Independent Schools: Regulation of Proprietors

Becky Gittins 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.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Olivia Bailey)]

I sincerely thank my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) for calling this debate, for her excellent speech and for her important advocacy on this crucial topic. I also join her in commending Mrs Middleton for her compassion and leadership; she has painted a powerful image of the staff clapping the pupils out on what must have been a very sad day. I also thank all Members who have contributed on this important topic this evening.

The subject of this debate, as I know through my colleague’s recent ministerial correspondence and her speech this evening, has rightly drawn much attention. I am incredibly sorry to hear of the closure of Durham high school, which is clearly a much-loved local school. I am particularly sorry to hear of how suddenly this news was communicated and the significant disruption this will cause to the children’s education. When schools are closed in the state sector, we of course make every effort to minimise disruption, and this is something I would expect equally of leaders in the independent sector. It is clearly concerning that that has not happened in this case.

As private businesses, private schools are responsible for ensuring their long-term viability and are free to make their own business decisions. However, while the Government do not play a role in the decision to close a private school, I can assure my hon. Friend that in this case, as with any closure, we are working closely with the local authority to ensure that places are available in local, state-funded schools for any child who requires one. I am happy to keep her up to date with this. I was also shocked to hear about the apparent nature of the behaviour of the owners of the school, including towards senior leaders, families and pupils. That is not the way we would all expect a reasonable and responsible owner to act while managing the closure of a business, especially one that affects children and families.

On my hon. Friend’s points on how the owner of Durham high school has acted, I know that she has raised this directly with the Insolvency Service and with colleagues at the Department for Business and Trade. While we understand that the owner is not currently in administration, there are robust protocols that will be followed if an administrator ends up being appointed. This process would include considering the conduct of the company’s directors and an assessment of whether further review or investigation was warranted. Where evidence of misconduct is identified and enforcement action is in the public interest, the Insolvency Service will of course take appropriate action.

On the wider issues my hon. Friend raises in relation to how the owner has conducted business at Durham high school, Ruthin, Malvern and other private schools, I know that this has been raised through the relevant channels at the Department for Business and Trade. On all cases where there is potential malpractice, my colleagues at the DBT will take the necessary action. On the topic of our statutory powers in relation to independent schools, the Department has a robust system in place around how proprietors are registered and regulated. The proprietor is the person or persons legally responsible for the running of the school. They are responsible for ensuring that all the independent school standards are met, including in areas such as safeguarding, health and safety, and quality of education. When a new private school wants to register, as 105 did successfully in 2025, they must set out how they will meet the independent school standards, and the Secretary of State carries out a number of safer recruitment checks on the proprietor of any proposed new school. These important, wide-ranging checks include an identity check and an enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service check, as well as checks to ensure that the proprietor is not barred from working in regulated activity with children, is not the subject of a prohibition from management order, and has the right to work in the UK.

The Secretary of State has powers to prohibit a person from managing a private school. Any such prohibition prevents a person from being a proprietor of a private school. Any change of proprietor is considered a material change, and therefore the Secretary of State carries out the same suitability checks that I have already set out.

Recognising the importance of the proprietor role, this Government have recently taken powers via the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 to allow the Secretary of State by regulations to create a fit and proper person test for proprietors of private schools. We are currently considering what might fall under this test, so this debate is timely and useful.

[Becky Gittins]

In the light of what we have heard this evening, does the Minister agree that the case of Galaxy Global Education warrants the Department for Education’s considering the recording of information about not only who is running independent schools, but the ownership of independent schools? Will she meet me and other affected MPs, alongside colleagues in DBT, to ensure that, where there are issues of widespread foreign ownership and business malpractice, we can get together and eradicate them from our independent schools sector?

[Olivia Bailey]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her advocacy on this topic both in the Chamber and outside it. I am extremely concerned to hear of the practice that has been described this evening. I am happy to meet with her, my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham and any other affected Members, along with a relevant Minister from the Department for Business and Trade, to talk about those wider issues. I will come shortly to the specific point she makes about recording ownership.

