Committee stage in the Commons
Committee scrutinises free breakfast clubs in primary schools and limits on branded school uniform items, with opposition demanding impact assessments and raising concerns about backfiring micromanagement.
SMAmendment 6 is a technical fix: without it, Clause 21 would state twice that community or foundation special schools established in a hospital are excluded from the breakfast club duty. The effect of the Bill — those hospital schools are exempt because children in hospital are already receiving breakfast and quality care — is unchanged. On amendments 26 and 27, the Department is working intensively on delivery plans and will bring more information before Parliament as we learn from the early-adopter scheme. The 750 early adopter schools launching from April 2025 will help us get implementation, funding and support right before national roll-out. We published funding methodology and guidance for early adopters on 16 January. On amendment 28, secondary schools currently on the national school breakfast programme — including approximately 750 secondary schools — will continue to be supported until at least March 2026. We start with primary because the evidence is stronger: breakfast clubs there are equivalent to 26 fewer half-days of absence per year per class of 30, and up to two months of additional progress from key stage 1 to key stage 2.The Government amendment stands in the name of my hon. Friend, the Minister for School Standards. The amendment is a technical one, which will ensure that the clause only includes one reference to the exclusion of community or foundation special schools established in a hospital from the duty to secure breakfast club provision. Without the amendment, the Bill would mention that twice, which might have caused some confusion. The amendment ensures the consistent use of the definition of maintained school with the provision on limits to branded school uniform items, which has also been confirmed by Government amendment. The effect of the Bill before and after the amendment—to exclude maintained schools established in a hospital—remains the same. Schools established in a hospital are excluded from this duty, because the Government recognise that children and young people who cannot attend their usual school, because of their medical needs, will already be receiving breakfast and quality care in hospital. Amendments 26 and 27, tabled by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston, seek a report from the Secretary of State to Parliament with key delivery questions on breakfast clubs. He raises some important issues and, as I stated previously, I value his engagement with the Bill and this subject. The Department is working intensively and at pace on the delivery plans for breakfast clubs, including the information the hon. Member mentions and more. I will come to that later, but first I want to address his points about what form breakfast club provision takes and why we need to act. What we inherited from the previous Government is a patchwork of provision with varying costs for parents, varying offers and often, critically, insufficient funding for the actual club, leading to the exclusion of many disadvantaged pupils. We are legislating to replace that patchwork with an absolute commitment to give all children, regardless of their circumstance…
Has the Department analysed the difference between disadvantaged pupils on free school meals and those who are not? This is a blanket universal policy across all primary pupils — has there been any assessment of impact across different groups?Has the Department conducted any analysis differentiating those students who are disadvantaged and on free school meals, or considered disadvantaged, and those who are not? The Government are applying a blanket policy across all students of primary school. The Minister makes an eloquent point that some of those children are very needy, but others are not. Has the Department conducted an analysis of the impact across different groups?
- The beauty of this scheme is its universal offer — free to every child in primary school. That universality is what drives the gains in attainment, behaviour and attendance. The tripling of breakfast club funding at October's Budget, 750 early adopter schools from April, and the statutory basis in this Bill together give schools the certainty they need to plan.
The beauty of this scheme is its universal offer—a free offer to every child in primary school. As I mentioned earlier, we see the clear benefits of the scheme in terms of attainment, behaviour and, indeed, attendance. That is what is really exciting about our plans. Work is already under way with 750 early adopter schools to start to deliver from April 2025, thanks to a tripling of funding for the breakfast clubs at last October’s Budget compared with financial year 2024-25. Early adopters are just the first step in delivering on our steadfast commitment to introducing breakfast clubs in every primary school. They will help us to test and learn how every school can best deliver the new breakfast clubs in the future and maximise the benefit to schools, their pupils and the families and communities they serve. Legislating for breakfast club provision in the Bill will give schools the certainty they need to plan for the future and ensure that there is a consistent and accessible offer for children and parents who need a settled start and support with childcare. I commend the clause to the Committee.
We are halfway through line-by-line scrutiny and still do not have the impact assessment — it is totally pointless to produce one after Parliament has already debated the measure. The last Government substantially expanded breakfast clubs and created the holiday activities and food programme; spending on free childcare entitlements doubled in real terms between 2010 and 2024. We will not vote against Clause 21, but the Children's Society's Mark Russell said he would have focused on deprived secondary schools rather than a universal primary offer. There is real uncertainty about whether the holiday activities and food programme and existing free secondary provision will survive beyond next year — give us that guarantee. Amendment 26 requires proper data collection; Wales committed to universal primary provision in 2013 but by last year 85% of disadvantaged pupils were still not being reached. Amendment 27 asks for a funding report: the IFS estimated a traditional breakfast club costs around £110 per pupil annually; Labour's manifesto offered £315 million in 2028, enough for food-only or 60% of pupils on a traditional model. Small rural primaries, expensive areas and schools with unusual age ranges will all have very different costs — the funding must reflect that.I rise today, as we pass the halfway point of line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill, to find that we still do not have the impact assessment. The Bill has passed Second Reading. It is totally pointless having an impact assessment of a measure if it is produced after has Parliament debated it. The Ministers would make the same point if they were still shadow Ministers, so I make it to them now. I do not understand what the hold-up is. The last Government substantially expanded access to breakfast clubs in primary and secondary schools and created the holiday activities food programme. The national school breakfasts programme has been running since 2018, and in March 2023 the then Government announced £289 million for the national wraparound childcare funding programme, which helps to fund breakfast clubs, among other things. That was part of a much wider expansion of free childcare that saw spending on the free entitlement double in real terms between 2010 and 2024, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, including things such as the 30-hours offer, the two-year-old offer and the expanded childcare offer. We will not vote against the clause and will not push our amendments to a vote, but I was struck by the comments made by Mark Russell of the Children’s Society, who said that given the resource constraints, he would have focused on rolling out breakfast clubs to a greater number of deprived secondary schools, rather than on a universal offer in primary. He said: “I would like to see secondary school children helped, and if the pot is limited, I would probably step back from universality and provide for those most in need.”––[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 55, Q122.] I draw attention to the uncertainty being created by the Government’s refusal to commit to funding the existing free breakfast provision in secondary schools beyond next year, and likewise to the uncertainty being created around the holiday…
