Kirsty Blackman MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 18 May 2026 · House of Commons · Hansard source

  More

  Mr Speaker, two of my colleagues have been elected to Scotland’s national Parliament, so this is a bittersweet task for me. Ordered, That the Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the Burgh Constituency of Aberdeen South, in the room of Stephen Flynn, who, since his election for the said Burgh Constituency, has been appointed to the Office of Steward and Bailiff of His Majesty’s Manor of Northstead in the County of York.— (Kirsty Blackman.)

• 18 May 2026 · Backing Business to Create Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  Madam Deputy Speaker, may I give you a heads-up? I am going to mention a number of hon. Members, all of whom I have contacted in advance to let them know that I will be mentioning them. There has been an awful lot of talk about regulation in the debate. I remind the Conservatives that the vast bulk of regulation that businesses are labouring under was created during or prior to their 14 years in office. A huge amount of the regulation affecting businesses that transport things abroad or sell things overseas is because of Brexit. There are many reasons why regulation has come in, and not all of them are down to this Labour Government. I agree that it is important to listen to businesses—something that the Labour Government are singularly failing to do—when they ask for easy, small changes to be made that will make their lives significantly easier. The Labour Government—all Governments —should listen to those businesses and consider making those changes. Since 2024, the Government have been mired in stagnation. They do not seem able to do or achieve anything. Some of the pre-consultation draft Bills that were suggested in the last King’s Speech never made it to Parliament—we never saw them—so even putting aside the current chaos, how can we believe that all the things in the King’s Speech will come before this Parliament for us to make decisions on? On regulation, the Office for Tax Simplification was started and cancelled by the Conservative Government. If we need a simpler tax system, then surely an Office for Tax Simplification would be the sensible route to take, but that is not the only burden that is faced. I agree that to keep people safe, keep businesses profitable and ensure that businesses can export to wherever they want, we need simpler regulations that make sense and have a purpose—not regulations that are there just because they are what we had 100 years ago, 50 years ago or 20 years ago. On the red tape around regulation, there is more to be done on pension funds. Despite the Pension Schemes Act 2026, which I largely support, there is still more that can be done to free up some of the money in pension funds. For example, I would love to see more pension fund money going into building more social housing. We know that we will get a return on social housing, as people pay rent on those social houses. I would love to see flexibility introduced, so that the Government can create pipelines for smaller-scale energy projects, such as renewable energy projects for communities, and social housing. Pension funds could then invest our money in them. We must remember that it is our money in those pension funds, but that money is not being invested in ways that will ensure growth, in both living standards and the economy. Touching on my constituency and jobs in Aberdeen, I recently met a business in my patch called Lows Tradional Fish & Chips. Lows is an excellent chipper; we call them chippers in Aberdeen, but everybody else seems to call them chippies. Lows talked to me about the increase in its energy costs, which have more than tripled. It is important that the UK Government consider that seriously. They claim that they have targeted support for businesses. It should not be just for high-energy businesses that have to use significant amounts of electricity and gas to make ceramics and other goods; that support should extend to smaller businesses that use significant amounts of heat—for example, in order to cook fish and chips. In Aberdeen, the fish is generally haddock, not cod. The Chancellor needs to keep those businesses in mind when making her announcement later this week—potentially on Thursday—about energy costs. Oil and gas jobs in Aberdeen are disappearing like snaw aff a dyke, which means “very quickly”. That is the legacy of the Conservative Government, who created the energy profits levy, and the result of this Government not listening to people. The Conservatives can talk about drilling all they want, but if they cancel renewables, there is no future for our energy industries. The Labour Government can talk about renewables all they want, but unless we fill the gap in between, all those folk from my constituency and across the north-east—the engineers, and the people who are innovating and creating amazing products that ensure we can exploit energy and provide energy security—will go away. They will go to Malaysia to work, and they will not be here, paying taxes and inventing those things. We need both types of energy generation, and neither of the two main parties are offering that.

