A price cap on school uniforms willl save more money than Labour's flawed logo limits ever could
Money should never dictate a child’s ability to fit in at school, writes Lord Shaffaq Mohammed
Growing up in Sheffield in the 1980s was tough, my father had lost his job in the local steel industry, and we had to rely upon the state to support us.
Listen to this article
The financial burden of attending school was a constant worry for my parents, in particular the cost of school dinners and the many items of clothing required to attend and participate fully in school activities. Therefore, “Free School Meals” and “Free School Clothing” were an absolute lifeline for us, and they allowed me to focus my attention where it was needed to be – on my education.
That support meant I could walk through the school gates looking like everyone else, focusing on my education rather than the clothes on my back. It taught me that while education is a right, the cost of accessing it can be a barrier we must actively dismantle.
The House of Lords took a decisive step toward dismantling that barrier. Peers voted for a Liberal Democrat amendment to introduce a price cap on branded school uniforms, rejecting the government’s well-intentioned but flawed plan to simply count logos.
Our amendment will finally allow schools the freedom to decide their own uniform policy, and not be dictated to by Whitehall.
The government’s original proposal was to limit the quantity of branded items a school could require. On the surface, it sounded reasonable. According to the DfE, the average cost of a secondary school uniform is nearly £280, and an additional £160 for a PE kit. But limiting the number of branded items does nothing to limit the price of those items.
Whether a school mandates three items or ten, there is nothing in the legislation to prevent suppliers from inflating the prices of the remaining items. In fact, we faced the perverse risk that prices could have gone up to protect supplier margins. A parent might have ended up buying fewer logos, but the total receipt would have remained exactly the same.
The amendment passed on Wednesday changes the game. It shifts the focus from quantity to price.
Our amendment gives the Government the flexibility to draft regulations that work in practice, allowing experts to determine how affordability is defined - by what leaves a parent’s bank account, not by an arbitrary number of garments on a list.
Money should never dictate a child’s ability to fit in at school. On Wednesday, the Lords sent that same message to the government. Parents do not pay their bills with "number of items." They pay with pounds and pence. If the Government is prepared to listen, our legislation will finally reflect that reality.
____________________
Shaffaq Mohammed is a Liberal Democrat member of the House of Lords.
LBC Opinion provides a platform for diverse opinions on current affairs and matters of public interest.
The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official LBC position.
To contact us email opinion@lbc.co.uk