Michelle Guy
Lagan Valley · Alliance Party · Northern Ireland
“It can be seen from those quotes that the issue impacts on girls in a real and practical way. If they feel too uncomfortable to be in school, it is impacting on their access to education. If they hold back in PE or while playing at break or lunch, what does that say to them about how we value exercise and sport?”
“Essentially, he was saying that we had to draw the line somewhere, and the automatic right of girls to be allowed to wear trousers is where that line has been drawn. <BR /> <BR />Some will play down the issue and say that it is relevant in only a small number of schools.”
“When I explain what the legislation would do, the reaction from people is almost always the same. They ask, "Are you seriously saying that, in 2026, girls can't wear trousers in school?". The answer is that they do not have that right.”
“The Assembly should support the Bill. I again ask the Minister to save us time by simply updating the statutory uniform guidelines. I find the DUP position of enabling the Bill to progress to Committee Stage while its Minister is against it to be quite bizarre.”
“<BR /> <BR />I question why that basic request from girls and young women is being denied or is deemed to be unimportant. Ultimately, it comes down to the fact that some people — mainly men — still want to control what women wear.”
“I take the Member's point. Ultimately, however, the person who could make the change is the Minister, and he has decided not to. Saying that schools have a choice or that they have autonomy does not absolve the Minister from his ultimately having responsibility to be able to make that change.”
The complete record
Every one of 572 lines we hold for Michelle Guy, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 12.
“Absolutely not. There is no rational explanation, which is what you asked. <BR /> <BR />With that, I will close my remarks. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.”
“Despite how intelligent, articulate and compelling they have been in making their case, and despite overwhelming public support for the change, the Education Minister remains unmoved and more compelled by the case to control what young women wear than to give them a simple and uncontroversial choice. There is nothing controversial in the Bill. The only controversy is the fact that it is needed at all. Thank you.”
“The Assembly should support the Bill. I again ask the Minister to save us time by simply updating the statutory uniform guidelines. I find the DUP position of enabling the Bill to progress to Committee Stage while its Minister is against it to be quite bizarre. The DUP Members seem to know that this is the right thing to do for girls and women, but, for some reason, their Minister does not agree. <BR /> <BR />I will finish by saying that I find it ridiculous and even insulting that this even has to be debated and that young women have had to campaign on the issue. They felt compelled to come to the Education Committee — a public forum — to outline their experiences.”
“I take the Member's point. Ultimately, however, the person who could make the change is the Minister, and he has decided not to. Saying that schools have a choice or that they have autonomy does not absolve the Minister from his ultimately having responsibility to be able to make that change. He could do that with the stroke of a pen and has decided not to. Ultimately, that is the point. I simply do not accept that schools should have the power to prevent women from choosing to wear trousers.”
“<BR /> <BR />I question why that basic request from girls and young women is being denied or is deemed to be unimportant. Ultimately, it comes down to the fact that some people — mainly men — still want to control what women wear. That control or exercise of power may be dressed up in the language of "tradition" or "ethos", but it comes down to control, and I find the fact that we are talking about young school girls in that context deeply unsettling. <BR /> <BR />The Assembly should support the Bill.”
“It can be seen from those quotes that the issue impacts on girls in a real and practical way. If they feel too uncomfortable to be in school, it is impacting on their access to education. If they hold back in PE or while playing at break or lunch, what does that say to them about how we value exercise and sport? <BR /> <BR />The response to the Committee's survey on the Bill made it clear that people feel strongly about it. There were nearly 3,700 responses, over 98% of which supported the statement that all pupils should be allowed to wear trousers in school. The ask is minimal. Young people are not asking to be able to wear anything that they want to wear or to do away with school uniforms; they are asking for there to be an option to wear trousers in their school uniform policy.”
“Menstruation Matters, which engages with young women and girls, told the Committee:”
“Shame on those schools and, indeed, any politician who endorses that approach. <BR /> <BR />I refute entirely the suggestion that this is a small issue. Anyone on the Education Committee who heard the evidence presented to us by girls and women will know that this is an issue of safety, dignity, fairness, comfort and practicality. Young women told the Committee:”
“Essentially, he was saying that we had to draw the line somewhere, and the automatic right of girls to be allowed to wear trousers is where that line has been drawn. <BR /> <BR />Some will play down the issue and say that it is relevant in only a small number of schools. That may be true, but people should think about how that works in practice. If, in 2026, a young woman wants to wear trousers in school, given that she undoubtedly wears trousers in every other facet of her life, she has to ask permission. She will have to explain herself, perhaps having to disclose deeply personal or traumatic information. That sensitive information will almost certainly be shared with others, who will then determine whether it is a yes or a no. That is ridiculous, yet it happens in many schools.”
