School Minibus Safety
Sarah Edwards Excerpts(2 weeks, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate 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.
Business Rates: Retail, Hospitality and Leisure
Sarah Edwards Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dan Tomlinson
I will happily talk further with the hon. Member about any changes that we can make to give councils more powers in relation to the issue he raises. It is not a topic that has crossed my desk before, but I would be happy to receive some correspondence on it.
Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)
Two weeks ago, I held a roundtable for hospitality businesses in Tamworth to discuss the broken business rates system, and I then wrote to the Department about their preferences for support. The rates are crippling, and those businesses asked me to ask the Minister when reform is coming and how they will receive support in the interim, which is essential for my constituency and our businesses.
Dan Tomlinson
I thank my hon. Friend for her question and for the engagement that she has carried out with businesses in her constituency, as a strong representative of the businesses and people of Tamworth. The Government set out some significant reforms in the Budget. We lowered the tax rate that is paid by businesses on our high streets by 5p compared with what it would otherwise have been. That means that the tax rate paid by businesses on our high street is a quarter lower than that paid by the very largest businesses, which can afford higher taxes. That is why we rebalanced the system, transferring £1 billion of extra tax revenue from the largest businesses to high street businesses in my hon. Friend’s constituency and across the country.
Road Safety Strategy
Sarah Edwards Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and happy new year.
Although I welcome the road safety strategy, it sadly ignores school minibus safety, despite my raising this issue with the Department last year. I have been campaigning with my constituents Liz and Steve Fitzgerald since 2023, following the tragic loss of their daughter Claire in a minibus accident. Private schools follow strict O licence rules, yet state schools can use weak section 19 permits. Will the Minister remedy this failing in the law through mandatory national safety standards for all school minibuses?
Lilian Greenwood
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. The Minister for Roads and Buses, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), was listening carefully and will be happy to write to my hon. Friend or meet her to discuss it further.
Oral Answers to Questions
Sarah Edwards Excerpts(9 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Murray
As my hon. Friend will know, spending decisions are for the Chief Secretary of the Treasury to discuss with Departments. I make the general point that investment in mental health, for instance, which she mentioned, is possible only because of the decisions we have taken on taxation to ensure that we can support public spending on mental health services and on support for young people.
Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)
That is absolutely the right question. We all understandably hear calls for higher rates of pension saving, but the prior question is this: how do we ensure that savers get the best bang for their buck for every penny they save? The forthcoming pension schemes Bill will help make that happen, with bigger pension schemes and fewer small pension pots, driving down costs and driving up saving rates for pensioners.
Sarah Edwards
Can the Minister share with me, as chair of the reconstituted all-party parliamentary group on pensions and growth, any plans for how counties that are outside mayoral authorities, such as Staffordshire, could benefit from pension reforms to encourage more investment in the UK, to support infrastructure, jobs and local regeneration?
Torsten Bell
I certainly can. Our reforms to the local government pension scheme will support local investment in every part of England and Wales. Our defence spending plans will be felt on the ground—total defence spending in the west midlands totals £1.6 billion a year. We are building reservoirs again, including one in the west midlands. We are also getting the country trading once again, including businesses in Tamworth, where PI-KEM, a specialist chemical supplier, recently won a major export order, with £100,000 in UK Export Finance support. Britain, and Tamworth, are open for business.
Staffordshire: Cultural Contribution
Sarah Edwards Excerpts(10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) on securing this important debate. This week, we are celebrating Staffordshire Day, which gives us the perfect opportunity to reflect on the cultural contributions of our towns and cities. In my constituency of Tamworth and the villages, we are incredibly proud of our rich heritage—from its origin as the ancient capital of Mercia and the home of the iconic Tamworth castle to its pivotal role in the industrial revolution and the development of the modern midlands. We can all agree that Staffordshire is at the centre of the universe.
Tamworth stands as testament to centuries of resilience, innovation and historic significance. Cultural contributions from arts and heritage in Tamworth and across Staffordshire are essential in shaping our country’s identity, enriching our communities and supporting local economic growth.