Three in ten children are growing up in poverty, and hunger outside the classroom is one of the biggest challenges teachers face. But I have real concerns about delivery. Nigel Genders of the Church of England told us that 65% of small rural primaries are CofE schools, and that schools with 40 or 50 children and one member of staff face particular challenges with staffing and site management. Sufficient funding is critical — we cannot have schools raiding other budgets to pay for this, as happened with universal infant free school meals. The Child Poverty Action Group's Kate Anstey pointed out that take-up of breakfast clubs is around 40%, whereas virtually all children are in school at lunchtime; children in temporary accommodation placed in Croydon or Slough, spending 90 minutes getting to a school in Twickenham, are the most needy and yet the least likely to be there for breakfast. Why not extend free school meals at lunchtime to the poorest children in both primary and secondary? On food quality: proposed new section 551B(5) of the Education Act 1996 says food will "take such form as the appropriate authority thinks fit" — can we ensure strong nutritional guidance so this does not mean a single piece of toast? And if schools only offer the statutory minimum 30 minutes but a parent's commute means drop-off at 7:30 am, how does the paid-for element interact with the free element?It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Stringer. We live in a country where, according to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, three in 10 children are growing up in poverty, and I know from talking to school leaders up and down the country that one of the biggest challenges that teachers face in the classroom is poverty outside the classroom. I do not think that anybody could disagree with the intent of ensuring that children are well fed and ready to learn and start the school day, but I have questions regarding how the provisions of the Bill will be delivered. Some have already been touched on by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston. First, on practicalities, in our oral evidence session, Nigel Genders, the education officer for the Church of England, said that 65% of small rural primaries are Church of England schools. I asked him about the practicalities of delivering this scheme, and he said: “there will be particular challenges in small schools in terms of staffing, managing the site,” and pointed out that there are economies of scale for the large trusts, but not when “a school…has 40 or 50 children, one member of staff and probably a site manager.”––[Official Report, Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 66, Q142.] How is that going to be delivered? I appreciate that there will be pilot schemes, but that is a big question that needs to be answered. Others have raised similar concerns about resourcing. Secondly, although it remains to be seen how the pilots work out, given the immense financial pressure that so many schools find themselves under, I cannot stress strongly enough to Ministers how important it is that sufficient money is provided to deliver this programme. We cannot have “efficiencies” being found elsewhere—in terms of teaching staff and other activities that the children would normally get—to fund this. When the Mayor of London rolled out free school…
The existing national school breakfast programme covers 2,694 schools and roughly 350,000 pupils, targeted by area deprivation with a 75% subsidy — and attendance is a bigger problem in secondary schools and at lower income levels, which is exactly why the programme includes secondary schools. On the 30-minute minimum: most of the 85% of schools that already have breakfast clubs run them for longer. Should they charge for the part beyond 30 minutes? If a school has a paid 45-minute breakfast club, must it also offer a separate free 30-minute option? And on costs: the Government talk about saving families £450 a year; dividing by 190 school days gives about £2.37 per day, which seems considerably more than the per-pupil rates being paid to early adopters — can the Minister clarify whether the programme will cover at least 75% of actual provision costs, as the national programme does?I welcome what the Minister said about protecting the existing programme in secondary schools for a further year. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston is quite right that schools and families will want to know about much more than just next year, but I appreciate that the expectation is that the certainty will come in the spending review. I hope the same will also be true for the holiday activities and food programme. Of course, breakfast clubs in school is not a new idea. There are, as the Minister said, 2,694 schools in the national school breakfast club programme, serving about 350,000 pupils. That programme is targeted according to the deprivation of an area, with eligibility at the whole-school level in those areas, and provides a 75% subsidy for the food and delivery costs. There are many more breakfast clubs than that, however; it is estimated that the great majority of schools have some form of breakfast club. Many clubs, of course, have a modest charge, but if a child attending that breakfast club is helping a parent on a low income to be able to work, typically, that breakfast club provision, like wraparound care provision, would be eligible for reimbursement at up to 85% as a legitimate childcare cost under universal credit. That 85% is a higher rate than was ever available under the previous tax credits system. Some schools also use pupil premium to support breakfast clubs, and there are also other voluntary-sector and sponsored programmes. From a policy perspective, overall, there are two big objectives to a breakfast club. The first is, of course, to help families with the cost of living, and the other is about attendance. Attendance is an issue in primary and secondary school, but we must remember that it is more of an issue in secondary school, and it is more of an issue the lower people are on the income scale. That is why the national school breakfast club programme runs in secondary as well as primary schools, and why it is…
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
- When I was pre-school chair, mixed free/paid arrangements were standard — the sector has been managing part-funded time for years. The mechanisms already exist.
I want to comment more from my own experience, because I used to be a pre-school chair. When the free hours came in for pre-school, they did not cover the full time that the child would be there, so mechanisms were put in place where some elements of the time were free and some elements were not. That sort of arrangement for operating such a system has been around in the sector for quite a while.
- Those mechanisms have also been deeply controversial in the pre-school sector, as the hon. Lady will know. On costs: my rough calculation is £2.10 per child per day, yet the early-adopter rates — even at the higher FSM6 rate — appear considerably lower than that. Why is the unit cost different for FSM-eligible children? And will the Minister confirm that the programme will cover at least 75% of actual costs, as the national school breakfast programme does?
