Sarah Edwards MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 7 Sept 2026 · Hate Crime Law: Misogyny · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. I want to thank everybody who signed the petition, as a number of Members have thanked those in their constituencies who signed it; it is incredibly important that we hear from them in this manner. I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for opening the debate and setting out so clearly the breadth of this issue and why it is so important. The Government’s landmark violence against women and girls strategy was published last December. It stressed a whole-of-society approach to prevention, in which all of us have a responsibility to call out harmful behaviours and to role-model positive behaviours. That responsibility cuts right across the public sphere: our shared spaces, our workplaces, our institutions and, of course, online. Online influencers hold a unique position in the public sphere, and their reach often goes further than that of our newspapers and broadcasters, yet their content is far less regulated. That is concerning given how social media platforms work: influencers profit financially from engagement, incentivising content that amplifies shocking images, awful videos and abuse, and that shapes the attitudes of impressionable young people. The platforms profit, too; they make huge sums of money from this. According to Government figures, in 2025, 95% of young people had heard of Andrew Tate. Ninety-five per cent—that is unbelievable. It gets worse, though, because 40% of the young men in that figure had a positive impression of this individual. This is somebody with allegations against him of sex trafficking and all manner of horrendous crimes. It is deeply concerning that the online sphere has given those young people the impression that this is a good thing and that this person is somebody to emulate or look up to. Exposure to content driven by that toxic masculinity starts very early, with 83% of teachers reporting concerns about their students holding extreme views on gender and a quarter reporting instances of misogynistic abuse in their own classrooms. I have heard from my teachers in Tamworth about how worried they are, how difficult this is to deal with, and how much the phones that many young people carry with them and have in the classroom are impacting their ability to see the world as many of us wish it really was, rather than as they are seeing it through this lens. This content is harming women and girls by normalising harmful rhetoric and behaviours, and it is harming boys by distorting their view of the world and their perception of what constitutes a healthy relationship with women and girls. As a female MP, I can attest to the sheer avalanche of abuse that I and many colleagues receive on a daily basis. Children are not born with misogynistic views; these views are learned through socialisation. Sadly, sometimes they come from parents, and sometimes from peers, but increasingly—and as we all fear—they come through exposure to the manosphere, which happens to a great extent online.

• 7 Sept 2026 · Hate Crime Law: Misogyny · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree, and I will go on to extol the virtues of what many people are calling for. It is imperative that there is real clarity on this, so that people take it more seriously than I think they do, and so that we are extremely clear about what is and is not accepted. There is this creep right across society whereby, as soon as you hear something online, it becomes okay, and therefore the more it is repeated. We really do have to make sure that the law reinforces that it is not okay and that we have to stop it happening. Many parents hope to instil in their children the values of a good society, but they cannot do that if they are constantly being undermined by all these posts and by individuals such as Andrew Tate. The law must recognise that disproportionate influence; if an individual or organisation profits from the engagement of a larger audience, they must fulfil a duty to that audience by making sure that their content is fully reflective of the law. I hope that when we change the law, content will have to change as a result. Classifying misogyny as a hate crime, as many Members might agree, would raise the degree of legal and social scrutiny of these influencers. To support that new framework, scrutiny must be proportionate to the size of somebody’s following, with influencers who have tens of thousands of followers given an enshrined duty of care for their audience. I advocate that even those with 500 or more followers are influential, and they need to recognise that. We need this to be supported by legislation that tackles online individuals and the way they communicate with their audiences. What I am suggesting would bring regulation of the new media more in line with that of traditional sources. Social media outlets must be held responsible for the algorithms they push and the weighting they give to the information they are ultimately distributing. More than 20 years ago, Ofcom was created in recognition of the power that our broadcasters had over the culture and norms of our country. In the 2020s, Parliament must bring forward a new framework fit for this new media landscape. I hope that the Minister has some good news about how we will be able to tackle these new outlets and platforms, where a huge number of people now get their so-called news. I also agree with the calls to make binding codes of practice rather than simple guidance. That is really important, and I hope that the Minister can outline some of the thinking behind and trajectory for that, as well as how we will scale up our efforts to protect women and girls from violence and hatred. I support calls for the Government to amend the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 to record crimes motivated by misogyny as hate crimes; to introduce tougher laws for online abuse—as I have already stated, that should apply to the individual and to the platform much more forcefully; and, as has been mentioned, to fund the training of police officers and prosecutors so that they are better able to handle this and understand their response. The future of our country depends on a much tougher stance being taken, particularly on this subject. I really fear for the future if we do not do this.

