School Minibus Safety

Leigh Ingham Excerpts

Thursday 12th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[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.

Road Safety

Leigh Ingham Excerpts

Thursday 5th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) for securing this debate.

Parish councils across my constituency have been raising the alarm on road safety for years. In Bradley, residents and councillors continue to push for a reduction in the speed limit from 30 mph to 20 mph, and for action to stop inappropriate heavy goods vehicle traffic on the really narrow village roads. Despite clear signage, 44-tonne articulated vehicles still pass through regularly, causing severe damage to road surfaces, verges and drainage, worsening potholes and flooding, and creating a real danger to pedestrians, as Members have said throughout this debate.

In Eccleshall and surrounding villages, speeding hotspots are repeatedly raised on routes such as the A519 through Slindon, where multiple accidents occurred in a single summer, and on rural narrow lanes near schools and homes, where there are no pavements at all.

I also want to highlight the experience of one of my constituents, Diana Kynaston, who is a motorbike rider from Stafford. For motorcyclists, potholes and crumbling road edges create a serious threat to life and limb. She has highlighted the route between Doxey and Astonfields industrial estate, where uneven surfaces, deep potholes and damaged corners force sudden manoeuvres and increase the risk of losing control, particularly for learner riders. I have heard reports across the constituency—from Norbury to Cold Meece, and from Bishop’s Offley to Great Bridgeford—about potholes going long unrepaired, and this includes stretches of major roads.

[Adam Jogee]

I am grateful to my other constituency neighbour for giving way—there is a theme about the quality and condition of our roads in Staffordshire. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for setting out the situation in her constituency, and I just want to make it clear that the same situation is also happening in Newcastle- under-Lyme and other parts of north Staffordshire.

[Leigh Ingham]

Something that all Staffordshire MPs have in common is our absolute despair at the state of our roads. The Government have allocated additional funds, which is really important and will make a significant difference to what we can achieve. However, to put it in perspective, Staffordshire is the slowest authority at repairing potholes. If a snail started off in Stafford town centre when a pothole was reported, it will have moved 22 kilometres by the time the pothole is repaired, which is ridiculous.

I ask the Minister what mechanisms the Department has in place to ensure the additional road maintenance funding is being used effectively by councils and is translating into safer, better-maintained roads, and how it supports local authorities to take a joined-up approach to road safety that includes both speed and road maintenance. When funding rises—which I am very grateful for—but safety does not, how can the Minister tackle that in her role?

Road Safety Strategy

Leigh Ingham Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank the hon. Member for the work that he has done to support the Saltern family. It was humbling to meet Mark, Helen and Leanne, and to hear about their work supporting other victims of road traffic collisions. As he knows, we are consulting on strengthening the law around those who fail to stop and report a collision. What happened to Ryan is tragic and I am keen that we act as quickly as possible. Where legislation is required, we will have to wait until parliamentary time is available, but I am determined to act.

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her statement and I welcome the strategy, particularly its focus on speed management. While icy and ungritted roads currently make speeding less of an issue, thanks to the Reform-led county council’s failure to grit roads across large parts of my constituency, excessive speed in our rural villages, such as Chebsey, has long put residents in danger. How will the Minister ensure that rural road segmentation works effectively with local speed limits to reduce dangerous driving in those areas, so that safety is delivered by this Government’s policy and we can get past local or county council failure?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I am sorry to hear about the failure of my hon. Friend’s council to take action that would prevent further collisions. We know that rural roads are more dangerous, and that is why we are determined to take action to support local authorities to introduce measures to make them safer.

Staffordshire: Cultural Contribution

Leigh Ingham Excerpts

Tuesday 29th April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the cultural contribution of Staffordshire.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss, and I thank everyone for their interest in attending this Westminster Hall debate. Staffordshire is a county where culture is carved in clay, sung on local stages and carried proudly in the stories of its people. Its legacy is rich and alive, and today I rise to champion our region and its contribution.

Our future links us to our past, but we are not bound by it. That future speaks to the potential of every single one of Staffordshire’s communities—from Stafford, my proud county town, and the vibrant city of Stoke-on-Trent to the quieter, more rural parts of the county such as Eccleshall, Derrington and Church Eaton. Much like our county symbol, the 15th-century Stafford knot, we are all interlinked.

I secured this debate to celebrate Staffordshire’s legacy and to mark Staffordshire Day on Thursday 1 May, which is another important day to vote Labour and champion our community’s future. The debate is an opportunity to discuss tapping into our heritage, building on our creativity and ensuring that our proud traditions and culture continue to be a force for positive change in Staffordshire and beyond.

Staffordshire is known for many things. It is perhaps best known for its ceramics, which I will leave to my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) and for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) to discuss in detail, and for its brewing, which I am confident that my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) will discuss at great length.

Those are just the most famous examples of Staffordshire’s skilled craftspeople and their impact on our country’s industrial and creative landscape. As a pioneering industrial county, many of our more modern organisations—such as Bostik, which makes adhesives; Perkins, which makes engines; and GE Vernova, which makes transformers—have grown from roots in more traditional work with metal, clay, leather or textiles.

Much of Staffordshire’s history, which is encapsulated in archives, can be found at the new Staffordshire History Centre in my constituency. At that amazing new facility, over a thousand years of Staffordshire’s history have been brought to life in some fascinating displays. The archives include rare items such as Anglo-Saxon charters confirming the foundation of Burton abbey and a letter written on the eve of the American revolution. A key part of the centre’s collection is the rare books and manuscripts collected by William Salt. For anyone looking for more information about Staffordshire’s past after this debate, the centre is a very good place to start.