It has, and it has also been very controversial in many cases for pre-school provision, as the hon. Lady will know. I also want to ask about the costs and reimbursements, which amendments 26 and 27 speak to. The Government, before they were in government and probably since, talked a lot about saving families £400 a year. In my rough maths, if we take £400 and divide it by 190 school days—[Interruption.] Oh, it is £450. Well, I am not able to adjust my maths live, so the answer will be slightly more than the number I give now. My maths gave me £2.10 a day. That seems to be somewhat different from the figures that schools are actually being reimbursed in the pilot programme, so I hope for some clarity on this point. The details of the early-adopter programme talk about an initial set-up cost of £500, a lump sum of £1,099 to cover April to July and then a basic rate being provided per pupil. There is a different rate depending on whether the child is what is called FSM6—eligible for free school meals previously—if I have read the details correctly. I am not clear why the unit cost of a breakfast would be different between those two groups of children, but perhaps the Minister could fill me in. Even at the higher rates—the FSM6 rates—there seems to be quite a gap between that and £2.10, or the Minister’s slightly higher figure, when it is £450 divided by 190 days. Obviously, part of that may be made up of savings from bulk purchasing and so on, but it still seems quite a gap, if I have understood the numbers correctly. I hope the Minister can help me to understand.
- When I was a primary school governor, underfunded breakfast clubs led to parents accruing huge debts — schools would never turn a child away, but that debt is terrible for parents' mental health. Has the Minister considered that risk?
When I was a governor of a primary school, I found that an unintended consequence of underfunded breakfast clubs was parents accruing ludicrous amounts of debt. There are no circumstances in which the school would have turned away the child, but that does not bode well for a policy that is about supporting parents who are hard up. If parents are forced to pay for the breakfast club and accrue huge amounts of debt, we know that is very bad for their mental health and for their general wellbeing. I do not know whether the Minister has anything to say on that point, but I am sure my right hon. Friend will agree.
- That is exactly the worry: in a couple of years, when Members get emails about funding pressure on schools, breakfast clubs will be one of the causes if this programme is not fully — or almost fully — funded. Will the Minister say on the record that he expects it to cover at least 75% of actual provision costs?
As ever, my hon. Friend makes an important point. My worry is that, in a couple of years’ time, when Members sitting on both sides of this Committee Room get emails about the funding pressures on schools—because, spoiler alert, there will still be funding pressures on schools—breakfast clubs will be one of the factors contributing to those pressures, if this programme is not fully funded or almost fully funded. I wonder whether the Minister will say on the record that it is his expectation that this programme will, like the national school breakfast club programme, cover at least 75% of the actual cost of provision.
- Future funding decisions are subject to the spending review, but I can confirm: the holiday activities and food programme is funded at more than £200 million for the next financial year; the national school breakfast programme continues to at least March 2026; and schools will be supported in the transition to the new statutory offer. National roll-out timing will be confirmed after the spending review, informed by what we learn from early adopters. We will ensure appropriate data collection and evaluation arrangements for the national roll-out.
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their interventions. Members will appreciate that future funding decisions are subject to the spending review, but they can have the assurance from me today of the commitment that we have already made with regard to secondary school inclusion in the national school breakfast club programme and, indeed, my recently announced confirmation of more than £200 million for the holiday activities and food programme for the next financial year. The shadow Minister made a number of points regarding schools currently on the national school breakfast club programme. Funding was confirmed in the previous Budget, which will ensure that that programme continues to at least March 2026. Subject to the will of Parliament, schools with children from reception to year 6 will transition from the existing programme to the new offer of free breakfast clubs lasting at least 30 minutes. The timing of the national roll-out will be confirmed in due course. Schools moving from the national school breakfast club programme to the new offer will be supported in that transition. Further details on the programme will follow after the conclusion of the spending review. The shadow Minister asked a number of questions about when the duty will commence. Legislating breakfast club provision in this Bill will give schools the certainty that they need for the future. The national roll-out and commencement of this duty will be determined in 2025 after the spending review. National roll-out will also be informed by the assessment of the early-adopter phase of the roll-out, which will help us to test and learn how best we can support schools to implement their duty and overcome the barriers that they might encounter. As the Committee will know, we must go through the appropriate spending review process before committing to a date for national roll-out.
Is one of the goals of the free breakfast clubs to ensure that children from hard-up backgrounds are ready to learn — a hungry mind, not a hungry belly? Provision in my constituency of Bournemouth East is remarkably inconsistent. I make a special call for Bournemouth East schools to be among the early adopters.I have respect for the insight and experience of the right hon. Member for East Hampshire, but I ask the Minister whether one of the goals of the free breakfast clubs is to ensure that children, particularly those from hard-up backgrounds, are in a position to be ready to learn, so that they can start the school day with a hungry mind, not a hungry belly. The right hon. Member for East Hampshire made a point about the current provision of free breakfast clubs, but in my constituency of Bournemouth East, we have remarkably few. There is a real inconsistency in provision across our country. On that note, I will make a special call for schools in Bournemouth East to be among the early adopters. I thank the Minister for his response.
- Breakfast clubs are also a calming start to the day. They let parents with both an infant and a junior child drop off in sequence. They help parents get to work. And the evidence shows children can make up to two additional months of progress in reading, writing and maths because they arrive ready to learn.
I want to make about point about attendance and the evidence that suggests progress. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East that is about children’s bellies being full and them being able to learn in the best part of the day. It is also a calming part of the day. It allows parents, if they have an infant and a junior, to drop them off—they could do the infant first, and the junior next. It also helps our parents to go to work. Evidence also suggests that breakfast clubs can help children to make up to two additional months of progress in their core reading, writing and maths skills because they are, as my hon. Friend said, ready to learn.
Punctuality matters as much as attendance — if children come in earlier for breakfast clubs, they are in class and the risk of disruption to other pupils' learning is minimised.I am a previous chair of governors and I have worked as an education welfare officer. Do you agree that punctuality also comes into the issue of attendance? If children come into school earlier for breakfast clubs, they are in class, which minimises the risk of disruption to other students’ learning and to teachers presenting their lessons.
Schools in Derby North that already have breakfast clubs — like Cavendish Close junior academy — are confident they can scale up and are actively excited to do so. Does this clause open the benefits of breakfast clubs to all primary children?The right hon. Member for East Hampshire mentioned that many schools already have breakfast clubs. I regularly visit schools in Derby North and recently visited Cavendish Close junior academy, which already provides a breakfast club. Staff there were confident in their ability to scale up; in fact, they are excited to do so and welcome the opportunity. Does the Minister agree that this clause will open up the benefits of breakfast clubs to all our children in primary schools and that that represents a massive step forward?