• 18 May 2026 · Backing Business to Create Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  I will try to give a short piece of advice, Madam Deputy Speaker. If I were in the Scottish Labour party, I would either say, “We are a separate party from UK Labour, and we make our own decisions”, or I would say, “We back the Prime Minister.” It is clear that Anas Sarwar, the leader of Scottish Labour, does not back the Prime Minister, and does not have confidence in him. He and many of his MSPs and MPs have said that Scottish Labour is a separate party, which makes its own decisions. I assume that the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) follows his Scottish leader, supports ending the Prime Minister’s reign, and is looking forward to that, like all his colleagues. As I said, our amendment can hardly fail to be the most popular amendment tabled, given that so many hon. Members from across the House have explicitly stated how much they support our position, so I am sure that they will vote for it on Wednesday.

• 18 May 2026 · Backing Business to Create Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Local jobs would have been created. We have rural population decline; we need to encourage people to move to rural areas by creating those jobs. This UK Government, and past UK Governments, have failed the people of north-east Scotland who work in the energy industries. We need change, or those jobs will continue to disappear. Scottish National party Members have tabled amendment (c) to the King’s Speech. The amendment says, “having lost confidence in your leadership”— Oh no, sorry, that is not our amendment—that is what the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) said. I will try again. The amendment says: “It is clear that the Prime Minister no longer has the trust or confidence of the public to lead this change.” No, apologies; the hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) said that. I will try again to find the amendment that we have tabled about the Prime Minister and our confidence in him. What about these? “It is in the best interest of the country and the party that the Prime Minister sets out a swift timetable to ensure that a new leader is in place to regain the confidence of the public.” No, that was the hon. Member for Hexham (Joe Morris). I am sure I have got our amendment here somewhere, so let me try again. “It’s clear that the Prime Minister no longer has the trust or confidence of the public, or large swathes of the Parliamentary Labour Party”. No, that was the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Gordon McKee). “The Prime Minister has…failed to instil confidence in his leadership”. No, that was the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell). Sorry, I will find the amendment—it is somewhere here, I am sure of it. Does it say, “the public across the UK has now irretrievably lost confidence in you as Prime Minister”? No, that was the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed). I am sure I have the amendment somewhere. Does it say, “it’s clear from countless doorstep conversations that my constituents have lost confidence in him”? No, that was the hon. Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger). I am sure it is here. Does it say that “you, Prime Minister, have lost the trust and confidence of the public”? No, that was the hon. Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh). Our amendment says: “At end add ‘but respectfully regret to inform Your Majesty that the Prime Minister does not have the confidence of this House.’” Given my amazing confusion about the similarity between what a significant number of Labour Members have said in public and our amendment—it is almost the same wording—I assume that our amendment will be by far the most popular amendment tabled. It clearly has significant cross-party support. I have not yet heard any Member talk in the Chamber today about their confidence in the Prime Minister.

• 17 Mar 2026 · Meningitis Outbreak · Hansard source

  More

  Our thoughts are with everyone involved in this matter, particularly all those who are dealing with it, including medical professionals, university staff and UKHSA. I understand that the Secretary of State’s immediate priority today will be this specific outbreak. Dr Amirthalingam from UKHSA was on BBC Radio 4 this morning and suggested that the progression of the outbreak is atypical. Will the Secretary of State give a reassurance that the devolved health authorities will be given updates if there is another atypical progression anywhere else in these islands?

• 17 Mar 2026 · Youth Unemployment · Hansard source

  More

  I am not interested in discussing how we got to this point; we all need to work together to ensure that young people can get the opportunities they deserve and that those opportunities are available to them. I have read the Secretary of State’s statement from Monday, I have read the press release, and I have read and listened to today’s statement. There are some gaps about exactly how the timelines will work and what the legislative process for putting the package in place will be. Will he give us an assurance that the House will get this information at the earliest opportunity, so that we can work together to ensure that young people will have the opportunities that he is hoping they will get?

• 12 Mar 2026 · Defending Democracy Taskforce · Hansard source

  More

  It was an honour to serve on the Speaker’s Conference and, in all the work that I have done on security, I have tried to be a voice for the smaller parties, and particularly for people who are further away from Parliament. One of the biggest strengths of the Speaker’s Conference was the extent to which it listened to Members’ experiences. I appreciate the huge amount of work that has been done to improve data gathering, and the fact that we are much better at pooling together our understanding of the threat, but will the Minister reassure us that Members’ experiences will be listened to, in addition to looking at the data, so that we can build on the strengths of the Speaker’s Conference?