• 2 Jul 2026 · Historical Forced Adoption · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Prime Minister for his sincere apology to those who experienced this historical forced adoption scandal, and I pay tribute to those in the Gallery today and those who cannot be here. He has talked a lot about those who need to be heard but who may not have been heard, so my question is about constituents of mine, and of other hon. Members, who may not have had the courage to come forward or who are not sure whether they were adopted or were otherwise affected. How can we give them the courage to come forward and know that they will be listened to and heard, and that they will be able to access some of the support services that the Prime Minister has announced?

• 23 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T8. My constituency has been extremely lucky in getting £20 million for Glascote Heath and Stonydelph under the Pride in Place programme, which gives local people the ability to choose how the funding is to be spent. Will there be more rounds of this funding or similar schemes so that local people can be put in charge of how their money is spent?

• 16 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T7. Recently I came back from Canada with the Business and Trade Committee, and we were impressed by the opportunities presented by middle powers. Last week the midlands had its first defence procurement conference. What opportunities are the ministerial team trying to develop in region, so that we can work with our allies to make the most of export business opportunities?

• 15 Jun 2026 · Brain Cancer · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I pay tribute to all those who signed this petition and to Brain Cancer Justice. I have been invited to speak this evening by one of my constituents, Owen Sutton, who currently lives with a brain tumour. He was diagnosed at university and is now an ambassador for the Brain Tumour Charity. Some 13,000 people are diagnosed with a brain tumour every year. When I counted earlier, there were 35 people in this room—that is equivalent to the number of people diagnosed every day. Research from the Brain Tumour Charity has also estimated that there are huge long-term costs associated with the low survival rates of brain cancer. Loss of earnings and long-term care costs amount to £18.7 billion, which is felt by both the economy and the NHS. Currently, brain tumours account for just 3.2% of the national cancer funding, despite being the biggest killer of adults under 40. Patient polling found that less than half of respondents had been informed of the option to participate in a clinical trial, with just 12% ultimately taking up that opportunity. I therefore support the national cancer strategy’s ambition to make the NHS the first choice venue for clinical trials, but I also advocate that perhaps a right to try option should be incorporated into that—something Owen wanted me to mention. In keeping with the universal values of the NHS, we hope that all those affected by brain tumours can have access to world-leading treatments, so I support calls to increase the funding and to spend the money that we know is already due to be spent. We must all carry the strength and inspiration of Owen’s story, choosing hope over fear and turning the terminal into the treatable.

• 28 Apr 2026 · UK-India Technology Security Initiative · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is correct that we had a wonderful trip to India as part of the Business and Trade Committee’s work. One thing we looked at was the joint value of the free trade agreement that we have recently signed, which sends a powerful signal about the future and how our countries can benefit each other.

• 28 Apr 2026 · UK-India Technology Security Initiative · Hansard source

  More

  What a wonderful speech my hon. Friend is making about this important connection that our two countries can have! Similarly, I pay tribute to my constituency; it might not be associated with a huge Indian community, but it does have one, and they contribute a lot to the UK, and certainly to our medical professions and businesses locally.

• 28 Apr 2026 · UK-India Technology Security Initiative · Hansard source

  More

  One of the interesting things that we learned on the trip was that India’s approach is also about how it uses Government procurement. With careful consideration, that could be used to make sure that UK tech companies can grow and benefit from having a revenue stream and contract. There may be things we can learn from India in terms of how the country approaches that sensibly and safely, so that we can use it as a driving force for economic growth in the UK.

• 28 Apr 2026 · UK-India Technology Security Initiative · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for his compelling point about the role of parliamentarians and how we can engage with our constituents and other organisations. I also pay tribute to the British high commission, which did a lot of work to make sure that our trip went well and is hugely important in engaging our businesses right across the country. I have a specific shout-out to Harjinder Kang, the trade commissioner, who has done some excellent work. Will my hon. Friend also pay tribute to the work that will continue?

• 28 Apr 2026 · UK-India Technology Security Initiative · Hansard source

  More

  The point on critical minerals, which the Select Committee has been looking into, is really important. One piece of evidence we heard was on the slight concern about the size of the UK and our ability to do this alone, which meant that our emphasis would be on friendshoring and the throughput of material we would need to make this viable. Does my hon. Friend therefore agree that we need these types of deals to make sure that we can, for example, recycle our lithium and that we have friends to do that with, so that we can support important initiatives such as this?

• 27 Apr 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for small and medium-sized enterprise house builders, I regularly hear about the growing skills shortage, and the urgent need to change perceptions about careers in construction, which is a highly skilled, rewarding industry that offers strong career progression, good wages and an opportunity to play a direct role in building the homes that our country needs. What steps is the Minister taking to invest in technical training for young people, so that SME house builders have the skilled workforce that they need to deliver the homes that this country urgently needs?

