Calendar An icon of a desk calendar. Cancel An icon of a circle with a diagonal line across. Caret An icon of a block arrow pointing to the right. Email An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of the Facebook "f" mark. Google An icon of the Google "G" mark. Linked In An icon of the Linked In "in" mark. Logout An icon representing logout. Profile An icon that resembles human head and shoulders. Telephone An icon of a traditional telephone receiver. Tick An icon of a tick mark. Is Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes. Is Not Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes with a diagonal line through it. Pause Icon A two-lined pause icon for stopping interactions. Quote Mark A opening quote mark. Quote Mark A closing quote mark. Arrow An icon of an arrow. Folder An icon of a paper folder. Breaking An icon of an exclamation mark on a circular background. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Caret An icon of a caret arrow. Clock An icon of a clock face. Close An icon of the an X shape. Close Icon An icon used to represent where to interact to collapse or dismiss a component Comment An icon of a speech bubble. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Ellipsis An icon of 3 horizontal dots. Envelope An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Home An icon of a house. Instagram An icon of the Instagram logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. Magnifying Glass An icon of a magnifying glass. Search Icon A magnifying glass icon that is used to represent the function of searching. Menu An icon of 3 horizontal lines. Hamburger Menu Icon An icon used to represent a collapsed menu. Next An icon of an arrow pointing to the right. Notice An explanation mark centred inside a circle. Previous An icon of an arrow pointing to the left. Rating An icon of a star. Tag An icon of a tag. Twitter An icon of the Twitter logo. Video Camera An icon of a video camera shape. Speech Bubble Icon A icon displaying a speech bubble WhatsApp An icon of the WhatsApp logo. Information An icon of an information logo. Plus A mathematical 'plus' symbol. Duration An icon indicating Time. Success Tick An icon of a green tick. Success Tick Timeout An icon of a greyed out success tick. Loading Spinner An icon of a loading spinner. Facebook Messenger An icon of the facebook messenger app logo. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Facebook Messenger An icon of the Twitter app logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. WhatsApp Messenger An icon of the Whatsapp messenger app logo. Email An icon of an mail envelope. Copy link A decentered black square over a white square.

Labour’s pledge to limit branded school uniform items ‘will cost parents more’

The Schoolwear Association said further restrictions could also create ‘inequality in school’ (Ben Birchall/PA)
The Schoolwear Association said further restrictions could also create ‘inequality in school’ (Ben Birchall/PA)

Labour’s pledge to limit the number of branded items of school uniform and PE kit will “cost parents more” as children will demand expensive sports brands instead, a schoolwear industry boss has warned.

Matthew Easter, chairman of the Schoolwear Association, said further restrictions on the number of branded items that schools required could create “inequality in school” and drive up costs as young people put pressure on their parents to buy alternative clothing from brands such as Nike or Adidas.

The Labour Party’s manifesto, published ahead of the General Election in a fortnight, has pledged to “bring down the cost of school by limiting the number of branded items of uniform and PE kit that schools can require”.

But Mr Easter from the Schoolwear Association, which represents manufacturers, suppliers and retailers of school uniform, said the policy would have a “negative impact” on schools, parents and pupils.

He also warned that further restrictions would “decimate” the schoolwear industry and a lot of small retailers “would not survive”.

Mr Easter told the PA news agency that Labour’s policy created a number of “unforeseen consequences” as it opened up competition amongst children and reduced the “social levelling” factor which uniform provided.

He said: “We strongly feel that it will result in costing parents more rather than less because of pressure from their children to buy branded items, which are a lot more expensive and don’t last as long as school uniform items.”

Shadow education secretary Bridget Phillipson
Shadow education secretary Bridget Phillipson said uniform costs had ‘rocketed’ (Jordan Pettitt/PA)

Schools have told the association that they are more likely to reduce the number of branded school sportswear items over daywear.

Mr Easter said: “What happens is the kids then pressure their parents to go and buy Nike or Adidas or another fashion sports brand and the cost goes up massively, and then you create inequality in school where some kids have Nike and some kids don’t. There’s the ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’.”

In September, Labour pledged to strengthen existing statutory guidance in an effort to reduce the burden on families struggling with the cost-of-living crisis.

Under proposals, announced by the party at the time, parents would only have to buy a maximum of three branded items of uniform and PE kit.

But this level of detail is not in the Labour Party’s manifesto, which only commits to limiting the number of branded items of uniform and PE kit schools require.

Statutory government guidance on uniforms, which came into effect in autumn 2022, already tells state schools in England to keep branded items to “a minimum” and to limit their use to “low-cost or long-lasting items”.

Mr Easter said some schools had decided to no longer require school branded items for PE following the guidance, but had since reintroduced these items as there were negative consequences.

He told PA: “They realised what they’ve actually done is increased the cost to parents. By giving latitude to go and buy anything, kids say ‘I don’t want to wear that. I’m only going to wear this. My friends wear the Nike product therefore I’m going to wear that as well’.

“The kids almost sort of choose their own ‘uniform’. But it is not the school brand, it is another brand and that introduces all sorts of inequality.

“We are really concerned that further restrictions on the number of branded items as an arbitrary measure could be a major problem for schools.

“In trying to do the right thing of reducing costs to parents, it will actually have the opposite effect because the cost of garments increases, the quality goes down, so you get less use out of them.”

But Jason Elsom, chief executive of charity Parentkind, said it was “ludicrous” to say that school uniforms could not be simplified without the risk of some families buying branded products.

He said: “It’s time to go back to basics so that social levelling can take the form of a well-fed family in a warm home.

“No child will remember the branded sports top they didn’t wear, but they will be scarred by memories of their mum going without food or the long winter evenings freezing in their bedroom.”

Research published by The Children’s Society charity last year found parents were still spending “exorbitant amounts” on school uniforms despite changes introduced to keep costs down.

Parents and carers of secondary school children were paying on average £422 per year on uniforms, and around £287 for primary school children, it found.

Bridget Phillipson, Labour’s shadow education secretary, said: “Costs have rocketed, with uniform prices for secondary school pupils increasing by a quarter in the last three years alone.

“Branded items are driving price rises which are making children poorer not smarter.

“Labour will toughen rules to limit the number of branded items of uniform or PE kit which can be required.”