Independent Schools: Regulation of Proprietors

Mary Kelly Foy Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to draw the House’s attention to a hugely concerning issue that has recently unfolded in my constituency: the sudden closure of Durham high school.

The lack of communication and clarity from its owners, Galaxy Global Education, up until the very final moments of the school year left staff and families heartbroken and in shock. Founded in 1884, the local institution spent 142 years providing an outstanding educational environment rooted in our local community. Indeed, in 2024 it was named independent secondary school of the year for the north-east by The Sunday Times.

In early 2026, the school was still issuing marketing material and advertising pupil enrolment opportunities. Pupil enrolment was still being offered as recently as the beginning of June. Parents had parted with significant sums of money to secure places at the school, yet only a few weeks later what seemed to be an assured future in new hands has fallen apart. Members may ask what went wrong.

In 2024, the school was acquired by GGE as part of its proposed expansion into the UK independent school sector. The stated mission of the company was to operate independent schools and promote international education opportunities. As Durham high school has found out to its cost, however, the reality has been different.

Following the acquisition of the school, which formerly operated as Durham high school for girls, the parent company incorporated a new UK company, Durham Education Ltd, to run the school under the umbrella of GGE. At a meeting on 27 June 2025 designed to allow parents to understand more about GGE, attendees were told that there would be investment in the school for at least five years to help make it financially viable. One of the parent company’s first acts was to mandate a shift to co-education from September 2025, claiming that it would increase the student roll and secure the school’s future. That was resisted by some families as there was no consultation, and GGE actively silenced parent feedback.

The school became Durham high school. But, having demanded that shift, the promised investment to fully install male changing facilities at the school did not materialise. GGE also seemingly blocked the senior leadership team’s efforts to make it work. In one specific instance, the school’s leadership proposed a co-educational integration plan requiring only £3,000 of investment from the parent company, but GGE flatly refused. That starved the school of minimal resources while setting a benchmark designed for failure.

This is not an isolated incident; there is a clear pattern across the country. We saw warning signs when GGE acquired and closed Malvern St James, but in that case there was at least some notice. Durham and another GGE-owned school in Wales, Ruthin school, have been afforded no such courtesy.

[Becky Gittins (Clwyd East) (Lab)]

As my hon. Friend mentioned, Ruthin school in my constituency is also owned by Galaxy Global Education. As of last week, with the abrupt closure of the school, which is thought to be one of the oldest—if not the oldest—independent schools in the UK, parents were left bewildered, having prepaid for the next term, and staff were left without any employment rights discussions or proper redundancy processes. Most importantly, students were left devastated, not knowing about their future. Does she agree that this is a really important call for more transparency and the ability to hold any such organisations that propose to educate our young people to account?

[Mary Kelly Foy]

I thank my hon. Friend for the intervention. I completely agree. The way in which the company has acted towards pupils, parents and staff is outrageous. The least it could do is to provide some clarity and support going forward. Later in my speech, I will ask the Minister about some lessons that can be learned.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady on securing this debate. She has brought to the attention of the House and the Minister to something that is incredibly important: the takeover of any school with little or no discussions with the staff, the principal, or the board of governors, little or no contact with the parents, and certainly no talk or discussions with those who have input into the school. Does she share my concern—I believe that she will—that when influences from outside this country have bought a school, through whatever the allegedly nefarious process may be, the only way in which that can be stopped is for the Government and our Minister to bring in legislation that ensures that it cannot happen over the heads of local people at a school of historical importance?

[Mary Kelly Foy]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It seems that this overseas company had no intention of educating our children in the UK, and legislation should be strengthened or put in place to stop this happening again.

It is as though GGE saw the fallout of their decision to inform Malvern in advance and attempted to hide from any further scrutiny by giving the other schools zero notice. It is abhorrent. When I contacted GGE’s directors to demand answers, they were at pains to point out to me that they have done all they can to support staff and families. They even alluded to the Government’s introduction of VAT on independent school fees. That is nonsense. Since the VAT changes were announced, Durham high school’s roll only dipped from 288 to 281—a net loss of just seven pupils. The school has a physical capacity for 650 pupils, and a financial break-even point of roughly 350. A senior staff member said in their parting message:

“Whatever you read, this isn’t a VAT story. It isn’t a falling rolls or unstoppable decline story. The truth is deeper, and more complex, and eventually truth will out.”

