It is for the governing body to determine a school’s uniform policy, but the Department has issued best practice guidance for all schools on the need to give high priority to the consideration of cost for parents. The guidance is available at: www.gov.uk/government/publications/school-uniform.

The guidance emphasises the importance of ensuring that uniform is widely available and affordable for parents. It sets out that governing bodies should be able to demonstrate that they have obtained the best value for money from suppliers, and that any savings negotiated with suppliers should be passed on to parents wherever possible. It also makes clear that compulsory branded items should be kept to a minimum; and that schools should avoid frequent changes to the uniform.

Local authorities and academies have discretion within their budgets to provide school clothing grants or offer other help with the cost of school clothing in cases of financial hardship.

In November 2014 the Chancellor and the Business Secretary launched ‘A better deal: Boosting competition to bring down bills for families and firms’ which set out concrete steps the Government is taking to secure rising living standards and create competitive business conditions for firms. This included tackling the cost of school uniforms. The Government wants to ensure that effective competition is used to drive better value for money and will therefore put existing best practice guidance for school uniform supply in England on a statutory footing. This will ensure that schools deliver the best value for parents by avoiding exclusivity arrangements unless regular competitions for suppliers are run.

It is for the governing body to determine a school’s uniform policy, but the Department has issued best practice guidance for all schools on the need to give high priority to the consideration of cost for parents. The guidance is available at: www.gov.uk/government/publications/school-uniform.

The guidance emphasises the importance of ensuring that uniform is widely available and affordable for parents. It sets out that governing bodies should be able to demonstrate that they have obtained the best value for money from suppliers, and that any savings negotiated with suppliers should be passed on to parents wherever possible. It also makes clear that compulsory branded items should be kept to a minimum; and that schools should avoid frequent changes to the uniform.

Local authorities and academies have discretion within their budgets to provide school clothing grants or offer other help with the cost of school clothing in cases of financial hardship.

In November 2014 the Chancellor and the Business Secretary launched ‘A better deal: Boosting competition to bring down bills for families and firms’ which set out concrete steps the Government is taking to secure rising living standards and create competitive business conditions for firms. This included tackling the cost of school uniforms. The Government wants to ensure that effective competition is used to drive better value for money and will therefore put existing best practice guidance for school uniform supply in England on a statutory footing. This will ensure that schools deliver the best value for parents by avoiding exclusivity arrangements unless regular competitions for suppliers are run.

The Department first published Uniforms and Work wear: An evidence base for developing local policy in 2007, with an update to this guidance published in March 2010. A copy of this document is attached.

The guidance was informed by two extensive literature reviews conducted by Thames Valley University and by practical research on washing uniform fabrics carried out at University College Hospital. Whilst there is a theoretical risk, this work‎ supported the conclusion that there was no evidence that uniforms and workwear played a direct role in spreading infection.

Nonetheless, the clothes that staff wear should facilitate good practice and minimise any risk to patients. Public attitudes and perceptions indicate that it is good practice for staff either to change at work or to cover their uniforms as they travel to and from work. Changing into and out of uniforms at work is included as a good practice example in the guidance.

The department has issued best practice guidance for all schools on the need to give high priority to the consideration of cost for parents. The guidance sets out that governing bodies should be able to demonstrate that they have obtained the best value for money from suppliers, and that any savings negotiated with suppliers should be passed on to parents wherever possible. It also makes clear that schools should not enter into cash back arrangements.

We have recently announced that we intend to put school uniform guidance on a statutory footing. The school uniform guidance is available at: www.gov.uk/government/publications/school-uniform

I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 27 November 2014 to Question 215763.

On joining and for deployments, Royal Marines are issued with the uniform and equipment required for their role and specific tasking.

Officers, unlike Other Ranks, are required to pay for the maintenance of their uniforms for which Income Tax relief is provided automatically via salary.

The Ministry of Defence (MOD) does not buy bear pelts; it buys ceremonial caps direct from suppliers who source pelts from animals culled as part of a programme to manage the wild population licensed by the Canadian government. Animal welfare standards relating to the bear cull are a matter for the Canadian government.

The MOD also purchases coney skin (rabbit fur) for the Royal Engineers’ and Royal Signals’ busby and fox fur for the Royal Horse Artillery, Kings Troop Officers’ busby. The current contract requires a commitment to sustainable procurement.

Depending on usage and maintenance, bearskin busbys can last for up to 50 years. The coney skin and fox fur busbys have indefinite lifespans if properly maintained.

All figures are rounded to the nearest pound.

Historically the MOD has undertaken a number of trials on synthetic alternatives to bear skin but none of these matched the properties of the natural material. No trialling has taken place since 2007. Information about costs of these trials is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. In 2012 the Ministry of Defence loaned a sample bearskin to the animal rights organisation, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, to aid its research and development programme on a synthetic alternative.

There has been no research and development carried out to find a synthetic alternative to coney skin or fox fur.

The Ministry of Defence (MOD) does not buy bear pelts; it buys ceremonial caps direct from suppliers who source pelts from animals culled as part of a programme to manage the wild population licensed by the Canadian government. Animal welfare standards relating to the bear cull are a matter for the Canadian government.

The MOD also purchases coney skin (rabbit fur) for the Royal Engineers’ and Royal Signals’ busby and fox fur for the Royal Horse Artillery, Kings Troop Officers’ busby. The current contract requires a commitment to sustainable procurement.