As a proud county town, Stafford has a key story to tell in Staffordshire’s cultural history, and it echoes through to today. In its town centre, people can stop for coffee and cake at the Soup Kitchen, which dates to the 16th century, enter the historic churches of St Mary’s and St Chad’s, and take in the interior and exterior of the Ancient High House, which is haunted by a ghost called George and is known for being the largest surviving timber-framed townhouse in England. We also have Stafford castle, which has dominated the skyline in Stafford for over 900 years.

As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for theatre, I will also talk about theatres. There is the Stafford Gatehouse theatre, famous for its Shakespeare festival and for its hilarious pantomimes every Christmas, which bring audiences from across the county to Stafford. The Gatehouse also provides a space for actors, artists and writers to hone their craft with its hugely popular youth theatre. I was lucky enough to meet some of those actors, artists and writers last Friday before the opening night of “Carrie: The Musical”.

Across the county, we have other wonderful theatres such as the New Vic in Newcastle. It stands out as a theatre in the round and creates an innovative, immersive style of theatre that makes audiences feel as if they are part of the performance. There are also the Regent theatre and the Garrick theatre, which is in Lichfield. They host productions by flagship companies from around the country.

Of course, theatre is not always confined to traditional stages. The Claybody theatre company is based at the former Spode pottery works in Stoke-on-Trent Central. That is a brilliant example of how our county’s cultural history can inspire its present. Its work is fuelled by the stories of the area, and it regularly integrates members of its community company into its productions alongside professional actors. As well as performing in its current historic home, it uses found spaces such as Fenton town hall, which hosted its production of “The Card”, based on the novel by one of Stoke’s most famous sons, Arnold Bennett.

The connection with our past does not extend just to the theatre. Many of our communities come together to celebrate our history, with the Gnosall canal festival being a really good example. Centred on the historic canal boats, that event tells the stories of the village’s past, while bringing people together for live music, entertainment and more.

I also want to talk about the future. Although our past and heritage are a source of pride, Staffordshire’s culture is far from static. It is living, breathing and evolving every single day. Staffordshire remains a county of skilled tradespeople and of artists, and it is vital that we nurture and develop that talent. We must ensure that arts and culture are part of our everyday lives, because that is where we find connection, community and identity.

Last weekend, I spoke with Johny Todd, whose business in Woodings Yard Studios stands as a proud reminder of Stafford’s history in the leather industry. We discussed how artists today face many challenges and the opportunity that this Labour Government have to support our creative industries as a way of building community and supporting our local economies.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for putting such a shine on Staffordshire, and she is right about the creative industries. It is important that those skills of our forefathers—our grandfathers and fathers—are passed on, but I feel that they are being lost. Does she agree that the Government should step in to ensure that a training system is in place so that those skills are not lost?

--- Later in debate ---

[Leigh Ingham]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point: it is important to pass that skilled heritage on to new generations. That is exactly what Johny was talking to me about at the weekend—making sure that artists have the spaces to develop those skills, because without those spaces, as the hon. Gentleman says, the skills would be lost. We must continue to support the creation of new spaces, new opportunities and new partnerships that can nurture the next generation of artists, performers and thinkers.

Finally, I want to mention Newcastle and Stafford Colleges Group, which is based in my constituency as well as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee). It is rated outstanding and is crucial to our local talent pipeline; Members will know how often I raise its excellent work for all our constituents. Very recently, I celebrated the news that Stafford college has been allocated £2.6 million of funding by the Government, which will be used to restore its Tenterbanks building in Stafford town centre. As I mentioned, we must look not only to our history but to our future, and it is by investing in our young people and restoring the crumbling buildings in which they will be doing their learning that we will build their future.

We have an opportunity to build on the strengths of Staffordshire’s past and invest in our cultural infrastructure for generations to come. I urge the Minister to stand behind our county, believe in our culture and invest in it.

[Gill Furniss (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Leigh Ingham]

I thank all Members for attending and participating in this debate. I did not know everything about all their constituencies, so it was wonderful to hear about them.

I thank the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner), for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury), for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee), for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) and for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier), and the right hon. Members for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley), and for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson).

We are missing only two MPs, so today we have had great representation for Staffordshire from across the county. I think we have represented well the breadth of what is taking place, and our optimism for the future—for investing in our creative sector and our creative industries—has come through clearly. It is important that we nurture that talent and ensure that those of us based outside London, who have creative hubs in our constituencies, are able to cultivate it.

I thank the Minister for her response, and I appreciate the further responses she will provide. As I said, 1 May is Staffordshire Day—a day to celebrate. There are lots of things to do that day across Staffordshire, including going to the polling station. Thank you very much, everyone.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the cultural contribution of Staffordshire.

Public Spending: Inheritance

Leigh Ingham Excerpts

Monday 29th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

I have done more in three and a half weeks to get a grip of our public finances than the previous Government did in 14 years. I have worked these last three and a half weeks to get a grip of the public finances and to understand the true extent and scale of the challenge. We have pulled this together over the last three weeks, and at the weekend we were able to produce the document showing the £22 billion gap between what the previous Government were spending and what they had budgeted for.

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

It is clear now that even the OBR, whose express purpose is to provide independent analysis of the public finances, was simply not told about the black hole in Conservative spending plans. What will the Chancellor do differently to ensure that we never end up in such a position again?

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. In the letter that the Office for Budget Responsibility published this afternoon, the Chair said,

“I welcome the important actions announced today by HM Treasury to improve the transparency and credibility of their institutional arrangements for forecasting, planning, and controlling DEL.”

That is really important. By taking these actions, we will ensure that never again can any Government do what the Conservative party did: cause a £22 billion black hole in our public finances.