I beg to move amendment 87, in clause 23, page 44, leave out lines 22 to 29 and insert—

“(1) The appropriate authority of a relevant school may not require a pupil at the school to have to buy branded items of school uniform for use during a school year which cost more in total to purchase than a specified monetary amount, to be reviewed annually.

(1A) The Secretary of State may by regulations specify the monetary amount that may apply to—

(a) a primary pupil; and

(b) a secondary pupil.”

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendment 7.

Amendment 29, in clause 23, page 44, line 23, leave out “have” and insert “buy”.

This amendment would enable schools to require pupils to wear more than three branded items of school uniform as long as parents have not had to pay for them.

Amendment 59, in clause 23, page 44, line 24, leave out “three” and insert “two”.

Amendment 30, in clause 23, page 44, line 26, leave out “have” and insert “buy”.

This amendment would enable schools to require pupils to wear more than three branded items of school uniform as long as parents have not had to pay for them.

Amendment 60, in clause 23, page 44, line 27, leave out “three” and insert “two”.

Amendment 61, in clause 23, page 44, line 28, leave out from “year” to end of paragraph.

Amendment 31, in clause 23, page 44, line 29, at end insert—

“(1A) The appropriate authority of a school may require a pupil to buy or replace branded items which have been lost or damaged, or which the pupil has grown out of.”

This amendment would enable schools to require pupils to replace lost or damaged branded items.

Amendment 32, in clause 23, page 44, line 40, at end insert—

“except PE kit or other clothing or items required as part of the school’s provision of physical education lessons”.

Amendment 91, in clause 23, page 44, line 40, at end insert

“except items of kit required when representing the school in sporting activities”.

Government amendments 8 to 10.

Clause stand part.

New clause 35—VAT zero-rating for certain items of school uniform—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, make provision for certain items of school uniform to be zero-rated for the purposes of VAT.

(2) For the purposes of this section, ‘certain items of school uniform’ means items of school uniform for pupils up to the age of 16.”

New clause 56—School uniforms: availability of second-hand items—

“(1) The appropriate authority of a relevant school must ensure that second-hand items of school uniform are made available for sale to the parents of pupils or prospective pupils.

(2) Second-hand items of school uniform may be made available for sale so long as the items—

(a) comply with the school’s current uniform requirements;

(b) are in an acceptable condition; and

(c) can be purchased for significantly less than the cost of buying the same item new.

(3) The appropriate authority must make information on the purchase of second-hand items of school uniform easily available on the school’s website.

(4) In this section—

‘the appropriate authority’ means—

(a) in relation to an Academy school, an alternative provision Academy or a non-maintained special school, the proprietor;

(b) in relation to a maintained school, the governing body;

(c) in relation to a pupil referral unit, the local authority;

‘relevant school’ means a school in England which is—

(a) an Academy school;

(b) an alternative provision Academy;

(c) a maintained school within the meaning of section 437(8) of the Education Act 1996;

(d) a non-maintained special school within the meaning of section 337(A) of the Education Act 1996;

(e) a pupil referral unit not established in a hospital.

‘school uniform’ means any bag or clothing required for school or for any lesson, club, activity or event facilitated by the school.

‘second-hand items’ means items of school uniform which have previously been owned by another pupil, subject to subsection (2).”

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 of School and College Leaders expressed the concern on behalf of their members in their written evidence that driving down the number of items and being so prescriptive might have the opposite effect, particularly with PE kit. Children, particularly teenagers subject to peer pressure, might compete to wear more expensive sporting items.

Setting a cap in monetary terms rather than on the number of items, addresses the two issues of overinflation and of over-prescription in legislation. It also has the benefit of being an effective market intervention, because it helps to drive down the costs of suppliers competing for school contracts for schools that want to be able to provide more branded items. That is a much more sensible way of approaching the issue and tackling a problem that we are united in wanting to tackle.

New clause 35 concerns a simple matter of fairness. I cannot understand why the zero rate of VAT applies only on clothing for children up to the age of 14 and that parents have to pay VAT on school uniform for children who are larger or who are over 14. Dare I say it—this is one of the few benefits of Brexit.

Press release!

Press release—there we go! This is a rare benefit of Brexit: we have the freedom to apply a zero rate of VAT on school uniform up to the age of 16. It is a basic issue of fairness. If the Government want to drive down the cost of uniform, this is a simple thing for them to address.

