YouSaid · the spoken record
Laura Trott
On the record 2022–2026
hansard
This is everything the corpus holds for Laura Trott. It is not everything they have said on the record.
Every line below is reproduced as it was said and credited to the record it came from, and links to that record wherever it can be linked. Nothing here is summarised or generated. Directory · Search · Corrections
“I hope that the Secretary of State will address my points about implementation, unions and enforcement, and accept that we all have to exercise responsibility. My final question is this. The Secretary of State rightly acknowledges that the number of instances of antisemitism is rising, not only in schools but in universities, so will she commit today to repeating this exercise for universities?”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Will the Secretary of State commit today to investigating the individuals who have stood by such views and made such statements, and, when warranted, have them removed from schools? Otherwise we might as well go home, because without accountability, nothing changes. Schools do not exist in a bubble. Things that happen outside are too often mirrored in the classroom. The despicable antisemitic Green party motion encourages such sentiments to be brought up in schools. Labour Ministers must reflect on their responsibility: lack of action on hate marches, inflammatory language from the Foreign Secretary and unenforceable performative bans on Israeli goods help no one, and cause a surge in antisemitism. However, today’s measures are welcome.”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Asking unions to examine their own actions is allowing them to mark their own homework, and we already know that that does not work. In the case of the banning of the Labour MP, it was an NEU official who put pressure on the school to make that happen. Michaela Wilde, a senior NEU official, reportedly said that she was “very proud” of having forced the school to cancel the visit, warning critics: “don’t mess” with the NEU because “we are not here to play”. And what has happened to her? She appears to remain on the NEU’s national executive, representing Bristol and the south-west. That is shameful. How can someone who campaigned for and celebrated preventing a Jewish MP from visiting a school continue in such a senior union position? Where is the accountability? It is deplorable.”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“His visit to a school was cancelled following opposition from pro-Palestinian campaigners and members of the National Education Union. When Ofsted representatives rightly inspected the school afterwards, they could not investigate the very incident that had prompted the inspection; they could only check, at the time of the visit, whether all obligations were being met. What is the point of an inspection if inspectors cannot examine the incident that triggered it? Will the Secretary of State agree to close that loophole, and will she please explain, in her response, what she expects to happen to a school that does not appropriately address instances of antisemitism? My second point concerns the role of unions. I welcome the review’s examination of their role, but I do not think that the recommendations are strong enough.”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If we are to address this stain on our society, advocacy across the House is vital, and I welcome the review’s recommendations, including on the adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism, and on the strengthening of guidance, teacher training and teachers’ standards, something that I have consistently called for. I want to raise two points that I hope will be picked up in the implementation review. The first concerns enforcement. Many of the instances that the report describes go against existing guidance. The problem is that when impartiality guidance is breached, nothing happens. The case of the hon. Member for Bristol North East (Damien Egan) demonstrates the problem.”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of the statement, and also for taking the time to brief me on the report yesterday. This is an important and timely review, and I pay tribute to Sir David Bell and his team and those brave individuals who came forward to share their experiences, many reliving deeply distressing events. It is a great sadness and a failure on the part of all of us, as a society, that such a review is necessary in 2026. I have met many Jewish parents who have been left with an impossible choice between sending their children to mainstream schools where Jewish pupils are heckled, bullied and singled out, and sending them to Jewish schools with prison-like security, under constant threat from outside. I cannot imagine the fear that parents feel every day about what their children might face at school.”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The resignation of the Prime Minister this morning was a damning indictment of the record of this Government over the last two years. Part of the Prime Minister’s legacy will be teacher morale at an all-time low. New data from the National Education Union today shows that 72% of teachers believe that the Government have performed badly on education. Why does the Secretary of State think the country and so many teachers have lost faith in this Government?”
House of Commons22 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Well, that is a load of rubbish. The Secretary of State says that she is proud of the action that the Government are taking on pay. May I suggest that one of the reasons teachers are angry is that they still do not know their pay? When the Conservatives had to delay the teacher pay awards to this point in the year, the Education Secretary described it as a “complete dereliction of duty”. Why does she think it is one rule for the Labour party and one rule for everyone else?”
