerely hope that it delivers for parents and families, because they need it to do so. <BR /> <BR />I confirm that, from here on, I am also committed to holding the Minister and Department to account on the impact and delivery of the Bill. Whether the lack of prescription will be the issue that, I am concerned, it may present or whether the guidelines will show us something that we will all have confidence in and that will deliver, whatever way it lands, I am certainly committed to holding the Minister to account on the outworking of the Bill.”
“I thank the Minister for his intervention. That was an issue. He will know that the Committee discussed at length what an appropriate level of prescription in primary legislation is. The Committee ultimately landed on the position that, while it is not the job of primary legislation to write the guidelines, such an imbalance had been created in the system on certain things, such inconsistency existed in the system on cost, comfort and practicality, which are referred to in the Bill, and there was so much divergence, the appetite was clearly there from parents and young people to introduce a degree of consistency and certainty, and we felt that a level of prescription was required to deliver that. As things have panned out, however, we do not have a huge set of prescriptive amendments on the content of the guidelines.”
“I know that the Minister is unhappy with some of the amendments that the Committee has tabled and that have made it to the Chamber for debate today. To my mind, however, the Bill, even after this amending stage, will be largely unchanged from what was presented to us. There may be some points on which there is disagreement, but the general principle that the Bill will not prescribe to any great extent what will be in the guidelines, which is clearly what the Minister and the Department wanted from the Bill, has been preserved. I hope that that approach to the legislation delivers, because parents and families need it to make a difference to the unaffordable costs that so many of them face when purchasing school uniforms.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. Of course, we are dealing with legislation here, not creating a slogan that is easy for parents to understand. That is not what the legislative process is about. I agree with him on that point, but we remain unclear about what the guidelines will do. That is the impact of the legislation: it is about what the guidelines will do. I remain unclear as to what they will look like. I hope that they will be clear and robust and have a decisive impact on uniform costs. It is encouraging to hear that schools are already making changes in that space. <BR /> <BR />Given how few of the amendments that the Committee or private Members tabled were selected for debate, we are inevitably left with a Bill that is very much the Minister's Bill.”
“When I walk a parent through the Bill, there is often a "What does it do?" moment. I hope, for the sake of parents, that the guidelines that the Bill creates —.”
“With your permission, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I will briefly conclude my contribution by making some remarks as an Alliance MLA. This group of amendments is concerned with what needs to be included in the guidelines on school uniforms that will be created and that, subsequently, must be adhered to at school level. It remains a significant frustration that a clear decision was taken not to provide either the Committee or MLAs more widely with sight of the guidelines that the Bill will create. I appreciate that they would have been only in draft form, but we remain largely in the dark about the Bill's practical outworkings. I have no doubt that the Minister, as a constituency MLA, wants to be able to say to parents that he has brought down costs, but the practical outworkings are not clear.”
“That concludes my remarks as Committee Chair on this group of amendments.”
“The Committee heard evidence that it was not a straightforward intervention. However, I put on record that we hope it does not just gather dust. The cost cap provision is a crucial part of the Bill, and I hope there will be serious action to introduce that provision.”
“We had the gender imbalance issue because girls' items are often more expensive, but the Committee also heard substantial evidence on PE kits, and barely a session went by where that issue was not discussed — certainly the parental evidence that we heard, and the evidence from young people. Indeed, many of the uniform suppliers said that they had stepped away from the PE kit market because the manufacturers, not the local school uniform shops, are making the money in many cases. There is a real sense that doing something around restricting branded items could have an impact. <BR /> <BR />I add that the real area where the Committee heard evidence that people had a serious appetite for something to be done was a cost cap, but we know that there are layers of complication to that.”
“I thank the Member for her intervention. The gendered aspect of the cost was one of the repeated themes that came through to the Committee. The evidence received indicated that girls' uniforms are often more expensive than boys' uniforms. Therefore, providing some choice in that space would have had a cost impact as well as an equality impact, but that amendment is not available to us for debate today. <BR /> <BR />The change to bring this aspect of the Bill into effect at Royal Assent remains a "may" provision, I hope that, at the very least, it focuses the Minister and the Department's mind on the appetite for something to be done in the space of restricting items of uniform. PE is the one that came up repeatedly.”