Depending on usage and maintenance, bearskin busbys can last for up to 50 years. The coney skin and fox fur busbys have indefinite lifespans if properly maintained.

All figures are rounded to the nearest pound.

Historically the MOD has undertaken a number of trials on synthetic alternatives to bear skin but none of these matched the properties of the natural material. No trialling has taken place since 2007. Information about costs of these trials is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. In 2012 the Ministry of Defence loaned a sample bearskin to the animal rights organisation, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, to aid its research and development programme on a synthetic alternative.

There has been no research and development carried out to find a synthetic alternative to coney skin or fox fur.

The Ministry of Defence (MOD) does not buy bear pelts; it buys ceremonial caps direct from suppliers who source pelts from animals culled as part of a programme to manage the wild population licensed by the Canadian government. Animal welfare standards relating to the bear cull are a matter for the Canadian government.

The MOD also purchases coney skin (rabbit fur) for the Royal Engineers’ and Royal Signals’ busby and fox fur for the Royal Horse Artillery, Kings Troop Officers’ busby. The current contract requires a commitment to sustainable procurement.

Depending on usage and maintenance, bearskin busbys can last for up to 50 years. The coney skin and fox fur busbys have indefinite lifespans if properly maintained.

All figures are rounded to the nearest pound.

Historically the MOD has undertaken a number of trials on synthetic alternatives to bear skin but none of these matched the properties of the natural material. No trialling has taken place since 2007. Information about costs of these trials is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. In 2012 the Ministry of Defence loaned a sample bearskin to the animal rights organisation, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, to aid its research and development programme on a synthetic alternative.

There has been no research and development carried out to find a synthetic alternative to coney skin or fox fur.

The Ministry of Defence (MOD) does not buy bear pelts; it buys ceremonial caps direct from suppliers who source pelts from animals culled as part of a programme to manage the wild population licensed by the Canadian government. Animal welfare standards relating to the bear cull are a matter for the Canadian government.

The MOD also purchases coney skin (rabbit fur) for the Royal Engineers’ and Royal Signals’ busby and fox fur for the Royal Horse Artillery, Kings Troop Officers’ busby. The current contract requires a commitment to sustainable procurement.

Depending on usage and maintenance, bearskin busbys can last for up to 50 years. The coney skin and fox fur busbys have indefinite lifespans if properly maintained.

All figures are rounded to the nearest pound.

Historically the MOD has undertaken a number of trials on synthetic alternatives to bear skin but none of these matched the properties of the natural material. No trialling has taken place since 2007. Information about costs of these trials is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. In 2012 the Ministry of Defence loaned a sample bearskin to the animal rights organisation, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, to aid its research and development programme on a synthetic alternative.

There has been no research and development carried out to find a synthetic alternative to coney skin or fox fur.

The Ministry of Defence (MOD) does not buy bear pelts; it buys ceremonial caps direct from suppliers who source pelts from animals culled as part of a programme to manage the wild population licensed by the Canadian government. Animal welfare standards relating to the bear cull are a matter for the Canadian government.

The MOD also purchases coney skin (rabbit fur) for the Royal Engineers’ and Royal Signals’ busby and fox fur for the Royal Horse Artillery, Kings Troop Officers’ busby. The current contract requires a commitment to sustainable procurement.

Depending on usage and maintenance, bearskin busbys can last for up to 50 years. The coney skin and fox fur busbys have indefinite lifespans if properly maintained.

All figures are rounded to the nearest pound.

Historically the MOD has undertaken a number of trials on synthetic alternatives to bear skin but none of these matched the properties of the natural material. No trialling has taken place since 2007. Information about costs of these trials is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. In 2012 the Ministry of Defence loaned a sample bearskin to the animal rights organisation, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, to aid its research and development programme on a synthetic alternative.

There has been no research and development carried out to find a synthetic alternative to coney skin or fox fur.

We do not collect data on that, but it is an issue for the headteacher and governing body of a school. By law, they have to act reasonably and as a public body.

How many schools require pupils to wear a burqa or jilbab as part of their uniform?

The governing body or academy trust of an individual school is responsible for setting their uniform policy. The Department does not collect information about individual schools’ uniform policies.

Schools must have full regard to their obligations under equalities legislation and act reasonably, fairly and flexibly in the interests of all their children.

I am very happy to look into the individual case, but I am afraid to say that this is about the hon. Gentleman and others yet again putting more barriers in the way of that school dramatically improving. Since 2005—for more than 10 years—that school has been below the national average for five A* to C English and maths GCSEs. It is now an academy and it is sponsored by a trust, which the hon. Gentleman knows has done extremely well for another school, Norwich primary academy, in his constituency. I am happy to look at the individual case, but the hon. Gentleman would do better as the local MP to work with the school to raise the educational attainment of all children.

A number of parents whose children attend the Hewett academy in my constituency have made complaints about the implementation of a new uniform policy. At short notice, parents are being told that they must buy a new, full and costly uniform. Children who do not do so have been forced to attend the learning support unit—what is, in effect, an exclusion room. With limited academy accountability, what can Ministers do better to protect parents who cannot afford such upfront costs from their children being punished?

The Department published a report on 25 June 2015 which examined the changes in the cost of school uniform, for both primary and secondary schools, since 2007. The full report is available on GOV.UK at the following link: www.gov.uk/government/publications/cost-of-school-uniform-2015

Our guidance includes the recommendation that governing bodies ‘consider the cost, the available supply sources and year round availability of the proposed uniform to ensure it is providing best value for money for parents’.