House of Commons22 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I welcome the Government’s constructive engagement on this issue, and we see a new proposal today that has a much more acceptable timeframe, albeit not as short as I would like. Every month of delay just leaves children more exposed to the harms of social media online. I urge the Minister to keep to her word today and ensure that action is as swift as possible.”
House of Commons27 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We have moved so far, and things have only changed because of the unity of those on the Opposition Benches, because of Lord Nash’s brilliant campaign and because of the coalition behind Raise the Age. It is a victory for the teachers and health professionals who have constantly made the arguments, and it has happened because of the voices of brave bereaved parents such as Ellen, Lisa, Esther, George, Mariano and sadly far too many more who have lost their children, but who will never give up the fight for everyone else’s. They are why I have not given up this fight, and it is for them that I have been fighting. I would not be able to look those brave parents in the eye if we allowed the Government to get away with a timeline that meant they did not even have to act in this Parliament.”
House of Commons27 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“On Friday, after Labour MPs had repeatedly blocked a social media ban for under-16s, we had a new proposal from the Government. It was not a serious response to the issue we are facing. It gave the Government three years to take unspecified action on social media, which was nowhere near good enough. Today, that has changed. We now have a commitment from the Government that they will impose an age restriction for children under 16, which will be in addition to, not instead of any curfews. That is a huge step forward in keeping children safe and in supporting parents in their fight against screens destroying children’s lives. We should remember that at the start of the Bill’s passage 18 months ago, the Government said that a social media ban was not something they were looking at.”
House of Commons27 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My right hon. Friend, as ever, is absolutely correct. As on the smartphone ban in schools, we have been fought every step of the way. I am just glad that right at the end of proceedings, we have managed to have a constructive discussion and to get to where we wanted to be right from the beginning.”
House of Commons27 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I would be incredibly concerned if that were the case. Would the Minister like to intervene and indicate whether any PPS sitting behind her was doing that? [ Interruption. ] She says no. Well, that is good to know. It would be incredibly concerning if that were the case.”
House of Commons27 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My right hon. Friend is always correct to be worried, but he will know that in Lord Nash’s amendment a 12-month delay was written in. I think it is reasonable to give the Government some time to bring the measure forward. As I said, the delay is not as short as I would like, but we have shown throughout the passage of the Bill—albeit a little too late, as I mentioned to the Minister—that we are able to compromise. I think we have shown good faith and I hope that is what the Government will now deliver on. Politics matters. It can make a difference. We have shown tonight that when we come together we can deliver in the interests of children.”
House of Commons27 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The real number of schools with a full smartphone ban, where phones are not allowed to be with children at all during the school day, is only 11% according to Policy Exchange. It is vital that the Minister is explicit that a “not seen, not heard” policy, where children are free to carry their phones in their bags during the school day as long as the phones are silent, is prohibited under the guidance.”
House of Commons22 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Their relentless focus and pressure has helped to give voice to the frustrated teachers, parents and students who were desperate for change—change that we have now delivered in the Bill. While that is good news, I want the Government to make it crystal clear that a “not seen, not heard” policy is not allowed under these rules. The statistic that Ministers constantly give—that 80% of schools already have a smartphone ban—includes schools that have a “not seen, not heard” policy. Such policies do not work: children still use their phones, they are allowed them in their bags, they still go to the loos and message their friends, and they are still exposed to nasty content on phones during the school day.”
House of Commons22 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Department for Education’s own evidence says that phones are still disrupting almost half of GCSE classes every day. We know that children are still seeing porn at school on their friends’ smartphones, and it is affecting behaviour. We have tried guidance to fix the problem, but it has not worked. There is a phones crisis in schools, and only making the guidance statutory could possibly fix it. After various contortions from the Government Front Bench, I am glad that they have finally listened. In the face of a Government who until recently refused to accept that there is a problem, I pay tribute to the incredible campaigners—SafeScreens, Mumsnet, Parentkind, Will Orr-Ewing, Generation Focus, Health Professionals for Safer Screens, Phone Free Education and Smartphone Free Childhood.”