- On Clause 22 and the new clause on school food compliance: school food standards are set out in the Requirements for School Food Regulations 2014. Governors and trustees have a statutory duty to ensure compliance. We launched an online training pilot for governors and trustees with the National Governance Association in November. A compliance pilot run by the DfE and the Food Standards Agency in 2022-23 showed food safety officers could check standards during routine inspections, but further consideration is needed on handling non-compliance and the national resource implications. Clause 22 itself closes a regulatory gap for academies: all academies already comply with food standards at lunch, but there was a gap for food served outside lunch — including at breakfast clubs. The clause confirms that all food across the school day, including at the new breakfast clubs, meets the standards.
I am grateful for the opportunity, afforded by the new clause suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), to discuss compliance with school food standards. It is important that children eat nutritious food at school, and the Department encourages schools to have a whole-school approach to healthy eating. The standards for school food are set out in the Requirements for School Food Regulations 2014. They ensure that schools provide children with healthy food and drink options, and that children get the energy and nutrition that they need across the school day. School governors and trustees have a statutory duty to ensure compliance with the school food standards. The existing regime involves school governors and trustees appropriately challenging the headteacher and senior leadership team to ensure that the school is meeting its obligations, and we want to support governors to work confidently with school leaders to ensure that the standards are met. The Department for Education, with the National Governance Association, launched an online training pilot on school food for governors and trustees in November last year. The pilot, which will run until the end of May 2025, is designed to test the feasibility of using an online training platform to make information on school food available to governors and trustees in an accessible and flexible way. We will soon be evaluating the effectiveness of the training programme to determine whether it could be a valuable resource in the long term. As well as supporting governors and trustees, we need a compliance regime that ensures standards are met without creating undue burdens. We note the findings of the compliance pilot run by the Department and the Food Standards Agency during the 2022-23 academic year, and we are working with the FSA on the next steps. Although the pilot demonstrated that food safety officers could conduct checks of school food standards during routine food hyg…
- The recent House of Lords report on obesity strongly recommended reviewing and updating school food standards. When the Food Foundation evaluated the breakfast offer at 17 Yorkshire primary schools, fruit and water were not always offered. Please ensure the roll-out guidance includes clear direction on nutritional quality — not just a piece of toast — and seriously consider updating the standards themselves.
I want to stress the concerns I expressed in my previous remarks about the quality and nutritional value of the food that will be offered. I recognise that school food standards are in place, but although the recent House of Lords report on obesity welcomed the introduction of school breakfast clubs, it strongly recommended that the Government review and update the school food standards, and one of the witnesses this Committee heard said that schools should be given clear direction on what is and is not acceptable. It is important that our children do not get high-fat, sugary or minimal nutrition provision from the breakfast clubs. When it evaluated the breakfast offer at 17 primary schools in Yorkshire, the Food Foundation found that fruit and water were not always offered at breakfast. Such things should be addressed. I hope that as the guidance is rolled out, more detail will be provided, but I urge the Government to consider the recommendation to review school food standards as they roll out breakfast clubs.
- Governing bodies must ensure compliance with the food standards and challenge headteachers where needed. Our early-adopter guidance already includes support on a healthy, balanced breakfast offer. We will keep the approach to school food under review.
I thank the hon. Member for Twickenham for her contribution; this is an issue that I know she cares passionately about. As I mentioned, the early adopter programme for breakfast clubs will give us an opportunity to test and learn, and to make sure we implement a national scheme based on really good, nutritious food. Governing bodies have a duty to ensure that the standards for school food set out in the Requirements for School Food Regulations 2014 are complied with, and they should appropriately challenge the headteacher and senior leadership team to ensure the school is meeting its obligations. I believe we are making quick progress to deliver breakfast clubs in every primary school, with 750 early adopters. We recently published early adopter guidance to provide support to schools on these issues, which includes support and advice on a healthy, balanced breakfast offer. It is important that children eat nutritious food at school, and the school food standards define the foods and drinks that must be provided and those that are restricted. As with all Government programmes, we will keep our approach to school food under review. Question put and agreed to. Clause 22 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 23 School uniforms: limits on branded items
- My party and I strongly support the objective of Clause 23 — driving down uniform costs for hard-pressed families. But I have two concerns with the Government's approach of capping the number of items. First, nothing stops schools inflating the price of whichever three or four items remain — three items at £100 each is still allowed. Second, as a liberal, writing this level of prescription about school decisions into primary legislation grates. Amendment 87 replaces the item-count cap with a monetary cost cap, reviewed annually by secondary legislation to keep pace with inflation. Schools wanting more branded items could sell iron-on logos for plain supermarket jumpers. This is a more effective market intervention that drives down supplier prices. New clause 35 is a simple fairness point: zero-rate VAT currently applies only to school uniform for children up to age 14. We now have the freedom to extend it to age 16 — we should do it.
I rise to speak to amendment 87, which stands in my name and those of my hon. Friends. My party and I strongly support the objective of clause 23—to bring down or minimise the cost of school uniform for hard-pressed families up and down the country. We know that the cost of uniform causes a lot of hardship: it impacts school attendance when children do not have the right items of uniform, and we heard during our oral evidence sessions and have seen in some of the written evidence that children are regularly sent home from school if they do not have the right uniform, which I personally find outrageous considering the current attendance crisis. The intent behind this clause is absolutely right; my concern is how the Government have gone about it. I have two concerns. The first is that, if a number of items are set out in legislation—three or four, depending on whether it is primary or secondary—there is nothing to stop the overinflation of the prices of those items. We could end up in a situation in which, for the sake of argument, three items cost £100 each. There is nothing to stop that happening, so I do not think the provision will necessarily rein in the cost of branded items for families. Secondly, it grates with me as a liberal to have such detailed prescription in legislation about how schools operate and the decisions that school leaders take on the number of items that can be branded. Amendment 87 sets a cap on cost rather on the number of items, and that would be reviewed and updated through secondary legislation every year to keep it in line with inflation. Schools that want to have more branded items but cannot fit it within the cost cap could sell branded logos that can be sewn on to basic uniform items bought in supermarkets, such as plain jumpers and shirts and so on. I have to say, as a parent of small children, I do not fancy the idea of doing lots of sewing, but I am sure there are more innovative ways to iron on logos and suchlike. The Association…
- The uniform shop Uniform Direct in Derby, run by Harvinder Shanan, reduced the cost of blazers from £75 to £25 at one school. Most schools she supplies already comply with the branded-item limits the Bill imposes. I am worried that amendments seeking exceptions would fundamentally undermine the clause's purpose. A cost cap alone could allow three items at £100 each to become three items at £200 each. I invite the Minister to keep all options open and review the situation should costs of branded items rise anyway. On new clause 56, I am concerned that mandating the detail of second-hand uniform provision down to what must appear on school websites would be so prescriptive that when new uniform items are introduced, second-hand stock simply would not exist yet.