The ownership details of private businesses are available at Companies House. If the school is a charity, as around half of all private schools are, the Charity Commission will hold additional information. On the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd East (Becky Gittins), I have asked officials for advice on ways that we could consider recording the ownership of private schools to understand better who is potentially making any profit or who is taking relevant business decisions. I also reassure my hon. Friends that we keep our registration and regulation regime under continuous review.

I acknowledge the strong views expressed by hon. Members, and again thank my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham for bringing this issue to the attention of the House. Whenever a school closes, it is a sad and challenging time for both parents and children, and my thoughts are with all the families affected by the closures in my hon. Friends’ constituencies.

I assure the House that the safety and quality of education provision for all children in this country is something that I take incredibly seriously whether a child is at a private school or a state school. When it comes to how we register and regulate our private schools, I have taken on board the points raised across the House today and will continue to work to ensure that our system is as robust as it can be, so that all children receive the fantastic education they deserve.

Question put and agreed to.

Children with Allergies: School Safeguarding

Becky Gittins Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Becky Gittins (Clwyd East) (Lab)]

I was diagnosed with an anaphylactic peanut allergy at the age of seven. Much of the coverage around allergies centres on the devastating occasions when anaphylaxis and avoidable reactions result in tragic deaths. For most allergy sufferers, today’s debate feels much closer to our daily life and is therefore incredibly poignant. The impact of allergic diseases on the lives of children goes far beyond severe and occasional reactions; it impacts every part of their lives.

I begin by endorsing the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore); I endorse much of the additional provision he has asked for. In my experience, having a food allergy has meant feeling different and isolated from my peers at school. I was often not able to be involved with school experiences or even rewards for getting my times tables or spelling right, if they were food-based.

I also experienced a high degree of anxiety from my parents when other parents continually sent their children in with peanut butter sandwiches despite repeated warnings, the result of which was always that I, as a seven-year-old, needed to restrict myself further to keep myself safe. Having to take huge precautions when going on school and residential trips, which required me to challenge some cooking staff—adults—who were asking me to eat food that I knew to be unsafe. In a school setting, where good behaviour is often associated with deference towards teachers and other adults, that is very difficult for a child to navigate. On one occasion, a member of the catering staff at an outdoor pursuit residential centre called me a pain in the proverbial—her language was not so polite—for having allergies and refusing to eat unsafe food that was put in front of me. I was 10.

As I got older, I became more resentful of my allergies, always having to carry a messenger bag with adrenalin auto-injectors when out with friends, not being able to eat at the fast food places and restaurants where my friends held birthday parties or went at the weekend, and never being able to sit with them for school dinners in the canteen. One thing that is often not discussed is that I, like many with allergies, know there are things I will never do and places I will never go, as their cuisine is unsuitable for my allergies and there is a lack of medical access while travelling.

Like many allergy sufferers, I have suffered periods of anxiety when my allergies have either caused or become a vehicle for intensifying periods of poor mental health. The early physical symptoms of an anaphylactic reaction are remarkably similar to those of a panic attack: laboured breathing, potential loss of consciousness and what the medical profession call an impending sense of doom. For a child—indeed, throughout life—navigating the difference between anaphylaxis and anxiety can be incredibly difficult when their body is alerting them to threats: real threats that must not be ignored, in the case of allergy, or perceived threats, as often in cases of anxiety. That is an often under-appreciated part of what life is like for young people living with allergies. For allergy sufferers, a life of restriction, anxiety and fear is not just a one-off tragic story; it affects the everyday life of those children.

I would love to be able to say that in the 23 years since I was diagnosed with an anaphylactic allergy, the outlook for children with allergies has become much better. In fact, the biggest change in that time is that the number of people with allergies has more than doubled, while the support and infrastructure for allergy sufferers has remained much the same. The rates are such that one in 13 children now has a food allergy, which equates to two children in every classroom. That is the real importance of this debate. Data shows that 20% of food allergic reactions, and approximately 30% of first-time anaphylactic reactions, like the one we heard about from my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham), occur at school. One in five food allergic reactions occurs outside the school building: on the playground, travelling to and from school, or on school field trips.

