Andy McDonald MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 21 May 2026 · Middle East: Economic Response · Hansard source

  More

  I, too, thank the Chancellor for her statement, and in particular the announcement of the £350 million chemicals resilience fund. As a consequence of the Iran war, energy price rises of 16% and food price rises of up to 7% are predicted by the Bank of England. I very much welcome the Chancellor’s addressing the cost of living crisis, and the steps to help families this summer, including with bus fares for children; that will be welcomed in Middlesbrough and Thornaby East. We will no doubt monitor and evaluate the dividends of that travel offer. Will the Chancellor consider whether the long-term free travel initiatives elsewhere in Europe have translated positively into economic engagement and growth, and whether they could be replicated here? Given the cries from the retail sector this week, can she advise on what a voluntary pricing arrangement on core items in a basket of supermarket goods, as introduced in France in 2023, might do for living standards?

• 28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister has set out a detailed chronology. He has made it abundantly clear that he has not lied and he has not misled this House. In those circumstances, would it not be right to embrace this process and wipe the floor with the critics who have put those things to him? While we are at it, would my hon. Friend agree that the fact that Peter Mandelson had previously made it abundantly clear that his purpose every day was to take action to bring down the then duly elected leader of the Labour party made him wholly and utterly unsuitable for the office of ambassador?

• 27 Apr 2026 · Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over) · Hansard source

  More

  The Bill must be carried over. We need to replace the unlawful 2023 Act, and we must get this right. This is a test of whether the House is serious about addressing legacy in Northern Ireland. The Good Friday agreement commits us to reconciliation based on self-determination, consent and rights. That must work for victims, veterans and civilians alike, and command confidence because it is rooted in human rights and the rule of law. The previous Act was found to be incompatible with the UK’s obligations under the European convention on human rights, particularly the duty to properly investigate serious crimes. That is why the Government were right to bring forward a remedial order and introduce legislation to replace it. There is no justification for sweeping immunity measures that risk undermining both justice and reconciliation. Victims, including those who served in our armed forces, deserve more than slogans; they deserve answers, truth, and processes that they can trust. We should listen carefully to Bernard Duhaime, the UN special rapporteur, who met the Secretary of State and briefed Members last week. He recognised that the September 2025 joint framework with the Irish Government provides a genuine multilateral foundation for a comprehensive legacy mechanism, but he also issued clear warnings: that the governance of any legacy commission must preclude interference by those whose conduct may be under investigation; that a reparations mechanism should be considered, to give victims an accessible route to remedy; and that claims of disproportionate targeting of veterans are simply not supported by the evidence. Protecting individuals from poor-quality investigations is one thing; shielding anyone from accountability where evidence exists is quite another, and the Bill must not permit that outcome. When the Secretary of State speaks of safeguarding Operation Banner veterans, he must take care not to alienate the families who are still seeking justice in cases involving the actions of British forces. So I say again that opposing the carry-over motion would be irresponsible, and would undermine the pursuit of justice and reconciliation. However, confidence also depends on our getting the legislation right, and excessive delay or poorly judged amendments risk undermining that confidence too. We look forward to constructive engagement in the weeks and months ahead, because getting this wrong would be not just a legislative failure, but a moral one.

• 21 Apr 2026 · Middle East: Economic Update · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Chancellor for her statement and for the work that she and the Energy Secretary have done in this regard. The focus on renewables and the decoupling of gas and electricity is most welcome, but may I point something out? One of the problems that we inherited from the Conservatives, who have the gall to complain about the high cost to businesses and households, is that we are heading towards curtailment fees in 2030 of around £6 billion per annum. Would the Chancellor be kind enough to meet me and my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) to discuss some of the technological options available to us to mitigate those soaring costs?