There is a uniform shop, Uniform Direct, in my constituency in Derby, which was opened by Harvinder Shanan. Like me, she is a mum of three. She is determined to drive down the costs of school uniform and understands the financial pressures that local families face, particularly with the cost of living crisis that the last Government left us in. Her small business has been able to reduce the cost of items. She told me about how in one instance, when she began to supply a school, she was able to bring the cost of their blazers down from £75 to £25. I note that the majority of the schools that Harvinder Shanan supplies are already compliant with the limitations on the number of branded items that the Bill imposes. If many can reduce, or have already reduced, the number of branded items, I am concerned that amendments seeking exceptions would fundamentally undermine the purpose of the clause, which is to bring down the costs of school uniform that families have to bear. Some providers might seek to increase the costs of branded items. Consideration of a cost cap was asked for, to limit the amount of money that could be charged. I invite the Minister to keep the clause under review and to keep all options open, should the cost of branded uniform items rise. Turning to new clause 56, the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston indicated a shared concern about prescription for schools, which seems somewhat at odds with the prescription sought through the new clause, which would prescribe details of how second-hand items might be made available down to what is on school websites. My concern is that the detail of that provision would impose so much prescription that when there are new items of uniform, second-hand items simply would not be available. In total, the clause represents a huge saving for families in Derby North and across the country. I greatly welcome the provision.
- I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Twickenham said about the danger of backfiring micromanagement — and Labour Members have made the same point. Amendments 29 and 30 provide that schools may require items they supply for free; amendment 31 clarifies children can be required to replace a lost item within the year; amendment 32 exempts PE kit; amendment 91 exempts school sports team kit; and new clause 56 positively requires schools to offer second-hand uniform to parents, building on guidance that already exists. The Government's own survey found that parents are spending 10% less in real terms on school uniform than in 2014, and two-thirds of schools now facilitate second-hand purchase, up from 32%. Yet we are writing item counts into an Act of Parliament rather than updating statutory guidance. More than half of school leaders said in a poll that the first thing they would remove in response to these restrictions is PE kit — and plain branded PE kit costs almost half as much as an equivalent Adidas or Nike item. Getting rid of school sports team kits is the worst possible outcome.
I find myself in great agreement with much of what the hon. Member for Twickenham said about the danger that this provision will turn into a piece of backfiring micromanagement. The Opposition have made that point and, indeed, we have heard Labour Members make the same point. We are not in a position to make a fiscal commitment today, but I thought that that the hon. Lady made a good point about VAT. I found myself agreeing with more and more of what she was saying and then, towards the end, when she started talking about potential Brexit benefits, I realised we were really through the looking glass. Remarkable moments here today—incredible scenes. To describe our amendments in brief, amendments 29 and 30 say that schools can have items that parents do not have to pay for, and amendment 31 clarifies that it is three at any given time. Schools can require replacement of lost items; amendment 32 exempts PE kit, and amendment 91 exempts school sports team kit. New clause 56 is a positive suggestion to make schools offer old uniform to parents. As the hon. Member for Twickenham said, we do not particularly want to be prescriptive, but if we are going to be, we might as well do it in sensible ways. That builds on the previous guidance. When I was a school governor, which was mainly under the previous Labour Government, I was struck by the flood of paper that came forth every week from “DFE Towers”, the Sanctuary Buildings. That flood abated a little after 2010, although probably never enough. Sometimes, I wondered whether we had more ring binders with policies in than we had children; but that might soon seem like a golden age, because under new Ministers, the urge to micromanage seems to be going into overdrive. Our guidance, introduced in 2021, encouraged schools to have multiple suppliers, and it was focused on generally holding down costs, as the hon. Member for Twickenham pointed out. Parents are in fact spending less in real terms on school uniforms overall than th…
- A 2023 Children's Society report found that 22% of parents said their child had received a detention for breaching uniform policy, and one in eight had been placed in isolation. Last year two thirds of parents reported uniform costs as unaffordable. Do the shadow minister's concerns about the approach outweigh the need to actually tackle costs parents are struggling with?
Does the shadow Minister agree with a 2023 report by the Children’s Society which showed that school uniform costs were another burden on families, impacting on children’s education, to the point that 22% of parents were reporting that their child was experiencing detention for breaching uniform policies, and one in eight had been placed in isolation? Last year, the Children’s Society surveyed parents again and found that two thirds were finding uniform costs unaffordable, which is not surprising given the cost of living crisis affecting so many parents. The hon. Member speaks as a former school governor and therefore with deep experience. Does he agree that we need to reduce the cost of uniforms, because parents are struggling and, as a consequence, children’s education is suffering too?
- We obviously want to reduce the cost of school uniform — but we really want to reduce the cost of clothing children overall. If the clause has the backfiring effects several Members on both sides have described, it will not achieve that.
That is a very helpful intervention, because it lets me say what I was about to say next. We obviously want to reduce the cost of school uniform, but really, we want to reduce the cost of clothing children overall. If we have the kind of backfiring effects that a number of Members on both sides have pointed out, we will not achieve that.
- New clause 56 sets out specific requirements in great detail. It seems contradictory to worry about micromanagement while tabling something that prescribes exactly what must appear on school websites about second-hand uniform.