• 12 Mar 2026 · International Women’s Day · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister talk about not just the tech sector, but how there is such a glass ceiling in engineering—there is a huge number of engineering jobs in my constituency—that women rarely manage to get through it? There is also a similar race equality issue in the higher tiers of engineering.

• 12 Mar 2026 · International Women’s Day · Hansard source

  More

  It is always difficult to follow the hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler)—I am genuinely in awe of her speeches, including the one she just gave. I was also in awe of the speech made by the hon. Member for Gorton and Denton (Hannah Spencer). Like the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), I wish I had delivered a maiden speech that was anywhere close to as good as hers. Her passion for and her understanding of her constituents were very clear. So many MPs in this place do not understand their constituents or their constituency when they are first elected, but it is clear that the new hon. Member for Gorton and Denton is one of her people, and she really understands how people in her patch feel. Her constituents are very lucky to have such a representative. I thought about how best to approach this speech. Would I make a political speech, raging about all the injustices, or would I talk about all the unseen women—those who are doing all the heavy lifting, but whom we do not talk about and do not notice? I thought about how best to put across what I thought, but honestly, I have had the busiest week in Parliament that I have ever had, so I am going to try to give a speech in which I do not cry. That is my bar for today. If I do that, I will have won. A member of my team, Alma, is one of the most wonderful humans I have ever met. She was born in Denmark and spent a lot of time there. She was telling me that in Denmark, International Women’s Day is called Kvindernes Kampdag, which I have probably pronounced wrong. That means “women’s struggle day” or “women’s fight day”. It is about recognising the fight and the struggle that women face, but it is also about fighting and struggling for women. I thought that was such a good thing for all of us to think about, because that fight and struggle is ongoing; it has not been won. As the hon. Member for Brent East said, things are not in a good way. Things are less safe than they have been for a very long time. We need to continue to support, recognise and fight for the unseen women. We talk about unseen work sometimes, and about the fact that there are women doing jobs that nobody notices. Let me tell Members: we would notice very quickly if those women were not doing them, because things would not work. We are all here today, able to have this debate, because of a member of the House staff who ensures that these debates happen. It is her birthday today. I am not going to say her name, because she would probably kill me, but I want to recognise that she is one of the many unseen women in this place who ensure that we can do what we do, and that we have the time and space to make speeches. She has made the time this Thursday for us to speak about the issues affecting our constituents and women around the world. A number of people have spoken about oppressive states, and what is happening in the many countries around the world where the situation, systemically and because of how things are run by the state, is becoming worse for women. Some of that is because of various religions’ extreme interpretation of religious texts, which requires women to behave in a certain way, but some of it is not. Some of it is just because we continue to have patriarchal societies throughout the world. Men are historically bigger and stronger than us and are able to keep that patriarchy in place. There are hugely gendered expectations on young women growing up. That is made worse by the fact that they are on the internet. We see those gendered expectations not just in classrooms and on the television shows that young women see; they are in the games that they play online, and in the online spaces that they inhabit. They are everywhere that women are expected to be subservient to men. A number of us have spoken about women having to be better than men to get to the same position. I have spoken a lot about the phrase “hard-working families”. Sometimes, when people say “hard-working families”, they mean middle-class families; they mean people earning £40,000 or £50,000 a year. They do not mean people working as carers. They do not mean people trying to get four kids out the door in the morning, with the right shoes on the right feet. They do not mean the people doing the everyday jobs that we desperately need done. They do not mean the bus drivers, or the people working to ensure that all our lives run smoothly. The hon. Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) mentioned the way that we look at society, and the value that we give to rules. I have been thinking for a long time that we should really tip this issue on its head. We should think, “Which jobs do we need people to do?” We need people to be carers. We need people to look after children in nurseries. We need people to be teachers, nurses and doctors. We need people to do all the public-sector roles that we desperately need. However, we do not value those roles. We do not pay those people more than the living wage, in a lot of cases. Those are the people whose jobs we desperately need or society would fall apart, yet for some reason, we continue to think it is okay that they continue to be at the bottom of the pile. These jobs are overwhelmingly jobs that women are in, and we need to think about the gendered expectation that women will continue to do all of the hard work and we will pay them very little for doing so. Imagine if they did not—imagine if women went on strike. Imagine if every woman we know who is working in every job we know went on strike. How quickly society would fall apart if the women stopped doing all of that work that we do not see! That is why we need to fight for all of those unseen women doing those unseen jobs. We need to fight so that we can ensure it is not just women who are filling those roles; we need equal opportunities at the top of the pile and at the bottom of the pile. We need to be able to lift women out of some of those roles, but we also need to ensure that men can take up some of those roles. Perhaps we would get more pay for carers if more men were carers—there are some, but I think that would tip things in a good direction. I have a couple more things to say in relation to Parliament. I thought it was really interesting that the statement on the defending democracy taskforce took place just before this debate. I struggle more than I ever have to tell young women to come to Parliament and become an elected representative. It is harder than it has ever been. Part of that is because of social media and the toxic climate that there can be, particularly out in the world where there is so much polarisation and ideological position-taking, which results in the abuse that women and Members from ethnic minority backgrounds face. Standing in front of a class of young women and people from a variety of different ethnic backgrounds, it is very hard to say to them, “This is a great job—you should do it.” What I find myself saying to them is, “This is a really hard job. This is a job where you will face abuse, but it is worth it to make a difference.” I think that, across the parties, we are genuinely all working together to try to ensure that democracy is defended and that younger people—or older people—thinking about going into politics can truly consider doing so, and can take on those roles without fear that they will be abused. Again, the hon. Member for Brent East talked about the expectations on women. I remember doing BBC TV—I think it was the Queen’s Speech. I was sitting there, and the journalist turned to me when Theresa May got out of the car and said, “What do you think of Theresa May’s outfit?” I was like, “Um, she looks very resolute?” He said, “Okay, you’re right, I shouldn’t have asked you that. I’ll ask the man on the panel instead—what do you think of Theresa May’s outfit?” That’s not the point. It is not about what Theresa May is wearing; it is about what she is doing and the importance of this moment. Whether I agreed or disagreed with the Conservative Prime Minister, she was stepping out of that car as Prime Minister. It was really important, and talking about what she was wearing was not the right thing to do in that moment. The hon. Member for Brent East talked about those expectations—about being too smiley or not smiley enough—and the fact that we simply cannot win. No matter what abuse is thrown at me, I guarantee that I have said worse to myself. I am my own greatest critic, as are many of the women who I meet and know across Parliament. I am the SNP’s only woman MP right now, because of being wiped out by you guys, frankly. It is not that we did not stand lots of women—we did—it was just bad electoral luck on our part and losing lots of seats. As the only woman MP in the SNP, finding that fellowship and support across the House is really difficult right now, so I have been happy to support and work with people who are organising the women’s caucus and trying to get it off the ground, for the sake of people like me and women in other parties—particularly small parties—who do not have those natural relationships within our parties. We cannot find those people unless we happen to bump into each other in the Tea Room; we do not get that at group meetings. It is really important that we push forward with the women’s caucus, so that women can have that place where we get support; I commend all the Members who have worked really hard in trying to bring it forward. The last thing I want to touch on is menopause, because Members are right: it is not talked about enough. It is not something that I ever heard discussed in my home when I was a child. It is not something that I knew existed. I am sure I knew that periods stopped at some point, but I did not know much beyond that. The more groups of women who are past their 30s I speak to, the more I learn about menopause. I just want to say, how unfair is it that itchy ears are a symptom of menopause? These women have everything else to deal with; they are dealing with so much rubbish. For anyone who did not know, itchy ears are a symptom of menopause—I think that is my public service announcement for the day—so if you hear women in your life talking about having itchy ears, be kind to them and give them a bit of support. It is really important that we hold each other up, support one another and work on a cross-party basis to further the rights of women, and ensure that those unseen women are supported and that we pay an awful lot more money to people working in roles that, traditionally, have mostly been held by women, in order to recognise their contribution.

• 11 Mar 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T4. Eighteen months ago in the King’s Speech, the Government announced that they would introduce a draft race and disability equality Bill, but we have not yet seen it. Next week it will be a year since the consultation was launched. When will we see the draft Bill, and what will the process of scrutiny be?