Hospital admissions due to food-induced anaphylaxis tripled between 1998 and 2018, with the largest increase seen in children under 15, reflecting a growing incidence of severe allergic reactions. Astonishingly, it is estimated that half a million school days are lost to allergic disease each year. That has a massive impact on the educational attainment of a growing number of young people in our schools. That makes it all the more worrying that 69% of schools do not have in place the recommended safeguards of allergy policy plans, medication or training; that, despite being permitted to carry AAIs since 2017, almost half of all schools do not hold their own life-saving allergy medication; that two in five teachers feel unprepared to respond to a child experiencing an allergic reaction; and that, according to NASUWT research, 67% of teachers have had no formal allergy awareness training.

Earlier this year, I was pleased to attend the launch of the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation’s allergy school module. Designed to address the lack of allergy training in schools, it is a comprehensive suite of free training resources designed to empower, include and protect children with food allergies. I have written to every school in my constituency about those fantastic resources. They have been available since January, and a module is coming later in the year for secondary school students.

I regularly speak to schools in my constituency about allergy school, and I have been heartened by the work that many schools are doing to keep allergic pupils safe. Recently, I was heartened when asked, in an interview with young reporters from the Bodnant Bugle at Bodnant community school, about my work with allergy in this place. I also heard how informed pupils and staff are working together with the aim of keeping pupils feeling safe and, crucially, included in their school community. That is a huge stride, but we must do more.

As a champion of the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation, and a proud member of the APPG on allergy, I am keen to support the progression of its allergy safety action plan. The following calls are most important. All nursery and school staff should be trained in allergy awareness, allergy management, and how to respond in a food allergy emergency, including the administration of medication. Lists and photos of children with food allergies should be available to all staff to ensure that they can be easily identified and their needs can be met throughout the school day. All schools and nurseries should have a specific allergy policy that includes an anaphylaxis plan. All schools and nurseries should have an individual healthcare plan for every child with a diagnosed allergy. Such plans should always include paediatric allergy action plans and an anaphylaxis risk assessment. All schools and nurseries should record and report all known instances of food allergic reactions and, crucially, near misses.

That record keeping should be included in the evaluation criteria for Ofsted inspections. All schools should have an allergy-aware anti-bullying policy. Schools should ensure that their behaviour and anti-bullying policies include awareness of food allergy-related bullying. There should be milk alternatives for free school milk provision; allergy-friendly provision in breakfast clubs, of which we are so proud; requirements on schools to publish their catering information and the allergy assessments done by school catering staff and agencies; and provision for children who cannot safely eat school dinners, in recognition of the fact that parents of food-allergic children spend an average of 14.4% extra on their weekly food shop.

Since I became an MP, I have met so many children who suffer through allergic disease and whose experiences of growing up with allergies are painfully similar to mine, although they are 20 years apart. I hope the work that we will discuss this afternoon ensures that allergic children have a much better, safer experience of school in the future.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Tenth sitting)

Becky Gittins Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 13th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Katie Lam]

In the light of the comments that Government Members have made on other provisions in the Bill, these new clauses seem to us completely unnecessary. Exactly as my hon. Friend just said, they do not seem to us appropriate for primary legislation and seem more likely to constrain rather than empower the Home Secretary and Ministers in their difficult job of securing the border.

[Becky Gittins (Clwyd East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I will keep my comments brief.

I read the new clauses from the hon. Member for Woking with interest. I understand the important point that has been raised—I think by hon. Members on both sides—about the importance of working internationally on this issue. I suppose my question to him would be: does he not think that an international outlook in tackling the issues that we have here, which is the sole purpose of the Bill, has already been exercised? In December last year, we agreed the Calais Group priority plan with our near neighbours and the joint action plan on migration with Germany. In November last year, we had the landmark security agreement with Iraq, and we also have a well-established relationship with our counterparts in France to work closely to prevent the dangerous crossings and reduce the risk to life at sea.

We have talked a lot about cause and effect, and I can really see the intention behind the new clauses. However, I question their necessity, as well as some of the suggestions made about the intention of the Government, who have really shown a pragmatic outlook about how we deter those crossings.