The shadow Minister’s new clause 56 sets out specific things in great detail. It seems really odd that he has a concern about micromanagement in light of the provisions he has tabled.
- That tension is real and I acknowledge it. The reason new clause 56 is there is to offer a positive suggestion rather than just critique — and many schools already do it. But the broader point stands: rules dreamed up in Whitehall often go wrong when they meet the real world, and that is exactly what will happen here. Ministers said in answer to a written question that one third of primary schools and seven in ten secondary schools will have to remove compulsory branded items to comply. Those 8,000-plus schools will spend their time reviewing uniform policy instead of focusing on things teachers say actually matter — like discipline. And the word "branded" in this clause is not used in its ordinary meaning: anything available only from particular suppliers counts, including a plain red rugby jumper with a blue stripe. Amendment 91, which I will press to a vote, would exempt school sports team kits. The explanatory notes confirm that even optional activities count — so if a school has a sports team with a kit, that kit counts towards the three-item cap. A school with an athletics, rugby, swimming and football team would use up the entire cap on sports kits alone. This is effectively a national ban on school sports team kits.
The hon. Lady is quite right to point out the tension between wanting to avoid micromanagement and saying that if we are in the business of prescription, we might do some sensible things. I wanted to offer a positive suggestion rather than simply critique what the Government are doing, which is why that is there. Indeed, a lot of schools are already doing it. I understand the hon. Lady’s point, but one reason why Whitehall micromanagement is a bad idea is that rules dreamed up by civil service mandarins in London often go wrong when they make contact with the real world. That is exactly what has happened here. I have no doubt that Ministers’ intentions for clause 23 are good, but it will have the opposite effect to the one they intend. It may well make things more expensive for parents—not less. That will hit many schools. Ministers said, in answer to a written question, that “based on the Department’s 2023 cost of school uniforms survey of parents, we estimate that one third of primary schools and seven in ten secondary schools will have to remove compulsory branded items from their uniforms to comply”. Instead of measures the Government could have brought forward in the Bill—things that the polls show are teacher priorities such as discipline, as Teacher Tapp shows—we will have at least 8,000 schools spending their time reviewing their uniform policy. Worst of all, this may well end up increasing costs for parents overall. Many secondary schools will respond to this new primary legislation by stopping having uniform PE kit, at which point, highly brand-aware kids will push parents to have stuff from Adidas or Nike or whatever instead, which will be more expensive. What do we think that school leaders will get rid of in response to the new rules? We know that according to the Government, lots of them will have to change their uniforms in response to this. In a poll of school leaders last year, more than half said that the first things they would remove in the event…
A responsible school following this law would still have a uniform — uniform does not have to be branded to be uniform. Schools could simply require plain sports clothes that are affordable and are not international sportswear brands.I speak as a parent of a child at a secondary school with branded PE kit, so I have some interest in this. Maybe my understanding is wrong, but surely any responsible school following this becoming law, as I hope it does, would still have a uniform? Uniform does not have to be branded to be uniform. This would not necessarily mean that it would be a free for all and that children would be encouraged to turn up in all sorts of branded sports gear. They can still wear plain sports clothes that are uniform and are not hugely expensive or branded by international sportswear brands.
- "Branded" in this clause captures anything only available from particular suppliers — including a plain red rugby jumper with no logo. And when schools removed branded uniform in the past and offered a plain black T-shirt instead, every child turned up in a Nike or Adidas black T-shirt — more expensive stuff fills the space. Consider a typical state primary: a jumper, a tie, a summer dress for girls, a PE hoodie, a PE T-shirt and a book bag — several items over the limit. Which of those does the Minister want dropped? If it is the book bag, a branded replacement will likely cost more.
That is an incredibly helpful point, because it leads me to the point that the word “branded” here is being used in a very specific way, which is not a particularly natural meaning. Anything specific or anything where there is only a couple of shops that sell it will count as branded. For example, I think of the rugby jumper that I used to wear when I was doing rugby league in Huddersfield in the 1990s. It was a red jumper with a blue stripe. If it was freezing cold and snowing, I could reverse it. That jumper was branded. It did not have any brand on it—it was not sportswear—but anything like that is captured in the provision. I also remember that when I was at school, in summer we had very unbranded clothing. The school said, “You can have a black T-shirt.” What happened? Everyone had a black Nike or Adidas T-shirt, so more expensive stuff fills the space. Let us take a worked example and think about the primary school that my children go to, which is typical. They have a jumper and a tie in the winter. My daughter has a summer dress. They have a PE hoodie, a PE T-shirt and a plastic book bag, so they are a couple of items over the limit. Our children are at a really typical state primary, so which of those items do Ministers want them to drop?
It is up to the school.It is up to the school.
- Amendment 91, which I will press to a vote, would exempt school sports team kits. The explanatory notes confirm that even optional activities count toward the cap — so any school with more than one sports team effectively cannot have team kits at all under Clause 23 as drafted. The expensive thing I saw on secondary school kids arriving for school was not their uniform but the high-fashion coats over it. We are eliminating affordable branded PE kit and leaving real brands to fill the gap.
If we get rid of the PE tops for the older kids, we will end up with branded sportswear stuff. [Interruption.] If Members want to intervene, they can do so. I watched the kids in a London secondary school arriving for school the other day, and it was really apparent from watching them that the expensive thing for their parents was not the uniform, but the expensive branded coats that they were wearing over them. All the fashion brands were on display. I worry that we are missing the pressure that is put on parents to get this stuff when we take out uniforms. It is ironic that the word used in the legislation is “branded” school uniform, when fashion brands—real brands—will fill the space that Ministers are creating by trying to micromanage schools. I will talk about sports teams and amendment 91, which I will press to a vote. There is a specific problem here. The explanatory notes to the Bill state that an item of branded uniform will be considered compulsory if a pupil is required to have it “to participate in any lesson, club, activity or event facilitated by the school during that year. This means that it includes items required for PE and sport. This applies whether the lesson, club, event or activity is compulsory or optional (i.e. even if an activity is optional, if a pupil requires a branded item of uniform to participate”, it will count towards the cap. It is clear that that means that if there is a sports team and it has a kit, that would count towards one of the three branded items. The explanatory notes make that absolutely clear. If there is more than one school team, the problem is even worse. If a school had a sports team for athletics, rugby, swimming, football or whatever it might be, pupils would use up the entire limit of items doing that. This is effectively as good as a national ban on having school sports team kits. This is micromanagement gone wrong.
