Kirsty Blackman
MP for Aberdeen North · Scottish National Party · United Kingdom
“I first raised the issue of self-generated images in Parliament more than four years ago. I have asked almost every single Culture, Media and Sport team about the issue of livestreaming. I am pleased to hear from the Secretary of State that action is being taken, and about the belt-and-braces approach that is coming in.”
“Labour promised £200 million for Grangemouth, none of which has materialised. Labour promised 1,000 jobs for GB Energy, and it turns out that a third of the 130 delivered so far are not actually in Scotland.”
“There is a geographical divide on this issue starker than I have ever seen in this place. Across all parties, every Member representing a Scottish constituency has stressed the issue of jobs, and how important this is to the north-east of Scotland.”
“There is a fundamental question here about what our priority is. Is it to reduce the bill, to reduce the amount of money that we are spending, or to ensure that disabled people can access all the human rights that the rest of us can, access society and be supported? We must recognise the extra costs of disability. What is the priority?”
“May I continue to encourage the Minister to talk to Social Security Scotland and our colleagues in the SNP Government about their experiences of the adult disability payment and whether the changes that have been implemented in Scotland would make a positive difference to those claiming PIP?”
“I will point out where things are today and how we can improve them, rather than looking at what was done in the past, but first, I recognise that although Pride is about celebration, it is also about being angry. We should be angry about the injustices.”
The complete record
Every one of 5,119 lines we hold for Kirsty Blackman, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 17 of 103.
“The Government should consider the best way to do that, because I am concerned about the geographical issue. The Leader of the House spoke specifically about the experience of all Members in this place. I would like the Committee to consider hearing from former MPs who also have significant experiences. It may be that we do not currently have MPs with certain disabilities, or who have experienced the proxy voting system, but we did formerly. During covid, I did a huge amount of work with the Procedure Committee, which met online almost every day in the early days of lockdown. We considered every possible way to make the House covid compliant and made a huge number of recommendations to the Government, some of which could be incorporated to make the House more modern as time goes on.”
“The membership will be divvied up between the Labour party, the Conservatives and the Lib Dems, so there will never be a DUP Member or anyone making decisions on the Committee who is struggling with the geographical challenges that are unique to Northern Ireland Members. The SNP would have liked a seat on the Committee. I am pleased to hear what the Leader of the House said about trying to ensure that all voices are heard, but like the shadow Leader of the House, I would like to have had more conversations with her beforehand about it, so that we could have suggested our views on the best way for our voices to be heard. If she really wants to work collegiately, we are happy to do that, but unfortunately this has not got off to the most collegiate start.”
“If we gave the Committee an understanding that it needs to drag the House into the 20th century—never mind the 21st century —by increasing the amount of modern working practices and the ability of MPs to represent their constituents in Parliament, that would be helpful, but the remit is not there. It is just “to make recommendations”, so I am disappointed that the Government have not gone further on that. The issue of the make-up of Members is significant. It is not just about the smaller parties that are not the first, second or third in the House wanting to have a voice, but about the way that the Government have chosen to arrange the Committee and the number of Members that they have chosen to have on it, which mean they have guaranteed that it cannot have a Northern Ireland member.”
“We all have knowledge of parliamentary procedure because we are MPs, and the motion prevents us from using that to get money. That is a laudable aim, but it is not the change that the House needs in order to fix the issue of second jobs. I will support the Government’s changes, but they need to go far further. I have several concerns about the motion on the Modernisation Committee, beginning with its incredibly woolly remit, which is: “to consider reforms to House of Commons procedures, standards, and working practices; and to make recommendations thereon”. Its remit is not to modernise the House of Commons, which I would have been more supportive of.”
“Instead, I want to talk about the motions in front of us. Motion 4 has been badged as a “second jobs” motion. It relates to paid employment, but it does not include the paid employment that constituents think of when they think about second jobs. They think about the Members appearing on GB News weekly, but that is not covered in the proposed changes. As the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) said, constituents think about the people doing work for a financial institution, but again, that is not included in the motion. The changes to the rules are good, but the motion should not be badged as relating to second jobs. What it does is increase the transparency and restrictions on Members of Parliament who seek to use their privileged knowledge to get paid employment.”
