(2 days, 5 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)
It is good to see so many hon. and right hon. Members present to take part in this important debate on school minibus safety. No family should ever have to question whether their child will return home safely from a school activity. For my constituents Liz and Steve Fitzgerald, that unthinkable fear became a devastating reality. In November 1993, a minibus carrying 14 children was involved in a catastrophic crash on the M40 near Hagley. Twelve children and their teacher lost their lives, and among them was Liz and Steve’s beloved daughter, Claire.
I first met Liz and Steve while campaigning in my by-election in 2023. They bravely shared their story with me and invited me to support their ongoing campaign to make school minibuses safer, so that no child would ever be put at risk while travelling to or from school activities. Since then, I have stood with them in their tireless efforts to improve safety, not just for the children who travel in these vehicles, but for the teachers and staff who are asked to drive them. More than 30 years have now passed since that tragedy, and while important improvements have been made in areas such as seatbelt provision and vehicle construction standards, the underlying regulatory framework that allows teachers to drive minibuses without full professional training remains largely unchanged.
Children’s safety should not be up for debate. This is about reducing risks that we already know can be prevented. It is about asking whether the legal framework that governs the transport of pupils to and from school activities truly matches the weight of that responsibility. Every time a child steps on to a school minibus, parents place their trust in the system that stands behind it. That system must be strong, consistent and—above all—capable of keeping every child safe. At the moment, many of us believe that that system falls short.
The system that governs school minibuses is built around section 19 permits, introduced under the Transport Act 1985. These permits allow not-for-profit organisations, including schools, to run minibuses without holding a full public service vehicle operator’s licence. Under that system, drivers must meet certain basic licensing conditions, but they are not required to hold a full passenger carrying vehicle licence. Nor are they required by law to undertake accredited professional training.
The official guidance, which dates from 2013, states that drivers must be suitably trained and correctly licensed. It even recognises that driving a minibus requires additional skills, and is simply not the same as driving a large car. However, it is guidance, so it is advisory, and there are no checks by the Department for Education or Ofsted on its implementation or use. Schools are encouraged to consider specialist training, but they are not required to do so. At the moment, the guidance is not strong enough to guarantee children’s safety. That is why, alongside Liz and Steve Fitzgerald, and the NASUWT, I have been calling for stronger, clearer regulations to make sure that every child can travel safely, and that teachers and staff are properly trained and supported to carry out that responsibility.
It is also important to understand how and why the framework came about. Section 19 and 22 did not emerge from a careful review of child passenger safety. They were shaped largely by European market rules designed to regulate competition. In other words, the system that we rely on today was driven more by economic considerations than by the safety of schoolchildren. That historical origin has left us with a fragmented and confusing framework.
Private schools that are not charities are treated as commercial operators, and they must hold a full operator’s licence, meet strict financial and safety requirements, appoint a qualified transport manager, and employ fully licensed, professionally trained drivers with regulated hours. That comprehensive legal framework is designed to protect children and ensure accountability. By contrast, many state schools transport children daily under section 19 permits without the same safeguards. They operate largely on guidance rather than law, with no mandatory professional training or oversight. In practice, teachers may drive minibuses at the end of a full teaching day without the protections required of commercial drivers.
That raises simple but troubling questions. Why should a child’s safety depend on the type of school they attend? Why should children in private schools travel under a full safety regime, while children in state schools rely on discretion and good will? I criticise not independent schools, which are complying with the law, but the two-tier system that affords different levels of protection to children—that is unfair and unacceptable.
The inconsistency goes further. Across the UK, standards vary by nation. In Northern Ireland, for example, driving a school minibus without a full D1 licence can be a disciplinary offence. Children’s safety should not depend on postcode, school type or geography. Every child deserves the same standards, protections and assurance that those responsible for their transport are properly trained and accountable.
The Government recently stated before the Transport Committee that they do not wish to relax D1 licence requirements for community minibus drivers, citing road safety concerns. Around one in five candidates fails the D1 test, even after extensive training. That failure rate is a clear indication of the level of skill and competence required to operate such vehicles safely.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
I am concerned that under the current system, someone could fail their test to drive a minibus in a professional setting and it would not stop them from driving one in a school setting, which does not require a D1 licence. Why is that licence not required to drive children to and from school activities? It fundamentally does not make sense. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Sarah Edwards
That is precisely my concern. It does not make sense at all given that failure means an inability to drive safely. We should surely apply the same standards or higher when children are involved.
