Jas Athwal MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

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

  More

  I agree with my hon. Friend; we must be clear where the blame lies. It is not fair that a system created by one party and enabled by another is now presided over by my own party, who will clear up the mess. The system burdens millions, such as my hon. Friend, with balances they may never clear. It follows the letter of the principle while violating its spirit. Many believe that the plan 2 loans system is predatory, regressive and kills graduates’ ambitions with stressful spiralling interest.

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

  More

  I agree that we need to reform this system and look at other ways of doing it. That is the ethos of my ask today: for the Minister to go away and really think about this. I do not want to look at the whole process in this debate, but I want to ensure the Minister is aware of the feeling in this room that we must look at the whole system. Let us remember how we got here, because I have been reminded of a bit of history. The Conservative party trebled tuition fees to £9,000 in 2012, and the Liberal Democrats, having pledged to oppose any increase, walked through the Lobby to make it happen. This system was not inevitable; it was legislated for. Let me be clear: I do believe that those who benefit from education should contribute to its cost, but fairly, and those who earn more should repay more, fairly. That principle of fairness needs to be the golden thread going through the whole system.

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

  More

  The hon. Lady makes a valid point. I wholeheartedly agree that the system is rigged against working women who take time out to have children, so we need to make it fairer. A graduate constituent of mine told me that she was the first woman in her entire lineage to go to university and get a degree, but she feels that that proud moment in her family’s history has been taken away from her by the regret that she has accrued a huge debt. The issue is not an isolated to Ilford South. As we hear from hon. Members across the Chamber, all across the country a whole generation feels bled dry by a system that keeps taking from them. Another constituent told me that he left university with £64,000 of debt. Four years of repayment later, he now owes more than £99,000. This is not shared sacrifice, but a structural imbalance. We often speak of aspiration, but aspiration cannot thrive under compound interest designed in Whitehall. The repayment threshold sits only a few thousand pounds above the full-time minimum wage. Repayments begin early, just as graduates are finding their feet. People face income tax, national insurance, pension contributions, council tax and rent or, for those who are fortunate enough, a mortgage—and then we add 9%. For many, this does not feel like a loan; it functions as a long-term graduate tax, but without the honesty of calling it one. From April 2027, the repayment threshold is scheduled to be frozen for three years. Freezing thresholds during wage growth means that more income falls into repayment. It increases lifetime contributions and tightens the squeeze on those who are already stretched. Yes, it improves Treasury forecasts, but is that really the motivation? Fairness is not measured only by spreadsheets. Outstanding student loan balances are projected to reach £500 billion in today’s prices by the mid-2040s.

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

  More

  I wholeheartedly agree. Some of those suggestions have made me cringe. University enriches our society, expands horizons and fuels innovation, and today’s young people deserve to have the same choices as those who now seek to restrict them. It is our duty to reform a flawed system that is unfairly trapping millions of young people in debt. Student loans were presented as an investment; for too many, they now feel like a sentence.

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

  More

  I think the whole system needs to be reformed. Tinkering around the edges is not going to cut it any more; we are looking for a much fairer system.

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

  More

  I thank hon. Members for taking part in the debate. I will add just one point, which is that IFS calculations suggest that a graduate would need to earn £63,000 a year just to keep a £50,000 loan from growing. That is an astronomical figure just to stop the interest from growing. All I would say to the Minister is that being in government gives us the ability to fix what is wrong. The graduate loan system is not working, so my humble request is that we please fix it. Question put and agreed to. Resolved , That this House has considered student loan repayment plans.

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

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. I agree that the Government need to be applauded for doing a lot of things right, but we are asking them to go further. For many, especially those on plan 2, their loan feels like a sentence—a sentence that lasts 30 years, a sentence that previous generations never faced on this scale, and a sentence that shapes life decisions, from postgraduate study to starting a family. We cannot build a confident, dynamic economy on graduates’ unrest—once quiet, but now hard to ignore. We cannot speak of opportunity while allowing aspiration to accumulate compound interest. We say that those with the broadest shoulders must bear the greatest burden, so let us ensure that that principle applies here. Graduates are not asking for special treatment; they are asking for fairness and consistency. This House should listen and act now.