As an arts graduate, I am proud that nationally the cultural sector contributed £35 billion to the UK economy in 2023 and supported around 700,000 jobs. I was saddened that under the previous Government, grants for the arts were cut in real terms, which made decisions challenging for arts organisations and cultural places. Despite those challenges, the sector has shown a remarkable resilience. Between 2019 and 2022, the arts and culture sector grew by 5% in real terms, which is more than double the growth rate for the UK economy.
The cultural sector also plays a really important role in promoting community cohesion, education and wellbeing across Staffordshire. In Tamworth, we launched a programme that focused on social cohesion with community-led initiatives, arts projects and educational programmes. Some took place at Tamworth castle alongside Community Together CIC, with heritage-focused workshops and a festival last year celebrating “Athelstan 1100”, which had arts exhibitions, live performances and heritage trails.
In conclusion, let me say how proud I am that Tamworth castle museum was awarded £1.7 million; as a museum, it needs funding to support it and the great work that it does. I am really proud to celebrate Staffordshire Day alongside my colleagues here in the House.
Finance Bill
Sarah Edwards ExcerptsWednesday 27th November 2024
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Finance Act 2025 View all Finance Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dave Doogan
I could not agree more with the hon. Member. That is absolutely right, and I am going to touch on that topic a little later.
We see in clause 75 that the rates of landfill tax are going up by 25%. I wonder what discussions Government Ministers have had with local authorities on the impact of this increase. It would be just like this Government to not have put two and two together and realised that it will be a significant upward pressure on costs for councils.
Clause 78 deals with high-sugar drinks. A public health emergency exists in this country—in this state—and the Government are proposing to increase the tax on high-sugar drinks from 24p per litre to £2.59 per 10 litres. That is scarcely an increase at all. A tax of 24p per litre is going up to 25.9p per litre, an increase of 1.9p per litre. We do not sell sugary drinks in litres, we sell them in 330 ml cans, so that is an increase of 0.6p per can. Are the Government kidding? It is a public health emergency—the clue is in the title. Have they got no ambition at all?
This Bill, and the Budget that led up to it, will impose billions of pounds of tax rises and cuts that will hit working Scots in the pocket. We see our old folk freezing in their houses as a result of this Bill and the Budget that underpins it. As a result of the Bill, young people will be chasing fewer and fewer jobs with lower and lower wages. The CBI said this week that the tax rises in the Budget had sent businesses into “crisis containment” and “damage control”, because this Chancellor’s £40 billion raid on businesses is the single biggest tax increase since Norman Lamont’s in 1993. The Chancellor’s decisions hinge on 2% departmental efficiencies that will never ever be realised—we know this because it has never ever been done—so further cuts are coming down on top of these taxes.
This is pure fiscal poison for communities and businesses across these islands. The Government are inflicting the same pain on the Northern hotel in Brechin, Perthshire Timber and Montrose port as they are inflicting on Nissan and Tesco. I am not implying that it is fine for big business and bad for small business; this is a “one size fits nobody” Finance Bill, and the Budget that goes along with it is the same. The clawback that they are applying to the devolved nations, which the Exchequer Secretary would not speak about earlier, does not come close to meeting the cost of the national insurance increase. There is £300 million of compensation for the Scottish Government, who are facing a £750 million exposure, and that is the nature of what this Government are doing. What of the reward for this fiscal pain? Lower growth in the economy, lower profits, increased debt, lower investment, lower wages, falling output, capital flight and the risk of default as the ultimate conclusion. It is almost as though the Chancellor has forgotten that her job is to run the economy, not ruin the economy.
This would be a matter for separate debate—I know that, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I do not want to test your patience—but the raid on employer’s national insurance will devastate small businesses, charities and the care sector. It will cost Scottish public services—the public sector with direct employees in Scotland— £600 million, and when we include the partner agencies working with our NHS and our care services, that figure will be very much higher. Supermarkets and other retailers have also said that the inevitable result of the Chancellor’s changes will be higher prices for consumers. The Government make great play about not raising taxes, but it amounts to the same thing when wages are suppressed and prices are going up.
