Sarah Edwards
MP for Tamworth · Labour · United Kingdom
“I also lend my support to these regulations and the British industrial competitiveness scheme. As the Minister knows, I have long campaigned on business energy costs, about which we have talked at length, so I am really pleased to support this initiative.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If we want growth in every postcode, we have to make sure that, as much as possible, we deal with the energy costs that we know are stifling all businesses, not just those in advanced manufacturing and other eligible sectors.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is absolutely crucial that we explore all the potential solutions. Members have floated a number of potential solutions, and we need to know that whatever solution is found will deliver the best service for constituents.”
House of Commons26 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We can infer that there is definitely a baked-in position here, and that is a big problem, as we will hear from many Members. I hope that the importance of Ofcom being able to regulate better will be a crucial part of what we hear from the Minister.”
House of Commons26 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) and for Redditch (Chris Bloore) for securing this important debate. Last year, Royal Mail, which is now owned by a Czech billionaire, was fined £21 million for failing to meet its delivery targets.”
House of Commons26 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Rural communities are particularly badly affected, with some of my villages lucky enough to receive post twice a month, yet Royal Mail dismisses complaints, claiming that there are no problems in the relevant area. That is a stock response I receive that bears no relation to reality.”
House of Commons26 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
The complete record
302 held · 292 searchable for Sarah Edwards. The searchable lines are below in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 6.
This is not an official version of UK Parliament proceedings. It reproduces the published record and links to it; the official version is the one UK Parliament publishes.
“One broker firm is tracking more than 1,100 complaints with E.ON Next alone. It is defending 80 of them in court, in what is effectively a group action over dodgy practices on deemed contracts. E.ON sold the debt on when the lawsuits loomed, and 13 cases have already been struck out as unenforceable. Why is business energy so expensive? When a firm moves into new premises, it is put on a deemed contract until it signs a deal. Legally, those contracts should not carry excessive fees or profits, but in practice suppliers have used them to gouge customers. Some firms were charged £1.60 per kWh during the energy crisis, then locked into multi-year deals with no escape clauses. Even now, some are paying £1 per kWh, when a competitive rate should be around 20p to 25p. Suppliers know exactly what they are doing.”
House of Commons1 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The ombudsman said it was his problem to chase the fraudster. Why should a small manufacturer pay for Pozitive’s failure to vet its brokers? Ofgem does not regulate third-party intermediaries, instead requiring suppliers such as Pozitive to work only with third-party intermediaries in approved dispute resolution systems, giving customers a route to redress if dissatisfied. Pozitive failed to do that—it failed its licence condition. That is not an isolated case; the commercial energy market rewards suppliers for ignoring fraud, because it can demand payment from unsuspecting businesses once scams collapse. Meanwhile, the Energy Ombudsman lacks real powers and often fails to protect victims. I have heard multiple stories of these disgraceful tactics destroying livelihoods.”
House of Commons1 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It turned out that Emirati Energy had signed a fake contract with Pozitive on behalf of the business, pocketing the payments while Pozitive received nothing. Both Pozitive and the manufacturer were victims of fraud. Who is Pozitive Energy? Its turnover rose by 13% to £1.18 billion in 2024, and its net assets were up nearly 500%. With only 30 employees and £139 million of retained earnings, this is a private company with little transparency. We must therefore assume that it is making around £4.6 million profit per employee. Yet Pozitive went after the small business owner and, despite clear evidence of hundreds of customers billed to one address and mismatched paperwork, it did not investigate until the debts piled up. When the business owner turned to the Energy Ombudsman, he was told to pay the debt anyway.”
House of Commons1 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The ombudsman has never been out to tender and cannot explain how it decides on the maximum £10,000 fine. It appears to have a lack of resources and expertise to investigate complex commercial contracts effectively. Ofgem expects the ombudsman to do that work, but the extended remit has not come with extended expertise. Instead, the system seems designed for volume and profit, but not for protecting businesses from serious harm. A Yorkshire packaging manufacturer was scammed by Renewco, which arranged a fraudulent energy deal with Emirati Energy. The business owner paid every invoice on time to his broker, but a year later Pozitive Energy, also known as PE Solutions, demanded tens of thousands in unpaid costs.”