- In schools I taught in, sports kits belong to the school — they are washed and given out for each match so that all children, regardless of background, can represent their school. That arrangement already solves the problem the hon. Member describes.
Having taught in schools and had schools sports teams, we have kits within the school. When pupils represent their school teams, the kits are washed and given out to the children, because that means that all children get a chance to participate. Schools might not have the same football or rugby team. Those kits belong to the school and are taken in and washed, so it does not stop children of all abilities and backgrounds representing their school.
- Two problems with that. First, the clause uses the words "to have" — the fact that kits are school-owned and loaned does not help unless the Government accept amendments 29 and 30 to change "have" to "buy". Second, and more importantly, the hon. Lady has just made a huge implicit funding commitment: every school must now buy and launder a full set of kits for every sport. I welcome the commitment, but it has not come with any money. Amendment 31 also corrects what I believe is a drafting error — without it, if a child loses or grows out of a branded item, the school cannot require it to be replaced during the school year, making uniform policy unenforceable. New clause 25 points to a better approach: 70% of schools already offer second-hand uniform; let us build on what works.
That is another hugely helpful intervention, because it lets me say two things. First, the clause as drafted does not help, because it uses the words “to have”. Unless the Government accept our amendments, the fact that the kits are being given does not make any difference, because the legislation does not say that. Secondly, there is an implicit assumption in the hon. Lady’s intervention that all schools will, from now on, have to pay for all this themselves. It is generous of her to make the huge funding commitment to schools that she has just mentioned, but unfortunately I do not think that the Ministers have come up with the money to do what she says. We know why there are school sports teams. We do not expect English, Scottish or Welsh football teams to have a single kit. There is a reason why teams have a kit, yet that will effectively be banned by the clause. Amendment 91, which I will press to a vote, would exempt school sports teams. The DFE’s current suggestion on what schools should do in this situation is to give pupils kit, as the hon. Member for Portsmouth North said, but even that would not work under the clause unless the Government accept amendments 29 and 30. We have also tabled the amendments because the Bill as drafted potentially bans schools from asking children to wear “more than three” compulsory branded items even if the school has provided them for free, which is obviously bizarre. That is why our amendment would change “have” to “buy”. That brings me to amendment 31, which is a practical one to correct what I think is a drafting error. At the moment, if a child grows out of, or loses, or damages a branded item, then parents will not have to replace that item within the academic year because the Bill says that they cannot be asked to “have more than three” items during a school year. If schools are allowed to require three branded items, then they should obviously be allowed to require that those items are replaced otherwise, effectively, u…
- As a former teacher and parent of three sons who went to different schools and could not share uniform, I am really pleased to see Clause 23. The Children's Commissioner's Big Ambition conversation heard this from children; the BBC survey showed senior teachers helping parents buy uniform and donating it from their own pockets — that is the reality of the hardship families face. The Children's Society describes this clause as "practical and effective", not red tape. It does not stop schools setting a colour or standard; it stops uniform costing the earth. Parents have emailed me describing buying one item now and one next pay day — meaning their child wears uniform that is too big, or wears out hand-me-downs. This clause gives children dignity in school, and we know that confidence in how they look helps them engage with learning.
While I have the utmost respect for the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston, I want to draw his attention to the real world of parents, the cost of uniforms, the impact of negativity on pupils. As a former teacher and a parent of three lads who did not all go to the same school, so could not always have their clothes passed down, I am really pleased to see clause 23. We have heard from the Children’s Commissioner that this is an issue for so many children, through her big ambition conversation on behalf of children. We also see a BBC survey that notes how senior teachers, and I have been one of these, have helped parents buy uniform and have provided school uniform. That is done by so many staff in our schools across the country and it also shows the cost of the hardship that parents and families are under. The Children’s Society also note in their support that this is “practical and effective”. They do not see it as red tape, as lines being drawn, or as schools being held to account. They actually see it as a real, practical and effective way to help children and to help parents afford uniform. It does not stop schools stipulating a school colour or a standard of uniform, relating to their own uniform policy. It stops uniforms costing the earth. Many parents have emailed me, and one parent said that they stagger the cost of uniform across the year—buying one now and getting another next time, when they get paid. That leaves children—I am guilty of it myself— wearing uniforms that are too big, and that they never grow into. Or worse still, if the uniform is passed down, it might be worn out because siblings have worn it, or a cousin has worn it, or a neighbour has worn it before donating it to the kids. The clause stops children feeling self-conscious and really uncomfortable in school. It gives them a sense of dignity while they are in their school place and—we all know— if they feel pride in who they are and feel confident, it helps with learning and wit…
- Does my hon. Friend agree that this clause opens up options for parents so they can have more affordable choices and actually save money, rather than being forced to choose between branded uniform and expensive fashion brands?
Does my hon. Friend agree that what has been presented suggests that families must choose between branded uniform and fashion brands? Does this clause open up options for parents so that they can have more affordable uniform for their children and save the family money?
- Absolutely — and it does not stop schools running their own uniform recycling, which many already do. A shout-out to Penelope Ann, the only family-owned uniform shop in Portsmouth, which works with schools to offer the best possible price.
Absolutely, and it does not stop schools also having their own recycling for uniform, which many, many do. I will give a mention to the fabulous Penelope Ann, the only family owned uniform shop we have in Portsmouth, which works with schools to offer the best cost price they can on blazers and other uniform pieces to everyone across the city, allowing parents to top up, whether they want to buy trousers in that shop, or a supermarket, or go to another place to buy the extra uniform. In reality, three pieces of uniform could be a PE T-shirt, a book bag, and a school jumper. Those are three things that it could be, and that every child would be able to have. If they are in secondary school, it could be a blazer. It is on us to make sure. We have to check that schools are working with this. For example, Penelope Ann could offer schools a mark-up price on that blazer. It may well be that one school says, “No, thank you,” but that other schools do mark it up. It is for us to check and make sure that the reality is that every single child can wear a piece of uniform and feel part of their school. In short, it is common sense. It makes uniforms affordable for all kids and it is what parents and children have been asking for.
