Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Written evidence submitted by Glenn Leech, CEO of Banner Ltd (CWSB128)

Subject: Submission to parliamentary committee considering the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill,

Dear Committee Chair,

I am CEO of the UK’s largest specialist uniform wholesaler and retailer. We manufacture around 6 million garments a year, which are sold to parents / pupils, predominantly in England. We employ just under 500 colleagues in roles all across the country.

It is clear that living standards are under immense pressure due to the rising cost of living. I therefore understand why a new Labour government would seek to reduce the cost of school uniform to parents. And I believe this is achievable, if it is carefully considered and implemented.

However, I believe the government’s proposal in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill to limit the number of branded items to 4 (inclusive of a tie) for secondary schools will have significant unintended consequences that are directly at odds with the overall purpose of the Bill.

Put plainly, I believe the secondary school aspect of the Bill will:

1. Increase pupils’ anxiety regarding what to wear to school, which will impact children’s mental wellbeing and increase truancy.

2. Decrease participation in PE, particularly girls.

3. Drive up the cost of uniform as parents are pressured into buying expensive sports brands.

4. Break down the numerous benefits of uniform, which are widely supported across all political parties and captured well in the opening section of the existing statutory guidance. This will impact pupil behaviour and attainment.

Below, I seek to explain my reasoning behind the above 4 unintended consequences:

1. Increase pupils’ anxiety regarding what to wear to school, which will impact children’s mental wellbeing and increase truancy.

In a 2024 survey of 277 school leaders conducted by The Education Company, 37% of school leaders noticed an increase in truancy on non-uniform days. The increase in truancy is driven by children being concerned about peer pressure regarding their clothing choices.

2. Decrease participation in PE, particularly girls.

In a 2024 survey of 277 school leaders conducted by The Education Company, school leaders advised that PE bottoms and PE midlayers were the 2 categories of garment most likely to be dropped by schools if a cap were introduced.

Unbranded high street alternatives of PE midlayers are not commonly available , so parents will inevitably have to buy major international sports brands such as Nike, Adidas and Under

Armour. Whilst availability of unbranded PE bottoms is better, pupils will want to wear branded versions, again from the major international sports brands.

Those children who don’t have the major international sports brands will be more anxious about what to wear when participating in sport and this will drive down participation, particularly from girls who are more body conscious. They will play truant or find other reasons not to participate.

3. Drive up the cost of uniform as parents are pressured into buying expensive sports. brands

The logic for children asking their parents to buy them major sports brands has been set out above. When compared with the cheapest available major sports brand alternatives, specialist Schoolwear garments are 74% cheaper.

4. Break down the numerous benefits of uniform which are widely supported across all political parties

Uniform ensures all pupils are on a level playing field. In England, pupils from financially disadvantaged backgrounds receive uniform grants from their local authorities which ensure even the poorest pupils look the same and never have to worry about being ridiculed for what they wear. When uniform is no longer uniform, and children have a choice on what to wear at school, peer pressure regarding clothing choices will become the norm.

It is inevitable that the universal benefits of uniform will break down.

There are also a number of other points that I believe are pertinent to consideration of the final detail of the Bill:

Business failures at the expense of supermarkets and international sports brand growth

The impact on children and the total cost of sending children to school should be the primary focus of the review. However, the proposed changes will also cause business failures in the specialist uniform sector and drive sales from independent family run businesses that have served their communities for generations, to supermarkets and major international sports brands.

Flawed financial analysis

The government have recently quoted a £50 a year saving to parents from the proposed change to uniform policy. The Schoolwear Associations has robustly shown that the average cost of compulsory school uniform for a child starting secondary school is £92.35. The sums just don’t add up, as it is inconceivable that uniform sales will more than halve.

Insufficient Consultation

There are many important and highly beneficial aims of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. It is an ambitious Bill and this should be commended. But the Uniform element in isolation is critical to get right. It warrants extensive consultation with Schools, Headteachers, the Schoolwear Association and the Department for Education. This happened when statutory uniform guidance was introduced in 2021 on the back of a Labour Private Members Bill.

Broad consensus in the industry is that the 2021 review led to an effective outcome which has materially lowered the cost of uniform (the real cost of uniform has dropped 25% since the Bill was introduced) as prices to parents have come down and inflation has risen. Labour delivered this change and set up an excellent framework for the future which, based on our data, over 85% of schools are now fully compliant with. We have seen a marked increase in the professionalism and frequency of school tenders for uniform, the price of uniform is now significantly lower, and second hand is ubiquitous – driving choice and further value to parents. If further change is sought to an already improved policy, it should be done through thorough and considered consultation to ensure that the goal is achieved and there are no unintended consequences.

Risk to the provision of uniform to Schools

Sales in the specialist uniform sector have declined markedly since 2021 and businesses are operating on incredibly thin margins as real prices have declined giving much better value to parents. This is a good thing for pupils and the parents who buy their uniforms. The industry has become more competitive and poor businesses have failed. However, the industry simply cannot face another shock, so soon after such material change from the 2021 statutory guidance. And it is a very realistic outcome of the Bill that the industry will fail. This will cause the complete breakdown of uniform as the supermarkets and high street retailers do not, and can not provide the volume, product quality, range and 365 availability commitment that the specialist industry provides. If there is any doubt to the point, please consider why Tesco withdrew from the specialist uniform market and major companies like M&S only provide generic products.

Proposed Alternative Proposal

I recognise that it is unlikely that the government will move away from a proposed cap. It is my strong recommendation, no I implore, that the government is more measured in the way that they apply this cap so that the very real consequences outlined in my submission can be mitigated.

I would strongly recommend that the government set a cap of 5 compulsory items for secondary schools (6 where 1 is a tie). Realistically, this will translate to 3 day wear and 3 PE. This will immediately stop any outlying schools that set more compulsory garments than are genuinely needed for uniform to be effective. Surely, this is what the government is trying to achieve – preventing any school setting an inappropriate uniform policy for their pupils and ensuring that it is enforceable.

It is my judgement that 3 items of daywear and 3 items of PE kit will enable all secondary schools to provide the minimum level of uniform and PE kit that provides maximum benefit and avoids all unintended consequences.

6 items enables schools to specify the following, which comes to a total cost to parents of £92:

· Daywear: a blazer (£32), a jumper (£15), a tie (£5).

· PE Kit: a T-Shirt or Polo (£12), a midlayer (for outdoor PE) (£18) and PE bottoms (£10)

For a typical child who attends school full time, this works out at 46 pence a day.

Consulting meaningfully

The government must consult meaningfully to ensure this critical policy change is done well and doesn’t have significant unintended consequences.

I would welcome the opportunity to discuss this further with any member of the parliamentary committee considering this aspect of the Bill.

Yours sincerely,

Sent via email

Glenn Leech

Chief Executive

January 2025