“Congratulations to you and your colleagues on your new roles, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish you the very best of luck in dealing with all of us in our time here. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Sureena Brackenridge) on her excellent maiden speech, and particularly on her passionate message to her students, who I am sure miss her very much too. I want to speak about the motions on the Order Paper. There is a huge amount I could say about the ways in which this House should be modernised; I have been speaking and thinking about it for years. I am probably one of the few Members who has spent many hours poring over the Standing Orders, considering how they could best be changed to improve this House. Not many people are quite as geeky about that as I am. However, I will not focus on that.”
“I am aware that the Minister is new to her role, so I will ask her to consider things, rather than to commit to doing things. Will she please consider continuing with the annual statement to Parliament on civil contingencies and risks, which the previous Government committed to? When she looks at the cyber-security and resilience Bill, will she consider assessing whether there is widespread use of certain software or hardware that could cause mass outages in the event that it is affected, as happened with CrowdStrike? I am not aware that we have seen an analysis of that in previous outputs by the Cabinet Office, and it would be incredibly helpful for us to be aware of where those risks are.”
“My constituents and people across Scotland recognise that, and we will always argue for a better migration policy—and if the Government are not willing to do it for all of these islands, we will argue for one tailored specifically to Scotland so that we can make our own decisions that suit the needs of our communities and encourage that economic growth.”
“It would be very easy to increase growth, again overnight, by increasing migration. Migration to these islands increases the amount of growth. The economy would immediately have grown if the Prime Minister had gone to the summit with the EU leaders this week and said “Yes, free movement benefits us: it benefits our economy, benefits our society, benefits our young people, benefits our musicians, and benefits so many different groups and individuals. It benefits our culture; it makes this place a better place to live. Therefore we are signing up again to free movement.” We need only look at some of the past Budgets, such as a Budget George Osborne gave from the Dispatch Box, when it has said in the Red Book that increasing migration will increase the tax take because of the economic growth it will bring.”
“I am really glad the Government are bringing together a discussion taskforce to reduce child poverty, but today they could bring 300,000 children out of poverty and move 700,000 children into less deep poverty simply by scrapping the two-child cap. One of my previous colleagues in this place, Alison Thewliss, campaigned incredibly hard on the rape clause—everybody will know of the work she did on that. There are 3,000 women across these islands who are eligible for an exemption from the cap because they have applied under the rape clause. They have had to tell the Government they were raped in order to get an uplift in their benefits. That is horrific, and even if the Government are unwilling to move on the two-child cap they should be doing something about the rape clause and what people are having to prove in order to get the exemption.”
“There is no point in having economic growth, and no point in the Conservatives saying how fast the UK is growing compared with other countries in the G7, if the same handful of people are getting richer and richer and the vast majority of our constituents are struggling harder than they ever have before. We need to ensure that the economic growth and the increase in the tax take that the Labour party is hoping to deliver involves a benefit for all those who live in these islands and in our constituencies. It is massively disappointing to hear that the five pledges and priorities for the Labour party in government do not have eradicating child poverty at the heart of them.”
“As the first woman in this place ever to lead on the economy, although I have been followed by a number since, I am incredibly glad to see one on the Government Benches. I hope that, as she said, her tenure lasts significantly longer than those of some of the Chancellors we have seen in recent times. Today’s debate is taglined “Economy, welfare and public services”. Apart from the maiden speeches, speeches focusing on anything other than economic growth have been fairly few and far between. I will not for one second deny that economic growth is important, but the whole point of it is what we then do with it. It is about what we do with the extra tax take generated from the growth we have created. There is no point in having growth for growth’s sake.”
“I congratulate all those who have made their maiden speeches today, particularly the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), who gave an excellent speech. As with many of the maiden speeches, now I really want to visit his constituency. It just sounds like an absolutely amazing place. I particularly congratulate all the new Members who have come from a council background. Being a local councillor sets them up fantastically for coming here. It means they are under no illusions about the hard work that is required to be put in for their constituents and the people who live in their area. Congratulations to all of them. I also congratulate the Chancellor on being the first female Chancellor.”
“Following the election, we look forward to significantly more work being done to tighten those loopholes and increase the number of individuals who are subject to sanctions. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That the Sanctions (EU Exit) (Miscellaneous Amendments and Revocations) Regulations 2024 (SI, 2024, No. 643), dated 14 May, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15 May, be approved.”
“I appreciate the number of statements that the UK Government have made and the number of actions they have taken, particularly around Ukraine and the hard work that has been done to support its people, which I know is appreciated by people in the Ukrainian Government. However, I still think more could be done to ensure that this place is saying to Russia, “Your actions are inappropriate, and we are going to hit you where it hurts financially by increasing the number of individuals who are sanctioned—who are subject to those financial penalties and the inability to move money or have companies in these islands.” I thank the Minister for bringing this SI forward today, and make clear that the SNP is absolutely supportive of it.”
