Tom Gordon MP: speeches

Speeches

• 15 Sept 2026 · Immigration and Asylum Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q We have already mentioned the European convention on human rights, and other articles are involved too. Ms Tennant and Ms Lyons, can you comment on the fact that clause 36 would place an additional burden of proof and onus on the victim to self-identify? We know that the state has a duty under the ECHR and other obligations, such as the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings. What is the interplay between making it a harder barrier for people to self-identify and realise that they are a victim of modern-day slavery, and the other articles that are engaged? Eleanor Lyons: Most of the survivors I have spoken to—I have a summit that draws together 15 lived experience advisory panels from across the UK—did not realise they were being exploited; it took them years of help and support to understand what was happening to them and to feel comfortable talking about it. That is why the premise is there that it should be the state’s responsibility to identify victims of modern slavery and offer them support in their recovery journey. That also has a very practical implication in terms of trying to stop re-trafficking and re-exploitation taking place, and to stop harm increasing. Clause 36, on the credibility assessment, is problematic because it says to safeguarding professionals, and it puts into law, that it is okay to question victims’ credibility if time has passed before they have come forward, if there are inconsistencies in what they have said or if they are exploited in the same way as someone else. That is an issue across all victim cohorts who have gone through horrific experiences. It is completely unacceptable that we are putting that into primary legislation. That part of the Bill should absolutely be removed completely.

• 15 Sept 2026 · Immigration and Asylum Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Has the NCA ever received any evidence or intelligence? Has information been gathered from these gangs about their seeking to exploit the Government’s having previously changed the system and removed those overseas routes? Helen Rance: I am sorry, but I just do not have that sort of information. You can rephrase the question again, but I am not clear that that is a matter for the NCA.

• 15 Sept 2026 · Immigration and Asylum Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I am not asking for a set of statistics; I am asking whether the NCA saw an increase in trafficking and criminal activity as a result of changes to the routes that asylum seekers, refugees and others could undertake. Helen Rance: Our work is on serious and organised immigration crime networks. I cannot be led to saying that they have increased due to specific measures, because a whole raft of factors make that happen. I am just not in a position to answer that.

• 15 Sept 2026 · Immigration and Asylum Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I want to follow up on line of questioning of my colleague Siân Berry. When previous Governments removed safe routes from overseas, did the NCA see an impact on illegal activity by those exploiting vulnerable people? Do you feel confident that the Bill will reverse that? Helen Rance: I understand the question, but I do not have the statistical figures over the last—

• 15 Sept 2026 · Immigration and Asylum Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Vicky, do you have anything to add? Vicky Tennant: I have nothing to add.

• 15 Sept 2026 · Public Accounts Committee · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for her statement. Is she able to outline whether, during the course of its work, the Committee gave any consideration to index-linking compensation payments in line with inflation? Those payments can take a very long time to be made, and over that time, the value of the award can have reduced. Was that something that the Committee looked at, or would consider?

• 15 Sept 2026 · Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I have a quite technical question. I sit on the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and when we were dealing with the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, one of the issues I asked the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn), about was its compatibility with the EU victims’ directive. As part of the Windsor framework, which was negotiated by the previous Conservative Government, there was a requirement for Northern Ireland to maintain compatibility with EU law. Does the Bill have any issues with compatibility in Northern Ireland? My other question is about the Good Friday agreement requiring the European convention on human rights to be embedded in Northern Ireland. Are there any concerns about the applicability of those issues and how they have been engaged in the Bill, or how it could be challenged in the courts in Northern Ireland? The last thing anyone wants is more Bills being dragged through the courts. Dan Hobbs: This has been the subject of litigation already, which I think has concluded that it does not relate in respect of people who do not have lawful status in the United Kingdom; it related to citizens of the Republic of Ireland, Great Britain and Northern Ireland. As I say, I think there is case law on this, as a case was brought against previous legislation. The courts found that it was consistent and that the alignment issues you talked about did not directly relate to immigration law. We can write to you with full details, but the immigration legislation applies right across the United Kingdom.

