Women’s Safety: Walking, Wheeling, Cycling and Running

Paul Waugh Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Ms Jardine. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) for raising this important issue and congratulate her on her appointment as violence against women and girls adviser to the Department of Health and Social Care. I look forward to working with her to help to drive forward the Government’s mission to halve violence against women and girls within a decade.

I imagine that every woman here today will have recognised the issues under discussion. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle), the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine), my hon. Friends the Members for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) and for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack), the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) and the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) all described vividly what those issues mean for women in our daily lives. The fear of male violence is so normalised that it is easy to forget that it is anything but normal. I am pleased that many men, including my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), my hon. Friends the Members for Rugby (John Slinger) and for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn), and indeed the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), are also committed to ensuring that the situation changes.

As we have heard, women remain under-represented in cycling due to persistent safety concerns: 58% of women feel that their cycle journeys are limited by such concerns, and more than a third say that roads do not feel safe. Harassment, intimidation and poorly lit routes all contribute to a sense that cycling, particularly in the evening, is simply not a safe or viable option. Research conducted by Dr Caroline Miles and Professor Rose Broad at the University of Manchester found that, over a two-year period from 2021 to 2022, 68% of women survey respondents said they had experienced abuse while out running, but only 5% of those women had reported the abuse to the police.

[Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) have both referred to the excellent research by the University of Manchester. One of the most shocking findings of that research, which I discussed with the researchers last year, was that 19% of women runners had been followed and 7% had been flashed at. Does the Minister agree that, while women are often taking measures to mitigate the threat, whether through smartphones, special safety apps, or even changing their routes, the real answer ultimately lies in more visible policing, more CCTV, better lighting—crucial for local communities—and in tackling at source, as the violence against women and girls strategy does, the misogyny in our schools and workplaces?

[Lilian Greenwood]

My hon. Friend makes a number of very important points. The scale of violence against women and girls in our country is intolerable, and that is why this Government are treating it as a national emergency, but the most important change is a change in the behaviour of men, frankly.

The Government published our strategy to build a safer society for women and girls last month, and have set out a range of actions to prevent violence and abuse, pursue perpetrators and support victims. Giving women the confidence to report incidents is essential. The strategy includes an ambitious aim to halve violence against women and girls in a decade, which will require us to take a transformative approach to the way that we work across Government and with other partners. I can assure the shadow Minister that Ministers regularly come together from all Departments to discuss the action that we need to take.

Turning to active travel, in December we announced that we are allocating £626 million over the next four years for local authorities to deliver walking, wheeling and cycling schemes—enough for 500 miles of new walking and cycling routes. That is in addition to almost £300 million of funding that we announced in February 2025.

In November, we launched a consultation to develop the third cycling and walking investment strategy, which recognised the need to address the barriers to active travel, including for women and girls and proposed two new objectives to support the long-term vision for active travel: ensuring both that people are safe to travel actively and that people feel it is an easy choice. The consultation closed on 15 December; we are looking carefully at all the comments received and the final strategy will be published this spring.

Since its establishment in 2022, Active Travel England—ATE—has worked with local authorities to help them to make walking, wheeling and cycling a safe and attractive choice for everyday trips. That has included overseeing £435 million of investment to deliver more than 400 miles of routes and hundreds of safer crossings and junctions.

ATE has commenced a project focused on the need to design streets better for women and girls and to support local authorities in the delivery of that. The organisation is working with Living Streets and with Footways to pilot an approach to developing walking network plans. Through that project, women have highlighted issues with walking, including—these will be very familiar to hon. Members—poor lighting, isolated routes and limited visibility, which strongly shaped their willingness to walk and influenced route prioritisation. Those findings will inform an important part of the evidence base for planning walking networks that work for everyone. I welcome the examples of good practice highlighted by a number of hon. Members, including Members from West Yorkshire.

