Kirsty Blackman MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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?

• 3 Mar 2026 · Spring Forecast · Hansard source

  More

  It is not just an uncertain period for North sea workers; it is a crisis, and it has been a crisis for years. Investment has completely disappeared, jobs are being haemorrhaged and events make it even more clear why we need a home-grown energy supply and why we cannot rely on importing from overseas. Will the Chancellor, as she meets North sea leaders tomorrow, listen to their calls on the energy profits levy, give confidence on the future of the industry and ensure that my constituency and those across the UK do not continue to haemorrhage these jobs?

• 25 Feb 2026 · Grenfell Tower Annual Report · Hansard source

  More

  Nothing can ever undo the harm caused at Grenfell. I was in Parliament on that day, swearing in, when we saw everything that had unfolded. Nobody in my city of Aberdeen can ever get over the Piper Alpha disaster of 1988, but the resulting safety case produced by the Cullen inquiry meant that we had a much safer North sea and such a tragedy could never happen again, which brought people some solace. Will the Minister join me in urging stakeholders in Scotland to respond to the Scottish Government’s consultation on fire safety guidance, as we update the Scottish building standards to ensure that that guidance is as good as possible and all those working in that area can comply with it?

• 25 Feb 2026 · Post Office Green Paper · Hansard source

  More

  In rural areas, the loss of post offices is an issue, but it is also an issue in cities, particularly when the local transport network does not necessarily link people with the post office. My community is still reeling from Spar closing the post offices in its shops. Will the Minister give us some comfort by saying that he believes that the remuneration package being offered will not just keep postmasters in the job, but encourage new postmasters to take up the job, particularly given that, as has been stated, we face another round of Bank of Scotland closures?

• 24 Feb 2026 · Online Harm: Child Protection · Hansard source

  More

  This makes me more frustrated than just about anything else in this place: the levels of ignorance, stupidity and hypocrisy from so many people in here, specifically about children’s access to social media. I fully intended to support the Lib Dems’ position, but the longer their spokesperson, the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), spoke, the less I wanted to do so. I do not believe that the Government’s position on this is 100% right. I am glad that they are having a consultation, but I do not like the way that they are amending the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which is a devolved Bill, to change the territorial extent to bring that into scope. A Bill that we have not scrutinised, because it is a devolved Bill, will now have a reserved section in it. At the moment, the Bill does not apply to Scotland, apart from one clause; now, it will apply to Scotland, because it will include this. As we have not had the opportunity to scrutinise it, we have not been involved in that process. I do not think it is right that the proposed amendment should come forward in this way, although I appreciate why the Government are doing it. That is why I am asking for the amendment to be shared with us as soon as possible so that we can see it, because we have not had a chance to look at the Bill as it has gone along. The Lib Dems have said that they have made their position clear. I have so far been able to find three amendments and new clauses to the Online Safety Act put forward by Lib Dems during its passage through the House. One of them was put forward by the Lib Dem spokesperson, who asked for an independent evaluation within 12 months of whether more platforms should be subject to child safety duties—this is the same party that is currently accusing the Government of kicking the can down the road, despite asking for a 12-month independent evaluation. There is hardly anything in the Lib Dems’ previous positions that helps me to understand their current position. The Tory party’s position is totally incoherent, too. The Tories refused my amendment on reducing habit-forming and algorithmic features. They also refused my amendments on livestreaming. By the way, before the Minister’s “Dear colleague” letter, livestreaming had been mentioned 53 times across the two Houses. A third of those mentions were me talking about how livestreaming for children should be banned. Before today, Roblox had been mentioned 32 times across both Houses—15 of those mentions were me saying that Roblox is not a safe platform for children. I am massively in favour of improving the online world for children. I think social media should be about looking at videos of cats. I love videos of cats—they are absolutely brilliant. That is what it should be for. I also think it is a great place for children to interact with one another. Like some others in the Chamber, I have been making the case that there are dangers on social media that can be easily tackled by changing the Online Safety Act. We could have got rid of those algorithmic features for children, for example. We could have got rid of livestreaming for children through the amendment I tabled. We could have got rid of children’s access to private messaging features with people they do not know, through another amendment that I tabled to the Online Safety Act. I do not like the way the Government are doing this, though. They are proposing an amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, and then we will have secondary legislation that will, possibly, amend the Online Safety Act—I am not 100% clear on how it is going to go. I appreciate that there needs to be a consultation. Before the 2024 Parliament, there were about three people in this entire place who had any grip of what the online world might have been like for children. One of them was the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah), who talked about some of these things. I asked the Minister at the time whether Fortnite would be included in the scope of the Online Safety Act, and they said, “If there’s text chat.” Text chat in Fortnite—it is an online game! There is not enough expertise in this place. Much as I hugely appreciate the people who work on writing Bills and the work of some of the experts at Ofcom, they are not experiencing the online world that children are experiencing. That is why we need to listen to ensure that any changes that are made tackle the most harmful behaviours, places and functionalities on the internet. I appreciate that the Government are trying to take action on this now. However, one of the few things that has made me cry in frustration in this place was one of the first things this Government did when they came in, when they brought in secondary legislation to categorise platforms and refused to include the small, high-risk platforms that had been added in the House of Lords. They said they were categorising as category 1 only platforms like Facebook, which meet a certain threshold. I was so frustrated by that choice by the Government. There needs to be more listening and learning about where the actual dangers are, and taking action on them. Please, do that in consultation with those of us who do understand this. Please, listen to experts on this.