• 11 Mar 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill: Ways and Means (Amendment of Power to Make Further Provision Relating to Abolition of Lifetime Allowance Charge) · Hansard source

  More

  I draw the House’s attention to the unusual circumstances of moving a Ways and Means motion after the Finance Bill. During the course of the Budget, we had a discussion on the founding motions that had been laid at that point. They did not include an amendment of the law motion, which historically was sensible practice and which Labour previously complained about the Conservatives removing—the Conservative Chancellor at the time said it was simply an administrative change. In fact, removing the amendment of the law motion means that the Government have now to table new founding motions, otherwise they cannot make the tax changes they are looking to make. It also means that no Member in this House can move anything that is outside the scope of those motions. It restricts debate by any Member of taxation measures that they would like to introduce if they sit outside those founding motions. Progress has been made on the Bill. Committee proceedings were held in the House initially and moved into the Bill Committee. I have previously raised significant concerns about the fact that the Finance Bill does not take oral evidence at any stage in its passage through the House. It does not take oral evidence in the Commons because it has already had part of the Committee stage in the main Chamber, despite the fact that the stuff we do in Bill Committee is usually on the more technical pieces, which would very much benefit from oral evidence sessions, and that it would not hold up progress on the Bill much. In fact, we have had a significant amount of downtime with this Finance Bill, and there have been periods of time when those oral evidence sessions could have been taken. We end up in a situation where scrutiny happens, we look at all the things included in the Bill, we come to Report after line-by-line scrutiny, and then the Government add new founding motions in order to add new parts to the Bill. I have significant concerns about the reasons scrutiny is being conducted in this way. Will the Government commit either to ensuring that they do not do this again, because it is not a good way to ensure transparency and scrutiny of legislation, or to including an amendment of the law motion, as historically was normal practice? That would allow the Government to make the changes they need to make today without having to table new Ways and Means motions. If the Minister is concerned about that course of action, he might want to note that 45 minutes have been scheduled for each of these Ways and Means motions, and in future iterations of the Finance Bill it would be entirely possible for Members to talk for 45 minutes on them. Adding new Ways and Means motions gives Members additional time to talk about those specific things, which would reduce scrutiny on the important things that the Minister, I am sure, wishes to talk about when we come to the main part of the Finance Bill. If the Minister could commit to having a look at the way that this was done to try to ensure that we are not again in the situation where Ways and Means motions are added at the very last stage of a Bill’s progress, or, as I say, to including that amendment of the law motion, which would allow them the necessary flexibility, that would be helpful and would certainly dissuade me from talking for 45 minutes on a Ways and Means motion in the next iteration of the Finance Bill.

• 11 Mar 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q7. Westminster’s tax on Scotland’s energy is holding back investment, and it is costing thousands of families their livelihoods. After months of refusing to do so, the Chancellor has now finally said that she is committed to change. Will the Prime Minister confirm to the House today when the oil and gas price mechanism will be introduced to provide certainty for jobs, certainty for investment and, crucially, certainty for energy security?

• 11 Mar 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  That was truly brilliant. With all the craziness that we face in the world and all the issues faced by farmers, businesses and those who are badly advised by people making up tax advice on the internet, if the key priority of Reform is, “Let’s not increase the price of cigars”, it has got something wrong in the way that it deals with things. I have laid out exactly how the SNP will deal with each of the votes that will take place, including our abstention on the income tax thresholds, because they do not apply in Scotland. I am very clear that we continue to have major concerns about APR and BPR. I want the Government to think again about whisky duty and the level of transparency and scrutiny provided throughout the course of the Bill. This is not the first time I have asked for that, and Members are probably sick of me asking for oral evidence sessions to be included in the Bill, but I will keep asking until that happens. If the Government want to stop me having this conversation, just make it happen, and we will be completely grand.

• 11 Mar 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Have the Government given the hon. Member any idea of when a post-implementation review of this legislation might be done, and therefore when the Treasury can say how much tax has been gathered and how much has been lost as a result of these changes?