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

  More

  I will expand on this as I go on, because I think everybody is involved, and I shall distribute responsibility fairly across the board. Since 2012, around 5.8 million people have taken out plan 2 loans. They were told that university was the gateway to opportunity, that it would pay for itself and that repayments would be manageable. Instead, many now feel that they signed up at 18 years of age with no financial advice and no lived experience to a 30-year financial commitment where the rules can be changed unilaterally, arbitrarily and without consultation.

• 12 Feb 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T7. Soaring car insurance costs are pricing young people off the roads. One constituent was recently quoted £3,000 and another £5,000. They are far from unique. What are the Government doing to bring down the cost of driving and make insurance affordable for young people again?

• 11 Feb 2026 · Education · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister agree with me about the importance of the Northern Ireland Executive and the Government sharing knowledge, expertise and best practice as we all seek to improve outcomes for children in all our schools?

• 11 Feb 2026 · Education · Hansard source

  More

  10. What recent discussions he has had with the Northern Ireland Executive on education.

• 9 Feb 2026 · Jimmy Lai: Prison Sentence · Hansard source

  More

  Last year, the UN working group on arbitrary detention ruled that Mr Lai has been unlawfully and arbitrarily detained. In 2022, the same UN working group concluded the same thing about Jagtar Johal. Today, Jagtar turns 39, but instead of celebrating, he is languishing in a foreign prison like Jimmy Lai. I caution the Government that if we do not stand up for our citizens unlawfully imprisoned abroad, we risk becoming beholden to the whims of others, rather than standing on firm principles. How are the Government making meaningful representations to our Indian and Chinese counterparts to bring these British citizens home?

• 2 Feb 2026 · Indefinite Leave to Remain · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point and I absolutely agree with what she has said. We cannot overlook the fact that children will be adversely affected. Nearly 3,000 residents in Ilford South signed the petitions. They are not asking for special treatment; many have never claimed benefits and do not intend to. They are simply asking that the rules they came under are upheld. A constituent of mine called Amandeep, an engineer, told me that his employer will not sponsor him for 10 years. He has a young baby and—a point one of my hon. Friends made—forcing him to leave would destabilise his family. Pranav, aged 19, has an offer from the University of Oxford but, because he and his mother fall months short of the five years, they now face waiting another five years for settlement. He planned his future around the existing rules; now that future is in doubt. Those are the human consequences of shifting the goalposts mid-game. My constituents are asking not for leniency, but fairness. Britain succeeds when it rewards contribution, values fairness and keeps its word. It is true that we must control our immigration system, but control must never come at the cost of fairness, because a country that changes the rules after people have kept to them is not restoring trust, but breaking it.

• 2 Feb 2026 · Indefinite Leave to Remain · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank the Petitions Committee for securing this important debate. I speak today because Ilford South ranks second in the country in terms of the number of residents who signed the petition calling for the five-year ILR route to be maintained. In short, I say: “Don’t change the rules—don’t move the goalposts mid-game.” When I was seven, my parents left the life they knew in the Punjab so that their children might have a better future. Life here was tough. We had to work hard. The values of sacrifice, hard work and contribution are still alive in families across Britain today: families who have come here lawfully and fill vital skills shortages, who give up stability, work hard, pay their taxes and contribute fully to British life. Let us not let them down. I accept the Government’s diagnosis that our immigration system is no longer fit for purpose. It was allowed to fail under a Conservative Government that lost control of the system, left people waiting in limbo and offended our sense of fairness. Now, in government, we must restore order—but restoring order must never mean abandoning fairness. British fairness is clear: when people play by the rules, we honour our side of the bargain. Changing the five-year ILR route retrospectively for those already on that pathway breaks that principle and is wrong. Since the White Paper’s publication I have had countless constituents asking for just one thing: that we do not change the rules for those who have already complied with them. That was the framework they relied on when they uprooted their lives, and changing it after the fact plunges families into uncertainty.