• 15 Apr 2026 · Single Status of Worker · Hansard source

  More

  It is good to see you in the Chair, Mr Efford. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) for securing this debate and for his sterling work in ensuring the Employment Rights Bill became the Employment Rights Act. He was doughty in his prosecution of it. I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; I too received support from trade unions in the run-up to the general election. I have taken a long-standing interest in these issues, not least by leading, in opposition, on Labour’s new deal for working people. The Minister herself contributed to that in no small part, for which I am eternally grateful. It was a joy to work with her on it. We published it in September 2021, in consultation with affiliated and non-affiliated unions. I entirely support the Government’s direction of travel but, now that the Employment Rights Act has passed, the task is clear: we must implement it properly, deliver the remaining new deal commitments in full and ensure robust enforcement so that rights mean something in practice. I urge Ministers to go further and faster on one central commitment: a single status of worker. That was never peripheral. It was at the heart of the new deal. The principle is straightforward: if you work for someone else, you should enjoy the full range of employment rights. Without that clarity, bogus self-employment will continue to deny millions the basic protections of sick pay and holiday pay and protection from unfair dismissal. One person’s flexibility is another person’s insecurity. There are ways and means of accommodating seasonal work, and nobody would deny that, but we must also look at it from the perspective of small businesses, which work hard to employ people. Let us think through how they are undermined by those who seek to rely upon alternative ways of engaging people. They are undercutting their competitors in Newtownards, down the street, and elsewhere. That is not how it should be. We should be playing by the same rules. There is also a wider public interest. Artificial self-employment does not just erode rights; it undermines the Exchequer through lost national insurance, income tax and pensions contributions. The TUC’s research on this some years ago showed that it probably accounted for lost revenues in the order of £10 billion per annum. A single status would restore fairness in both the labour market and the tax system. This reform is not new, and I pay tribute to Lord John Hendy KC, who introduced the Status of Workers Bill in the House of Lords in May 2021. It passed on Third Reading in January 2022 before I brought it to the House of Commons in early 2022. That work demonstrated both the strength of the argument and the breadth of support, yet, as a recent briefing makes clear, the current patchwork of employment statuses has created a legal battleground, with employers able to exploit complexity and avoid responsibility. That is why many of us believe that the Employment Rights Act 2025 should have centred on single status. Instead, we have a commitment to consult, but the case has already been repeatedly and convincingly made. That is why I reintroduced the Status of Workers Bill as an amendment on Report. We should also heed Margaret Beels, the director of labour market enforcement, who told the Business and Trade Committee that this issue must be addressed and that it is time to act, not simply to consult further. Delay carries consequences. As new rights apply primarily to employees, the incentive for employers to downgrade status will only grow. That is the tragedy: we may be inadvertently promoting a regression and pushing people towards bogus self-employment. Without reform, those rights risk being avoided in practice. Could the Minister say what work the Government are doing to assess the tax revenue benefits of introducing a single status of worker, as previously advocated by the TUC? Can the Minister say whether and how the Fair Work Agency will respond to the concerns raised by the director of labour market enforcement and ensure that consultation on single status is expedited? Ultimately, this is about the kind of labour market we build: one that is fair, clear and enforceable, rewarding good employers and guaranteeing every worker the dignity and security in the rights they deserve. When people go to work, they should be safe in the knowledge that they have a wage and terms and conditions that will protect them, enable them to put food on the table and let them build a future. At the moment, too many people are entering the job market without any thought about the solid future that we should be promising them. We must bear in mind the problems that we build up for future generations if we do not provide our workers with security as they head into their middle and old age. If they have not been able to make provision, we are storing up an enormous problem for our successors. I will leave it there, but I trust that the Minister will address some of those points when she winds up.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Crime and Policing Bill (Ways and Means) · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As you know, I have tabled an amendment to Lords amendment 312 seeking to disagree with their lordships. This House will not be given the opportunity today to vote on this singular matter, notwithstanding that it does—in my view and that of many thousands of people watching our proceedings—represent a dangerous erosion of civil liberties, including those under article 9 on freedom of thought and religion, article 10 on freedom of expression and article 11 on freedom of assembly and the right to protest, which this Parliament has long since immortalised in our celebrations of the cumulative and persistent protests of the suffragettes and the anti-apartheid movement, marked by the plaque in honour of Nelson Mandela in Westminster Hall. If the Government were confident of their amendment, they would put it to a vote, but in a move that in my view is disrespectful of this House, they have decided to wrap up such a hugely significant constitutional matter among their other, excellent, amendments, which this House will doubtless wish to prevail. Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek your advice as to how I may secure a binding, singular vote on Lords amendment 312, as this key constitutional measure, if not challenged, will inevitably erode and restrict the right to peaceful protest.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Hidden Credit Liabilities: Role of the FCA · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) for securing the debate, for his expert exposition and for the work he has done on this issue over many years. I will raise case of my constituency neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley), as she is unable to do because of her Front-Bench position. The case concerns the retired couple Stephen and Gloria Lilley. Their family home, their son’s home and Stephen’s investment portfolio were all tied up as collateral for a commercial loan, without their knowledge or agreement, to provide security for the hidden credit liability on a swap the bank insisted they take out. Mr and Mrs Lilley had paid off their mortgage and were looking forward to a peaceful retirement but, instead, HSBC persuaded them to raise £455,000 of commercial borrowing, secured first on their business premises. When there was not enough equity in the business premises to cover the undisclosed initial commission—internally classed as “added value”—and the hidden credit liabilities on the swap, the bank required their family home, their son’s home and Stephen’s share portfolio to be used as additional collateral: a total of £960,000. The first charge on Stephen and Gloria’s home created a regulated mortgage contract under the FSA’s mortgage conduct of business rules. The bank was required to give clear explanations of all risks, including all-moneys charges and contingent liabilities, but despite repeated requests from their adviser for full disclosure of the credit line and the size of the liability, which was needed for consequential loss calculations, HSBC refused to provide the information. Its response was particularly blunt: “With regard to the rest of the other queries raised…they are not pertinent to the review methodology nor the redress outcome.” As personal guarantors, Mr and Mrs Lilley had an absolute right to know the full extent of the bank liabilities and risks they were personally guaranteeing. Had the credit line risk and the undisclosed up-front commission been properly disclosed, the resulting losses and damage to the business would have been entirely foreseeable. Yet the FCA, working in agreement with the banks, deliberately designed the sales standards used in the interest rate hedging products review to exclude any consideration of that damage or harm when assessing consequential losses, as the BankConfidential report confirms. The stress was devastating. Both Stephen and Gloria have suffered heart attacks in recent years, which were directly linked to the financial worry caused by the mis-sale. Speaking in the House in December 2016, my right hon. Friend the Member for Redcar described how the couple had endured sleepless nights and felt powerless as the bank held their retirement security in its hands. When HSBC later admitted that the product had been mis-sold, it offered only a limited swap-for-swap redress, providing an alternative cap product that still left the Lilleys substantially under-compensated. In fact, they received no consequential losses at all—just interest on what was classed as overpayments on the product. How can a product that destroyed a family’s business and lives for over a decade lead to no recognised loss? Across the entire IRHP review, the banks paid out £2.2 billion in total redress for around 20,000 acknowledged mis-sales. Yet only £46 million—just 2%—was paid for consequential losses, even though most victims ended up facing insolvency and personal bankruptcy. That was no accident: the non-disclosure of the hidden credit line risk was deliberately kept out of the review methodology so that the devastating downstream harm could be totally ignored. This is another textbook example of why there must now be a fully independent investigation, completely outside the control or oversight of the FCA, into all forms of hidden credit liabilities across every bank, and why a fair redress scheme must be established for every business and family ruined by this practice. No couple should have their family home put at risk or endure years of severe stress and ill health simply because a bank failed to disclose the true risks and costs of the products it sold them. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Redcar can make all the correspondence—including letters demanding explanations on the regulated status of the home loan and the hidden credit line—available to the Minister and her team, in the hope that they may be of assistance to her in considering what remedial actions may be considered. Hopefully, the catalogue of gangster-like behaviours perpetrated by these banks can finally persuade the Minister and her colleagues to launch an independent, judge-led inquiry into an utter scandal that has bedevilled far too many businesses for far too long.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  May I trouble the Minister one more time?