This year, through ATE, we have provided £2.5 million to Cycling UK to deliver the Big Bike Revival, which is now in its 10th year and has reached more than half a million people. The Big Bike Revival programme helps people across England to get back on their bikes and experience the many benefits of cycling. Since it began in 2015, more than half of participants have said they now feel safer cycling and 49% of participants have been women. Women who have taken part in the programme have described being made to feel comfortable, having their confidence and self-esteem boosted, and feeling empowered.

Last October, Cycling UK organised “My ride. Our Right”, and approximately 60 women-led glow rides took place across the country to increase the visibility of women’s cycling and demand better infrastructure. In my constituency, the cycling groups Women in Tandem and Pedals organised rides and are doing great work to give more women the confidence to ride a bike especially, or including, after dark. As Women in Tandem says, cycling should “feel liberating, not intimidating”—hear, hear!

We know that good street design can contribute to helping women to feel safe when walking, cycling and running, and enables safe access to public transport. We are currently working with MHCLG to update the manual for streets, which was first published in 2007. That will include advice on aspects of street design that can help to improve personal safety and perceptions of safety: how safe is it, and how safe does it feel?

Road Safety Strategy

Paul Waugh Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Lilian Greenwood]

My hon. Friend will know that the Government are already taking action to address driving test wait times, which I know are incredibly frustrating. However, we need to ensure that young drivers are set up for a lifetime of safe driving. We know from evidence that a minimum learning period will save lives and improve safety. That is why we are consulting on it, but we will listen as part of that consultation.

[Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)]

Every 17 minutes, someone is killed or seriously injured on our roads. That is a national scandal, which this Labour Government are tackling through this road safety strategy. Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to Rochdale trading standards, which, together with local police, led the country in exposing how ghost number plates are used by criminals, groomers, drug dealers and others to avoid detection? Will she thank all those bereaved families who campaigned with me and fellow MPs to ensure that we have mandatory eye tests for over-70s and much tighter drug-driving laws?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I am very happy to commend those from my hon. Friend’s constituency who do such fantastic work to campaign, as well as the police and trading standards on the work that they do. We are determined to act on the things that they have led on.

Office for Budget Responsibility Forecasts

Paul Waugh Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

As the Budget documents and as the EFO makes clear, the downgrade in productivity was real. That was a £16 billion hit to economic forecasts, and it was a challenge that we inherited as a result of what the right hon. Member’s Government did when they were in power. We took the right and necessary decisions to fix the public finances, making sure that we could do so without going down the route of uncontrolled borrowing—like his Government did—or the route of slashing public investment.

[Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)]

Mr Speaker, you were rightly furious last week when this OBR report was prematurely leaked to the public and the markets. It is clear from the independent report that this was an accident waiting to happen due to pre-existing cyber-security failures—pre-existing failures that may well have laid open previous Budgets to this kind of access, which should concern the Conservative party as much as any other party. This is about the integrity of the OBR.

The non-executive directors of the OBR, Baroness Hogg—who is totally independent—and Dame Susan Rice, both conclude that

“ultimate responsibility…rests…with the leadership of the OBR.”

I would not expect the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to say whether he has confidence in the chair of the OBR, but is it not clear that those non-executive directors lack that confidence?

[James Murray]

It is clear that this is a very serious matter, and it is right that the Government respond to it with the seriousness it demands. As my hon. Friend made clear, this is not—to quote the OBR again—

“simply a matter of pressing”

the wrong button

“on a locally managed website too early.”

This is a systemic issue and a far more serious one, and it deserves our serious attention.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Waugh Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Emma Reynolds]

We pledged to reform the Green Book, and we are doing precisely that, alongside the spending review. We recognise the strategic importance of investment in every part of the country. We want to realise the growth potential of places like the one my hon. Friend represents—she is a doughty champion for her constituency.

[Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)]

After years of unfunded and undelivered promises from the Conservatives on levelling up, places like Rochdale are finally getting the fairer share of money that they really deserve. The Minister expanded a little on the Green Book, but could she outline how its place-based approach will help places like mine and advanced manufacturing in the Atom Valley?