House of Commons1 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Members may be interested to know that, until December 2024, the ombudsman could act only for microbusinesses, those with fewer than 10 employees—any bigger, and the business was out of luck. Since December, businesses with up to 50 employees can now be represented; but, again, the fine is only up to £10,000. I met the Energy Ombudsman to ask how its powers were being used to protect businesses from this wild west of exploitation. Since December, it has dealt with 370 small and medium-sized enterprises in its scope, about half within the terms of reference. Of those cases, most complaints were about suppliers, customer service, billing, sales and back billing. It upheld between 40% and 73% of those complaints. I have serious concerns, however.”
House of Commons1 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We need an enforcement body with teeth, not one that lets suppliers police themselves. Returning to Sam’s case, my office referred it to the Energy Ombudsman. We were proved correct; E.ON Next had mishandled her account, and she was awarded £200 in compensation—but really, what does a firm have to do to get a meaningful penalty? Threatening to close a business after making mistakes in meter readings, back billing, failing to issue proper credit notes and threatening legal action are apparently not worth any more than £200. Compare that with fines for a data breach—up to £17.5 million or 4% of global turnover. That is a real deterrent. Why is it that, when the domestic energy market is regulated far more effectively, a blind eye has been turned to such appalling behaviour in the commercial market? Hon.”
House of Commons1 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It found that 12% of customers had complained and identified four reform priorities: treat customers fairly; support small businesses; billing on tenancy changes and third-party intermediaries. It updated the supplier licence conditions to enforce fair treatment—but is that working? A freedom of information request shows that only two suppliers have ever been fined for licence breaches; many suppliers do not even report them. In my constituent Sam’s case, E.ON Next breached back-billing rules, but likely never reported it. I ask the Minister when the proposed review of those new licence rules will happen, and whether she can guarantee that it will be rigorous and effective. When will the review of Ofgem itself conclude? There is growing concern that Ofgem is not fit for purpose, acting more like a coach than a regulator.”
House of Commons1 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Colleagues here will have heard similar accounts of energy companies refusing to engage, forcing MPs to intervene or send cases to the ombudsman, often without any resolution. As a member of the Business and Trade Committee, I have explored this issue through roundtables nationwide. Time and again, we hear that energy costs are the second biggest burden for businesses after staffing, with many driven to bankruptcy by the exploitative practices of energy suppliers. I thank the Committee for supporting today’s debate to shine a light on this problem. This is not just about one café; it is about thousands of businesses that deserve better. From 2022 to 2024, Ofgem reviewed its non-domestic energy supplier sector.”
House of Commons1 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Absolutely. I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, because that is exactly what the report found, yet I will go on to argue that not enough progress has been made to make sure that those business customers are treated fairly. In response to this issue, I have launched a campaign inviting businesses across the country to share their experiences on my website, aiming to expose these harmful practices. I am confident that straightforward regulatory reforms could reduce energy costs substantially without imposing any cost on the Government. No one likes a bully; I certainly do not, and when I see injustice, I want to fix it. Today, I share not only my constituent’s story, but many others.”
House of Commons1 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the Minister for giving us lots of information on challenges and things that companies should be doing. Roasters café had four different smart meters fitted, none of which worked. When my constituent raised the alarm 12 months in and said she did not feel that the final meter was working, she was told, “It’s absolutely fine—it works. There’s no problem.” As we know, there was a problem; it was not making the readings, and it was certainly not smart. Can the Minister speak about the fact that energy companies are imposing these meters, charging for the privilege of going to check them and then claiming that they still work?”
House of Commons1 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the Minister for all the additional details and information on where we are hoping to get to. One thing I learned about was the problem of deemed contracts. When a business moves into a premises, they are put on an assumptive contract, but that has caused lots of problems. The ombudsman and Ofgem have decided that they cannot make any rulings on deemed contracts and when a deemed contract becomes an actual contract, and the issues around the money that is then made. Does the Minister have anything to say about deemed contracts, which contribute to a lot of complaints?”
House of Commons1 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I call on energy companies to commit to fair and transparent billing and responsible practices. While the industry waits for stronger regulation, I am committed to working with experts, trade bodies and businesses to launch a trusted kitemark, and to publishing fair energy data. Good brokers typically make between 1p and 1.5p per kWh. We need to create a directory of those reputable brokers that give power back to businesses. Let us act now, before more businesses suffer, before more fraud occurs and before more jobs are lost. One example of excessive profits can be read in law. Expert Tooling had its broker take a 35% profit margin. It paid £125,000 for energy, but the law said that was okay. That is not okay; the future of our high streets, towns and communities depends on decisive action today. Question put and agreed to .”