• 21 Apr 2026 · Gulf Conflict · Hansard source

  More

  My constituents in Tamworth are already paying the price for the blockade of the strait of Hormuz, with fuel costs soaring. My logistics sector is also facing the brunt of those fuel costs, which ultimately will be passed on to consumers. While I welcome the Prime Minister’s refusal to drag Britain into the United States’ reckless war, what steps is the Minister taking to secure the reopening of the strait and to bring down costs for my constituents and for the United Kingdom?

• 21 Apr 2026 · Gulf Conflict · Hansard source

  More

  7. What steps her Department is taking with international counterparts to restore freedom of navigation through the strait of Hormuz.

• 25 Mar 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q12. On 16 July 2005, Private Leon Spicer and Private Phillip Hewett, both from Tamworth, and Second Lieutenant Richard Shearer from Nuneaton, were tragically killed in Iraq. More than 20 years on, our communities continue to remember their service and reflect on the ultimate sacrifice they made. The Staffordshire 3 Group, chaired by Anthony Frith, has worked tirelessly to fundraise for a memorial, which is due to be unveiled next month—an event to which, of course, the Prime Minister is warmly invited. Will the Prime Minister join me in paying tribute to these three brave men, and in commending the Staffordshire 3 Group for its dedication to ensuring that their legacy is never forgotten?

• 24 Mar 2026 · Sudden Unexplained Death in Childhood · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for bringing forward such an important debate. Constituents of mine have asked me to attend not just to thank him, but to support his calls for a co-ordinated strategy. They lost their son when he was three, so they share all such families’ feelings that more needs to be done to get to the bottom of understanding the unimaginable tragedy that many parents have suffered, so there is a bit more closure.

• 25 Feb 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q13. Prime Minister, I need your help. Today, alongside leading trade bodies, including UKHospitality, the Federation of Small Businesses and the Startup Coalition, I am launching the TNT charter—trust and transparency in business energy—to blow up the status quo and support SME access to fair contracts, clearer pricing and stronger accountability. I know that the Prime Minister recognises this as an issue, so can I ask him to deploy powers to bring greater transparency, fairness and competition to the wild west that is commercial energy?

• 24 Feb 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T5. My constituents are forced to travel to Burton, Derby and Sutton Coldfield for their NHS treatment, which cannot be provided at the local community diagnostic centre. Some travel up to 30 miles for chemotherapy, with little or no public transport. What is the Minister doing to deliver healthcare investment locally and to improve the transport links between NHS sites so that those who need to use them can get to their treatment?

• 12 Feb 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T9. Residents in my constituency have faced years of disruption from High Speed 2, and the saga continues. Upcoming works on the A38 include an 11-day closure at the Swinfen interchange and a year-long closure of the northbound slip road at Streethay in neighbouring Lichfield. These measures will inevitably push traffic on to the A5 bypass and through villages including Hints, Weeford, Whittington and Swinfen, causing significant disruption to my constituents. [Interruption.] Will the Secretary of State outline when my constituents can expect these works to be completed? What assurances can be given that the disruption will be minimised?

• 12 Feb 2026 · School Minibus Safety · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 12 Feb 2026 · School Minibus Safety · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 12 Feb 2026 · School Minibus Safety · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 12 Feb 2026 · Rural Mobile Connectivity · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Similarly, in my constituency, I surveyed residents in a number of villages such as Edingale, Clifton Campville and Harlaston to ask how bad the situation was. Some 49% said that their mobile connectivity was so bad that they could not work from home or even run their business. Does she agree that this really has to be a priority so that our villages are not left behind?

• 12 Feb 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  South Staffordshire Water is forcing water meters on homes in my constituency, stating that it is “necessary for sustainability”, but residents were never properly informed, with some only discovering the meters after they were installed. My constituents and I find this unacceptable. Can we have a statement on the communication standards that utility companies must meet when imposing such programmes?

• 11 Feb 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  In my constituency, the beautiful grade II listed Chetwynd bridge on the A513 between Edingale and Alrewas has been restricted to cars and light vans since October 2023, so farmers face a 25-mile diversion. With severe flooding hitting Edingale multiple times a year, this vital route risks being cut off for emergency response times as well. Bridges like this one, with a clear economic impact on communities, should be the focus of the Government’s new structures fund, which I welcome. Will the Prime Minister encourage his Ministers to meet with me so that we can find a solution to this issue for my rural constituents in Tamworth?