[Emma Reynolds]

As my hon. Friend will know, we launched funding of £15.6 billion for transport for city regions in his constituency. I am pleased that this Government recognise the potential of places like the one he represents. We are going to unlock that regional growth across the north and in other parts of the country.

Regional Growth

Paul Waugh Excerpts

Wednesday 4th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

My hon. Friend rightly points to the frustration of his constituents with the failed promises of the previous Conservative Government. This Labour Government—working with him, the brilliant Labour MP for his constituency—are making a difference. At the Budget last year, the Chancellor changed the fiscal rules to tax the wealthiest, and we are investing money in transport across the country, which will benefit not only those in combined authorities, but those in the broader travel-to-work region. Further announcements for towns and villages will be made next week at the spending review.

[Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Mellor bus factory in Rochdale was the perfect place for the Chancellor to unveil this £15 billion investment in transport infrastructure today, and also to give a first taste of the changes to the Green Book and the Treasury rules, which for too long have held back places in the north and the midlands from getting their fair share of transport money. Does the Minister agree that investment in public transport is investment in local manufacturers like Mellor? Does this not show what a difference a Labour MP working with a Labour mayor and a Labour Government can make, to deliver the change that people voted for last year?

[Darren Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend, who is a brilliant campaigner for his Rochdale constituency, for welcoming this historic level of funding for his community. As he says, the Chancellor made her announcement in Rochdale today, and showed that the investments are not just in track, bus stops and trains, but in jobs, livelihoods and businesses across the United Kingdom. That will help us deliver renewal for Britain.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Waugh Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2025 Commons Chamber

The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—

[Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)]

1. What steps she is taking to help tackle tax evasion.

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)]

Closing the tax gap and ensuring that everyone is paying the tax they owe is one of the Government’s top priorities. The autumn Budget marked a step change to close the tax gap with the most ambitious package ever. The Government built on that in the spring statement, taking the total additional gross tax revenue raised per year to £7.5 billion by 2029-30.

[Paul Waugh]

The UK tax gap grew by a shocking £5 billion in 2023, in the dying days of the Conservatives, and former Chancellor Nadhim Zahawi was sacked for failing to declare an investigation by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs into his tax affairs. I welcome the Treasury’s crackdown on tax avoidance. Does my hon. Friend agree that Labour’s prudence with a purpose will be shown by investing those taxes in the child poverty strategy this summer?

[James Murray]

I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. He is right to say that the £7.5 billion of additional revenue from closing the tax gap is a huge boost to the public finances, which enables us responsibly to fund public services and deliver key priorities. Those priorities include free breakfast clubs at all primary schools in England. The first 750 of them are beginning this month via our early adopters scheme, which is worth £450 to parents and carers. To go further the Government will bring forward their comprehensive child poverty strategy as soon as possible.

Growing the UK Economy

Paul Waugh Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)]

I warmly welcome the plan for growth, which stands in stark contrast to the low-growth, low-wage and low-investment economy of the last 14 years, but as welcome as the Old Trafford development is, the House will know that I am a Dale fan. May I therefore urge the Treasury and Chief Secretary to warmly support the Atom Valley mayoral development zone, which is being pushed by Andy Burnham to help advanced manufacturing in Rochdale?

[Darren Jones]

That sounds like an excellent initiative that will benefit from the huge untapped potential in the Greater Manchester and regional economy, which we are trying to stimulate with our announcements today. I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend in due course to understand more of the detail.

Employer National Insurance Contributions

Paul Waugh Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

That is an amusing intervention, but it is thoroughly inaccurate, I am afraid. The OBR did indeed look into the suggestion that there was a black hole of £22 billion, and what did it conclude? It concluded that the fiscal pressure in that year was less than half that amount. The OBR readily accepted that had it had discussions with Treasury officials about that at the time, it may well have reduced the amount still further. Members from across the House know that it is not unusual for the Treasury to manage down in-year fiscal pressures as a matter of course, so the argument has been debunked. It is the dead parrot. It is pushing up the daisies. It is no more.