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 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 they were a decade ago, according to the DFE’s own survey. The DFE found that average total expenditure on school uniform overall was down 10% in real terms, compared with 2014.

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?

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.

Looking at the cost of branded items specifically, which is what the Government are in the business of trying to micromanage here, other surveys show that there has been a fall in their real-terms cost of about 25% between 2020 and 2024. The Government, however, are now planning to use complex, primary legislation to micromanage exactly how many items of uniform can be branded or specific. It will become the law of the land that a school

“may not require a primary pupil at the school to have more than three different branded items of school uniform for use during a school year” or

“may not require a secondary pupil at the school to have more than three different branded items of school uniform for use during a school year (or more than four different branded items of school uniform if one of those items is a tie).”

We are about to make that the law of the land. This is micromanagement on steroids. The age of school freedom is clearly over and the age of ministerial micromanagement is back, back, back, as we will see in future clauses.

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.

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 of such restrictions would be PE kit, but uniform PE kit is cheaper than sportswear brands; it is nearly half the price for secondary school kids. I worry that the Government have a sort of tunnel vision here. They want to cut the cost of uniform, but we really want to cut the cost of clothing children overall. The problem is that when we get rid of uniform, particularly PE kit, what will fill the space is often more expensive and worse.

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.

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.

If they drop the book bag, other bags will likely be more expensive. My kids are quite young, so they are not very brand-aware, but we will end up with a request for a branded bag and something more expensive. [Interruption.]

Order.

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.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I would also welcome an intervention from the Ministers if they want to say why this is wrong.

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.

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, uniform policy becomes unenforceable.

Instead of all this backfiring micromanagement, our new clause 25 points toward a different, more effective way to reduce costs for parents. Some 70% of schools already offer second-hand uniforms. Our amendment just aims to get schools doing what many others already are. As the parent of primary school children, I know how much is already passed on from sibling to sibling and from family to family outside school, though that is something that is obviously much less likely to happen with non-uniform items.

Finally, it says in the notes of the Bill that parents can make a complaint to the Department and that

“The department will be able to act when it is found that a school has not complied with the limit”. I feel that Ministers should have better things to do with their time than to try and fail to micromanage schools and determine whether the PE kit at Little Snoddington primary school is compliant. After so many attempts at micromanagement, I just worry that this is going to backfire and the cost in the end to parents is going to be higher.

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 with being able to take part fully in education.

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 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 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 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.

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.”

I wonder about the word “minimum”. What is minimum? Is it 10 items, five items, 20 items?

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.

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 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, rather than require the purchase of more than three. The hon. Member for Portsmouth North outlined a case where the school might decide that a good use of its funds is to provide an item. It might not be sports gear—it might be a book bag—but as currently drafted, the school would not be allowed to do that.

The clause includes the phrase “during a school year”. That is peculiar wording. I do not know of any school that requires the use of uniform outside of the school year, so what is the purpose of that —what is it getting at? I presume that it means that there cannot be a summer uniform and a winter uniform, and not that it means one cannot replace an item part way through the year. First, it would be helpful to know that for sure, and secondly, it highlights again the craziness of writing that level of detail into an Act of Parliament. Schools are already obliged in the statutory guidance to ensure that uniform cost should not be a factor in school choice. Why not trust them to work out how best to do that, rather than have that level of prescription?

The hon. Member for Twickenham also made the point that the cost of uniform is not only about the number of items, but a mix of what the uniform is, the supplier price, the negotiation with suppliers, and the availability of second-hand uniform. Some schools will provide free uniform through a uniform exchange in certain cases. If I had to pick, I would contend that the bigger factor is the availability of second-hand uniform, rather than having one extra item. As I said earlier, many schools now provide that.

I also ask for clarity about optional items. For example, with a woolly hat, a school may say, “You do not have to have a woolly hat, but if you do, it should be a school woolly hat.” I am not clear whether that would be captured by the regulations. On the question of grandfathering, are we saying that from the moment that the Bill becomes an Act, the rules take effect whatever year in school someone is currently in, or are we saying that it applies to new entrants to key stage 1, key stage 2, year 7 or a middle school? If not, does that mean that a pupil already in school could say, “You can’t enforce your existing uniform policy on me”?

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Vicky Foxcroft.)

Adjourned till this day at Two o’clock.