Under the current school system, a teacher over the age of 21 who holds only a standard category B car licence and has just two years’ driving experience can legally drive a minibus carrying children, without holding a full passenger carrying vehicle licence and without undertaking any mandatory accredited training—so, too, can the individual who has failed their D1 driving test. This creates a stark and troubling inconsistency in the Government’s own stated aims.
In every other context, professional passenger transport is treated as high risk, with rigorous training, testing and regulation designed to protect passengers. Yet the law allows schoolchildren—the most vulnerable passengers, some might argue—to be transported under a system that relies on guidance rather than on statutory safeguards. We must ask ourselves: if the Government recognise the dangers and the skill required to drive a minibus in every other setting, why do they not apply the same standards to those entrusted with the lives of children? The safety of our school pupils should not be left to chance or good will.
Current guidance recognises the dangers of driver fatigue and advises against long journeys after a day of work, but those are only recommendations. In practice, teachers are often expected to drive minibuses at the end of long teaching days. They are responsible for driving larger, more complex vehicles while supervising pupils at the same time. In some cases, they are the only adult on board. That presents serious risks in the event of a breakdown, an emergency or a behavioural incident. This is not about blaming teachers—they are dedicated professionals—but the system places enormous responsibility on them without the professional safeguards that exist in other areas of passenger transport. It is no surprise that growing numbers of teachers are choosing not to drive minibuses, citing stress and concerns about personal liability.
There is also clear confusion and inconsistency in the system. Guidance on section 19 permits has been interpreted in different ways, and some local authorities and academy trusts apply their own requirements that differ from national guidance. That uncertainty does not make children safer. The NASUWT teaching union has described the current regime as “not fit for purpose”, and a 2024 survey found inconsistent compliance with legal requirements and guidance across many schools. In some cases, management is aware of the shortcomings. In others, problems arise because guidance is unclear and training is lacking. Vehicle faults and poor maintenance have been identified, leaving teachers unknowingly responsible for the vehicle’s roadworthiness. The same survey found that 24% of teachers felt pressured to drive a minibus despite feeling unqualified to do so. Although NASUWT guidance is available to teachers, the union ultimately advises staff not to drive minibuses at all, due to the legal, safety and personal liability risks involved.
Concerns have also been raised about the use of lightweight minibuses, which are basically converted vans fitted with seats. Many of these vehicles weigh less than 3.5 tonnes, which allows schools to bypass the training and licensing requirements that would otherwise apply to those who obtained their category B car licence after 1997. In effect, these vehicles have become a cheaper workaround for schools, but that cost saving comes with significant safety compromises: these lightweight minibuses often lack essential features such as side impact protection or full airbag coverage, leaving children and staff more vulnerable in the event of a collision. In practice, gross vehicle weight limits are not always routinely checked before journeys begin. Many teachers are unaware that once they take a vehicle on to the road, they are legally responsible for not only their driving but ensuring that the vehicle is roadworthy and compliant with regulations.
This combination of under-equipped vehicles, insufficient oversight and limited professional training creates a serious safety risk. Teachers can find themselves responsible for dozens of children in a vehicle that is not designed to carry them safely, with no back-up if something goes wrong. The risk is not theoretical; it is a real and present danger that must be addressed. We should not accept a system where cost, convenience or outdated loopholes determine the level of protection that children receive. Every child, in every school, should be transported in a vehicle that meets robust safety standards, driven by someone who is properly trained, and supported by a clear and enforceable legal framework.
The so-called short distance exemption further complicates matters. Section 19 permits assume that journeys will normally take place within a 10-mile radius, except in rural areas, but many schools, including church schools and large multi-academy trusts operating across several counties, regularly travel well beyond that distance for sports fixtures and other activities. When what is meant to be exceptional becomes routine, it is reasonable to ask whether the legal framework is still fit for purpose.
At the same time, parents are often unaware of the regulatory distinctions that underpin school transport. Traditional written consent forms once gave parents a clear understanding of arrangements. Increasing reliance on digital systems means that many parents simply assume that robust, uniform standards are already in place. How many parents have been informed prior to a trip and asked whether they were happy for their child to be driven in a minibus by a teacher or staff member who could not demonstrate the level of training required for professional minibus operators?