“Clearly, we will not be opposing the SI today—I think it is a good thing—but there is still more to be done to ensure that sanctions regimes work appropriately, so that those people who should not be able to have directorships or ownership, or to money launder or make money through the UK, because we have designated them as responsible for or aiding war crimes or human rights abuses, cannot do so. There is more to do to increase that transparency so that those people can be cracked down on. Lastly on sanctions, we are still concerned that the UK Government have been too slow to increase the number of individuals who have been sanctioned. Other jurisdictions have significantly higher numbers of individuals who have been sanctioned, particularly from areas such as Russia.”
“If we do not know who actually owns something, it is very difficult to say that they cannot own it. Progress is being made on the Companies House issues that we have mentioned before, but again, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central would make it clear that things have not gone far or fast enough in the reform of Companies House. Again, that is about transparency. When the Minister was speaking, she very much stressed transparency in the sanctions regime, and I am pleased with any moves that improve transparency.”
“In 2022, about 1,300 Scottish limited partnerships were started, only four of which were started by Scots. We have been campaigners on Scottish limited partnerships and have massive concerns still about the SLP regime and the fact it is used for money laundering in significant numbers. Despite their being called Scottish limited partnerships, they are technically nothing to do with Scotland, which is why we need Westminster to take action. It would be great if whoever is in the next Government could crack down on the abuses in SLPs. We are pleased with some of the action taken on beneficial ownership but we do not think we are there yet. We need to ensure that #the sanctions regimes and everything associated with them are applied appropriately.”
“On a very personal note, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black), who has been one of my closest friends in this place and whose departure I have not quite reconciled myself with and I am not sure I will ever get over. I will miss her incredibly; I intend to come back to this place and she does not. I will miss her a huge amount. On this specific debate and the sanctions regime, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) is not here today but has done a huge amount of work, as I am sure Members across the House will recognise, particularly on issues such as beneficial ownership and Scottish limited partnerships. We have concerns in relation to sanctions and this legislation represents a good step in closing some of the loopholes that friends and colleagues have been raising.”
“Friend the Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant), who is probably not someone who will be remembered for setting the heather on fire in this place, but he has done absolutely everything that has needed to be done and everything asked of him, he has dealt with some incredibly technical legislation and he has always been there with words of advice whenever they were needed. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie), who has been in this place for a long time; he will be stepping back from frontline politics but I am sure not from the SNP. He has similarly been a huge source of advice and, although we have had some very good-natured disagreements, I have huge respect for everything he has done, particularly for the SNP as a whole, and I have no doubt he will carry on doing that.”
“If you do not mind, Mr Speaker, I would like to offer some brief thank yous; I will probably be speaking on the tribunals measure later, but now would be a more appropriate time for this, given the mood of the House. I thank a few of my colleagues who will no longer be in this place after the election. First, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), who during my time as deputy leader was the Chief Whip of the SNP. He was my confidante and my rock. We had many late-night sessions planning parliamentary mischief, not least in advance of the SNP walk-out that I think a number of people will remember very well. I appreciate everything he did for me during that time. I thank my hon.”
“I congratulate the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Chris Webb) on his maiden speech. Normally after a maiden speech, we stand up and say “I am sure the new Member will be a doughty campaigner for his constituents,” and I am sure he will for a week! I wish him all the best and hope he is returned to this place. I also send best wishes to his son and his wife Portia. Being the spouse of a politician is probably the worst job in the world. It is incredibly difficult and I cannot imagine the rollercoaster she has been on in the past few weeks, so I send my solidarity to her particularly as she is dealing with the joys and otherwise of having a very young child to look after. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman.”
“I appreciate that the Minister has pushed for it and has taken the time to move it today.”
“We will continue to make the case—the Minister would assume that I will—that Scotland has the power when it comes to energy but we do not have the powers to make the changes that we would like to see to ensure a fairer deal across these islands when people pay for electricity and gas. I am talking about the prices people are paying in their homes when those bills come through the door. We are seeing higher levels of standing changes in Scotland and of charges for organisations looking to connect to the grid. Frankly, we do not think that situation is fair and we would like to see changes made. However, we are pleased to see that the Government are moving towards reform and that this SI has been included in the wash-up process—it is good to see the Government prioritising it.”
