A neutral school uniform is ‘beneficial to all', committee hears

Members of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission put to MLAs that there should not be a requirement for boys and girls to dress differently.
It came during an examination of the School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill.
The Bill, which was introduced at the Northern Ireland Assembly by Education Minister Paul Givan, aims to make school uniforms more affordable, and includes scope for a potential uniform price cap to be set in future.
Giving evidence to the committee on Tuesday morning, Colin Caughey, director of public policy at the commission, recommended that the word inclusivity be added to clause two of the Bill in terms of setting out what it intends to do.
Chief Commissioner Alyson Kilpatrick said times have changed.
'A lot of girls now will say they are much more comfortable wearing a neutral uniform and not being required to wear skirts for example,' she told MLAs.
'That would fall within inclusivity. All children should feel comfortable.'
Sinn Fein MLA Pat Sheehan asked for a view on including an option for girls to wear trousers instead of skirts to be included in the Bill to make it compliant with human rights law.
Ms Kilpatrick said: 'It's clear that to require girls to wear skirts and boys to wear trousers or shorts, that is distinguishing between boys and girls for reason that isn't easily justifiable, certainly not anymore.
'It seems to me that there shouldn't be a requirement that boys and girls dress differently if the school wants to be inclusive, and if the department wants to require schools to be inclusive.
'There are all sorts of reasons why a neutral uniform would be beneficial to everybody.'
The Bill is to make it a legal requirement for the Department of Education to make guidelines for schools; and for schools to follow those guidelines, addressing unfair costs aspects regarding their uniform requirements.
But Ms Kilpatrick said she fears the Bill is too vague to bring any change in terms of the affordability of school uniforms.
'If you want something to happen, if you want it to change, there has to be specificity about what it is you're trying to change… if you simply say this is our idea of what might be appropriate then you're maybe giving too much discretion and allowing for a continuation of what happened before,' she said.
'Once you have made the decision as the department that you want things to change, I think you need to be prescriptive because nothing will change otherwise, and it becomes inconsistent across schools and what you have is a difficulty for the department to monitor what is happening at schools.
'Guidelines help, but guidelines must be, if they're going to change anything, statutory. You either have to have a statutory obligation to comply with the guidelines or you have it in the statutes so everyone knows exactly what it is that is being asked of them.
'If you want to see change, you have to be a lot clearer, and make it a requirement.'

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Daily Mirror

15 hours ago

• Daily Mirror

Wes Streeting says there 'isn't a budget' in NHS for assisted dying law

The Health Secretary - one of the top opponents of the legislation - said assisted dying would take 'time and money' away from other parts of the health service Wes Streeting has claimed there "isn't a budget" in the NHS for assisted dying services after a historic Commons vote on the issue. The Health Secretary - one of the most senior opponents of the legislation - said it would take "time and money" away from other parts of the health service. On Friday the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill was passed by MPs with a majority of 23 in a move championed by campaigners. ‌ Keir Starmer and Chancellor Rachel Reeves voted for the legislation, which would allow terminally ill adults with six months left to live the option to end their life early. The application would be approved by two doctors and an expert panel featuring a social worker, senior legal figure and psychiatrist. ‌ But Mr Streeting was among several Cabinet ministers, including Deputy PM Angela Rayner and Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood, to vote against the bill. In a post on his Facebook page over the weekend, said he had "no doubt that this is a major and profound social change for our NHS and our country". READ MORE: Assisted dying law PASSES Commons in historic moment - see how your MP voted He said the Department of Health and Social Care "will continue to work constructively with Parliament to assist on technical aspects of the Bill" as it goes through the House of Lords. But he warned: "Even with the savings that might come from assisted dying if people take up the service - and it feels uncomfortable talking about savings in this context to be honest - setting up this service will also take time and money that is in short supply. "There isn't a budget for this. Politics is about prioritising. It is a daily series of choices and trade-offs. I fear we've made the wrong one." Assisted dying campaigner Dame Esther Rantzen also urged peers not to block the landmark legislation. Dame Esther told BBC Radio 4's Today programme on Saturday: "I don't need to teach the House of Lords how to do their job. ‌ "They know it very well, and they know that laws are produced by the elected chamber. Their job is to scrutinise, to ask questions, but not to oppose. "So yes, people who are adamantly opposed to this Bill, and they have a perfect right to oppose it, will try and stop it going through the Lords, but the Lords themselves, their duty is to make sure that law is actually created by the elected chamber, which is the House of Commons who have voted this through." Dame Esther, who has terminal cancer, acknowledged the legislation would probably not become law in time for her to use it and she would have to "buzz off to Zurich" to use the Dignitas clinic.