House of Commons1 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Government have known about this issue since 2013, so I call on this Government to urgently strengthen the powers of the Energy Ombudsman and outlaw back billing beyond six months. I highlight the abuse of deemed energy rates and half-hourly settlement meters, which are causing all kinds of issues for SMEs, which cannot get the appropriate rate even when they have switched to smart meters. Brokers and third party intermediaries must be fully regulated and held to a strict code of conduct. Many people are calling for fraudsters and excessive bad brokers to be driven out of the sector. We need more dispute resolution schemes, particularly for brokers. I also urge immediate empowerment to regulate the sector effectively, whether through Ofgem or the Financial Conduct Authority.”
House of Commons1 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is so disappointing that no action has been taken yet to tackle the sector, with no punishment for that poor practice or for the dodgy brokers who are making businesses pay. Those costs get passed on to consumers, and they have made our businesses uncompetitive. It is an abuse of a lax system that is failing every day to protect our valued businesses, so I again call on businesses to fill in my survey and share their stories, and say to them: “Don’t answer unsolicited phone calls; question whether the deal is really a good deal, and help me to call on our Government to continue with the commitments they have made to supporting our SMEs.” This is no time for half-measures and empty promises. Small businesses, the backbone of our communities, deserve protection, fairness and transparency in their energy dealings.”
House of Commons1 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am so pleased to have had the support of hon. Members; I remark on the stories that highlight some of the regulatory differences across the Irish sea. Caps for business energy, or some kind of cap on deemed contracts, could help to bring prices down without costing the Government and would help to get the market into some kind of equilibrium. The attempt to enforce estimated bills is causing absolute havoc. Enforcement must be a priority for the Government, so I welcome what the Minister said about its being front and centre of the reviews and particularly the recognition that more must be done. We must ensure that there are incentives for energy suppliers to businesses to behave appropriately and stop their malpractice.”
House of Commons1 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“HS2 has impacted many residents across Tamworth, with businesses and farmers having been forced to sell their land. One resident has been trapped for nearly 10 years with a property that borders HS2. He is unable to sell because 50% of the land occupies what HS2 claims is safeguarding territory. Despite the involvement of three solicitors, HS2 has failed to explain that ruling. May I therefore ask for a statement to the House on when the statutory blight will be lifted on land no longer needed for HS2, so that my constituents, along with those of other hon. Members, can move on with their lives?”
House of Commons26 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My constituent Owen Sutton is 26 and living with a rare brain tumour. He has undergone four major surgeries, had proton beam therapy, and suffers frequent seizures, but despite that, he has raised thousands of pounds, as well as awareness, as an incredible young ambassador for the Brain Tumour Charity. Owen and the charity are calling for a review of research funding, so could we have a statement from the Government on plans to better fund this vital, lifesaving research?”
House of Commons19 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The number of such weddings in Ireland and Northern Ireland has also grown enormously, but in England, the lack of legal recognition suppresses the huge demand.”
House of Commons12 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) had a humanist wedding. His partner is Scottish, and he told me that they picked Scotland over England for their marriage partly for that reason, but also because they wanted the marriage to be legal. They got married in the highlands in a place of huge personal significance for them. Humanist marriages have legal recognition in Scotland, Northern Ireland, Jersey, Ireland and Guernsey, but we have inequity within the UK because Wales and England remain the exception. The Welsh Government have long championed the change, but progress ultimately hinges on the UK Government’s willingness to act. Humanist marriages have proved incredibly popular where they are legally recognised, with more humanist than religious marriages currently taking place in Scotland.”
House of Commons12 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That substantial time investment is focused on getting to know the couple so that the celebrant marrying them is not someone who they have just met on the day, but someone who they have a solid, personal relationship with. It is focused on a deep understanding of the couple, their shared values and their feelings for one another, enabling the creation of a ceremony with enduring impact. It is more than the one-time commitment that can be associated with other forms of marriage solemnisation. The location of the ceremony often holds particular significance as well. The focus is on finding the place that will be most meaningful, which could be where the couple met, where they fell in love or where they got engaged; it could be a garden, their local beach or where they go on holiday. For example, my hon.”