It seems clear that there was never any genuine effort by GGE to make this school a success. Speaking to union representatives at the school, I am told that repeated requests to see even a basic plan for how the company would secure the school’s future were rebuffed.

What do we know about GGE? Very little seems to be the answer. It was only incorporated in the UK in April 2025, and I understand that it has not yet been possible to assess its level of available cash, debt levels, profitability or inter-company lending. The structure of the company seems equally opaque, spread across several companies, school-operating companies and overseas interests. One of those beneficial owners ultimately traces back to the Cayman Islands, with no transparency at that point.

What is clear is that one person holds a significant amount of power, and they were the person with overall control of the school until its closure. Shangqin Gao, a Chinese national, holds roughly 75% of GGE’s shares. As I understand it, the school has had no contact with this person. The House may note that this individual is also linked to two other businesses: Shine Space Management Ltd and Galaxy Capital Real Estate. The latter was incorporated only two years before the purchase of Durham high school.

All this background leads us to the crux of the situation: more than 280 children have been left stranded without a school, staff have been left without jobs and young women who sat their public exams this summer may not even be able to collect their results in the school where they studied. Local suppliers have been left facing significant losses due to unpaid invoices. Crucially, children with additional needs who thrived in this intimate environment have been thrown into limbo. They must now search for alternative specialist provision potentially miles away from home, or face being absorbed into mainstream settings.

Our local secondary state schools that provide top-class education and often win prestigious awards—such as St Leonard’s, Durham Johnston and Belmont—are all just about full. There is not enough capacity to easily absorb these pupils. As well as throwing these families into crisis, GGE has also heaped pressure on the local authority. Will the Minister liaise with Durham county council to ensure that the admissions team is appropriately supported?

The conduct of GGE in the final days, weeks and months of the school’s operation reveals the true nature of this business.

As the company ran down the school, the financial team carefully managed the remaining funds to ensure they could pay staff salaries for June, despite GGE blocking the school from paying suppliers. Yet days before payroll was due, an unexpected invoice was received from GGE that would have wiped out those payments entirely, and GGE required the massive bill to be paid that same day. Thankfully, the school business manager prioritised the livelihoods of the hard-working staff, paid the wages and ignored the demand. However, in a final blow to devastated staff, I heard just yesterday that the administrators have informed them they cannot claim unpaid salaries for July and August, despite already carrying out their work for the academic year.

A cynical mind would look at how Durham Education Limited was put into administration and conclude that it benefits a parent company to position itself as a major debtor upon any future sale, especially when the ultimate ownership of the land is in doubt. Despite assurances from GGE, the entire debacle bears the hallmarks of a land grab. In Durham, the prime real estate on which Farewell Hall sits is estimated to be worth around £10 million. That brings me to the core question: what can the Government do to stop predatory overseas companies asset-stripping our educational institutions and treating our children’s futures as real estate speculation?

Schools such as Durham high served as a safety valve for the local authority's overstretched school place allocations. Despite that, entire families have been thrown to the wolves so that an overseas corporate entity can access prime land on the edge of a historic city centre. Section 128 of the Education and Skills Act 2008 rightly gives the Secretary of State for Education the power to bar unsuitable individuals from managing independent schools. Yet with the opaque structure of the business and the fact GGE has been able to rapidly churn through directors at Companies House, shuffling responsibilities and moving its statutory administrative offices to anonymous London addresses, it seems that oversight on such businesses is patchy. How can we ensure in the future that what has happened in Durham, Malvern and Ruthin does not happen elsewhere?

To be clear, my key asks of the Minister are as follows. Will the Minister help families in Durham, Ruthin and Malvern get clarity on what steps were taken by the Department for Education, Estyn and Ofsted to ensure the suitability of GGE? Will the Minister commit to reviewing the governance structure of all the affected schools? Will she advise me whether an independent investigation could be called into GGE’s management of Durham, Malvern and Ruthin to establish exactly what happened? Will she advise me on efforts that the Government, the local authority or the school community can take to preserve the Durham high school site for educational use, rather than allow a historical education asset to disappear? Finally, will the Minister take steps to close corporate loopholes and ensure proper regulation is in place for foreign investors in UK schools? We need robust legal mechanisms within the DFE to prevent foreign capital from severing historical school properties from their educational purposes. We need statutory protections that stop predatory owners transferring freeholds out of educational charities into private, for-profit shell companies.