• 15 Sept 2026 · Student Finance (Review) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to review student finance in England; to require the review to consider loan repayment arrangements and thresholds; to require the review to consider the terms and conditions applying to student loans when they were issued; to require the review to consider the relationship between student finance loan repayment thresholds and average earnings; and for connected purposes. Before I begin, I wish to send my deepest condolences to the Prime Minister on the loss of his father. I am sure that the whole House will be thinking of them. I should also declare an interest, as a graduate with both a plan 2 loan and a postgraduate loan. This is not the speech that I intended to make. In fact, it is not even the Bill that I thought I would be presenting. Originally, when I secured this slot, I was planning to present a Bill that would remove time restrictions on disability bus passes, but before I could get to my feet, or even table that Bill, the Prime Minister handed me my first big win in Parliament, for which I am eternally grateful to him. I thank him for that, and for his new approach to politics, which is about problem solving, not point scoring. I can only hope he continues in that spirit and hands me another big win today, because the timing could not be any better. I want to start by paying tribute to the Chair of the Treasury Committee, the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), and to all the members of the Committee for their very thorough work on this matter, about which we heard earlier. Their report asks, “Student loans: Broken and unfair?” I think we all know the answer, on both counts: they are both broken and very unfair. Let me make it clear from the outset that this is not a single, individual political party’s failure. Every party that has sat on the Government Benches has had a bit of a shoddy record on this particular issue—Conservatives, Labour, and yes, even the Liberal Democrats, which might come as a surprise. In this regard, no one comes to the debate or to the Chamber with clean hands. Honesty has to start with three things: the repayment thresholds, the terms that graduates were sold, and whether those thresholds have kept pace with earnings. I grew up in a former mining town, in a working-class family. My mum had me when she was 18, and I was the first person in my family to go to university. For people like me, taking out a student loan was not an option or a luxury; it was a necessity, and it was the only way I could get through the door of a university—Newcastle, where I secured a biochemistry degree and a master’s in public health. Today, my student loans, combined, stand at more than £65,000. Between my two loans, 15p of every extra pound I earn goes on repayments, on top of tax. This is the cruellest part for many people across the country. The poorer your family, the more you have to borrow. In 2016, maintenance grants for poorer students were scrapped and replaced with loans, so the students who have the least borrow the most, graduate with the biggest debts, and are then charged interest on every penny. A system that was meant to be a ladder of opportunity has become a penalty for being born poor. That is not social mobility; it is social injustice, with interest. When I signed up, like millions of others, I was told a story. Department for Education slides compared repayments with a mobile phone contract: about £15 a month, we were told. Government-commissioned videos told teenagers that the threshold would rise with earnings. It was sold like a phone contract, and paid back like a second income tax. The Treasury Committee examined those materials, and concluded that they amounted to mis-selling. No other lender in this country would be allowed to sell a loan to an 18-year-old on one set of terms, only to rewrite them when the ink was barely even dry. If a bank did that, the regulator would shut it down. When the Government do it, they call it a policy change. Ministers wrote themselves out of the Consumer Credit Act 2006, and they have been getting away with it ever since. With no regulator watching, borrowers are left in the dark. When my university friends saw that I had this ten-minute rule Bill, WhatsApp groups that had not been active for a number of years suddenly lit up with everyone getting in touch. One friend, Jasmine, told me that she was refused a straight answer on what she owed and that her balance then jumped by a few thousand pounds because interest had not been properly added back in 2021. In her words, “I am livid.” My friend Rebecca had to open a case just to get back a refund she was owed. No customer of any other lender would put up with that. In 2010, the Universities Minister told this House that the threshold would rise “periodically” to reflect average earnings and that “The Government are committed to the progressive nature of the repayment system.” —[ Official Report , 3 November 2010; Vol. 517, c. 924.] That was not a hope; that was a promise made in this place. It has been broken again and again by Governments of all persuasions. The thresholds for repayment were frozen again at the last Budget for another three years from April 2027. On top of that is a system where the interest piles up from the day you take out the loan, before you can even repay a penny, and where you earn more, the higher the interest rate you are charged. At its heart, this is an issue about fairness, and the injustice does not fall evenly. My friend Rebecca took maternity leave. While she was at home with her newborn, not making repayments and not earning, her balance rose by the best part of £2,000 in interest. Women have been charged interest for starting a family. Think of those living with long-term health conditions who cannot work full time or have to take time off sick. They are already fighting their bodies and now they watch their debt grow while their earnings often stall. This is damaging to our public services and our economy. I have heard from people who have turned down promotions because, after tax and loan repayments, the extra pay is simply not worth the extra responsibility. I have heard from doctors refusing extra shifts because once the higher tax rate, national insurance and the student loan repayments are added, they keep less than half of every extra pound. At a time when our NHS is calling out for extra staff and extra support, we are punishing those very people for trying to work harder. We have a generation on track to be the first in modern times to be worse off than their parents. They did everything they were told: they worked hard, went to university and tried to better themselves. What did they get in return? In addition to a housing crisis, a property ladder with the bottom rung sawn off and a really grim graduate jobs market, they have had, added on top, a 9% tax that will earn on everything above the threshold before it ever reaches their bank account. I have friends who have put off having children because they cannot afford childcare while hundreds of pounds a month leave their payslip in student loan repayments. This is an injustice at its starkest: a generation told to borrow for the future are now paying for it with their future. The Prime Minister has rightly talked about bringing back hope. I agree with him wholeheartedly. There is no better place to start than honouring the deal that my generation were promised. How have the Government responded to the Treasury Committee’s cross-party call to reverse the freeze, which it called “a moral obligation”? They state that they keep “all aspects of the student finance system under review”, which does not sound like they are going to reverse that freeze. Martin Lewis called it “a very disappointing response that does little to help the millions of students already struggling.” The Government’s answer is, in effect, that we will do better for future students, but millions of graduates are already paying under those terms today. They cannot wait for a better system to be built for people who have not yet borrowed a penny. I said at the start that every party of Government have had a hand in this situation. I say it again, because it is exactly why I believe we can reach a cross-party consensus. No party can claim the moral high ground, so every party can help to be part of the solution. My message to the Government and the Prime Minister is simple: in the spirit of problem solving, not point scoring, will the Government commit to a genuine fix? Not another promise to keep things under review, but looking honestly at the deal graduates were promised and the deal they are getting. Restore the link between repayment thresholds and earnings. Guarantee that the terms will not be changed after people have signed them and put right the wrongs that have already been done. Let us make sure that that fix reaches every borrower, not just those who are yet to walk through a university’s door. The Prime Minister has already shown this House that when he hears a good case, he acts on it, and I am asking him to do so again. The Select Committee asked whether student loans are broken and unfair, and we know the answer. The only question left is whether, together, we will commit to putting it right. I commend the tremendous efforts of Rethink Repayment, Ollie Gardner and the team who have been pushing on this issue. For the best part of two years, internally within my party, I have been banging the drum to try to make this an issue to which we Liberal Democrats can be part of the solution. I am really pleased that we have seen Members from across this House add their names in support of the Bill. I commend it to the House. Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That Tom Gordon, Vikki Slade, Liz Jarvis, Ann Davies, Dr Danny Chambers, Siân Berry, Cat Eccles, Cat Smith, Christine Jardine, Layla Moran, Ruth Cadbury and Alex Sobel present the Bill. Tom Gordon accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 15 January 2027, and to be printed (Bill 151).