As the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) mentioned, the duty on Scotch whisky has been hiked in this Bill, which the industry has called an “indefensible tax grab”. This was despite Labour’s leader in Scotland—for Labour Members’ interest, he is a gentleman called Anas Sarwar—claiming that he spoke to the Chancellor about it. I would be very interested to know about that conversation, but perhaps it was: “Is it okay if I hike up duties, Anas?” with the reply, “Yes, no bother, Chancellor. You carry on.”
One of the glaring omissions in the Bill is any provision for the WASPI women. It is of course welcome that the Budget will address the great impositions put on people affected by the infected blood scandal and on postmasters. However, those were caused by the Post Office, or the NHS and others, whereas the WASPI women issue was caused by the UK Government. That great tragedy was caused by the Government, yet it is the one that is not addressed in this Bill or in the broader Budget.
It is therefore little wonder that polling in Scotland last week showed that 75% of Scots feel they are going to be worse off, or certainly no better off, as a result of the Budget. Since the Chancellor delivered her Budget, supermarkets, farms, pubs and telecom providers have all warned that these decisions will be inflationary.
Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)
Does the hon. Member think it was fiscally responsible for the SNP Finance Secretary to have used all of the £460 million from offshore wind? He has spoken a lot about this Government, but does he think that that was appropriate?
Dave Doogan
To my great regret, I am not entirely sure what the hon. Member is talking about. If she would like, I am very happy to catch up with her afterwards. We can find out exactly what is concerning her, and I will make sure she has all the facts she needs.
Just when mortgage payers thought things were going to stabilise and that the worst of the last UK Government’s fiscal incompetence was over, the major banks have been talking since the Budget about an increase in the rates they are able to offer.
Many hon. Members have talked about what was said before the election, and what has come to pass after it, but during the election the Prime Minister promised that there would be a £300 reduction in energy prices. We have seen that that is not the case, and that energy prices are £149 higher and will go up by £21 in January. There is a £470 honesty tax on energy bills across the United Kingdom as a result of what people were told was going to happen before the election, and what has come to pass at the hands of this Labour Government.
Economy, Welfare and Public Services
Sarah Edwards Excerpts(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)
It is a pleasure to open today’s King’s Speech debate on behalf of His Majesty’s Government. I always enjoy debating with the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt), though I must say I rather prefer doing so from this side of the Chamber. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
I appreciate the shadow Chancellor’s generous words on my appointment and also his tribute to officials, who I can confirm are indeed first rate. It has been more than 14 years since a Labour Government were in office for a state opening of Parliament—14 years of chaos, 14 years of economic irresponsibility, 14 years of wasted opportunities and 14 years since there has been a Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer standing at this Dispatch Box. Today, I pay tribute to my most recent Labour predecessor, the late Lord Darling. He was an outstanding Chancellor, a kind man and a good friend.
Mr Speaker, it is also the very first time that there has been a female Chancellor of the Exchequer. On my arrival at the Treasury, I learned that there is some debate about when the first Chancellor was appointed. It could have been 800 years ago, when one Ralph de Leicester was given the title of “Chancellor of the Exchequer” for the first time, or, 900 years ago, when “Henry the Treasurer” was referenced in the Domesday Book. It could even have been 1,000 years ago, when Alfred the Great was in effect the first Master of the Mint. Whichever it is, I am sure the whole House would agree on one thing—that we have waited far too long for a woman to be the Chancellor of the Exchequer. [HON. MEMBERS: “Hear, hear.”]
I stand here today proud, but also deeply conscious of the responsibility that I now have: a responsibility to women across the country whose work is too often undervalued; and a responsibility to every young woman and girl, who should know that there is no ceiling on their ambitions and no limit on their potential.
Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)
Seven Tory men have stood at that Dispatch Box over the past 14 years and the result has been an economic crisis, crumbling public services and a cost of living crisis. Can we expect a change of approach from the new female Chancellor of the Exchequer?
Rachel Reeves
One thing is that I hope to be in post for a bit longer than some of my predecessors.
As tempting as it is, I do not intend to conduct a full sweep of the past 1,000 years of economic history from the Dispatch Box today—[Hon. Members: “Ah”!] I am sorry. However, we must talk about the past 14 years. I warned that whoever won the general election would inherit the worst set of circumstances since the second world war, and I have seen nothing to change my mind since I arrived at the Treasury. I will update the House on our public spending inheritance before Parliament rises for recess.