What happened at Durham high school will not simply go away. My constituents may be down but they are certainly not out, and they are driven by a desire for justice. Though they understand it may be too late for their beloved school, they wish no other family or hard-working member of school staff to have to go through the pain and uncertainty that they have felt.

Last Friday, my team joined families, pupils, staff and trade unionists outside the school gates for a final act of solidarity. The compassion, mutual respect and dignity that was on display is something that GGE would do well to learn from. I am sure that all of us across the House might agree that no matter the nature of the establishment, the education of our children is a public good, not a real estate portfolio. What happened to Durham, Ruthin and Malvern cannot be allowed to happen again.

I will close with the words of Mrs Middleton, the acting head for the school’s final weeks, who has been highly commended for the compassion and dedication that she has shown to the entire school community during the most horrendous circumstances:

“On the final day we came together. Of course, there was sadness. There were tears. But there was also laughter, celebration, joy, and a deep sense of knowing one another. The hardest words I have had to say over these past few weeks were: “It’s time to go.” No one moved. So I left the stage, and Mrs Rochester and I walked the children out. Senior Leaders had planned to stand outside, greet parents and clap the children out. All the staff joined us. And for over an hour we clapped, talked, cried, hugged and clapped again. In that hour there was no complaining. No anger. Just togetherness. A community to the very end.”

Disclosure and Safeguarding: At-risk Children

Mary Kelly Foy Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) for securing this debate. I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to speak on this issue and for the petition, which has been signed by more than 110,000 people, as we have heard. That level of support reflects the simple truth that children are still at risk of falling through the cracks despite warnings being raised by family members.

At the heart of this campaign is Maya Chappell, a two-year-old girl from Durham who should still be with us. However, in 2022, she was murdered by the partner of her mother. Subsequent medical investigations revealed that she had suffered a host of injuries including severe brain trauma and internal bleeding. She should have had the chance to grow up, to be safe and to be surrounded by the love, care and protection that every child deserves, but that was cruelly taken from her by someone who should have provided that very care. This tragedy occurred despite warnings from Maya’s father and concerns from other relatives. Social services and police both had pieces of the puzzle, yet nobody was able to put those pieces together.

Running through child safeguarding reviews is the fact that information is often kept in silos. Whether in the case of Victoria Climbié in 2000, Daniel Pelka in 2012 or Dwelaniyah Robinson, murdered by his mother in my constituency just days after Maya Chappell, agencies were aware of some of the dangers but were not aware that other agencies had concerns. That is the Achilles heel of child protection: it is rarely the case that nobody knows anything, rather that everyone knows a little bit. That is why Maya’s law matters. Too often, our safeguarding arrangements operate in a reactive way. We wait for a threshold to be crossed, or a pattern to become undeniable, but children do not get that time back. In safeguarding, to delay is to increase that risk.

The Government’s response to this petition acknowledges that. The response says that

“proactive information sharing…is critical”

and it points to wider reforms through the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, including a new duty to share information and broader multi-agency changes. I welcome any step that helps agencies work together better and to protect children earlier.

The campaigners’ concern, and the concern of many of us in this place, is that those reforms still do not guarantee that risk will be proactively identified, assessed and acted upon. That is the crucial point. The Government say that the system will be better at sharing information. Maya’s family ask harder questions: better at sharing with whom, at what point, and with what urgency, when a child may already be in danger?

Maya’s campaign proposes a child risk disclosure scheme, modelled in part on the principles behind Clare’s law and Sarah’s law, but focused on the broader risk history of caregivers. It calls for stronger and clearer multi-agency protocols when child contact occurs or custody is being considered, and for professionals to be mandated to raise alerts and proactively disclose a person’s relevant history of non-sexual child abuse or neglect to a child’s parent or guardian.

Any new system must be properly designed. It must make clear who makes decisions, what threshold is applied, what information is relevant, and which agency leads on these matters.