• 11 Sept 2026 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I pay tribute to the hon. Members for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards) and for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) for their hard work on this Bill and the Bill introduced in the previous Parliament. I was a member of the Bill Committee for the previous Bill, and I tabled many amendments, sometimes much to the frustration of the hon. Member for Spen Valley. I want to talk about a number of people who died without dignity and without choice. As a teenager, I remember my mum telling me the story of her uncle. He was terminally ill, and she cared for him at the end of his life. She went round to his house to check on him, knowing that the end was getting near, and tragically stumbled upon him; he had collapsed on the floor and died. That stuck with her to this day and informs her views, and my views, on assisted dying. The reason I use the words “stumbled” and “collapsed on the floor” is because my mum was led to believe that, in his final moments, he was making his way across the room to pick up the shotgun on the back of the door to end his life. That is the reality for people like my mum’s uncle and many others. A number of years ago, I ended up dealing with a not dissimilar situation. I was living back home with my mum, next door to my gran, when we heard a loud bang. I ran across the road with my gran, and we found the neighbour, John, a pig farmer. He had been suffering unbearably with a chronic life-ending condition, and had decided to take matters into his own hands. That is the status quo—it is the reality for people who are in pain, have unbearable suffering and are terminally ill. We do nothing to protect them. That is why I am in favour of a change in the law. One of the things that has driven me to this place is the conviction that a law like this has to be better than what we have, which offers no safeguards or protections to people in their final moments. No one wants to die—it is not a choice they make—but we can give people a choice about the end of life and how they may see that end. This is not just a choice for terminally ill people, but for people in remission, like my mum. A number of years ago, she had breast cancer. She had two independent tumours—stage 1 and stage 3—in the same breast. In my mid-20s, I faced having to have a conversation with my mum about what would happen if she, a single parent, were to pass away and leave me with my then five or six-year-old sister. That is not a conversation that I will ever forget, and it is one of the things that motivates me to talk about this issue as prominently and as much as I do. My mum made it clear that if the cancer came back and she were to end up with secondary breast cancer, she would not want to go through the ordeal and the trauma of the surgery and the chemotherapy that she faced. She has lasting nerve damage and a reduced quality of life as a result of the original cancer. It is something that causes her great concern every single day. Every time I speak about this issue, either in this Chamber or in Committee, I ring her first and ask for her advice. She has routinely said that when she goes to her breast cancer support meetings with friends who are also in remission, time and again they say that having this choice would bring them great comfort, even if they decided not to use it. That is why I have such clarity on this issue. The people who are living in those circumstances, and who did not have a choice, guide my views on this subject. If we were in that situation, I would fight tooth and nail for my mum to go through with surgery, chemotherapy or radiotherapy—whatever the treatment might be—but I respect that it would be her decision to make, even if I did not like the consequences. As we revisit this conversation and this legislation, let me say that I do not see this as a final say on the Bill. Instead, we are restarting a process that was abruptly ended by those in the other place. We have heard a lot today about amendments not being accepted, but with the greatest respect for the hon. Members for Rochester and Strood, and for Spen Valley, although I am a supporter of the Bill, I consistently tabled amendments to the Bill in the last Parliament, including amendments to make it better reflect the realities of people with neurogenerative diseases. When we look across the globe, we can see that this Bill is the most restrictive and narrow legislation. To suggest that it will somehow cross a new frontier that has never been crossed before is simply untrue. We are lagging behind international comparators, and lagging behind in giving people choice. We know that people who have the means or the money can have that right now by travelling abroad, and we know that, all too often, people who do not have the money tragically have to take actions into their own hands and are robbed of a good death. Today, I encourage all hon. Members, and in particular those who are genuinely undecided or wavering, that a vote for the Bill on Second Reading will continue the debate and allow hon. Members to table amendments on Report. Importantly, one thing that people keep ignoring in the debate is that if the Lords operates in good faith and sends us sensible suggestions, we will end up in ping-pong, where we will be able to pick up amendments that would strengthen the Bill further and allay those fears. The idea that that cannot happen is simply untrue. I encourage all hon. Members to ensure that we can continue the debate, and give opportunity and choice to people at end of life.