The hon. Gentleman’s point is indicative of what this Government have done: they have talked down the UK economy. In turn, business confidence has slumped in a way seldom seen in our history, with purchasing managers index surveys falling through the floor. We have seen the Institute of Directors’ optimism tracker scoring minus 60 in November—one would have to go back to April 2020 to find a lower score than that. We also know that at the centre of the Budget is the biggest broken promise of all: the increase in employer’s national insurance contributions. That is weighing on growth.

And what of jobs? Labour’s fantastical manifesto talks about job creation, which is mentioned several times, but the Government are destroying jobs by breaking a manifesto commitment. It was there in black and white in their manifesto that they would not raise national insurance. Do not take my word that they breached their manifesto; take that of Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, who says precisely the same.

[Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)]

The right hon. Member refers to broken manifesto pledges. The Conservatives’ 2019 manifesto said they would not raise national insurance, yet three years later he and all his colleagues voted to raise national insurance—not just on employees, but on employers. Can he help us with that process of logic?

[Mel Stride]

I think the hon. Gentleman might just be overlooking a little something called covid, which shrank the UK economy by over 10% overnight.

What this Government have done is take us right back to the 1970s when it comes to the jaw-dropping level of tax increases and spending splurges. The impact on jobs is stark, and it is clear. The OBR says there will be 50,000 fewer full-time equivalent jobs as a result of the measures in the Budget. Bloomberg says that 130,000 jobs will be destroyed. The Confederation of British Industry, in a survey of its membership, says that 50% of businesses report that they will cut employment as a consequence of the Budget, and two thirds say that they will row back on the recruitment plans that they previously had.

It is not just about the headline rate; the threshold is so pertinent and important here. It is bearing down on sectors where wages are lower, and on cohorts in the labour market who earn the least, because of the disproportionate impact of lowering the threshold. They include hospitality, leisure, retail and women. Some of the youngest people in our country will now see their jobs taken away from them as a consequence of what this Government are doing. We know that the Labour party has form when it comes to youth unemployment. Under the last Labour Government, youth unemployment increased by over 40%. Under the last Conservative Government, it reduced by over 40%.

Labour said in this fantastical document that it would keep inflation as low as possible. It said the same of mortgages, and yet what has happened? This fiscal splurge, this £70 billion each year that the Government are now going to be spending, will mean higher inflation in every single year of the forecast, compared with the forecast back in the spring. What is that doing to people’s living standards? It is destroying them, and I will come to that momentarily. Part of the inflationary pressure is the national insurance increase itself, because while we know that, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility, about 80% of it will be transferred into lower employment rates and depressed wages, about 20% of it will go into higher prices.

And what of living standards? This fantastical Lewis Carroll document said that Labour would be making everybody, not just the few, better off. However, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation—hardly a right-wing thinktank—says that by October 2029, the average family will be £770 worse off in real terms than they are today.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Paul Waugh Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Richard Fuller]

I will make a bit more progress and then give way to my right hon. Friend.

If the Minister does not like the Resolution Foundation’s judgment on this tax, he should just listen to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which said:

“Simple economic theory suggests that the incidence of employer NICs and employee NICs should be the same, at least in the long run. It is likely that the long-run incidence of both employer and employee NICs is predominantly on employees”.

The measures in the Bill represent by far the largest part of the tax grab in the October Budget. The Treasury Red Book assesses that these measures will raise £23.7 billion in the next financial year, rising to £25.7 billion, but the Minister knows that behavioural changes means that they will actually raise substantially less; the IFS estimates about £16 billion.

I note that in the Red Book there were three opportunities for this jobs tax to be referred to as “Delivering on our Promises”. There is:

“Delivering on our Promises—New Policy to Close the Tax Gap”,

“Delivering on our Promises—Collecting Tax That is Due”

and even the catch-all:

“Delivering on our Promises—Other Manifesto Tax Commitments”,

but the increase in national insurance contributions cannot be included in any of those, because Labour politicians hid their intentions from the British voters at the election.

[Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Gentleman refers to the history of the Tory party on national insurance. Can he tell us why he and his party voted for the health and social care levy, which put up national insurance for employees not so long ago?

[Richard Fuller]

That is a very odd question when the Minister himself has said that the objective today is to provide more money for the health service. I guess I will think about what the hon. Gentleman has asked.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary rightly said that this Bill was about tough decisions. The Conservative party used to be about taking tough decisions. We may not have liked them, but we respected them because we thought that they were doing things in a pragmatic and consistent way. Earlier this year—in my former life as a journalist—I interviewed the former Chancellor, Ken Clarke. He said this about tax:

“I didn’t have a fixation on taxation. Taxes sometimes have to go up. Taxes sometimes have to go down. It depends on the needs of the macroeconomy and the public need…And, yes, I raised taxes quite frequently and I cut some taxes…I made my mind up on what was necessary.”

Sadly, that Tory party is long gone, replaced by the libertarian ideological collaborators of chaos whom we see on the Opposition Benches. Worst of all, their sums simply do not add up, and, as a result, it has been left to Labour to clean up the mess they left behind.

The economic situation that we inherited in the summer was much worse than anyone anticipated, so much so that Richard Hughes of the Office for Budget Responsibility said that Treasury Ministers “failed their statutory duties”. He told the Treasury Committee that there was about

“£9.5 billion worth of net”—

spending—

“pressure…which they did not disclose to us…which under the law, and under the Act they should have done.”

That is what he said to the Treasury Committee. If the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies) wishes to dispute his words, will he please get up and say so?

I remember that Liz Truss and her Cabinet, some of whom are now in the shadow Cabinet, were in favour of fracking. Well, her mini-Budget certainly fracked our economy. It was a high pressure injection of debt-fuelled tax cuts made in the hope of extracting hidden growth. Instead, it created an earthquake on the money markets and led to rocketing mortgage bills that many are still feeling the aftershocks of today.

One thing that struck me most about that “Kami-Kwasi” Budget—yes, I do claim copyright on that phrase—was that the alleged tax cutters on that day were actually increasing the tax burden for millions through fiscal drag. Yes, buried away in that growth plan was the continuation of the previous Government’s plans to freeze tax thresholds, and they all backed that massive increase in the tax burden. I am pleased to say that this Government will end that fiscal drag act in 2028, uprating personal thresholds in line with inflation once again.

The chaos did not end with the Truss-Kwarteng double act, who drove themselves and the economy off a cliff like the Tory “Thelma & Louise”. Sadly, even the normally sensible right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt) put his own last desperate tax cuts before public services. His spending plans were incredible in that they lacked credibility.

[Graham Stuart]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would never dare to tread on your toes, but perhaps something is wrong with the electronic equipment because the screen says that this is a national insurance debate, rather than some generalised debate. I sympathise, though, with the hon. Gentleman and other Labour Members for not wanting to talk about their own policies—they would rather slag us off.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that that was not really a point of order. I am sure the hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) is getting to the point on the Second Reading of the National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill.

[Paul Waugh]

I am, indeed, coming to exactly that point, because this is set in the context of what the Tories left behind. The clear trajectory of their last Budget was to squeeze day-to-day public spending to just 1% above inflation every year until 2029. That carried dire implications for every unprotected Department—up to £20 billion of cuts a year. The Resolution Foundation calculated that that would be the equivalent of three quarters of the cuts of the austerity years—austerity 2.0.

Sadly, there is no evidence that the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), left her own note for her successor. If she had, it surely would have read, “I’m afraid to tell you there is no money for public services.” If the Conservatives had won the last election, what would that have meant in practice? My right hon. Friend the Health Secretary revealed that when he took office, he was told that the NHS was facing such large deficits it would have to cut 20,000 appointments and operations a week. Thanks in part to the national insurance rises in the Bill, he can now deliver on our manifesto commitment to provide 40,000 extra appointments every week, with our investment in mental health services treating an extra 380,000 patients.