The National

21 hours ago

• The National

SNP 'working with Tories to weaken Land Reform Bill', MSPs say

The Greens' Mark Ruskell and Labour's Mercedes Villalba both told the Sunday National that the SNP Government was using Tory votes to keep effective measures out of the new legislation. The Land Reform (Scotland) Bill will this week pass 'stage two' at Holyrood, where amendments to the initial wording are proposed by MSPs and voted on for inclusion or rejection by members of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee. However, last week, MSPs on the committee – which has three SNP, two Tory, one Labour, and one Green member – voted against measures including putting a public interest test on the proposed buyer of Scottish land. Rural Affairs Secretary Mairi Gougeon speaking to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee in a meeting held on June 17 (Image: Holyrood TV) The amendment, proposed by Villalba and rejected by the SNP and Tories, would have forced ministers to take into account things like a potential landowners' tax residence when deciding if a sale would be in the public interest. MSPs and the Government did support dropping the threshold for estates covered by the legislation from 3000 to 1000 hectares – but the SNP and Tories voted together to reject an amendment to push that down further to 500 hectares. There are around 2.5 acres to a hectare, and 1.6 acres to a standard football pitch. Villalba had tabled a more radical proposal that would have prevented anyone in Scotland from owning more than 500 hectares of land unless it could be shown to have environmental or community benefits. This was also voted down by the SNP and Tories. READ MORE: Rachael Revesz: The Land Reform Bill is only tinkering round the edges Changing the threshold at which estates are covered by the bill from 3000 to 1000 hectares means that the number of estates which will be required to publish Land Management Plans, support wild places, and comply with the Scottish Outdoor Access Code has been doubled to a total of about 700, covering just over 60% of Scotland's land, the John Muir Trust said. Villalba said that 67% of Scotland's countryside is owned by 'just 0.025% of the population' and that the 1000-hectare threshold would do nothing to change this. Further questions surround whether land must be contiguous to be considered a single 1000-hectare estate. The SNP put forward a rule saying that plots of land are a single holding if their borders are within 250 metres. The Greens had been set to table an amendment to make this 10 miles, but it was not moved. Ruskell said this was due to a shared understanding that the 250m limit was too low – and that it would be addressed at a later stage. However, Ruskell further said that the bill in its current state was 'fundamentally not going to lead to a solution to the growing inequalities in land ownership that we have in Scotland'. Scottish Green MSP Mark Ruskell in the parliament chamber (Image: Holyrood TV)'This bill does not tackle that, full stop,' he went on. 'It gives communities a bit more power, it provides a bit more scrutiny as to what landowners are currently doing, but it's not clear that this is going to make any major difference in terms of getting a more diverse pattern of land ownership and really changing the answer to 'Who owns Scotland?'. 'Things will continue broadly as they have been for centuries, but with a wee bit more community involvement. It's a bill that's tweaking around the edges of existing systems rather than having a big bold vision.' He told the Sunday National that the Scottish Government could 'easily put forward a more radical vision into this bill and get support from Labour and the Greens, easily'. 'Every amendment would pass. Every single amendment would be unchallengeable. So it's their call because they have the votes for it and they have the consensus on the left – but they don't want to play to that. 'So they're getting support from the Tories to defeat anything that's taking a bill into a more radical place.' READ MORE: Lesley Riddoch: Scotland needs real action on land reform Villalba went a step further, saying the bill was not fit for purpose and would entrench inequality across Scotland. The Scottish Labour MSP went on: 'The SNP have demonstrated that their true allegiance is not with the Scottish people, but rather with wealthy private landowners who manage their property not in the public interest but to maximise their own profits. 'Scotland's land should belong to the people, and benefit both local communities and the natural environment. It's high time the SNP stopped deferring to lobbyists and empowered Scots to take back control of their land.' She added: 'By voting against the inclusion of a presumed limit on ownership over 500 hectares in the bill, the SNP risk allowing land to be sold or managed in ways that benefit private interests at the expense of the public good, entrenching the very problems their proposals seek to correct. 'What's more, by aligning with the Conservative Party to reject the inclusion of a robust public interest test, rather than stand up for Scots, they have rolled over for the wealthy – and not for the first time.' The SNP and Scottish Government were approached for comment.

ITV News

a day ago

• ITV News

Health Secretary says Asissted dying will take 'time and money' away from the NHS

Wes Streeting has warned that legalising assisted dying would take 'time and money' away from other parts of the health service. The Health Secretary, who opposed the legislation in the Commons, said better end-of-life care was needed to prevent terminally ill people feeling they had no alternative but to end their own life. Streeting, writing on his Facebook page, said he could not ignore the concerns 'about the risks that come with this Bill' raised by the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of Physicians, the Association for Palliative Medicine and charities representing under-privileged groups. The Government is neutral on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill which cleared the Commons with a majority of 23 votes on Friday. Streeting, who was one of the most senior opponents of the legislation, said: 'Gordon Brown wrote this week that 'there is no effective freedom to choose if the alternative option, the freedom to draw on high-quality end-of-life care, is not available. "Neither is there real freedom to choose if, as many fear, patients will feel under pressure to relieve their relatives of the burden of caring for them, a form of coercion that prioritising good end-of-life care would diminish.' He is right. 'The truth is that creating those conditions will take time and money. 'Even with the savings that might come from assisted dying if people take up the service – and it feels uncomfortable talking about savings in this context to be honest – setting up this service will also take time and money that is in short supply. 'There isn't a budget for this. Politics is about prioritising. It is a daily series of choices and trade-offs. I fear we've made the wrong one.' Streeting said his Department of Health and Social Care 'will continue to work constructively with Parliament to assist on technical aspects of the Bill' as it goes through the House of Lords. Assisted dying campaigner Dame Esther Rantzen urged peers not to block the landmark legislation. Dame Esther told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: 'I don't need to teach the House of Lords how to do their job. 'They know it very well, and they know that laws are produced by the elected chamber. 'Their job is to scrutinise, to ask questions, but not to oppose. 'So yes, people who are adamantly opposed to this Bill, and they have a perfect right to oppose it, will try and stop it going through the Lords, but the Lords themselves, their duty is to make sure that law is actually created by the elected chamber, which is the House of Commons who have voted this through.' Dame Esther, who turns 85 on Sunday and has terminal cancer, acknowledged the legislation would probably not become law in time for her to use it and she would have to 'buzz off to Zurich' to use the Dignitas clinic. Paralympian and crossbench peer Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson told BBC Breakfast: 'We're getting ready for it to come to the Lords and from my personal point of view, about amending it to make it stronger. 'We've been told it's the strongest Bill in the world, but to be honest, it's not a very high bar for other legislation. 'So I do think there are a lot more safeguards that could be put in.'