• 10 Sept 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Brierley Homes, a company owned by Conservative-run North Yorkshire council, is forecast to lose £5 million this year, on top of the £7 million it lost last year and an original £25 million loan from the council and repeated bail-outs. Multiple people have raised with me serious concerns about how this business is run, including allegations of bullying, corruption, fraud and potentially even money laundering. The council appointed an independent auditor earlier this year, but it turned out that that, too, was owned by the local authority. Can the Leader of the House provide time for a debate on the transparency and accountability of council-owned companies?

• 10 Sept 2026 · Ukraine and Russia · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Secretary of State to his place and support the statement he has made. I would like to press him a bit further on the point from my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) about turning off the taps on the Russian war machine when it comes to funding. Earlier in this Parliament, I raised the issue of cultural exports such as the likes of “Masha and the Bear” and how that was directly contributing to the Russian war machine. Ukraine has now sanctioned “Masha and the Bear”, but it is still on ITVX and Netflix in the UK. Will he work with Cabinet colleagues to look at how we can tackle the ways in which Russia finances its war?

• 10 Sept 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

• 10 Sept 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  No sum of money can truly replace the loss of a loved one. On my summer supermarket surgery tour, I spoke to one constituent who lost his father as a result of contaminated blood products. He wanted me to ask the First Secretary of State about future scheduled payments. Will she consider index-linking compensation to inflation so that delay does not shrink the value of what families have been awarded?

• 9 Sept 2026 · Conversion Therapy · Hansard source

  More

  4. What steps she is taking to ban conversion therapy.

• 9 Sept 2026 · Conversion Therapy · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the steps that the Minister has outlined. Under the Conservative Government, we saw multiple attempts to bring forward a Bill but one never made it through the successive Government cycles, so I hope that the Minister will learn from those lessons and bring forward a Bill that is properly trans-inclusive too. The Bill talks about “abusive” conversion practices, but that risks implying that non-abusive forms exist, leading to a potential loophole. Will the Minister outline what steps and conversations he is having to ensure people cannot be pushed through those other alternative loopholes?

• 9 Sept 2026 · Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Other jurisdictions and countries around the world have taken steps to look at the issue of fume events in aircraft cabins. When such events happen, there is no requirement to engage with passengers and let them know, and there is a lack of regulation and scrutiny. Will the Minister meet me and the other members of the all-party parliamentary group on cabin air quality to look at the issue?

• 8 Sept 2026 · Retirement Property Management Companies: Regulation · Hansard source

  More

  The situation that the hon. Gentleman describes is somewhat analogous to what we see with park homes, for which there is a requirement for a fit and proper person test, with regulation from the local authority. Might that suit the situation he outlines?

• 8 Sept 2026 · Retirement Property Management Companies: Regulation · Hansard source

  More

  Harrogate and Knaresborough.