• 14 Apr 2026 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Given what she has just said, would it not have been wiser to await the outcome of the review, so that we could have seen Lord Macdonald’s view of the entire scene before taking yet further legislative measures that will move the dial even further? Would that not have been the right course of action?

• 14 Apr 2026 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Follow that, indeed! Let me begin by making it clear that I welcome the Bill and the many measures that the Government have introduced. There is much here that will strengthen policing, protect communities, and respond to genuine public concern about crime and safety. However, Lords amendment 312 causes me real concern, because protest is not some peripheral irritation in our democracy. It is not an inconvenience to be managed. It is, in truth, part of the lifeblood of the labour movement, and of every movement that has ever expanded rights, protections or dignity in this country. From the earliest trade unionists to the Chartists to those who organised in the streets when they had no voice in this Chamber, progress in this country has never been handed down; it has been demanded, organised, and often disrupted into being—yes, disrupted. Protest exists precisely because Governments of the day, of all political colours, have too often sought to restrict the expression of public opinion when it has become uncomfortable. We should be honest about that. Public organising—protest—is how people express their view, but expressing a view is not the same as being heard, and it is certainly not the same as achieving change. Change comes when that expression is repeated, sustained, and cumulative—when it builds pressure over time until it cannot be ignored. That was as true for the suffragettes as it was for those in the anti-apartheid movement. Neither succeeded because they protested once, politely, and then went home. They succeeded because disruption accumulated, because pressure mounted, and because their cause could not be quietly set aside. That is the democratic tradition we inherit, and it is one that we should be extremely cautious about constraining—which brings me to Lords amendment 312. Whatever its intentions, the amendment represents a continuation of, not a departure from, a trajectory set by the last Government. We have in recent years seen a steady expansion of public order powers, through the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 and the Public Order Act 2023. At each stage, concerns were raised—by Members on both sides of the House, by those in the other place and by civil liberties organisations—that the balance between public order and the right to protest was being tilted too far, and we are now being asked to accept a further step in that same direction. It was not so many weeks ago that Gina Romero, the United Nations special rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, was in this Parliament, expressing horror about the fact that the United Kingdom Government were at the leading edge of these provisions. The rest of the world is looking. Other countries are waiting to see how this plays out in our country, because they intend to copy and paste and do the self-same thing in their jurisdictions. It is perhaps fortunate that Viktor Orbán has gone, because I am pretty convinced that he would be looking to these measures, among others. Lords amendment 312 does something very specific: it revives, in substance, provisions that were previously rejected. Hon. Members will recall that during the passage of the Public Order Act 2023, the then Government sought, through Lords amendments 48 and 49, to require the police to take account of cumulative disruption when imposing conditions on protests under sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act 1986. Those provisions were defeated in the House of Lords, with opposition from Labour, Liberal Democrat and Cross-Bench peers, yet even before the ink was dry on those proceedings and the 2023 Act had received Royal Assent, the then Government sought to achieve the same outcome through secondary legislation: the Public Order Act 1986 (Serious Disruption to the Life of the Community) Regulations 2023. Those regulations did three things of note: they lowered the threshold of disruption to “more than minor”, introduced the concept of “cumulative disruption”, and expanded police discretion to consider multiple events collectively. And what happened? The regulations were quashed by the courts in the National Council for Civil Liberties v. the Secretary of State for the Home Department in 2023. They were quashed because the process by which they were brought forward was found to be unlawful. To be fair, the Government have learned from that episode, and Lords amendment 312 is more cautious. It embeds the concept of cumulative disruption in primary legislation, and avoids reopening the broader and highly contentious definition of “serious disruption”, reflecting an incremental approach shaped by judicial intervention and parliamentary resistance. I recognise that, but recognising that the drafting is more careful does not answer the central question: should we be doing this at all? We are being asked to take a concept that was rejected in this House and the other place, and which was unsuccessfully imposed through regulations that were struck down by the courts, and to reintroduce it. It is more carefully packaged but substantively similar. There is a second concern, which is about the process, because this measure has not come to us in the ordinary way. It has not been introduced as a Government clause in this House, which would make it subject to full debate, amendment and Division; it has been inserted by the Lords. I say gently but firmly that that mirrors the approach that many of us criticised when it was adopted by the previous Government. If we believe that something is important enough to legislate on—particularly something that touches on fundamental rights—it is important enough to be properly scrutinised in this Chamber. In considering the proposals, we should reflect on very recent events. It has been reported that in the case involving Ben Jamal and Chris Nineham, which I understand is now subject to appeal, the defence argued that at the protest in question, the police relied on powers relating to cumulative disruption that were derived from the 2023 regulations, which were later quashed by the Court of Appeal in the National Council for Civil Liberties v. the Secretary of State for the Home Department. If that account is borne out, it raises serious questions. It means that even without a clear statutory footing, such expansive interpretations are already influencing operational decisions, which underlines the risk that legislating for cumulative disruption may not clarify the law, but instead entrench uncertainty and overreach at the expense of the right to protest. I say to Ministers that much in this Bill commands support, and there is no need to jeopardise that support by attaching to it a measure that raises serious civil liberties concerns and has not been properly tested in this House. The Government should withdraw Lords amendment 312. If they do not, Members should be clear that this is not a minor or technical issue to be nodded through. It may require the House to divide—if necessary, on a roll-up motion at the end of the proceedings—to ensure that our view is properly recorded and we defend the civil liberties that generations have so proudly fought for.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is talking about the proscription of the IRGC. Will he explain to the House why the Tory party did not do that in their 14 years in government?