Everything that we have heard and considered today makes it clear that the current system is failing both children and staff. We are allowing a two-tier approach to safety, where the protection that a child receives depends on the type of school that they attend. That cannot continue.
Sarah Edwards
I met Ministers from the Department for Transport in May 2025 and from the Department for Education more recently, but the suggested changes are yet to be made. The issue was not mentioned in the Government’s road safety strategy. I have already raised that concern with the Minister, and I am raising it in the House today to provide the detail and substance behind those concerns for the official record.
The road safety strategy sets out excellent ambitions for the protection of road users and cites issues around appropriate licences, which I applaud. I know the Minister is rightly proud of the strategy as a piece of work. I raise the issue of the continued use of permits for school minibus driving precisely because it cuts across the sentiment of the strategy, and I am disappointed that terms like “community transport” or “school minibuses” do not appear in the document at present, despite these inconsistencies being known to Departments.
I ask the Minister to take action about the following suggestions that I will set out. All schools, whether state-funded or independent, must be held to the same safety standards, with best practice an absolute minimum. Section 19 permits for schools should be replaced with statutory regulations, moving from guidance-based advice to enforceable legal standards, and aligning all school minibus operations with road safety priorities rather than simply community exemptions.
The Department for Education should have a list of all associated minibuses that schools use and operate, regardless of whether they are a local authority or an academy trust school. This information should be jointly shared with the Department for Transport, because at present no such information exists, nor does the ability to extract minibus accident data from generic passenger vehicle data, meaning that minibuses are treated in the same way as buses or coaches in Government data. That makes further analysis of the issue difficult.
The professionalisation of school minibus driving must be mandated. All drivers should hold a passenger carrying vehicle licence or D1 qualification in order to operate a school minibus. Every school fleet should be overseen by a transport manager, and drivers must undergo checks on eyesight, health and driving records.
The use of lightweight minibuses must be phased out or banned. Children should travel in vehicles built to proper safety standards, not those chosen to save costs. A national inspection and enforcement regime must be introduced. DVSA inspections should cover all school transport, not just commercial operators, with vehicles and drivers tracked in a centralised, transparent system.
Legal grey areas must be clarified. Government guidance should remove ambiguity around terms such as “volunteer”, “hire or reward” and “non-commercial”, and the guidance must be court-tested and enforceable.
Teacher wellbeing and safety must be protected. Driving duties should not fall to teachers after a full working day. Minibus driving should be recognised as a specialised responsibility in schools, not an informal task. We also believe that transport safety should be included in Ofsted inspections, and the long-term impact of accidents on both pupils and staff, including mental health and trauma, must be taken seriously.
In closing, these are not abstract or minor reforms. They are essential steps to ensure that every child can travel safely to and from school activities, and that the adults entrusted with that responsibility are fully supported, trained and accountable. I think of Liz and Steve Fitzgerald, and the courage it has taken them to turn their personal tragedy into a tireless campaign for safer school transport. Their determination reminds us all why reform cannot wait, because sadly during the time that we have been campaigning together and meeting Ministers, other such tragedies have occurred.
I urge the Government to take steps to close the ambiguity and to further their aims for road safety for all who use them. Our children deserve nothing less than a system that guarantees their safety, values the teachers who transport them and removes the inequalities and risks that underpin the current framework. It is time for decisive action. I thank the Minister for coming here today and I commend this debate to the House.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) on securing a debate on this important subject. I pay tribute to her campaigning. I know that she has shown real determination in working with her constituents, education unions and others on this issue throughout her time in the House.
The minibus collision on the M40 in 1993 was a truly dreadful incident, and my heart goes out to all the parents and families, including Mr and Mrs Fitzgerald, who suffered such an awful loss. We all want to do everything we can to ensure that such an incident never happens again.
Since the tragic crash, many improvements have been made to enhance the safe operation of minibuses, including mandatory seatbelts in minibuses and coaches; a ban on the crew bus where minibuses had two benches facing each other; and improvements to the driver licensing regime. Road safety statistics show an overall decrease in the number of incidents and serious collisions involving minibuses in the last 10 years, but I recognise that there is always more to do. I strongly believe that road safety, and the safety of students, school staff and teachers travelling in minibuses, are extremely important.