• 8 Sept 2026 · Retirement Property Management Companies: Regulation · Hansard source

  More

  I mentioned earlier in response to the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) that this was in some sense analogous to the issues that park home residents face. While there is a fit and proper person test in that instance, it is often lacking and not the tightening regulation that people had hoped for. What measures will the Minister bring forward, having learned from those experiences, to ensure that we get proper regulation that has teeth and that will work?

• 7 Sept 2026 · Health Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with my hon. Friend that we need to see that, and I tabled new clause 93 to get the answers to some of those questions that not just constituents in my patch but those in hers are asking us as Members of Parliament. It is particularly frustrating that we are in the third year of this Labour Government, and although talk of dental contract reform kept cropping up at the outset, we have seen little progress since, so I would press the Minister on what more can be done to make sure those gaps are filled. On new clause 121, I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for diabetes, and we have some fantastic care and world-leading practice for diabetes, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales). This new clause would maintain existing national diabetes prevention, treatment and audit programmes, and would mean we see an explanation from the Government with regular reports in Parliament about how those are being continued. Overall, Members across the House have tabled a fantastic number of amendments. I hope the Minister will pay attention to them and can provide us with some responses.

• 7 Sept 2026 · Health Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), who is not here, is campaigning tirelessly on radiotherapy and radiography. The point I was making about those health inequalities is that regions such as Yorkshire have a high incidence of cancer and of poorer outcomes, so we need to close that funding gap to close those inequalities. New clauses 61 and 93, both in my name, pertain to NHS dentistry, and I have also added my name to and support many other new clauses. New clause 61 would have made sure that there is adequate provision of dental appointments in Harrogate and Knaresborough. Over the last two years in my constituency and across North Yorkshire as a whole, the number of people with access to an NHS dentist appointment is down from 50% to just 37%. When this arises in casework and at surgeries, the issue is often precipitated by those who work in A&E telling me traumatic stories of people reaching A&E as a result of emergency dental care or the lack of it. In particular, we have heard some harrowing stories from local children about their inability to focus in school. New clause 93 would require the Secretary of State to publish before Parliament a regular report on the state of NHS dentistry, including that unmet need, and also to pay particular attention to workforce capacity and distribution.

• 7 Sept 2026 · Health Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I would like to start by welcoming the commitment from the Minister at the Dispatch Box to bring forward a maternity commissioner, and by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for her tireless campaigning on this issue. When I worked for her many years ago, I was all too aware of the scandal at the Shrewsbury and Telford hospital NHS trust, after sitting in on surgeries with her. Indeed, in my own constituency of Harrogate and Knaresborough, I have ended up with tireless campaigners coming to me when they face maternity issues at Leeds hospital. I turn to the amendments tabled in my name. The first is new clause 36, which would require the Government to bring forward a formal transition strategy and to report back to Parliament on what happens when NHS England is abolished. I have tabled the new clause out of concern for families who have lost loved ones at the hands of the Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys mental health trust. They have said time and again that they are concerned about the delayed appointment of a chair to the inquiry. They are really worried about that as we see the largest changes to the health service in a generation, and they do not want the inquiry to be lost. I press the Minister on whether she might be able to push that forward or get her colleagues to do so. New clause 43 would reduce inequalities in access to clinical research funding and trials. I have been working closely with Yorkshire Cancer Research, based in Hornbeam Park in my constituency. We know that funding for clinical research and trials across Yorkshire is about a quarter of what is received in London. If areas outside London and the south-east are getting less research funding, the logic follows that we will struggle to close inequalities in those areas.

• 7 Sept 2026 · Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  The Chief Secretary talks about £150 million for investment in the north. How much of that funding is actual new capital expenditure from this Government, or is it simply a repackaged, reannounced sum of money for the north?

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

  More

  My hon. Friend talks about co-ordinated campaigns and harassment. Over the weekend, I, like many people, saw the manhandling of a female protestor at the Reform conference and the horrendous comments made about that individual on social media. Does she agree that that was completely unacceptable, that we should condemn it and that it is shameful that Members from some other political parties are not here to talk about violence against women and girls and misogyny is all its forms?

• 7 Sept 2026 · Democratic Participation: Young People · Hansard source

  More

  I would like to put on the record some fantastic youth organisations, such as Harrogate Youth Council in my constituency, that do their bit to engage young people in democracy. My office manager will attest that I also do my bit by having an endless stream of work experience students through the office door—much to her frustration given the number of people who are interested. One of those students, Benjy, told me recently that he is really excited that in future young people will be able to vote, but he said that there was an unequal opportunity in education when it comes to accessing social media for young people. One way that young people will get information about voting will be through social media. What steps is the Minister taking with other Departments to ensure that young people can find information online?