House of Commons12 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Humanist weddings are a manifestation of the couple’s non-religious beliefs and identity, and they are built collaboratively with their loved ones to reflect all of their contributions. It is rare for most non-religious people to express their beliefs publicly, and unlike religious people, there is no compulsion to attend a place of worship on a weekly basis. For those who choose to have a humanist wedding, it is an opportunity for a rare public expression of their beliefs, which makes their wedding feel all the more significant and makes it all the more tragic that such weddings are not legally recognised in England and Wales. In creating such a ceremony, humanist celebrants can dedicate up to 40 hours—sometimes more—to working closely with the couple.”
House of Commons12 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Humanists make ethical decisions based on reason, empathy and concern for others, and believe that meaning in life is something that we all discover for ourselves through seeking happiness and contributing to the wellbeing of others. Humanist ceremonies are a manifestation of that philosophy—an expression of self-created meaning and shared happiness. Those ceremonies should be a profound reflection of the participants’ values and beliefs, their relationship, their families and friends, and their place in the world. Central to the ceremony is a focus entirely on the couple, ensuring that it is deeply personal, while remaining inclusive of all of those attending, irrespective of their diverse religious beliefs.”
House of Commons12 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Humanists UK trains and accredits celebrants who, just this morning, will probably have conducted at least four weddings and a funeral. I pay tribute to such celebrants, one of whom conducted my grandmother’s funeral, but this debate is about humanist marriage. Why? Because despite conducting tens of thousands of ceremonies every year, including weddings, they are legally recognised in only some of the UK jurisdictions in which they operate, and are not legally recognised in England, Wales or the Isle of Man. Humanist weddings are non-religious wedding ceremonies conducted by accredited humanist celebrants. Humanists UK defines humanists as non-religious people who rely on the scientific method to understand the universe.”
House of Commons12 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move, That this House has considered the recognition of humanist marriages. It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I start by declaring an interest as a member of the all-party parliamentary humanist group, to which Humanists UK provides the secretariat. Many Members present are also members of the APPG. Dearly beloved, we are gathered here today to witness the joining of the hon. Member for Tamworth, my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) and the hon. Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo), who jointly requested this debate to discuss our wish to see humanist marriages made legal throughout the UK. We are grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting this important debate.”
House of Commons12 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I ask the Minister: can we lay this legislation? We have had a very long engagement. Minister, will you marry our ambitions with your Government’s agenda? Can we finally set the date?”
House of Commons12 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Recognition would give the Government a legacy to be proud of—a legacy on a par with the legislation of same-sex marriage, as a moment of progress, of fairness and of aligning the law with the values of the peoples that they serve. Let us not forget that that is what Labour promised: from 2014 to the last election, the Labour party made a clear and repeated commitment to lay the order once in power. We are keen to do that, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), who is unable to attend today’s ceremony but said he would join us post nuptials at the reception, as he wishes to add his support. We request haste to end this discrimination and deliver a change that would give thousands of couples the right to have their deeply meaningful and humanist wedding legally recognised in every part of the UK.”
House of Commons12 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Now, the responsibility and the opportunity rest with this Labour Government. This is not a complex or controversial reform; it is an easy win. The legal recognition of humanist marriages led to a rise in the number of weddings in Scotland, and it would have excellent benefits for the wedding industry, boosting local economies and supporting small businesses. It will be hugely popular, and who does not love a good wedding? Polls consistently show that the majority of the public and, indeed, the majority of MPs support the legal recognition of humanist marriages. That support is growing as more and more couples are able to choose humanist ceremonies each year.”
House of Commons12 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“At the time, it accepted that Government inaction was only because the Law Commission review was under way—but that was five years ago. Is that justification still valid? I hope that the Minister will be able to provide some positive news on the position that this new, progressive Labour Government are taking on the issue, because Labour Governments are at the forefront of moving the dial to reduce inequality across society and have always challenged discriminatory practices. I am proud of that legacy and I encourage the extension of our values to humanist marriages. Let us not wait any more. The previous Conservative Government had ample time to resolve the issue, even after the Law Commission published its findings, yet despite the evidence, the public support and the legal clarity, they failed to act.”
House of Commons12 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The 2014 decision led to a review in 2015, which led to another, broader review from 2018 to 2022. Each time, the scope expanded. What began as a simple consultation about humanist marriages—something that could have been resolved with a single statutory instrument—has now become a full-scale review of the entire marriage system. Even if that wider reform were worthwhile, it cannot be right that humanists have been left waiting all this time when a straightforward solution has been available from the start. No end is in sight. In the 2020 High Court ruling, following a judicial review brought by six couples, the judge was clear that “the present law gives rise to…discrimination”. The court further stated that the Secretary of State could not “simply sit on his hands”.”