“When I explain what the legislation would do, the reaction from people is almost always the same. They ask, "Are you seriously saying that, in 2026, girls can't wear trousers in school?". The answer is that they do not have that right. When people in my life, including constituents, who do not have a big interest in current affairs or politics hear that, they become angry. They cannot believe how backward a position that is, and they want to know why. The answer is very simple: the Education Minister, Paul Givan, is why. The Education Minister could easily have ensured that this was included in his statutory uniform guidelines, but, in his view, there was "a balance to be struck".”
“I start by echoing the remarks of others by thanking the Bill team and all those who helped us to get to this position, including the Clerk's team and my Committee colleagues, including the Chair. <BR /> <BR />If I had to explain to someone what the Bill is about, I could not use language any clearer than that used in the Bill. It would:”
“Large parts of my constituency of Lagan Valley are rural in nature, so I am interested in understanding how the revised strategy will prioritise rural versus urban road maintenance needs.”
“I thank the Member for the answer. All the members of the Education Committee were rightly encouraged recently by Alma from Caleb's Cause to bring in kids with SEND or disabilities for work experience. It is encouraging to hear about the facilities that are there already. How many supported placements have taken place?”
“Minister, according to information that your Department provided to me in response to a question for written answer, daily childcare fees in day care range from £31 to £90. When will you introduce protections as part of the childcare subsidy scheme against fees that could be deemed to be unfairly high?”
“Minister, the Muckamore scandal had an impact on some of our most vulnerable adults who had conditions such as autism and learning disabilities. Many were unable to speak up for themselves and therefore relied on others to do so. It is important that you refer to conditions such as autism, which are referenced clearly in the report but were mentioned not once in your statement. Unfortunately, we know of other instances of vulnerable communities being failed by our health service. The most obvious example that comes to my mind is the children's respite and short breaks service. What are you doing specifically to ensure that the failures seen in Muckamore, such as a substandard level of care, lack of governance and families' concerns simply being ignored, are not repeated elsewhere in the system?”
“I thank the Minister for the response. What will happen to the establishment of a commissioner for victims and witnesses of crime if the Bill is not passed in the mandate?”
“I thank the Minister for her response and for saying that she will come back to me. Given that she has invested in a park-and-ride, has objectives to reduce journeys in cars and is trying to encourage the use of public of transport, walking and cycling, will she acknowledge that the failure to provide the lights is undermining those objectives?”
“I thank the Minister for her response. I have seen some of the improvements that have been carried out over the last week, and they are welcome. However, Minister, the residents are at a loss to understand the lack of real action at the junction. I spoke to a resident who lives beside the junction who acted as a first responder during a fatality at one of the collisions at the junction. Over the last three-year period, from 2022 to 2025, there were 18 recorded collisions, of which 10 were serious, and there were 42 serious injuries. Minister, how many more serious collisions are required at the junction before the Department will take action to resolve the problem?”
“I thank the deputy First Minister for that response. You mentioned the PFG. The latest annual report on the Programme for Government that was published recently by TEO highlights the fact that economic inactivity and low productivity are key challenges for the Executive and for delivery of the PFG. Does the deputy First Minister recognise that those challenges are compounded by the fact that, due to stop-start government, we have had six different Economy Ministers and three different economic strategies during the past 10 years?”
“How will the Department ensure that patients with persistent gastrointestinal symptoms are appropriately screened for coeliac disease?”
“No, the Department. Do you want me to ask the question again?”
“Given that around one in four people with coeliac disease has been previously treated for IBS, how will the Department ensure that patients with persistent gastrointestinal symptoms are appropriately screened for coeliac disease?”
“You said that it is factual that inspectors found safeguarding gaps in the system — I do not dispute that — but do you agree that they did not recommend what the Minister proposes as a way to resolve that?”
“It is factual that they found a gap in the system, but do you accept that it is also factual that they did not endorse the Minister's approach to resolving it?”
“Alliance will approach the Bill as we do every issue: by assessing the merits of the legislation before us and acting in what we believe to be the public interest. We expect meaningful engagement, and we expect meaningful amendment. If those expectations are not met, we will have no hesitation in voting against the Bill.”