• 14 Apr 2026 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend will remember our discussion, and I hope that she can help me. Lord Macdonald of River Glaven KC was appointed to lead an independent review of laws on public order and hate crime. The review was also to consider the laws around protest, and we were hopeful that we would have that. I am not aware that the review has concluded, so perhaps my hon. Friend can tell us. If it has not concluded, why are we legislating before that?

• 14 Apr 2026 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that although Lord Macdonald of River Glaven has been commissioned to carry out a review of the complex public order architecture, we are taking a measure in this arena without the benefit of that review’s findings? Is that not putting the cart before the horse?

• 14 Apr 2026 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Just on that, if she is going to consult with the College of Policing and others, where is the role for this House to have its voice in that discussion? There are many people here who would like to positively input into that discussion.

• 26 Mar 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  May I associate myself with the remarks made by the Leader of the House concerning our colleague David Winnick? The Leader of the House has just announced that the Crime and Policing Bill will come back to us for consideration of Lords amendments on 14 April. It will return to the Commons massively expanded and including measures to restrict protests, which were inserted in the Lords. Those measures were snuck in in the same way that a predecessor Conservative Home Secretary did with the Public Order Bill of 2022-23. As this Government seek to restrict the campaigning methods that the suffragettes and the anti-apartheid movement used, will the Leader of the House confirm that he has spoken to the Chief Whip and Mr Speaker, who have been written to by dozens of MPs? Will he confirm that if the Government will not withdraw the relevant clause, there will be a full debate and a dedicated Division on this proposal for Members of this House?

• 18 Mar 2026 · Royal Mail: Performance · Hansard source

  More

  Over the past week, the delivery offices that serve Middlesbrough and Hartlepool have both been ranked in the top five in their regional area for delivery failure. This matters for customers waiting for vital posts and for staff under immense pressure. It is not the fault of the posties; the responsibility lies with the owners. Poor decisions have created a weakened system, chaotic revisions and a recruitment crisis driven by low pay and worse conditions for new starters. The result is a workforce that is overstretched and a service that is letting customers down. As for the USO, the six-day delivery remains a vital national guarantee, but changing specifications alone will not fix a service that is being run down. Ofcom has allowed an uneven playing field when it comes to competitors, such as Amazon, that benefit from the universal network without contributing to its cost. Royal Mail carries the burden of serving over 30 million addresses while others extract profit. My right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) made a good point about bogus self-employment among competitors. If we do not get this right, we will undermine the impact of the Employment Rights Act. That is why the CWU is right to call for a universal service fund so that all operators contribute fairly to the network they rely on. Ofcom’s broader approach risks a race to the bottom—it is not pursuing efficiency. If we are serious about improving performance, we have to have a fundamental rethink. I have raised this with the Minister on previous occasions, and I raise it again today. This is a mess and it is collapsing. An obvious solution is staring us in the face: take Royal Mail back into public ownership, and do it quickly.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Royal Mail: Performance · Hansard source

  More

  Was privatisation a mistake?