House of Commons12 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Her view is clear that “The case for removing the discrimination against humanists by making an Order under the existing power in the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, even if done as an interim measure pending wider reform, is overwhelming.” She goes on to say that allowing humanist marriages to take place anywhere would not create new inconsistencies and, in fact, would align closely with the existing rules for Quaker and Jewish weddings. She sees no legal barrier, no disadvantage to other groups, and no reason that the Government cannot act. The decision not to proceed in 2014, and the failure to act since, has meant that tens of thousands of couples have missed out on the kind of ceremony that truly reflects who they are. That injustice continues today.”
House of Commons12 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“They pointed out that most religious groups are limited to registered places of worship, and they worried it could seem unfair to non-religious, non-humanist couples who might want the same freedom of choice. Although it is clear that flexibility of location holds particular importance in the humanist tradition, using that as a reason to block legal recognition has always felt disproportionate. In fact, Humanists UK recently obtained a briefing from Melanie Field, who has deep expertise in this area. She was the lead civil servant on the 2013 Act, and before that, the Equality Act 2010. More recently, she served as chief strategy and policy officer at the Equality and Human Rights Commission.”
House of Commons12 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Parliament gave the Government the power to introduce legal recognition for humanist marriages through a simple order under the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, but the Act required a public consultation before any action could be taken. That consultation took place in 2014 and revealed overwhelming support—over 95% of people were in favour of legal recognition—but rather than acting on that clear mandate and drafting the necessary statutory instrument, the then Government referred the issue to the Law Commission for a broader review of marriage law, delaying the process indefinitely. The main reason given at the time was concern about where those marriages could take place. The then Government argued that allowing humanist or other belief-based weddings in unrestricted locations might be unfair.”
House of Commons12 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I can attest to those challenges, because my mother, Rosi, got married this year to her partner, Henry, in England. The limitations placed on the choices available for the civil ceremony were stark, and the restrictions meant that only my brother Joe and I were able to attend. There were just a handful of slots available in a six-month period, so the choice of a humanist wedding would have been welcome. Beyond the financial and administrative burdens, the current dual-ceremony requirement creates distressing ambiguity for couples regarding the true date of their marriage. It is inadequate that the ceremony that holds the most personal and emotional significance for a couple is not recognised as the legal date of their union. Why has legal recognition not yet been granted?”
House of Commons12 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I totally agree with my right hon. Friend. I will go on to give more detail about the challenges that we are facing, and about the easy option that we have for the Government. I hope that, after today, they will take that forward and I look forward to hearing more about that. Thousands of people still have humanist weddings each year, but to do so, they must also undergo a separate civil marriage ceremony to gain legal status. That frequently imposes a significant financial burden, with weekend civil marriage fees often exceeding £600—a cost that religious couples do not face. The alternative statutory low-cost ceremonies can cost just £57, but they are increasingly difficult to access, with many authorities restricting their availability and location, and even limiting attendee numbers.”
House of Commons12 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We are asking for equal treatment, fairness and recognition, and it is a straightforward and uncontroversial step to give legal status to humanist marriages. I say to the Minister: let us not wait any longer. The engagement has been long enough. The guests are ready, the vows have been written and the case is clear for finally delivering the legal recognition that humanist couples have waited so long to see. Will she pronounce our humanist marriages lawfully wedded? Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the recognition of humanist marriages.”
House of Commons12 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank all hon. Members for their insightful contributions to this ceremonious debate, the personal stories shared and the tone of the debate. We have witnessed a marriage today between my hon. Friends the Members for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) and for Aylesbury (Laura Kyrke-Smith), which was a treat for all of us. We have had an incredibly important debate, but we have been waiting. I acknowledge the Minister’s comments, but more than a decade has passed since Parliament gave the Government power to make this change—a change backed by public support, clear legal authority and a strong moral case. The Labour Government have the chance to act and bring an end to this unnecessary injustice. It is slightly disappointing not to hear more clarity on the timeframe.”
House of Commons12 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In 1993, my constituents Liz and Steve Fitzgerald tragically lost their daughter Claire and 11 other pupils in a school minibus accident. Together, we have been campaigning to make school minibus travel safer. The NASUWT union found that many teachers are still being pressured to drive school minibuses without the appropriate training, because of a licence exemption for schools. That exemption does not exist for private schools. Will the Leader of the House find time for the House to discuss the issue of school minibus safety?”