• 29 Jan 2026 · Holocaust Memorial Day · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) for opening the debate, and everybody else who has spoken so compassionately, with clarity and authenticity. The feeling that has come out is clear for everyone to see. The Holocaust inflicted pain on a scale that most of us will never truly comprehend—pain that did not end in 1945, and that still echoes through families, memory and generations of the Jewish community. This is not history at a distance; this was cruelty by design. It was mass murder, carried out deliberately on an industrial scale. Its trauma did not disappear; it was inherited. Today, I will speak about one survivor—one voice that we must listen to while we can. Her name is Susan Pollack. She is a Holocaust survivor who recently turned 95, and whom I had the privilege of meeting and interviewing. Susan was born in Hungary. Long before the camps, hatred crept into her life: graffiti on walls, Jewish students barred from universities, and her brother being beaten at a boy scout meeting. Each sign carried the same message: “You do not belong.” Then came the order. Susan’s family were forced from their home. They were told that they were being resettled. She clung on to that word, because hope—even false hope—was all she had. A letter followed; all Jewish fathers were ordered to attend a meeting. Susan’s father went, desperate to protect his family. He was beaten, forced into a lorry and taken away. Susan never saw him again. To this day, she does not know how or where her father died. Then came Susan’s turn. In May 1944, she and her family were transported by cattle trucks to Auschwitz-Birkenau. She was 15. Somebody whispered to her, “Don’t say you’re younger than 15,” so when she was asked, she said, “15 and a half.” She later learned why. Children under 15 were sent with their mothers directly to the gas chambers. Susan lost her mother, and with that loss came horrors beyond language: mothers watching their children die; children searching for protection that could not come; entire families murdered in minutes. That is what hatred looks like when it is given power. The cruelty did not stop. Susan’s hair was shaved, she was inspected—yes, inspected—starved and silenced. She watched people die, not by accident but by policy. She was later sent to Bergen-Belsen. By then, she said, “dehumanisation killed any thoughts in our heads.” For an entire year, she did not speak. She once recognised somebody from her village. The next day, that woman was dead. When liberation came, Susan told me something that must never be ignored: there was no joy at being liberated. She had lost her parents, 50 members of her family, her entire community. She did not even know whether her brother was still alive. Liberation could not undo what had been destroyed. That was Susan’s experience, and it was the experience of 6 million Jewish people and millions of others, systematically murdered because hatred was allowed to rule. The Holocaust did not begin with the gas chambers; it began with words—with lies repeated until they sounded like the truth, with people labelled as “other”, with hatred normalised, and with silence excused. That is why remembrance alone is not enough, because “never again” is not a slogan; it is a test—a test of whether we challenge antisemitism when we see it and when it is inconvenient to do so, whether we confront fascist rhetoric when it masquerades as opinion, and whether we defend human dignity when it costs us something. Six million Jews were murdered not because the world did not know, but because too many looked away. Susan Pollack survived Auschwitz. She survived Bergen-Belsen. She survived an attempt to erase her humanity. But survival alone was not justice, and silence was never safety, so the lesson of the Holocaust is clear: when hatred is tolerated, it grows; when lies go unchallenged, they spread; when humanity is divided into us and them, violence is never far away. That is why this House must be unequivocal: we will not excuse antisemitism. We will not tolerate fascism. We will not stand by while people are dehumanised, in our politics, in our communities or in our public life. Because remembrance demands resolve—resolve to speak when others stay silent, to act when others hesitate and to defend our shared humanity every time it is threatened. We owe that to Susan Pollack; we owe it to the six million; we owe it to the future. If “never again” is to mean anything at all, it must mean now and it must mean us.

• 29 Jan 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Many girls in my constituency, some as young as 12, have told me that they face misogynistic abuse and sexual harassment in school from boys of a similar age. Some have even told me that reports of their experiences have fallen on deaf ears with the school leads, some often saying, “You should be flattered.” Will the Leader of the House please condemn such words from school leads, and allow for the Education Secretary to lay out what steps her Department is taking to tackle the scourge of misogynistic abuse in schools and academies?