• 11 Mar 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree. With the uncertainty in the middle east just now, we are seeing an increase in fuel prices, which will heavily impact farmers, and fertiliser prices. Since Russia invaded Ukraine, fertiliser prices have gone through the roof and it has been difficult to get hold of at all, so farmers need support. We have always relied on growing food, but in this ever more uncertain world we really need to rely on growing our own food. This Government—and all Governments—need to consider whether we want to be self-sufficient, or anywhere near self-sufficient, in food, or we are happy to see our farms dismantled to create ever-larger, Australian-style sheep farms, with thousands of sheep on them and nothing else. We need to consider what future there is for our farmers and ensure that we are backing that future.

• 11 Mar 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Given that we have a Labour Government who care about workers’ rights, the family businesses that I have visited have a strong worker involvement. The people who work there are cared for and looked after because it is a family business, and one would think that the Labour party would want to support more of those rather than encouraging people to get out of that place. I agree with the hon. Gentleman and I have big concerns on the matter. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) is currently leading a debate in Westminster Hall, he is unable to speak to his amendments himself, so I would like to talk about the reasons that he has tabled them. He has tabled a number of amendments in relation to APR and the anti-forestalling clauses. We are pleased that the threshold for APR was raised—that is welcome—but we are concerned about the backdating and the fact that the changes relate to things from 2024 onwards, rather than from April 2026 onwards. My hon. Friend’s amendments relate specifically to those anti-forestalling issues and ask for changes to be made, so that there is no backdating on the transactions. A number of agricultural organisations and farmers in his constituency have asked for those changes to be made, which is why he has put forward those amendments. The Government have raised the threshold, which is welcome, but if they continue to push forward with this measure, that will not be enough. Either cancelling it completely, as suggested by the Conservatives, or looking at the date would be incredibly helpful in ensuring that it is not backdated or retrospective, so that people do not lose relief on changes announced or made previous to the Budget. My hon. Friend also tabled amendments in relation to whisky duty, which would take out clause 86. Over the last three years, we have seen an 18% hike in whisky duty. The figures show that there will be a £600 million downgrade in receipts as a result of continuing to increase this tax. Increasing the tax will reduce receipts, which will result in jobs in Scotland being put at risk, and the Government getting less money. I do not understand the logic of continuing to push ahead with raising whisky duty. We really want the Government to think again. [ Interruption. ] To be fair, the 18% hike over three years was down to both Labour and the Conservatives, so I am afraid that the Conservatives do not have a huge amount of high ground. This issue has happened under both parties, but we will continue to fight on behalf of Scottish whisky producers. The tax on spirits needs to be looked at seriously, because this is an important part of the Scottish economy; it provides jobs in rural areas where depopulation is a big issue. We need these companies to continue, but if the Government continue to raise tax and hike the tax rates, we will see those jobs dropping off. Amendment 140 has not been selected, but it is the only amendment put forward by our merry band of Reform colleagues, although they signed some other amendments. If anyone looks at that amendment, which we would presume is Reform’s key priority, given that that is the only amendment it has put forward, they will see that it would remove clause 88, which increases cigar duty. The main priority of Reform in the entire Finance Bill is that the Government should not be allowed to increase duty on cigars. That says a huge amount about the priorities of those who sit on the Reform Benches for the general people. To be fair, no Reform Members are here.