• 18 Mar 2026 · Royal Mail: Performance · Hansard source

  More

  Just before the Minister sits down, can he help me with a couple of things? The reduction in terms and conditions for new entrants into our sorting offices is causing great problems. People are leaving within days and weeks, so there is an issue there. Similarly, in this competitive landscape, we have other providers working on the basis of bogus self-employment. Given that we approach this issue on a whole-of-Government basis, rather than just in silos, I wonder whether we are looking closely at the damage that this situation is causing. I think particularly of the £10 billion that goes uncollected through bogus self-employment, which could enhance the coffers of the Treasury, among other things, and provide people with secure and solid work. As it stands, we have insecure and fragile work, both in Royal Mail and in the private sector that competes with it. Surely this is the worst of all worlds. A thorough approach is needed. I am yet to hear the Minister tackle the key issue raised by many hon. Members from the Government Benches: that we should be looking at the option of public ownership. Will the Minister please address that?

• 16 Mar 2026 · Strait of Hormuz · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister was right when he said today that “we will not be drawn into the wider war”. But the US President is now requesting UK military assets to police the strait of Hormuz. This is exactly the sort of mission creep that many have warned against. Discussing NATO this morning, General Sir Nick Carter said that it was “not…for one of the allies to go on a war of choice and then oblige everybody else to follow.” Can the Minister confirm that the UK will not provide further military assets for this US war, on which President Trump did not consult the UK and which the UK public do not support, or that the House will be able to vote on any such proposal?

• 11 Mar 2026 · Royal Mail: Universal Service Obligation · Hansard source

  More

  This situation is completely intolerable, as everybody has described. Will the Minister confirm that if the owners continue to fail to discharge their obligations as a matter of urgency, the option of taking Royal Mail back into public ownership will be fully considered, because that is popular with the public?

• 9 Mar 2026 · Immigration Policy · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his response to the urgent question. On work visas and people integrating into our communities, will he say something about the abuses that we hear of—including how sponsors control the situation for these people—and about the potential damage that will be caused, especially to our public services, if the thresholds are unobtainable to many of our key workers, especially those in our health service?

• 3 Mar 2026 · West Bank: Illegal Settlements · Hansard source

  More

  2. What diplomatic steps her Department is taking to help prevent the expansion of illegal settlements in the west bank.

• 3 Mar 2026 · West Bank: Illegal Settlements · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his answer, but since December 2015, 19 new settlements have been approved, bringing the coalition’s total to 68 in three years and around 210 overall, housing 750,000 settlers. Last month, the Israeli Cabinet approved measures to designate large areas as state property and resume land registration in area C—de jure annexation. Those steps defy International Court of Justice advisory opinions and dispossess thousands of Palestinians. Given the scale of sanctions that the UK is willing to impose on Russia, when will the Government impose meaningful trade measures, arms controls and sanctions that match the scale of Israel’s illegal actions?

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

  More

  May I ask the Leader of the House whether the Government will make time for the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to report to this House on the findings of the best value process for the mayoral Tees Valley combined authority as the 12 months of the best value notice draw to a close? In that period, Mayor Houchen has been required to relinquish the chairmanship of three development corporations and the authority is seeing changes to all three statutory officers, with the outgoing director of finance referring to “informal agreements” between the South Tees Development Corporation and Teesworks and with interim officers resigning. Its external auditors, EY, have disclaimed the last two years’ accounts, with reports suggesting a further year of disclaimed accounts is likely. Given the serious and continuing concerns regarding finance, governance and audit, will the Government provide an opportunity for a full statement on the conclusions reached and any further steps proposed to secure best value and to restore confidence in and the future of the development corporations?

• 25 Feb 2026 · Student Loan Repayment Plans · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) for securing this debate. I was a beneficiary of free higher education under Harold Wilson and Jim Callaghan, but I must begin with the stark reality that today’s graduates face. The average debt on graduation in England is around £53,000, and many leave owing £70,000, £80,000 or even £100,000, with postgraduate borrowing included. That is a mortgage-sized burden placed on young adults before they have saved a deposit, started a family or built financial security, and even before repayment thresholds and interest are factored in. We were warned: plan 2 and plan 5 are not just loans, but lifetime surcharges, and that is because of cumulative political choices: the introduction of fees in 1998, variable fees in 2004, the loan book sale, the high-fee and high-interest plan 2, and now plan 5’s lower thresholds. Higher education is a public good, yet we have built a system that assumes that every degree guarantees high earnings and prices them accordingly, despite the fact that many do not enjoy those earnings. We must rethink, and be honest that a system built over 28 years is now failing.