House of Commons12 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Work must now get under way to rebuild, with the local authorities and the support that goes with them. Let us be honest: inequality cannot be patched over with slogans; it is fixed by investing properly in schools, housing, the NHS and jobs that people can build a life around.”
House of Commons4 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Government promised levelling up but the most deprived areas have seen little support, and some none at all. How can we talk about levelling up while cutting back support for the people who need it most? We are the sixth-richest country in the world but, I ask, rich for whom? In my constituency, as a union organiser for over 11 years, I saw people working long hours and relying on in-work benefits. Disabled people are now worried that their support may be stripped away while they face rising bills and shrinking safety nets. I ask the Government to rethink their approach in this area. This issue is about more than just poverty; it is about inequity and exclusion, and how they breed division. Last summer, we saw unrest in Tamworth, communities divided, and tensions that had been building for years.”
House of Commons4 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge) for securing this debate. I started my career working for Oxfam, whose mission was to make poverty history. Across the country, including in my constituency, we have seen what over a decade of neglect looks like: community centres gone, local shops shut down, public services underfunded and overstretched. In Tamworth, youth centres were left to crumble—they were not repaired; they were closed—so young people lost a safe space. That is what happens when investment dries up. Since 2012, more than 760 youth clubs have shut nationwide. That is not just a number; it is a message that says, “You don’t matter.” That is how it feels in places such as Glascote Heath, Belgrave and Stonydelph.”
House of Commons4 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I therefore commend the announced link between our emissions trading systems as a positive first step towards reducing consumer and business energy costs. After years of unreasonable Governments embarrassing us abroad and stifling business at home, Britain is back as a proud, sovereign, free-trading nation. While some in this place try to spin a £360 million investment in our seaside communities as bad for fishing, my constituents and I will be celebrating cheaper food in our supermarkets, more efficient energy markets and shorter queues at the airport.”
House of Commons22 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As a member of the Business and Trade Committee, I am doubly heartened to see that the Government’s work is in line with many of our published recommendations. In feedback submitted to the Committee, the Agricultural Industries Confederation stated: “An SPS veterinary agreement has the biggest potential to positively impact UK agricultural supply chains businesses.” The Government’s phytosanitary agreement will enable our farmers to trade and shave pounds off every weekly shop. In collaboration with the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee, I am actively investigating avenues for reducing commercial energy costs. National Grid estimates that bringing the European and British energy markets into closer alignment could save the economy £350 million a year.”
House of Commons22 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) and the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) on securing this important debate. I am delighted to join my parliamentary colleagues in celebrating the new agreement that our Government have confirmed with the European Union. While the Opposition try to figure out why, all of a sudden, they are against the fishing deal they wrote, working people such as my Tamworth constituents are relieved that they have a Government delivering on what is important to them—cheaper food in the supermarkets, better policing of our borders and less needless bureaucracy getting in the way of free trade.”
House of Commons22 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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?”
House of Commons20 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“LightSpeed Broadband has been installing infrastructure across my constituency. Disgracefully, it has falsely claimed in communications, including written letters to my constituents, that during a meeting I signed off on its works. That is a gross misrepresentation of the meeting I held with the company to raise complaints about this issue, and this unacceptable behaviour undermines Members and this House. May I therefore request a statement on how the Government are ensuring that corporate companies cannot misrepresent Members, make false claims for financial gain or undermine MPs in their constituencies, and the penalties for doing so? Such company is a disgrace, and I warn colleagues about their conduct.”
House of Commons15 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons29 April 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons29 April 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons29 April 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Business and Trade Committee, of which I am a member, has heard evidence about the importance of the steel industry, and about the need for primary steelmaking to be retained as a key pillar of UK industrial sovereignty. We have heard that blast furnaces still play a critical role in strategic and high-grade steel production. Does my hon. Friend agree that our economic security is intrinsically linked with our onshore industrial capabilities, and that our Government’s focus on both construction and defence in these uncertain times means that this Bill is very welcome news?”
House of Commons12 April 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The region is home to major players, including Rolls-Royce, BAE Systems and Babcock, with BAE Systems alone working with 11 small and medium-sized enterprises, including one in my constituency of Tamworth. The Government’s renewed focus on defence as part of their industrial strategy is welcome. I also support the recent commitment to the largest defence spending increase since the cold war, meaning that we will spend 2.5% of GDP on defence. With post-war alliances shifting, we must continue investing in our defence capabilities.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