I will start by setting out what the Government currently do to support the safe use of permits. The permit system that is set out in the Transport Act 1985 recognises the value of not-for-profit organisations that provide services for community, social and charitable benefit. There are section 22 permits used for community bus services, and the more common section 19 permits. Those permits allow the holder to operate transport services that would otherwise require a full public service vehicle operator licence.
Users of section 19 permits will include schools, but also a wide range of charities and community transport operators that support trips every day across the country, such as dial-a-ride, social club trips or camping trips by youth groups. The permit system was designed because we recognise the value of those activities, and that small, non-profit-making organisations do not always have the capacity of larger, commercial ones.
Driving a minibus usually requires D1 entitlement on a licence, as my hon. Friend said, but a vehicle with a section 19 permit can also be driven by someone with two different types of entitlement. First, prior to 1997, car driving licences came with an automatic form of D1 entitlement. Secondly, there are more limited circumstances in which a minibus can be driven on a car—category B —driving licence. Those circumstances include being 21 or older, having held the licence for at least two years, driving on a voluntary basis where a minibus is being used for social purposes by a non-commercial body, and meeting vehicle weight restrictions.
Even though permits are not a full operator licence, holding them comes with important responsibilities and obligations. Operating and driving minibuses is never to be taken lightly. To support permit holders with their responsibilities, we publish guidance to promote and support the correct and safe use of vehicles operating under permits. That guidance sets out the permit rules and the responsibilities of permit holders, including schools, for ensuring the safe operation of vehicles. Those responsibilities include vehicle maintenance, for which the guidance sets out recommended arrangements.
The guidance also covers the need to ensure that drivers are correctly trained, have the correct driving licence and take adequate breaks. It notes, for example, that drivers should plan more rest breaks than are set out in the regulations if they do not drive for a living, and that drivers should be given clear, written instructions about their responsibilities covering all aspects of vehicle operation. The guidance further sets out that all drivers should be aware of the risk to passenger safety from driving when tired, and that it is not sensible to start a long trip after a full day’s work, whether that work involves driving or not. I might add that no driver—teacher or otherwise—should ever be put under pressure to drive a minibus.
In addition to the overarching sections 19 and 22 permit guidance, we have specific guidance for schools and local authorities on driving school minibuses. That was published jointly with the Department for Education, and it outlines driving licence entitlements, training, insurance and other legal requirements. It is of course important that all our guidance is as clear, direct and helpful as it can be to end users, and I am always open to hearing about ways in which anyone thinks it could be improved. I also acknowledge the work of the minibus driver awareness scheme—MiDAS—administered by the Community Transport Association and, I understand, used by many schools, in contributing to the improved safety of minibus drivers.
Notwithstanding everything that is currently done to support permit users, my hon. Friend raised important and well-expressed challenges, and they warrant further thought. I acknowledge, for example, her argument about different rules applying to different sorts of schools, and the importance of children being safe regardless of such distinctions. The section 19 permit framework has wide-ranging benefits, but it is right for us to keep challenging ourselves to ensure that the system is striking the correct balance between flexibility and safety. I know that my hon. Friend recently met the Minister for School Standards, and I can commit that Ministers in both Departments will meet to discuss the subject further. I welcome my hon. Friend’s suggestions, and I am sure that they will form the basis of part of that meeting.
The Government take road safety very seriously, as shown by the publication of our road safety strategy last month, which my hon. Friend recognised. The strategy sets out a clear and ambitious path to improve road safety in Great Britain, and its targets include a 70% reduction in the number of children under 16 killed or seriously injured on roads in Great Britain by 2035. As she will know, the strategy also includes measures around safe road users and safe vehicles, and proposes further action in relation to those who drive for work. We plan to develop and launch the national work-related road safety charter later this year, and I will raise with my officials the point that she raised in relation to schools.
I thank my hon. Friend again for her continued interest in, and advocacy on, this very important subject.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I wish all colleagues a peaceful and productive recess in their constituencies and, I hope, some time with their families as well. I look forward to spending time with my nephews, Ali and Aadam, who are superfans of Bad Bunny—they make me listen to his music non-stop, and they are looking forward to teaching me the dance moves next. I am not sure whether that is good or bad.
Question put and agreed to.