House of Commons22 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I want to start with some good news. After a year of resisting—insisting that a statutory ban on smartphones in schools was, to quote the Prime Minister, “unnecessary”—the Government have finally given in and we have got what we have been asking for: a statutory ban on smartphones in schools. Ministers have told me over and over again that there is not a problem. They said that the vast majority of schools have a phone ban and that a statutory ban was, to quote the Education Secretary, a “headline-grabbing gimmick”. At one stage, I was told—by an Education Minister during Education questions, no less—that I needed something better to go on than a smartphone ban in schools. But we have kept fighting, because I know and my party knows that there is a problem.”
House of Commons22 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As ever, my right hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why we need an explicit commitment from the Minister today. I will be delighted if she is able to give that—it would be fantastic. If there is agreement from Members across the House, everyone will be very relieved. We have gone through the Government guidance and while that commitment could be read from the guidance, it is important for headteachers that it is made explicit. The Education Minister in the other place could not give that categorical assurance— [ Interruption. ] No, not this Education Minister—the Education Minister in the other place. It is important that the Minister gives that assurance today, and I am sure that she will. The Conservatives have shown that we can come together in the best interests of children, we can force change and we can make a difference.”
House of Commons22 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“However, I would appreciate the Minister reassuring parents from the Dispatch Box that as the Secretary of State will be consulted on these decision, successful academies will not be penalised by local authorities merely by dint of not being run by them.”
House of Commons22 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is the right thing for parents, who would be dumbfounded at the idea that the local authority could unilaterally cut the places at a high-quality, over-subscribed school at the end of their road, which was exactly what was originally suggested in the Bill. The Government amendment is not perfect. It will still allow good school places to be cut as the adjudicator is required to take in account only the quality of education provided at the school in question and parental preference. That does not mean that school places are protected as they should be, but given that the Government have moved their position and taken into account some concerns, we will not vote against the amendment today.”
House of Commons22 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The hon. Gentleman will know that we put guidance in place, but we have been explicit that it was not effective and that we needed to put it on the statute book, which is what we have been fighting for throughout the passage of the Bill. Turning to the Government amendment on pupil admission numbers, I am grateful that progress has been made in recognising the importance of school quality and parental involvement in decision making. This is a victory to protect school standards in the face of an onslaught against them in the Bill. Parental preference and choice are fundamental to healthy competition and higher school standards, and we welcome the belated acknowledgment of that by the Government.”
House of Commons22 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“They have heard the Prime Minister promise action, yet once again he is preparing to lead his party through the Lobby to vote against it. If the Government truly wanted change, they could deliver it today. Instead, they have chosen to vote against a ban for a third time.”
House of Commons22 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is absolutely right. Enforcing a very strict policy is what now needs to happen off the back of the new statutory guidance. Let me now turn to the issue of social media and the Government’s approach. One of the biggest safeguarding challenges facing children today is social media. If we are serious about protecting children from the extreme and violent content that they encounter online every day, the Government should do what the Prime Minister says he wants to do—protect children online—by voting for change tonight. Parents are watching and they will not forgive the continued delay. Twice already, Labour Members have voted against a ban. Parents will be forgiven for not only feeling deeply let down, but being quite frankly baffled by what is going on.”
House of Commons22 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I respect the hon. Gentleman, but he will know that the Government consultation is not on how to implement a social media ban, but on whether to do one at all. That is not good enough. It also says in the consultation that TikTok is good for children because they can post dance videos. I do not believe that that is taking the issue seriously, and I do not believe that it commits to firm action. That is why Labour MPs who care about this issue should vote with us today.”