• 27 Jan 2026 · Digital Exploitation of Women and Girls · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Sir Mark Hendrick) for securing this hugely important debate. At the start of the year, many of us were horrified by the ease and speed at which thousands of women and children had their bodily autonomy violated, simply for existing online, but we should not kid ourselves that this was a one-off or an isolated scandal. Digital abuse of women and girls is not an anomaly; it is systemic. Only a few weeks ago, it was reported that Meta’s smart glasses are being used to secretly film women without their consent. This is not accidental misuse; it is foreseeable harm. Before these technologies are embedded in the fabric of everyday life, we have a duty to regulate and legislate so that women and girls do not become the tragic cost of a tech revolution that prizes innovation over safety. We must be proactive, not reactive, because the ways in which women and girls are degraded and denied bodily autonomy online are constantly evolving. We must enforce safety by design, and it must mean more than administrative box-ticking. Tech firms must be able to demonstrate that they have seriously considered the harms their products may cause, and that they have meaningfully mitigated those risks. There is so much more I could say on this, particularly in the case of Grok and Meta’s smart glasses. Even a moment’s serious reflection would have made it glaringly obvious that these technologies could be exploited. This failure has already cost thousands of women and girls their sense of safety and dignity online. We must take a firm and sustained approach, and fully empower Ofcom, so that this moment of technological progress does not become a major step backward for women’s safety.

• 26 Jan 2026 · Youth Hubs · Hansard source

  More

  17. What steps he is taking to support the roll-out of youth hubs.

• 26 Jan 2026 · Youth Hubs · Hansard source

  More

  Two weeks ago, I had the pleasure of hosting a roundtable with the Jack Petchey Foundation, where young people from London and Essex spoke powerfully about the barriers they face, including feeling that there are fewer opportunities for them. What steps is my right hon. Friend’s Department taking to deliver on the Government’s targets for two thirds of young people to be in university or an apprenticeship, so that young people can gain the skills they need to achieve their goals?

• 26 Jan 2026 · Police Reform White Paper · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement, which I hope will deliver a more joined-up approach to tackling some of the most serious crimes. However, we know that the police still have significant work to do in rebuilding public trust. Will the Home Secretary outline how the reforms will help raise standards, increase numbers and strengthen public confidence in our police?

• 22 Jan 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  My constituent Ahmad, a senior skilled worker at Queen’s hospital, has not seen his wife, Israa, for two years as she remains trapped in Gaza. Ahmad applied for a spousal visa, but Israa has been unable to enrol her biometrics because the Gaza visa application centre has been closed since 2024 and no safe route to an alternative centre exists. The original application has expired and the second one faces the same barrier with no access to a visa application centre. Israa’s home has been bombed, leaving her without shelter or basic necessities. Will the Leader of the House urge the Home Secretary to consider alternative arrangements, such as deferred biometrics, so that those lawfully working here can evacuate their spouses from Gaza?

• 8 Jan 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  In 2020, my constituents Christine and Francis Saunders experienced the worst loss any parent can endure when their daughter, Juliet, died at only 25 years old after signs of bowel perforations were dismissed. Juliet’s death was avoidable; had she received timely treatment, she would have had an 80% chance of survival. Juliet lived with Cornelia de Lange syndrome—a condition that causes learning disabilities and physical health complications—and her tragic death is not isolated. Many people with learning disabilities are routinely failed by healthcare services, and they are more than three times as likely to die prematurely from treatable causes. Will the Leader of the House make time for the Minister responsible to make an urgent statement on the steps the Government are taking to ensure that the concerns of patients with learning disabilities are treated seriously, so that no one else suffers in the way Juliet did?

• 8 Jan 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T4. Although I welcome recent efforts to get a grip on the outrageous driving test backlog, more needs to be done. I urge the Secretary of State and the DVSA to take further steps to safeguard the online booking system from profiteering by restricting driving schools from booking tests in bulk and by removing the test swapping features to stop reselling at huge mark-ups.