- We all share the objective of reducing uniform costs — that is why we made the guidance statutory. But it is utterly extraordinary to write this level of detail about uniform policy into primary legislation rather than updating secondary legislation that can be more easily revised. Throughout this Committee we have been told important matters will come back in delegated legislation; why is item-counting in school uniform different?
We all share the objective of trying to keep costs down and reduce costs where possible. That is why we have guidance to schools on school uniform costs and why that guidance became statutory guidance. It is utterly extraordinary to talk about writing this level of detail about uniform policy into primary legislation. In our previous days’ discussions on the Bill, we have said we will come back to all manner of really important things in delegated legislation, which can be more easily updated. For some reason, this measure needs to be written into an Act of Parliament.
- The previous Government did take steps on uniform but they obviously were not working — parents are still paying extortionate amounts. We need to look at what is going wrong; this is a practical way to help.
The previous Government did take steps on uniform, but they are obviously not working, because parents are paying extortionate amounts of money for uniform. We need to look at what is going wrong. This is a way to help support parents.
- The statutory guidance already says schools must ensure uniform is affordable, keep branded items to a minimum, avoid single-supplier contracts or re-tender every five years, make second-hand uniform available, and engage parents and pupils when developing uniform policy. That sounds like comprehensive guidance. Unlike the clause, it addresses the whole cost of kitting out a child, not just the item count.
If the Chair will indulge me, I will just read a brief extract of the statutory guidance: “Parents should not have to think about the cost of a school uniform when choosing which school(s) to apply for. Therefore, schools need to ensure that their uniform is affordable. In considering cost, schools will need to think about the total cost of school uniforms, taking into account all items of uniform or clothing parents will need to provide… Schools should keep the use of branded items to a minimum. Single supplier contracts should be avoided unless regular tendering competitions are run…This contract should be retendered at least every 5 years. Schools should ensure that second-hand uniforms are available for parents to acquire”— and that information needs to be readily available, and schools should “engage with parents and pupils when they are developing their school uniform policy.”
- What does "minimum" actually mean in that guidance — 10 items, five, 20?
I wonder about the word “minimum”. What is minimum? Is it 10 items, five items, 20 items?
- The guidance trusts headteachers to make that judgement — which is precisely the point. It is statutory guidance, meaning schools must have regard to every element of it. That is a meaningful obligation; it just does not attempt to dictate a number.
What the guidance is saying to a headteacher is, “We trust you to be able to make judgements.” By the way, the Department gives guidance to schools on all manner of things, within which schools then make judgements on what is right, but it is statutory guidance, which means they have to have regard to every element in it. I think it sounds like pretty good guidance. It is comprehensive. Unlike the clause that will become part of an Act of Parliament, it does not just focus on one aspect of cost. It talks about all the aspects.
- This provision would not be in the Bill if the guidance were working. What monitoring and tracking has actually been done of schools' compliance with the statutory guidance? Parents are still being charged £100 for a blazer.
The provision would not be in the Bill if the guidance was working. I have already made this comment. What tracking and monitoring has been done of the statutory guidance? It is obviously not working. We hear from parents who are being charged £100 for a blazer, or a rugby top, which has been mentioned—some of those are £50.
- With respect, there is nothing in this Bill to stop someone being charged £100 for a blazer — that is exactly my point. Clause 23 homes in on the number of branded items and ignores every other aspect of cost. The DfE's own 2023 survey found parents twice as likely to report that their school facilitates second-hand uniform purchase compared with 2014 — so something has been improving. The clause also uses the word "branded" to cover anything available only from particular suppliers — including plain coloured items with no logo — which is considerably broader than the lay reader would expect. Primary schools get three branded items; secondary schools get four if one is a tie. Why do primary schools not get a tie at all? I put down a written question and was told most primaries do not have one — but why should the minority that do be banned? On grandfathering: does the cap apply to pupils already in school the moment the Act commences, or only to new entrants? If existing pupils are caught immediately, they could refuse to comply with their school's existing uniform policy. On optional items: if a school says a branded woolly hat is optional but preferred, does that count toward the cap? On replacement: I presume the "school year" wording does not mean one cannot replace a lost item, but that needs to be confirmed — and the craziness of needing to confirm it in primary legislation rather than guidance is itself the point.
With deep respect, and I absolutely acknowledge the experience that the hon. Lady brings to the subject, there is nothing in the Bill to stop someone being charged £100 for a blazer. That is my point. It homes in on one aspect of the cost of kitting out a child to go to school and ignores the others. I think the advice is good, and I wonder what makes the Government think that they can come up with a better formulation than trusting individual schools to make that decision—why they think they can come up with something that is going to work for 22,000 schools. The hon. Lady says it obviously is not working. In the most recent school uniform survey done by the DFE in 2023, parents and carers were significantly more likely—twice as likely—to report that their school facilitated purchase of second-hand uniform. It had been 32% of parents, but now it is up to 65%. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston covered how the text as laid out in the Bill uses the word “branded”, but that includes not only where there is a school name or logo but if “as a result of its colour, design, fabric or other distinctive characteristic, it is only available from particular suppliers.” It covers rather more items than the lay reader might expect when talking about branded items. There will be a maximum of three branded items in primary school, and four in secondary school if the fourth is a tie. What have the Government got against ties in primary schools? I put down a written parliamentary question on that, and I got an answer back that explained that the vast majority of primary schools do not have a tie. That is true—but some do. Why is it that Ministers sitting in Sanctuary Buildings think that because most do not have a tie, no one should be allowed to have a tie in year 6? My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston already asked, and it is also in the amendment in his name, why the Bill specifies one cannot have more than three branded items, ra…