“I would go as far as to say that it is one of the leading heat networks, because of the sheer number of properties it is able to supply. It gives cheaper energy to those properties, which is incredibly important. We have made the case, as have significant numbers of campaigners, on things such as standing charges, particularly for electricity and gas; we have raised the concerns about the energy price cap and the fact that it does not give a reduction in that respect. We are aware that in October we are again likely to see an increase in the energy price and that people who have managed to find things a little easier over the summer may find them even more difficult this winter, because of the potential for increases.”
“Please accept my apologies for not putting in to speak on this measure, Madam Deputy Speaker; you will understand that it has been a hectic couple of days and I therefore hoped that my bobbing would be sufficient. Obviously, the SNP is not going to oppose this measure. We support the need for energy reform. When we look at the inflation figures, we see that they are so heavily influenced by the cost of energy. Market reform has been overdue for quite a long time, particularly in respect of heat networks, given, as the Opposition spokesperson mentioned, the increase in their amount. In my constituency, we have Aberdeen Heat & Power, an incredible and well-embedded heat network that supplies a significant number of council properties in the city.”
“Given that the law and the legal systems are different in the two countries, people who are moved to England have to restart their asylum case from scratch. Our long-held position is that we oppose the Conservatives’ rhetoric and ideology on immigration, and we oppose the Rwanda policy in particular, so we will divide the House on this motion and vote against it. [ Interruption. ] It is the last day of the Parliament; we are not going to compromise our principles simply because that would be more convenient for the Labour party. We are going to stick by them, act consistently with all the positions we have held previously, and vote against the motion.”
“It would be much better if the UK Government focused on ensuring that the immigration system works, and that people who have applied for visas get a decision within a year, or a year and a half—or even, thinking about some of the casework I have faced, within three years. It would be much better if they did not randomly move people from hotels in Aberdeen to hotels in Glasgow, while also moving others from hotels in Glasgow to hotels in Aberdeen. It would be much better if they did not move people in Aberdeen who are waiting for an operation to London or another place in England with absolutely no notice, and no justification apart from the fact that they get free legal advice in Scotland.”
“The changes relating to dependants will have a significant impact on so many places, particularly when it comes to universities, a number of which might actually go under as a result of the decisions being made by the UK Tory Government. We have a history in Scotland of opposing Tory immigration policy and opposing crackdowns that simply demonise innocent people who are trying to escape unimaginably bad situations. We have fought against dawn raids; we have had the Glasgow Girls; we have had a huge amount of civic action against taking our people away. The shadow Minister mentioned the immigration backlog.”
“They are talking about small boats at every opportunity, but they should be talking about the issues that actually matter to people. They are fundamentally misunderstanding the public view in Scotland. People in Scotland do not wake up every morning and worry about the small boat crossings—that is not the biggest issue. They are worrying about the cost of living crisis, the NHS and their daily lives. They support immigration policies that allow people to come. One of the good things about the general election being called is that the changes to graduate visas cannot be implemented. The Migration Advisory Committee report said that the graduate visa should continue, but understandably we had no faith in this Tory Government allowing that to happen.”
“The people of Glasgow, on behalf of the people of Scotland, stood up for one of our own who was being taken away. It does not matter to us where that person was born. If somebody wants to come and be part of Scottish society—if they want to come and live in our country, bring their skills, talents and culture, and contribute to Scotland—that is welcome in Scotland. This policy is not being done in our name. I understand that the statutory instrument is part of the Government’s preparations in relation to the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024, which we disagreed with at every stage. It is disappointing that Labour Members are using the same rhetoric and playing the same game as the Tories on this issue.”
“I made a comment yesterday, but I would like briefly to thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your time in the Chair. Whenever I have made a request, you have either granted it or given me a very good reason why it was not a reasonable request, which I really appreciate. As SNP Members have laid out on numerous occasions, we have many issues with the UK Government’s immigration policies, especially the Rwanda policy. We fundamentally disagree with the decision-making processes that are happening and with the ideology. From the SNP Benches, we can say on behalf of the people of Scotland, “This is not being done in our name,” because they fundamentally disagree with this. Hon. Members will know what happened on Kenmure Street, Glasgow a couple of years ago.”
“Can I thank our shadow Culture Secretary? I am proud of the work that he has done and that I have been able to do alongside him on behalf of the SNP and the people of Scotland. Mr Speaker, can I also echo your comments about Liam Laurence Smyth? The number of times I have gone to Liam and said, “I want to get up to some mischief, can you help me?” I have really appreciated all the advice that he has given me. I would like to ask the Secretary of State whether the Media Bill will be part of wash-up, because a number of organisations, including STV, have contacted me this morning asking for it to be.”