House of Commons22 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“There is a huge coalition of charities backing a ban. We have tried to police content online, and it has not worked, but we know that policing age will work and make a difference. This is urgent; there is no time for delay. Real harm is happening and children are dying. We must act, and a ban is the most effective way to do that.”
House of Commons22 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The rise of social media really came about in a serious way in 2015 or 2016 with the rise of front-facing cameras. We took action through the Online Safety Act 2023, which was a huge Act in pushing forward the safety of children, but it has not been effective in policing content. It has not been enough, and we need to go further. We now need a social media ban for children. Let me say once more: I will not give up this fight until the Government tell the House what they will do and by when. I hope that that comes tonight—the Minister indicates that it may come later in the other place—but I will not give up, and neither will the thousands of people who have joined the brilliant “Raise the Age” campaign, which has been speaking so powerfully for frustrated parents across the country.”
House of Commons22 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Once those pressures take hold, they cannot simply be reversed, and the consequences can last a lifetime. This is not about action at some point in the future; it is about whether we act while there is still time to protect children who are growing up today, not years from now. Childhood is short, and we cannot give it back to children later, so we must protect it now.”
House of Commons22 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In a terrible week for the Government, the Opposition have proved that politicians can make change by coming together in the interests of children to ban smartphones. We can do the same on social media. The Prime Minister has already made his Back Benchers defend the indefensible this week, and I urge Labour MPs not to let him do the same to them again and to vote for change this evening. We owe it to the generation of children who are being exposed to extreme and violent content every single day to do so. Childhood is short, and children are being influenced and impacted by what they are being exposed to right now. Damage is being done now, and months and even years of delay mean a childhood lost for some, because once that content is seen, it cannot be unseen.”
House of Commons22 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The hon. Lady is absolutely right. What she says speaks to the point that our two parties have been able to come together in the interests of children; it is just the Labour party that is standing in the way. Frankly, I know that there are Labour Members who agree with us and who want the Government to stop promising action and actually start taking some. Given the events of this week, I suspect that many of them do not even trust a word their own Government say. [ Interruption. ] It is absurd that the Government continually promise urgent action, yet all they have laid before Parliament is an amendment that does not commit to any action at all and does not specify a timeframe. This is not good enough.”
House of Commons22 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I really appreciate the Minister engaging with this issue. However, some people could interpret “not having access” as children not being allowed to touch their phone during the school day, but still being allowed to have it in their bag. Can she be very clear today that that is not allowed under this guidance?”
House of Commons22 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We learnt last week that in the tragic Southport case, when the headteacher warned about the killer’s increasing extreme behaviour, the social worker accused the headteacher of racially stereotyping the pupil as “a black boy with a knife”. The result was that the warnings were rewritten in many cases. And that was not a one-off. We know it also happened in the Sara Sharif case, where “race was a bar to reporting possible child abuse”, and we saw the failure repeatedly with the grooming gangs scandal. Being too scared of causing offence means children are being harmed, so I ask the Secretary of State directly: what concrete action is she taking to stop repeated cases of political correctness overruling the safeguarding of children?”
House of Commons20 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If the Secretary of State wants to start keeping children safe online, then we will stop our objections—but she is refusing to do that. In another example of so-called progressiveness, local authorities across the country are, unbelievably, trying to stop exclusions when children are bringing knives to school. This is happening right here in London, with Sadiq Khan’s inclusion charter, and in Sheffield, where the policy led to the tragic stabbing of Harvey Willgoose, whose killer had previously brought an axe into school and was not excluded. Will the Secretary of State condemn the spread of anti-exclusion ideology and support schools to exclude when knives are brought on to the school estate?”
House of Commons20 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Eight further trials are already scheduled in California alone, and federal cases brought by states and school districts will follow this summer. Behind them stand thousands of claimants waiting to be heard. Here in the United Kingdom, however, we are still watching rather than acting. This ruling should have made the Government stop dragging their feet. It confirms what parents, teachers and health professionals have been saying for years. Aggressive, addictive algorithms are damaging children’s mental health, and, in the worst cases, costing them their lives.”