• 11 Mar 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  You would not believe, Madam Deputy Speaker, how far beyond delighted I was when I discovered that I would be stepping in for a colleague on the Finance Bill. I am sure that the House is similarly ecstatic to hear me speak on the Bill. I did a significant number of Finance Bills in my first few years in this place, and I have missed it. I have also missed the former Member for Amber Valley, Nigel Mills, who used to make a speech from the Government Back Benches about something that nobody else had even considered or knew existed. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) is very kindly stepping into his shoes and raising issues relating to gambling tax, which, to be fair, are important. He is asking very important questions, as Nigel Mills used to, about a fairly niche subject. In the light of the hon. Member’s comments about gambling taxation and the black market, it would be great if the Treasury provided updates on how the tax has worked. In fact, I think the Treasury should generally provide more updates on every tax measure that it implements. If the Treasury says that a tax measure will raise £30 million, it would be helpful for the MPs who sat on the Finance Bill to know whether it did in fact raise £30 million, or if it raised £50 million or £10 million. Then, we could make better decisions about future tax changes, because we would have a better idea of whether they would achieve the Government’s aims. Successive Governments have been particularly bad at undertaking post-implementation reviews, particularly of tax measures. It would be really handy to see that information more regularly, so that we can make better-informed decisions. Let me touch on the transparency issues that have been mentioned. Earlier, I raised my concerns about the fact that additional Ways and Means motions were added at this point. I also raised the fact that we do not have oral evidence sessions during the passage of the Finance Bill. I continue to make the case that that could be done after Committee of the whole House. Usually the more technical aspects of Finance Bills are considered in a Public Bill Committee in a Committee Room, rather than in a Committee of the whole House in the Chamber. The Minister said that some Government amendments had been tabled following stakeholder feedback—particularly through written evidence—to clarify the intention of the legislation. The Government had intended to do something, and stakeholders said, “We don’t really understand this; it’s not clear enough. Could you clarify it?”. If the Government had held oral evidence sessions, they may have been able to make those changes in Committee, rather than on Report. I urge them, and any future Government, to consider holding oral evidence sessions. Anyone who has been on a Bill Committee in which there are oral evidence sessions will understand their great value, and we refer back to them so many times throughout the course of a Committee. There is nothing quite like being able to ask an expert questions, rather than just looking at the written evidence, which is helpful, but it is not the same. We do not remember written evidence in the same way, and we do not have the same ability to probe it. I want to touch on the four amendments that may be put to a vote. The SNP and I are happy to support new clause 4, tabled by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy). I was thinking about the history of some “get rich quick” schemes. We had Ponzi schemes and pyramid schemes. The new thing—the Ponzi scheme of the day—is the scheme that says, “This is foolproof. This is failsafe. You are going to make loads of money doing this,” but it is actually unregulated. The new clause would be incredibly helpful. I would have preferred the new clause to say “user-to-user services” instead of “social media”, so that it would cover all the stuff in the Online Safety Act 2023. That covers things that we may not classically define as social media. For example, if somebody gave really terrible tax advice on a money-saving expert forum, would that be included in the definition of social media? Social media is not 100% defined, which is why I would have preferred a different term. However, the new clause is sufficient to cover the majority of people.

• 11 Mar 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is absolutely worth looking at that forum, but as the hon. Member said in relation to the new clause, people who are promoting schemes with no expectation that they will actually work should not be doing it on money-saving expert forums, or anywhere else. I agree that Martin Lewis has been very clear that he does not give advice online, and that people who, for example, say, “This is a Martin Lewis tip” are lying. It is worth highlighting that the way in which he has chosen to put forward tax advice or information is totally different to the way chosen by the financial influencers referred to in new clause 4. As I said, I am more than happy to support it; I would have just liked it to be wider. We are happy to support new clause 11 on the uprating of agricultural relief, tabled by the Liberal Democrats. If the new clause and the uprating is not to be implemented, it would be incredibly useful to see the Government’s rationale for why they have chosen not to do annual uprating in a way that would be standard for the majority of other reliefs. What is the logic for that? As I was not on the Bill Committee, I am not as across this part of the Bill as I perhaps should be, so I am not clear what mechanism is in place to uprate the relief. Is it done under the negative or affirmative statutory instrument procedure? Will the House actually see a statutory instrument, or is a delegated authority given to the Minister? It would be helpful to have an idea of what the mechanism is, and whether, if inflation continues at the current rate or goes up again, the Government are likely to put in place an increase to ensure that agricultural relief continues to wash its face—to provide the relief it is supposed to.

• 10 Mar 2026 · Cost of Living: Families · Hansard source

  More

  Inflation might be lower than projected, but prices are still rising. Fuel prices at the pumps might be lower than the Tories promised, but they are still higher than they were, and energy costs are still not down to what the Government promised in their manifesto. Will the Chancellor recognise that families are really struggling at the moment and put in an emergency package of measures to support them through the cost of living crisis?