“We needed to hear that reassurance because, throughout the debate, you have been arguing in a way that suggested that there is no wriggle room with you. Thank you for providing that clarity, and we will consider that as we go forward. <BR /> <BR />If that engagement produces a workable solution, we will consider it on its merits. If it does not, we will seek to amend the Bill and, if necessary, remove clause 3. To repeat, Standing Order 36(2) is clear. The Assembly will have the opportunity to vote on whether individual clauses stand part of the Bill. That means that clause 3 can be amended or removed at a later stage. Whether you like the Minister or trust him or not, the vote today changes nothing in law. It allows scrutiny to continue and provides an opportunity to secure improvements that may otherwise be lost.”
“The Minister offered that commitment to my colleague earlier in the debate, but he has since intervened a number of times to argue for clause 3 as drafted, suggesting that he is not going to have that engagement. Minister, I do not know whether you are listening, but I ask you now to offer us assurance that you will have meaningful engagement with the different stakeholders to ensure that the next stage will be legitimate and meaningful and that we can change clause 3. If your intention is to simply push it through, our support today is in question. Would you not like to offer that assurance?”
“Supporting the Bill at Second Stage means recognising that there are provisions that deserve further consideration while retaining the Assembly's ability to demand or remove provisions that do not. <BR /> <BR />For Alliance, the Bill does three things. It widens the remit of inspection for ETI; it brings religious education within the inspection framework; and, through clause 3, it introduces consequences for obstructing inspection. We support the first two objectives; we have serious reservations about the third. Looking at the way forward, we are looking for a clear commitment today from the Minister to engage meaningfully with teaching unions, teachers and political parties to address the concerns around clause 3. Let me be clear: our support today is conditional on that.”
“Consideration Stage is the opportunity to bottom those issues out and consider whether mechanisms that are more robust and frequent than a four- or five-year inspection cycle are needed. <BR /> <BR />After Second Stage, it becomes the Assembly's Bill. That is an important point. Voting for the Bill at Second Stage is not the same as endorsing every clause in it. It means allowing the Assembly to scrutinise the legislation, hear evidence and consider amendments to improve the Bill. Some commentary about the debate has suggested otherwise, and, frankly, that has created unnecessary concern among teachers. Supporting the Bill at Second Stage does not mean supporting clause 3 as it stands. Supporting the Bill at Second Stage does not mean accepting the Bill in its current form.”
“In the context of that report, that is accurate, but it is not accurate to say that that is the only way in which safeguarding operates in schools or that it is the most important part of it. As I said, there are a lot of aspects that facilitate safeguarding. If we rely on that happening just through inspections, we do not have a robust system. <BR /> <BR />I was bringing my comments back to workload. If the Minister is serious about safeguarding, he must also be serious about the pressures facing teachers. Teachers need time and capacity to build relationships with pupils, identify concerns, respond appropriately and work with families and support services. The independent review of teacher workload identified systemic pressures that remain unresolved. Addressing those pressures is not separate from safeguarding; it is fundamental to it.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Department has placed safeguarding at the centre of its argument: that is not inappropriate. Safeguarding and the best interests of our children in schools must always come first. I know that that is teachers' absolute priority. I meet teachers and school leaders all the time. I go in to bat for them. I am on their side. The Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO) has highlighted the fact that disruption to inspection reduces the level of formal external assurance. We must be careful, however, not to overstate what inspection alone can deliver. Safeguarding is not an event but a continuous responsibility. It depends on teachers, school leaders, external agencies and a culture in which concerns are identified early and acted on appropriately. That brings us back to workload.”
“It would introduce a new legal definition of "unacceptable professional conduct" that is tied directly to inspection. Let me be clear: Alliance is in complete opposition to the proposed sanction of teachers in clause 3. The Minister must recognise the current context in education. Workload is still overwhelming the education workforce. It has seen no improvement. I was in a meeting on Friday in my constituency with special educational needs coordinators (SENCOs) and principals who continue to feel that there is no real support for them, yet their workload grows. That context is important. The independent review of education outlined how the Department of Education needs to address decisively the issues that have led to industrial action. I do not think that any teacher would say that issues have been decisively addressed.”
“Let us look at RE inspection. Clause 2 is not only welcome but necessary. Following the Supreme Court judgement, the Minister must ensure that religious education is taught in a way that is objective, critical and pluralist. The Bill addresses a clear and long-standing gap. For too long, RE has sat outside the standard inspection framework. That is not sustainable and is not compliant with the law. Inspection of RE is essential not just for compliance but for fairness, equality and confidence across the system. We should be clear that the Minister must act on that issue, and the Assembly should not lose out on that reform because of disagreement on other parts of the Bill. <BR /> <BR />Clause 3, however, raises significant concerns.”