“<BR /> <BR />I see no issue with amendment No 13 going forward either way, as it would be good to see at least some impetus behind this in the Bill so that, if it is given effect immediately after Royal Assent, at least those powers become available to the Minister straight away.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee submitted an amendment that would have made the restriction on these uniform items a "must" provision. It would have created a duty on the Minister to bring in restrictions on uniform items with a view to bringing down the costs, and it would have kicked in immediately after Royal Assent if the amendment had passed. However, as that amendment was not selected — again, I note that it is a matter for the judgment of the Speaker — amendment No 13 is rendered largely inconsequential, because giving immediate effect to a power that the Department "may" utilise rather than "must" does not change anything. As it remains a "may" power, its commencement is of no great consequence.”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment No 13 generated substantial discussion at the Committee because it concerns the commencement of one of the enabling powers in the Bill. Members will be aware that the Bill as drafted gives the Minister some enabling powers to limit or restrict items of uniform and introduce a cap on uniform costs at some point in the future. This particular amendment relates to section 3 of the Bill, which gives the Minister the enabling power to restrict specific items of uniform. In common parlance around the debate, they are often referred to as "branded items", but, from my perspective, I urge caution on the use of that phrase because the Committee quickly found out that "branded" meant different things to different people in almost every context.”
“<BR /> <BR />There was a very strong appetite among members to ensure that practices such as sportswear manufacturers exclusively supplying expensive PE kits to schools, with perks then being offered around the provision of equipment or kits for staff, for example, as part of those deals, should be brought into the open. Amendment Nos 6 and 7, in my view, still permit single-supplier deals to be retained but only when a very clearly articulated cost rationale is supplied to support their continuation. The Committee felt that that was an appropriate balance to strike in that space. We did not want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and the Committee was of the view that, if a sensible arrangement with a supplier delivers good value for money, the amendments will allow that to continue.”
“These amendments, together, seek to bring a degree of accountability around supplier contracts for school uniforms. We heard very helpful evidence from school uniform suppliers that supply arrangements can have a role in delivering good value and that, if schools have a positive relationship and engage with local suppliers, they can be part of the solution to delivering value. However, the Committee was keen to balance that relationship with transparency so that arrangements around supplier deals were clear to parents when purchasing uniforms.”
“I think that amendment No 5 would send a very clear message that uniform policies should reflect the value that is placed on the Foundation Stage play-based curriculum and ensure its accessibility for all children. The Committee, with the exception of members from the DUP, supported that change, and I hope that it is given support today when we come to voting after the Consideration Stage debate. <BR /> <BR />I move to amendment Nos 6 and 7. The Committee heard from parents and children that the cost of uniforms differed widely depending on the arrangements and contracts that schools had with suppliers and on the insistence on certain expensive, branded uniform items as part of those arrangements. Particular attention was given to the issue of branded PE kit.”
“I was pleased to propose that amendment to the Committee, and I am glad that it received support because my experience is that children moving from preschool into their primary education often experience a very sudden and marked change in their uniform, finding that it becomes more formal, more restrictive and less practical. It is not uncommon for schools to adopt uniform policies for their P1 children that mandate buttoned shirts, dresses, tights and ties. If we are serious about a play-based curriculum being important in the Foundation Stage, we must consider that those things inevitably restrict children's ability to access that curriculum. It sometimes raises questions about whether we really do deliver a play-based curriculum or whether we are moving children to sit at a desk and to learn in a different way.”
“The Committee proposed a number of amendments relating to clause 2(2)(a) on a whole range of areas. Those were around issues of comfort and practicality of school uniforms and issues relating to gender, menstruation, special educational needs and religious observance. However, based on the amendments selected, we are debating only a single proposed change to clause 2(2)(a), and that is around requiring schools to consider the practicality of uniforms in facilitating access to play-based curricula and outdoor learning. <BR /> <BR />Particular care was taken when considering that amendment to ensure that there was a specific reference to the Foundation Stage, although the amendment is not limited to that cohort of children.”