• 9 Mar 2026 · Unemployment: Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  One in three—or more than one in three—people in my constituency are employed directly or indirectly or in induced jobs in the offshore energies industries. Given the continuation of the tax system for oil and gas, investment in that industry has reduced. Is the Secretary of State confident that the Government’s measure of the number of jobs lost, particularly in the oil and gas industry, is truly accurate, given that people are generally not signing on for universal credit but rather doing things such as moving to Dubai and Doha?

• 9 Mar 2026 · Unemployment: Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  15. What assessment he has made of recent trends in levels of unemployment in Scotland.

• 9 Mar 2026 · Immigration Policy · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister is unhappy that we are conflating two different announcements, but the issue is that the Home Secretary has not actually made an announcement about this matter—she has not come to the Chamber, set out the position and made an announcement. The Government are planning to make these changes without parliamentary approval, because the changes will not come before the House for debate. Will the Minister commit to ensuring that all hon. Members can have a voice, that the changes are not made through a negative statutory instrument, and that MPs from across the House will be able to make our points clear in order to ensure that the goalposts will not be moved after refugees have arrived here?

• 9 Mar 2026 · Social Cohesion Action Plan · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Secretary of State believe that echoing Enoch Powell’s “rivers of blood” speech strengthens community cohesion?

• 9 Mar 2026 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Only one clause in this legislation applied to Scotland in advance of it returning from the Lords. Lords amendment 38 contains a reserved power that would apply across the whole UK the changes that are being suggested to the Online Safety Act. I want to focus specifically on those changes. Comments have been made about social media, but it is not exclusively social media where there are dangers to children online. It is not exclusively user-to-user services where there are dangers to children online. There are some games that can be downloaded that do not have user-to-user services but are highly addictive, and those would not be covered by the Conservative or Liberal Dem proposals because they are games without user-to-user services. There are massive risks online for young people, but I do not want us to absolve companies of the responsibility of dealing with that. There is this sudden feeling that dealing with this issue is dramatically urgent, but people have been sending unsolicited nude pics online for more than 30 years. It has been happening for a significant length of time. It is urgent that action is taken, but it does not have to be taken today; it has to be taken correctly and in a way that works, as the hon. Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) just said. We need to ensure that, whatever we do, we have a clear aim in mind. What is the intention? Are we trying to protect children online, or are we trying to ban children from social media? Are we trying to ensure that young people are not exposed to people who are looking to groom them, to access them, or to convince them of something? Are we trying to protect them from that, or from obsessively looking at algorithms and videos on TikTok? Maybe we are trying to do both, but we need to be clear about what the aims are. There is no point in banning social media if we do not know why we are banning it, and if we still allow access to Roblox and many other places where there is harm. If we ban YouTube, what happens if a kid wanders into a room and watches YouTube that is playing on the TV via the PlayStation? Who is responsible for that? How do we sort this—how do we ensure that it works? I am clear that whatever happens, it needs to work. We must not just listen to the big tech companies. We need to do as the Minister has suggested: listen to parents and experts to understand exactly how children consume the internet. We need to know where and how these individuals who are accessing children for nefarious purposes are doing it, because it is not only through social media or the platforms that are being defined by some people as social media. I am clear that this needs to work. Therefore, I am supportive of the Government undertaking a consultation. I have spoken to DSIT officials and as many people as I possibly can about this. I am very glad about some of the changes that the Government are bringing forward—for example, to ensure that livestreaming cannot be accessed by young people. I have been pushing for that for a significant number of years, and I am glad that we have got to that place, but there are far wider issues with certain functionalities online that need to be tackled and that will not be covered by a blanket ban on social media. We cannot let the companies continue to get away with this. We cannot let them continue to have horrific and harmful illegal content, without cracking down on it and making sure that they are held accountable for the behaviour on their platforms. We cannot just say, “We’ll ban under-16s from social media and absolve ourselves and the companies of responsibility.” We need to take real action that will really protect our children. Please, everyone, respond to the consultation.

• 9 Mar 2026 · Middle East: Economic Update · Hansard source

  More

  Families are already struggling with the ongoing cost of living crisis, and the Chancellor has failed to bring down energy bills in the way that was promised in the manifesto. As prices continue to soar and international events cause people real anxiety as they look on, people are struggling and feeling the squeeze from the cost of living more than ever before. Will she now recognise that this is a crisis for families and put in real support to help them through the cost of living crisis?