“The Bill raises important issues for the Assembly about how inspection operates in Northern Ireland. Members across the House support school inspection; we can at least say that there is broad agreement on that. As a party, Alliance supports the role that inspection plays in accountability, in driving improvement and in providing assurance to parents and the public. How inspection should operate, how it should be enforced and how those decisions interact with the wider pressures facing education here is the key question that we will debate today.”
“I am happy to respond to that. What we are doing at Second Stage is considering the principles of the Bill. The Member raised a number of concerns about the Bill. Those will, rightly, be worked out at Committee Stage and dealt with at Consideration Stage. I think that everybody who wants to see a good piece of legislation will be more than open to doing that.”
“What the Bill rightly targets is organised hunting with dogs, trail hunting using animal-based scents, participation in organised hunts, and terrier work. Those practices belong to another age, and the law should not maintain loopholes that permit cruelty. The Bill removes the grey areas and makes clear that cruelty dressed up as tradition is still cruelty. <BR /> <BR />I urge Members to support the Bill today, and through every legislative stage, and to resist attempts to weaken it through amendments. I want MLAs to stand with rural residents, farmers and landowners, who no longer want those practices imposed on their land or their communities. Northern Ireland now has an opportunity to say clearly that that practice belongs in the past. I hope that we take it.”
“Rural residents caught up in confrontations with groups out hunting report threats and verbal abuse, including incidents when women and children were subjected to threats and aggression connected to hunting activity. That is not countryside management or respecting rural communities. It is a small number of people imposing their pastime on animals, and on landowners and local residents who did not ask for or consent to it. That is why the Bill matters. <BR /> <BR />Let me be clear about what the Bill does and does not do. The Bill contains exemptions for genuine pest control, livestock protection, disease prevention, biodiversity management and the relief of animal suffering. Those are practical and necessary provisions.”
“The incident happened three years ago but the lady who recalled it was clearly reliving what was a deeply traumatic event for her and her family. She said that a group of men on foot with about 20 dogs descended on the area. The family heard a commotion in the yard only to be met by the sight of two large hounds that had picked up the scent of the family cat, a rescue animal with limited mobility, that was killed. It was, in the words of the pet owner, just blood lust. They tried to have charges brought but the law, ultimately, failed them. <BR /> <BR />Another aspect of that incident, and one raised by others, is intimidation.”
“The concerns that they raised with me go beyond animal welfare alone. They spoke of trespass on private land. One farmer described an incident when five reseeded fields were trampled over by a hunt that had no permission to be on the land. Others told of damage to hedgerows, land and fences, with gates left open, risking livestock escaping. All were clear: they do not want or welcome huntsmen, horses or hounds on their land. <BR /> <BR />Impact on livestock is a key concern for farmers. Impacts range from disturbing sheep during lambing season to one farmer telling me about 15 terrified heifers being cut to pieces having run through barbed wire to escape hounds. The same farmer told of another cow sustaining a broken leg. One of the most upsetting scenarios relayed to me was that of a family pet being mauled to death.”
“The very idea of an animal being pursued until exhausted, cornered, terrified and, ultimately, torn apart by dogs is something that many people instinctively recoil from. It cannot be justified as entertainment; it cannot be softened by euphemisms; and, in 2026, it should not continue in Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />Importantly, those whom I spoke with wanted me to challenge any narrative that this debate is somehow urban versus rural or an attack on countryside life. These are authentic rural voices of farmers, landowners and families who live and work in the countryside every day. One farmer said to me, just last night: "This is the first time in a long time someone has listened to us". They are clear that organisations such as the Countryside Alliance do not speak for all rural people.”
“Growing up, our family farm had encounters with local hunts trespassing on our land, so I understand authentically these perspectives. I feel that it is a privilege to give voice to those campaigners today. At this point, I acknowledge the advocacy of the formidable Christine Bailey and her husband, William, who represent the Concerned Residents Ardtanagh Group, along with residents from Shanrod and Fedney. I thank everyone involved with these campaigns who took the time to write to me, to speak to me and to share deeply personal experiences in support of the Bill. <BR /> <BR />I want to make something absolutely clear: the people whom I spoke with were quick to voice that they oppose hunting with dogs because they believe that it is objectively cruel. When something is cruel, you do not simply think it but you feel it.”