[Dr Luke Evans]

Is the hon. Member aware that the Royal College of General Practitioners said that it will cost 2.2 million appointments just to service the NIC payments that must be made? How does that resolve our service provision in primary care?

[Paul Waugh]

The Heath Secretary said that he will address that in due course, and I am sure that he will before April, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (James Murray) set out. The hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) may want to answer the question I put to the Conservative Front Bench. If they are so opposed in principle to national insurance rises, why did they support the health and social care levy in 2021? The hon. Member voted for it, as did the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) and the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart)—why? They cannot tell me why because they know they are being inconsistent.

[Dr Evans]

Will the hon. Member give way on that point?

[Paul Waugh]

If he would like to explain why he voted for it, yes.

[Dr Evans]

Absolutely. Does the hon. Member realise that we had to deal with that because the amount that we had to borrow in 2010 was £158 billion? For the pandemic, it was £400 billion. That is the kind of thing that the Conservatives have had to deal with that led to the difficult decisions. We were on track to have the fastest growing economy, which has now been trashed by decisions taken by Labour.

[Paul Waugh]

In the process, you left us with a massive structural deficit.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. That is the second time the hon. Gentleman has done it: I have left nothing.

[Paul Waugh]

Forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker. Labour is the party taking tough decisions today and refusing to duck the issues that the Conservatives were so timid to grasp, from planning reform to energy security, from welfare reform to removing tax breaks for the richest.

In the past four weeks, the Conservatives have made £6.7 billion of commitments to cut taxes, but they have not said which public services they would cut to fund them. But the most damning indictment of their low-pay, low-growth, low-investment, low-productivity economics was the model that totally failed. In 1964, the outgoing Tory Chancellor Reggie Maudling bumped into James Callaghan and said,

“Good luck, old cock. Sorry to leave it in such a mess.”

It is a shame that the current Tory party cannot earn up to their own failures with a similar sense of regret or humility.

VAT: Independent Schools

Paul Waugh Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate the Conservative party on calling this debate today, for the simple reason that it confirms what many of us already know: that the Tories are much more focused on the 7% of pupils in private school than they are on the 93% in state education. Given that the Tory leadership contest is approaching its exciting climax, it is worth pointing out that state education has got barely a mention in that contest so far—I know it is a minority sport, but we expect better. In the last Tory leadership contest, Liz Truss spent her time either criticising her own state school or criticising the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) for his time at the £45,000-a-year Winchester college. At one point, one of her team said that

“she will take no lectures in educational standards from an LA-based, Goldman Sachs banker who went to a school for the uber-elite.”

Meow, as my immediate predecessor in Rochdale might say.

David Cameron famously went to Eton; indeed, it was Michael Gove who attacked the “preposterous” number of his fellow Cabinet Ministers who had been to Eton. I am delighted to say that there are more Labour MPs who went to my own state school, Oulder Hill community school in Rochdale, than went to Eton—my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister) and I are both proud of that school tie. Sadly, recent Prime Ministers and even Education Secretaries decided that the state sector for which they were responsible was not good enough for them. During partygate, we got used to the Tory party thinking the covid rules were for other people.

[Claire Coutinho]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Paul Waugh]

I am sorry, but I will not give way. I do not have much time.

“One rule for them, another for the rest of us,” was the Tory party’s approach back then. Now, their approach is, “One school for them, another for the rest of us”—that is just as toxic a charge. The real problem is money. There was a 9% fall in spending per pupil between 2010 and 2020. Worst of all, we have had 14 years of no overall growth in spending per pupil in our schools, a squeeze that the IFS said was

“without precedent in post-war UK history”.

Turning back to the Tory leadership contest, most of the contenders for that poisoned chalice have claimed that if elected, they will restore private school tax breaks. The fact that the Tories plan to make another £1.3 billion-worth of cuts to state schools on top of their own record of austerity proves that they have not learned a thing from their catastrophic defeat at the last election. If they all put into state schools an ounce of the passion, the emotion and—yes—the hard cash they put into private schools, the public might start to listen to them again.