“What are the impacts of the use of AI on climate change? For example, it has been made clear that using this technology has an impact on the climate because of the intensive amounts of electricity that it uses. Are the Government considering that? Will the Minister ensure that in any regulations that come forward there is a specific mention of AI harms for women and girls, particularly when it comes to deepfakes, and that they and other groups protected by the Equality Act 2010 are explicitly mentioned in any regulations or laws that come forward around AI? Lastly, we waited 30 years for an Online Safety Act. It took a very long time for us to get to the point of having regulation for online safety. Can the Minister make a commitment today that we will not have to wait so long for regulations, rather than declarations, in relation to AI?”
“I would like to thank Sir Roger Gale, who has just left the Chair. He has been excellent in the Chair and I have very much enjoyed his company as well as his chairing. I thank the Government for advance sight of the statement. My constituents and people across these islands are concerned about the increasing use of AI, not least because of the lack of regulation in place around it. I have specific questions in relation to the declarations and what is potentially coming down the line with regulation. Who will own the data that is gathered? Who has responsibility for ensuring its safety? What is the Minister doing to ensure that regard is given to copyright and that intellectual property is protected for those people who have spent their time and energy and massive talents in creating information, research and artwork?”
“In her discussions about wash-up, I urge the Leader of the House to stress the Bill’s importance for media organisations, particularly those in broadcast media. I believe that there is significant cross-party support for the Bill, particularly as it relates to broadcasting and on-demand radio services.”
“I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the other Madam Deputy Speaker, the right hon. Member for Doncaster Central (Dame Rosie Winterton). You have both generally dealt with my requests with pragmatism and kindness, unless I deserved otherwise. The Media Bill was well supported across the House. It is not perfect, but a huge number of people did a huge amount of work to get it through. The Government’s timetable for Committee stage was incredibly tight, and Committee members pooled together and worked incredibly hard on it. Today, we have had a letter from those in charge of Channel 4, BBC, STV and MG Alba, among others, making clear the importance of the Bill. The last media Bill was passed when teletext was still cutting edge, so we really need this Media Bill to go through.”
“I have made it very clear that we disagree with this legislation, and will oppose Third Reading.”
“There are major issues with universal credit, particularly for single people but also for those with larger families, because of factors such as the two-child cap. The reality is that this UK Government had an opportunity to make a difference to people’s lives, and they refused to take it. They do not have the same priorities as us. We will always put Scotland first. We will always fight in this place against UK Government decisions that the people of Scotland are unhappy with. Whether under a Tory or Labour UK Government, we will do everything that we can to ensure that Scotland’s voice is heard. We will do everything that we can to disagree with legislation that the people of Scotland disagree with, and everything we can to work cross party when legislation is in the interests of the people of Scotland.”
“The inflation figures announced yesterday do not show that things are better. They show that inflation is less high than it was, but does it really make a difference to those buying pasta that it has gone up by only 47%, rather than 49%, over the past few years, given that there has been a 25% overall increase in the cost of food, and that benefits and social security have not kept pace? The UK Government had the opportunity to provide help with the cost of living crisis in the Budget, and they did not take it. They talk about the changes that they are making to national insurance and tax, but those changes impact only people who are working and earning above the thresholds, and a good chunk of them, particularly those on the lowest earnings, also get universal credit.”
“There is a huge amount of good being done in Scotland, but it is being done by the SNP Government, who have one hand tied behind their back by Westminster. The Chancellor’s refusal to say whether he felt better off shows the difference between the haves and the have- nots throughout these islands. If we ask people who come to receptions in Parliament—people who have high salaries—how they feel about the cost of living crisis, they might say that they feel it a bit, and that they will have slightly fewer holidays or slightly fewer cars, but they do not have to make decisions, every moment of every day, about every penny that they spend. They are not, like our constituents, lying in bed at night worrying about how they will pay the rent and electricity bills, and how they will manage to buy bread, potatoes or pasta.”
“With capital budgets for the Scottish Parliament being slashed, we find that increasingly difficult, because we are not in control of all the levers. We are not in control of all our finances. We cannot increase the minimum wage to a proper living wage, rather than a pretendy living wage. We cannot scrap the two-child cap. We mitigate as far as we possibly can, but we do not have all the powers that we require. People in Scotland are better off as a result of the decisions taken by the Scottish Government. They are getting a free university education, and they can go to the dentist for free; I cannot believe the low percentage of NHS dentists in the rest of the UK. People in Scotland can receive the Scottish child payment, and a higher number of children from deprived areas go to university in Scotland.”