[Robbie Moore]

The hon. Member is making an excellent speech. Given the experience of the Star Hobson case in my constituency, where the grandparents were instrumental, does the hon. Member agree that we need a clear flagging system of risk posed to such children, and that information should be shared not just with agencies but with key family members who are raising concerns, whether they be parents, grandparents or anyone who fulfils a guardian role?

[Mary Kelly Foy]

I wholeheartedly agree; that was about to be my next point. Of course, the information must be shared with the relevant agencies, and whenever concerns are brought to those agencies they must also be raised with family members. None of this is a reason to reject the principle; it is a reason to do the work properly. The Government have to act on what Maya’s family are saying. They must recognise that, while the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill may improve information sharing, that is not the same as proactively identifying risk and acting before harm occurs.

This debate is a tribute to Maya’s family. What they have done in turning unimaginable personal tragedy into a campaign to improve the lives of other children across the country reflects a level of bravery and compassion that we should all be in awe of. Having met Gemma and Rachael several times, I know that I am. But we cannot let this be the end of it. This debate alone does not protect one more child—now we need action. Never forget: Maya should still be here. The least we owe her, her family and every child like her is a system that does not just collect information but proactively uses it to keep children safe.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mary Kelly Foy Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Bridget Phillipson]

I join the hon. Gentleman in celebrating the amazing success of his local college. We want to ensure that we provide the kinds of support that he talks about, and we are investing more in further education and post-16 education. If he would like to raise further areas, I will ensure that they are picked up by a Minister.

[Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)]

T2. I truly welcome the reform to SEND provision, but, with some schools already making redundancies because of funding, I echo the concerns of teaching unions that the recently announced inclusion grant is too small; it equates to one part-time teaching assistant for the average primary school and two TAs for the average secondary school. Can the Minister reassure me and educators in Durham that adequate funding will be available to make our schools more inclusive for children with SEND while allowing schools to protect the support that children with SEND in mainstream classrooms already have?

[The Minister for School Standards (Georgia Gould)]

We are committed to investing in schools. Our plans include an extra £1.6 billion going directly into schools and £1.8 billion going into the wider “experts at hand” service, on top of increasing funding to the schools core budget. In this Parliament, we will continue to grow our investment in both SEND and schools to ensure that every child gets the best start in life.

Universities: Statutory Duty of Care

Mary Kelly Foy Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) on securing this important debate.

As the Member for the City of Durham, I am immensely proud to represent a world-class university. For many students, coming to a city like Durham is not only a period of excitement, discovery and personal growth, but one of vulnerability. They are away from home for the first time, facing academic pressures far beyond A-levels and dealing with situations that they may not have had to deal with before, from problematic landlords to issues with utility suppliers, difficulties getting medication under shared care agreements and loneliness. They face situations that can pile on the pressure and exacerbate existing anxieties. For some, that vulnerability is even greater. Just yesterday, the Unite Foundation reported that well over a quarter of care-experienced and estranged students face financial concerns that directly damage their mental health. That number is over and above that of their peers who do have a family support network in place.

We are witnessing a crisis of scale. Higher Education Statistics Agency data shows that the number of students disclosing a mental health condition has increased by 480% since 2011. Office for Students statistics show that 25% of undergraduates in their final year have experienced sexual harassment, and we know that that is a tragically under-reported figure.

Some argue that because students are adults, a legal duty would make universities risk-averse, but I disagree. There is no need for a duty of care to be in loco parentis, where every move is monitored. It would be a duty to provide a professional standard of care, at the same level that we would expect from an employer or healthcare provider. If a student stops attending lectures for weeks on end, or their work shows signs of severe distress, a clearly defined process outlining how the university can and should support the student would potentially help with pressure points before they turn into emergencies.

Currently, student safety is a postcode lottery, and support varies widely between institutions. A statutory duty would replace this patchwork with a single national baseline and would help to give consistency, providing a floor below which no institution can fall. It would provide clarity on data to empower pastoral teams to involve emergency contacts without fearing that they are breaching GDPR, and integration to ensure better data sharing between the NHS and universities.

Alongside that, we must be mindful of the concerns raised by the University and College Union. Although a duty of care would be a huge step in the right direction, we need to be aware of the context in which this new responsibility would be introduced. A statutory duty of care would help to close gaps in accountability and would lead to earlier intervention, but there is already a funding crisis in higher education.