House of Commons15 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Since I last stood at this Dispatch Box to argue, again, that we should stop ignoring the evidence and act to ban social media for under-16s, 12 individuals in California have done something remarkable. They have begun to turn the tide against the use of social media by children. On 25 March, a jury in Los Angeles delivered a landmark verdict: they found two social media giants responsible for injuries suffered by a young woman over the course of her childhood. The conclusion was stark. These companies knew that their platforms were addictive. They knew the risks to young people and they chose not to act, and children have paid the price. The jury did not ignore the evidence, and nor should this House. That is not an isolated case. It is the beginning of something much larger.”
House of Commons15 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Turning to phones in schools, Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 106B states: “The Secretary of State may by regulations require the appropriate person for a school in England to have regard to guidance”. The Minister outlined the plethora of actions the Government are taking, but I ask them, for the love of God, to put the guidance on to a statutory footing. They really are taking all possible steps not to agree with us, but the answer is right in front of them.”
House of Commons15 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is not just about posting dance videos, and to casually put that as a benefit in the consultation means that the Government do not understand what they are dealing with. I welcome Lords amendment 17B and the Government providing some movement through their amendments in lieu of Lords amendments 102 and 106. The introduction of PAN is a welcome step, and I am pleased that the Government have listened. However, I remain concerned that the adjudicator may only be required to have regard to parental preference and the quality of education provided, which does not guarantee that local authorities will not shrink good schools. The Government need to strengthen this provision and put the matter beyond doubt.”
House of Commons15 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“When young girls post dance videos, they learn that the way they get approval is not internally, but externally. Children quickly learn that “likes” equal approval. They learn that attention brings status. And too often, they discover that sexualised content attracts the most attention of all. That reshapes how young people see themselves and their value. If children spend significant time posting dance videos on social media, especially from a young age, they begin to depend too heavily on the opinions of others, rather than their own judgment. Their confidence declines, and seeking approval becomes habitual. Yesterday I spoke to the brilliant Dr Davies, who leads the charity Papaya Talks. She explained how, over time, seeking external approval can reduce self-esteem and distort how young people understand themselves and their worth.”
House of Commons15 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In 2024, a global study by Protect Children found that 32% of sex offenders reported using social media platforms to search for, view or share child sexual abuse material. A separate 2026 study, commissioned by Ofcom, found that nearly half of perpetrators first encountered such material unintentionally, often through social media or messaging platforms. That is why the Government’s consultation is so wrong-headed. I am not even joking when I say that their consultation cites TikTok as a benefit for children simply because they can post dance videos. What I have stated today obviously renders that absurd, given the harm caused, but even posting a dance video is very dangerous. Let me explain why, as the Government clearly do not understand.”
House of Commons15 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This does not just happen to other people’s children; it can happen to any of our children. It must stop, and we have the power to stop it today. I urge Labour Members to ask themselves why they are still refusing to act. Yesterday I was briefed by a former senior police officer about the scale of abuse taking place on platforms such as TikTok. He described the sheer volume of exploitation affecting UK schoolchildren. Young girls are being encouraged to commercialise their bodies and are receiving digital gifts through features such as TikTok rewards. These rewards allow viewers to send virtual items during livestreams that can later be converted into real money. In practice, this creates a financial incentive for children to post increasingly provocative material in order to attract attention and income.”
House of Commons15 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This week marks four years since she lost her son Jools, and she continues her brave campaign so that no other family has to endure what she has endured. She believes that he died after attempting a TikTok blackout challenge. I am here for Lisa, whose son Isaac died at the age of just 13. She believes that he, too, was attempting a TikTok challenge. I am here for Mariano, whose daughter Mia took her own life at 14 after sustained online bullying. And I am here for George, whose son Christopher was 15 when he died, just 50 days after he began receiving disturbing messages online. He was groomed by individuals posing as children. Those are just some of the dozen or so parents in the Gallery today. Every one of them has lost a child prematurely due to social media. Every month, the group grows.”