“They are massively concerned about the fact that food, electricity and gas prices have gone through the roof, and about the extra money that they are having to shell out. The Budget was an opportunity for the UK Government to recognise that concern, take it seriously, and do what we did in Scotland: we have put tackling child poverty front and centre of decision-making processes. We have the Scottish child payment, which has taken 100,000 children out of poverty. We are doing everything that we can to mitigate the UK Government’s policies, but the reality is that all we can do is mitigate, given that the block grant is the lowest percentage of UK Government spending that it has been since devolution.”
“When Committees dealing with Bills with which I have been involved have taken oral evidence, Members have relied heavily on quoting that evidence throughout the progress of those Bills, and I think that this would greatly improve both the Finance Bill and its scrutiny. Let me now turn to our specific concerns about this Bill. The Chancellor made a number of comments on Radio 4 yesterday morning, before the announcement of the election. One of the excellent journalists on the programme pushed him to say whether or not he felt he was better off now than before. The Chancellor did not answer that question, but the reality is that if we ask people up and down these islands what their biggest concern is at the moment, they overwhelmingly say it is the cost of living crisis.”
“The Procedure Committee will be sick of hearing me talk about this, because I bring it up at nearly all its meetings, but the lack of oral evidence means that scrutiny is not as good as it could be. I appreciate that the Minister mentioned those who submit written evidence, but I do not think that that is an adequate substitute. I understand the argument of Ministers that Finance Bills are taken by a Committee of the whole House followed by Public Bill Committee sessions, but much of the stuff that is considered in the Public Bill Committee is extremely technical, and it would benefit Members to be able to question external organisations with real experience. The Association of Accounting Technicians, for example, would be able to give us a significant amount of information about how such measures would work.”
“Refusing to include a Budget resolution for amendment of the law is a genuine constitutional change, and it has taken place without much of a fanfare—pretty much on the basis that it was done during that wash-up in 2017, or in the case of a Finance Bill that was introduced with a very tight timescale. After that, the resolution was never brought back, although it is important to Finance Bills and it is important for scrutiny purposes. I hope that, should they become a Government at some time in the future, the official Opposition will commit themselves to bringing it back. I am also concerned about the fact that Finance Bill Committees continue not to take oral evidence.”
“I appreciate the hard work that he has done during the Bill’s earlier stages. He is sorry that he cannot be here, and unfortunately I am a poor substitute, but I will do my best. We will be voting against the Bill’s Third Reading. I am sure that no one will be surprised by that, given that we tabled a reasoned amendment on Second Reading and that this is consistent with the approach that we have taken throughout the Bill’s progress. Let me say a little about the way in which Finance Bills—specifically this Finance Bill, and other recent Finance Bills—go through the House. There has been an ongoing issue with Ministers, including Chancellors, refusing to include “amendment of the law” resolutions.”
“My problem was that I had tabled amendments to all the clauses that were now being removed, and I was somewhat unhappy about the fact that I had done a significant amount of work that would never see the light of day. On that occasion I gave a speech that I think lasted more than 50 minutes, in which I spoke about every amendment I had tabled, but I can reassure that House that I will not be doing the same today. I have not tabled amendments to this Bill, and neither has my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry). In fact, I have come in at the last moment to take over from my hon. Friend, because, sadly, he had returned to Inverness before the Prime Minister made the announcement of the election, and there was no physical way for him to get back in time today.”
“I very much liked the earlier comment, Madam Deputy Speaker, about your being a good example to women in this place and someone whom people look up to. I agree with that, and I wanted to begin by thanking you. Let me now say something about the washing up of Finance Bills in general, and about this particular Bill in the context of washing up. It seems to me that I have spent a great deal of my time in Parliament dealing with Finance Bills, and I have also spent far too much time dealing with Finance Bills during the washing-up process. I do not know whether anyone remembers the Finance Act 2017, but because an election was called the Bill had to go through that process, and it was massively gutted beforehand.”
“I have concerns about this issue from the point of view of resilience and ensuring that people are not excluded from watching television if they do not have fast internet. My main concern is that we will accidentally end up with terrestrial broadcasting services being dismantled, or not invested in, because there is no commitment to keeping them. The next Government will have to make commitments to those services to ensure we have access to them post 2030.”