Imposing a duty of care on universities will not work if already overstretched staff and underfunded pastoral teams are expected to pick up the pieces. In fact, there is a risk that introducing a duty of care and thinking that that is job done could lead to more problems for students. If a duty of care is to be introduced, it must also come with the resources and funding to ensure that universities can deliver the training that their teams will need and that they can dedicate their own resources to already creaking mental health support teams. Of course, they need to ensure that their own staff are working in a safe environment.

A student’s safety should not rely on the terms and conditions of their specific university, but we cannot rely on passing legislation without the proper funding to allow universities to deliver the best support for their students. We owe it to every family to ensure that when a young person leaves home for higher education, the sector and the Government work hand in hand to ensure that they are protected by a properly funded, well-regulated and easy-to-understand statutory standard of care.

[Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

I call Phil Brickell, who has one minute.

Child Risk Disclosure Scheme

Mary Kelly Foy Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Liz Twist]

I know that Gemma, Rachael and the family have been working together with other families who have been affected, including Tony’s family. What happened to him is absolutely tragic. We need to take a number of steps along the way, and today we are arguing for this disclosure arrangement. I am very happy to talk to the hon. Member further about Tony’s case and how it can be improved.

The Government have taken vital steps forward with the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill by placing a duty on certain agencies to disclose information to other agencies where they consider it to be relevant to safeguarding or promoting the welfare of children. That is a recognition of the regulatory barriers perceived by practitioners when sharing information, and of the culture change that is required. I am in no doubt that those measures, including the establishment of multi-agency child protection teams and the introduction of a single unique identifier for children, will help to save lives.

[Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. Maya’s tragic story has touched many people across the north-east. I am pleased to support the family’s campaign. As my hon. Friend mentioned, one key ask from the family is the disclosure of information about wider caregivers. The recurring theme of serious case reviews into child deaths is that agencies have not worked together as they should. Does she agree that, for this law to be effective, there needs to be a laser focus on ensuring that statutory agencies genuinely work together?

[Liz Twist]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. It is really important that we keep the focus on protecting our children and taking the steps we have outlined today.

Although it is vital that we improve safeguarding mechanisms among professionals, there is still more to do to ensure that families like the Chappell family are empowered to escalate their concerns, and that their concerns are taken seriously. We need greater awareness among the public and professionals of safeguarding risks that fall outside a narrow view of sexual abuse and intimate partner violence, we need to support safeguarding agencies to fulfil their obligations and hold them to account when those obligations are not fulfilled, and we need to close gaps to protect vulnerable children from slipping through the cracks of a fragmented system.

What steps is the Minister taking, alongside colleagues in the Department for Education, to ensure that our legislation is watertight? Will he commit to working across Departments to ensure that safeguarding partners work alongside each other to uphold their responsibilities? Will the Department for Education, working alongside the Home Office and others, consider the role of the police in protecting children from a broad range of potential risks? Finally, will the Minister meet me and Maya’s family, who are here today, to hear about their concerns and the changes we believe are necessary to prevent future tragedies?

Every loss of this nature causes unbearable pain for loved ones and carers. Maya’s family have worked so hard to get the campaign to this point. Sadly, her death is not the first high-profile case in which more could have been done. Had this debate been longer, I am sure we would have heard testimonies about many more children whose deaths could have been prevented. To put it simply, in each of these cases, reports are produced, and they almost invariably cite lessons learned, as was the case with Maya. The family and I are calling for those lessons to be put into action. As Gemma Chappell says:

“Let’s make that phrase mean what it should. Not the end of a case, but the beginning of change.”

We should not be here today. Today Maya should be five and a half years old. She should be enjoying her time at school, making friends and going to birthday parties. Her family will not have the opportunity to watch her grow up and see where life would have taken her, but they want to take every opportunity they can to ensure that no family has to endure the pain that they have. I pay tribute to them and hope the Minister can work with me and Maya’s family on that mission.

Universities: Freedom of Speech

Mary Kelly Foy Excerpts

Thursday 10th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We are absolutely committed to consulting with a wide range of interests in order to get this legislation right, and I will certainly pass on his request to the Minister with responsibility for higher education, who leads on this work.

[Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the real threat to academic freedom are cuts to academic subjects and job insecurity, two issues that the Conservative party ignored time and again when in government?