House of Commons15 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“A jury has examined the evidence and reached its verdict. The question before us today is whether the Labour party will have the courage to do the same, and vote to protect our children. If Labour Members will not listen to me, I ask them to listen to the families who are here today—parents who have lost their children because of social media. They show unimaginable courage every single day. They are not fighting for their own children—tragically, it is too late for that—but they are fighting so that this does not happen to anyone else’s children. I am in awe of their strength. Their bravery is why I will keep fighting for change. I wish that they did not have to be here, but they are, and I am here for them. I am here for Ellen.”
House of Commons15 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My right hon. Friend is correct. We are involved in a profound battle for childhood and against the screens. The Government have taken some steps in the right direction—their recent guidance on under-fives and screens was very good—but they need to finish the job. They need to get smartphones out of schools, and they need to ban children from social media. It is the right thing to do, it is what the evidence shows, and it really will make a difference. Many senior figures in technology companies do not allow their own children access to the very platforms from which they profit. They know what we know: it is not safe. The children will always try to be on the sites for longer, and the social media companies will give them more and more addictive content to look at. Nothing will change unless we act here in the House.”
House of Commons15 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. As I have said, we are in a fight for childhood, and I will keep fighting until the Government offer a ban on social media in this Bill and give us a timeframe by which they are going to do it. I am not giving up, and the parents in the Gallery will not give up either. In the immortal words of Taylor Swift: “You want a fight? You found it”. Labour MPs will find that, with parents, teachers and doctors, we have the place surrounded, and we will not give up, because children deserve better.”
House of Commons15 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“To be clear, this was the stance—that the student loan system and the threshold freeze were “fair and reasonable”—of the Labour Government as recently as January. Tell that to the graduate forced to pay an extra £24,000 because of the Chancellor’s changes. The Chancellor is wrong: it is not fair or reasonable.”
House of Commons18 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This is a long way from the abolition of tuition fees offered up by a fresh-faced candidate for the Labour leadership just a few years ago—I wonder what happened to him. It is no wonder that students feel misled by this Government. Not content with hiking tuition fees when they said they would not, this Government also froze the thresholds for repayments, making loans even more expensive for graduates. As with everything this Chancellor touches, she makes it worse. Her choice to freeze the repayment thresholds has left young people paying more and sooner. What did the Chancellor say when challenged about the threshold freeze in January? She said that the student loan system is “fair and reasonable”.”
House of Commons18 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move, That this House calls on the Government to set the interest rate on Plan 2 student loans at a level which ensures that balances will never rise faster than RPI inflation; further calls on the Government to stop the freeze on repayment thresholds; and also calls on the Government to create more apprenticeships for 18-21 year olds, funded by controlling the number of places on university courses where the benefits are significantly outweighed by the cost to graduates and taxpayers. In June 2023, the then shadow Education Secretary, the right hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson), proclaimed, “Graduates, you will pay less under Labour”. Well, it turns out that that was not true; under Labour, graduates are paying more. So far, under this Government tuition fees have gone up twice.”
House of Commons18 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The hon. Gentleman is missing the fact that Labour has made it worse. Even now, the Chancellor has changed her tune—no surprise given the track record of this Government. She now says that the system is “broken”, but young people are apparently not at the “front of the queue”. I did not see that on the front of the Labour manifesto. We on the Opposition Benches think that young people should be at the front of the queue, because thanks to Labour, Britain’s youth unemployment rate has topped the eurozone for the first time ever. Graduates coming out of university cannot get jobs. Graduates in work are seeing their student debt mounting up.”
House of Commons18 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have a chance today to create a new deal for young people. I hope that some Government Members vote for it.”
House of Commons18 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If the hon. Lady thinks the system is broken, I invite her to vote for our motion. Every metric for young people has got worse since this Government came in. It is crystal clear that for young people, as for the rest of the country, Labour is not working.”
House of Commons18 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