I heard what the shadow Chancellor said from the Dispatch Box now and on the television yesterday, which was to claim that I should be grateful for what he has left us. That is unbelievable, because he knows the truth and is now trying to rewrite history. In doing so, he has reminded the British people why the Conservatives lost the election. They are out of touch, deluded and unable to defend the indefensible. In the weeks ahead, it will become clear what those in his party did. They stored up problems, failed to take the tough decisions and then they ran away, leaving it to us—the Labour Government—to pick up the pieces and clear up their mess.
Today, I want to focus on one thing above all else: economic growth. Since 2010, Conservative Chancellor after Conservative Chancellor, including the now shadow Chancellor, stressed the importance of growth. We have had more growth plans than we have had Prime Ministers or Chancellors, and that is quite a lot, but growth requires more than talk; it requires action. Like so much else with the previous Administration, when we scratch beneath the surface the façade crumbles, and all that is left is the evidence of 14 years of failure.
Budget Resolutions
Sarah Edwards Excerpts(1 year, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)
Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to tell you a story about modern Britain, my constituents and how their experiences of a Conservative Government have left them alone. People I know in Tamworth are struggling; they tell me that on a daily basis. This is an issue when we have a Government who are gaslighting the public into thinking that they are better off under the Conservatives, yet the tax burden is the highest for 70 years, wages are lower and public services around them are literally crumbling in a Parliament that will be defined as the worst on record for living standards.
Paul Johnson, the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies said that, come the election, tax revenues will be 3.9% of national income—about £100 million; higher than at the time of the last election. This remains a Parliament of record tax rises. The Treasury’s own figures make it clear that the cut to national insurance will be paid for by years of austerity affecting Government Departments and our already overstretched public services. When the Conservatives’ infamous mini-Budget caused massive damage, crashing the economy and sending mortgage rates soaring and families’ budgets plummeting, they left constituents fearful for the future. Despite working full time, many hard-working people find themselves struggling to make ends meet.
It was a shock recently to attend an event where Conservative-run Tamworth Borough Council claimed there were no homeless people in Tamworth, following the annual snapshot survey taken on one day in autumn 2023. Government data between July and September 2023 showed that the council had assessed that 43 households were homeless and 38 were threatened with homelessness —81 households. According to figures collected by the Tamworth food bank over the last 12 months, 207 users stated they were of no fixed address, and 56 of them were children.
Local charities know that there are people who are homeless in Tamworth. Some are sleeping in their cars, some in local churches, and others are sofa surfing with no fixed abode. For many, the Government’s poor stewardship of our economy has pushed the dream of getting on the housing ladder even further away. I speak daily with parents who still have an adult child living at home because even with good wages and a deposit saved there are no affordable homes in their communities. Of the houses that are being built in Tamworth, many are on the floodplains and therefore at risk when it comes to flooding incidents. The track record is getting worse and worse. The Government have slashed the Environment Agency’s resources by two thirds since 2010 while one in six homes is now at risk of flooding and climate change is on the march.
Where next can I turn in this twisted tale of Conservative failure? To the high streets, where shops, cafés, restaurants and pubs have suffered and where people can no longer sustain the businesses that communities so value. In Tamworth, our high street has received some levelling-up funding. However, the £3 million shortfall following the astronomical rise in inflation is not covered by the Government, yet the time constraint for spending the money remains. This “use it or lose it” attitude has left destruction in its wake. As part of the project, the Peel café—one of our heritage buildings—was knocked down, contrary to requirements to consult on changes to the plans. Our communities are being cut out of conversations around regeneration. Without them, we fail to plan for our future.
Labour offers a review of current business rates that do not support businesses, in an economy that has fallen off the tracks. Speaking of which, my constituency is a graveyard to HS2—£92 billion has been squandered on a badly managed, badly scrutinised HS2 project that could have unlocked financial benefits and higher network capacity across the nation. The Government claim that network speeds will not be impacted, but HS2 trains on Victorian tracks will run slower, meaning fewer trains per hour and decreased network capacity for Tamworth and the nation. The irony is that if the Government had done absolutely nothing and spent no money at all on rail infrastructure, we would be in a better position than we are today.