“I am pleased to support the legislation, and, from the outset, I commend my colleague John Blair for his commitment and determination in introducing the Bill. It is a testament to John's sincerity and persistence that, after the disappointment of the previous mandate, he has persevered with the issue. <BR /> <BR />In my contribution today, I particularly want to give a voice to local campaigners in my constituency and across Northern Ireland: farmers, landowners and rural residents who are clear and determined in their support of the legislation. Those are people whom I relate to. I was asked by one whether I was a country person myself, and the answer is yes. I grew up in the country and live today in a rural part of Lagan Valley.”
“In particular, the lack of traffic calming is attracting antisocial, dangerous, racer-type behaviours that create a nuisance and a hazard for residents. On behalf of the residents, I urge DFI to make road safety improvements to the village before we are left with a tragedy.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am pleased to present this petition on behalf of the residents of Dromara, which is a small, rural village in Lagan Valley. The origin of the petition was a road safety meeting in February, which was attended by residents and local PSNI officers and supported by Sorcha Eastwood MP, my colleague David Honeyford MLA and local councillors Aaron McIntyre and Kurtis Dickson. On that night, the community spoke with real concern about speeding, including racer-type behaviours, in the village and on the roads leading to it. Concerns about parking and the lack of street lighting on roads entering the village were also raised. Almost 400 residents have signed the petition, which calls on the Department for Infrastructure to prioritise road safety for Dromara's residents.”
“June was never a feasible timeline, given that childminders had flagged that they would have to end or change contracts with parents on the basis of the changes. What did the Department expect those parents to do? Getting new childcare places, especially in rural areas, is not easy. We need childminders now more than ever, and they are not feeling that. Policy decisions taken without impact assessments or a robust evidence base undermine confidence. The Minister and officials must listen to the needs of the sector and course correct urgently. If we want a sustainable childcare sector, the professionals who are in it need to be respected and listened to.”
“That will have a real impact, because the demand from families who are trying to get childcare relates to children under school age, and those changes will not help with that. The changes have also introduced caveats around siblings, leaving people confused as to the evidence base and logic behind the decisions. There appear to be no changes for those employing childminding assistants, and there remain significant barriers, such as having to go through the planning process or trying to get appropriate transport, if a childminder wants to take on the maximum number of eight children. <BR /> <BR />Following engagement with the Northern Ireland Childminding Association (NICMA), I know that the Health Department has already conceded that the implementation date of June needs to be pushed back to November.”
“This morning, I am going in to bat again for our childminders, who are feeling increasingly ignored by Departments that are making significant decisions that are so ill considered that they threaten the viability of the sector. In Westminster, the Treasury's proposal to remove the 10% wear-and-tear allowance will create upfront expenditure and an administrative burden that will drive many childminders out of the sector. Locally, we have the Health Minister announcing long-awaited changes to minimum standards, which include ratios for childminders. Childminders have told me that, in practical terms, the proposed changes will reduce the number of children under 18 months whom a childminder is permitted to care for.”
“I have spoken to siblings, who are young people themselves, who are limiting their careers and ambitions because they know that they may one day become the full-time carer for the brother or sister whom they love. Other parents are utterly broken, isolated and exhausted and are contemplating something much darker for themselves and their child. We cannot let it come to that. At the end of the day, empathy is not getting it done. Action is needed, and it is shamefully overdue.”
“The number of special-school-leavers annually is in the hundreds, not thousands, with 300 estimated to leave this year. That number will grow in the coming years, so we must start planning now to deliver on current and future demand. The key call is for person-centred, legally enforceable care plans that consider lifelong support needs for every young person with complex needs at the point of transition. That is where the conversation is now. <BR /> <BR />Too many families live with unimaginable fear and anxiety. I had a mother tell me, "My career has an expiration date. I have nine years left". She has nine years left before her child leaves school, and, after that, she sees nothing. I have sat with parents who say, "We simply cannot die because, when we are gone, who will step in and care for our child?".”
“However, at the end of the day, whom we are fighting with for support is less important than those whom we are fighting for. We are, of course, advocating for the full range of special-school-leavers who are being failed post 19, but, given the limited time for the debate, I will focus on the young people such as Caleb who have complex needs and are especially susceptible to the cliff edge. <BR /> <BR />Whilst the Caleb's cause campaign is around only two years old, Alma recognises that the cause is over a decade old. In 2016, the Post 19 Lobby Group secured a Committee report and a debate on the issue. Ten years on, with two Assembly collapses consuming half of that time, little progress has been made, and, today, we find ourselves in a full-blown crisis.”