Let me turn to the tragedy of our public services, which are at breaking point and decimated after years of austerity. After 14 years of the Tory Government, more than 90% of crimes are going unsolved, meaning that the criminals are less than half as likely to be caught now than when Labour was in government. Tamworth no longer has a police station at which to report crime. One in seven people in England is on an NHS waiting list. More than ever before, people have put their lives on hold while they wait in pain and discomfort for months, even years. Such a tale I have had to tell of an utterly let down country, often left to pick up the pieces. Ordinary working people, families and pensioners see little to celebrate. We need a Labour Government. We need Labour’s plan. This Budget is nonsense.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
This Budget was the last gasp of a dying, desperate Government. It did nothing to address 14 years of Conservative economic failure and, as always with this Government, it is working people who pay the price.
Many Opposition Members have made powerful contributions to today’s debate, and I apologise for not being able to mention every single one. However, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), who said it was his last ever Budget speech today.
The British people are struggling with the highest tax burden in 70 years, and they still face further tax rises over the next five years—a point that was powerfully made by my hon. Friends the Members for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) and for Newport West (Ruth Jones). Food prices are still 25% higher than they were two years ago. Rents are up by 10%, and a typical family will pay an extra £240 a month when remortgaging this year. Nothing the Chancellor said in last week’s Budget changes that. As much as he tries, he cannot hide from his Government’s record: 14 years of low investment, stagnant wages and poor productivity, the country in recession, wrecked public finances and an economy crippled by debt. The Chancellor tried to wash away the realities last week, but families in our constituencies cannot do the same. People feel worse off under the Conservatives because they are worse off.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) focused on, the Office for Budget Responsibility—not us—has now confirmed that this will be the worst Parliament on record for living standards. Let me repeat that, because it is worth repeating: this will be the worst Parliament on record for living standards. It is the only Parliament on record in which living standards have fallen. Real pay has gone up by just £17 a week over almost a decade and a half of this Conservative Government. When the Labour party was last in power, wages rose by £183 a week over 13 years. After 14 years of Conservative rule, people have less money in their pockets.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin) touched on, the latest ONS figures show seven consecutive quarters of falling GDP per capita from the start of 2022. This is the longest period of economic stagnation in this country since the 1950s, and now, under this Prime Minister and this Chancellor, the country has fallen into recession. Government debt has almost tripled under the Conservatives from £1 trillion to just under £2.6 trillion.
Did last week’s Budget give the British people or British businesses any hope that the Government could turn things around? Absolutely not. Household disposable income is set to fall by £200 per person over the course of this Parliament. Real GDP per capita is expected to be lower at the end of this year than it was at the start of this Parliament, and borrowing has been revised up in the next five years of the forecast period. The Institute of Directors described the Chancellor’s efforts as an “unremarkable Budget for business”, and the British Retail Consortium has said that it
“will do nothing to turbo charge investment and growth in communities”.
This was a failed Budget from a failing Government.
Sarah Edwards
Does my hon. Friend agree that this Conservative Budget has confirmed that the next Government will receive the worst economic inheritance since the second world war? Does she agree that the Tories should listen to our constituents, call a general election now and stop taking a wrecking ball to the economy on their way out the door? [Interruption.]
Tulip Siddiq
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. Those on the Conservative Benches do not want to hear it, but if they have so much confidence in their record, why do they not do as she asks, call a general election and put a test to the public?
Unable to defend his own Government’s records and unable to offer any plan to get the country out of the economic mess that his party created, this Chancellor has resorted to undeliverable promises. When we thought things could not get any worse, the Chancellor bizarrely ended his Budget last week with a £46 billion unfunded tax plan to abolish national insurance. This would leave a gaping hole in the public finances, put family finances at risk and create huge uncertainty for our pensioners. This is even bigger than the unfunded tax cuts announced in the Conservatives’ mini-Budget that added hundreds of pounds to people’s mortgages, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Ms Brown) powerfully pointed out. I will be listening intently to the Minister’s response today, and I hope that he will set out how his Government would fill that gaping hole in the public finances to avoid rerunning the disastrous experiment that crashed the economy just 18 months ago.