Gareth Snell MP: speeches

Speeches

• 24 Mar 2026 · Oil and Gas · Hansard source

  More

  Hydrogen has to be part of the future mix. Some very interesting tests are being done in Germany, where hydrogen is being mixed with gas to power some kilns and energy-intensive processes. That technology is very expensive, though, and most companies in the UK cannot afford it—only a handful can—so, yes, we need that investment strategy.

• 24 Mar 2026 · Oil and Gas · Hansard source

  More

  I will start with the things that we all agree on. I think that across the House, we all acknowledge that the international energy prices we face in this country are too high. As the Minister is on record as saying, there is a rollercoaster effect when it comes to the price of gas. Today, it is 149p per therm; it was 120p per therm in February 2025, and it was 38p per therm in February 2021. We have to acknowledge the fact that oil and gas prices are going up around the world, particularly gas prices, and the impact can be felt not just in the jobs that the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) rightly spoke about, but in jobs in those industries that are gas-dependent. The thing that I find difficult to stomach is when we talk about energy in the round, as if there is only one type of energy and everything will eventually run off it. Energy is a diverse group of ways of powering things. It can be electrical or nuclear, but in most of our foundational industries, it is gas. We acknowledge that gas will be here for a very long time—we will have to use it to power the kilns that make the bricks to build the houses we want to build. We will need gas to power the furnaces in the foundries that make the metal and steel for our defence development and manufacturing. If we want to make paper, glass, cement or lime in this country, we need gas. So many parts of the economic powerhouse that is the United Kingdom are dependent on gas, and while I agree with my Labour colleagues that we should move at pace to transition to electricity where that is possible, there are sectors in this country where that transition simply is not possible.

• 24 Mar 2026 · Oil and Gas · Hansard source

  More

  We can shepherd, yes, but the Government have to get to grips with how much we pay for importing that gas. That is where we are dependent on international markets. For electricity generation, the Government enter into contracts for difference, which are very lucrative for suppliers. Why are we not looking at such contracts for gas production? At a point when we expect there to be a transition away from gas—and therefore demand for production and the price of gas will fall away—why are we not saying that there will be some kind of Government-backed contract for difference for suppliers, so that those energy-intensive industries that require gas can get a stable price point for generations to come and we can protect jobs? I am sure that when the Minister responds, he will turn to the tab in his file about the British industrial competitiveness scheme and the supercharger. I just want to reiterate—because it seems like no one in Government is listening—that those schemes do not apply to gas-intensive industries. As the Chancellor said today, and as Ministers have said from the Dispatch Box in the past, they are for electricity-intensive industries. If we are going to support energy-intensive industries in this country, it cannot be through those schemes alone.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Fuel Duty · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister rightly talks about household budgets, but the other impact, particularly of the gas price, is industrial energy costs in this country, not least for the ceramics sector, which is gas-dependent rather than electric-dependent. When the Chancellor was asked about gas prices in her statement last week, she pivoted straight to the British industrial competitiveness scheme, which is an electrical subsidy. What is coming down the line to help the gas-intensive sectors, which currently get no relief and which are seeing, as the Minister points out, a huge increase in the price per therm, particularly for those sectors looking to renegotiate their long-term contracts?

• 18 Mar 2026 · Social Enterprises and Community Ownership · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister is rightly talking about people who want to set up co-operatives. I wonder whether he might talk to his colleagues in the Department for Education about the role that co-operative education should play in the curriculum through history, business studies, and personal, social, health and economic education. Young people need to understand what co-operative, social enterprise and mutual models look like, so that they instinctively think about setting up one when they go into the world of work, rather than being talked into doing so later on.

• 11 Mar 2026 · Royal Mail: Universal Service Obligation · Hansard source

  More

  Given that the Government used the National Security and Investment Act 2021 to extract a golden share, because they considered Royal Mail to be national critical infrastructure, I find it slightly odd that, having recognised its importance, we think there is nothing that we can do. Will the Minister commit to, or at least consider, taking powers that he might need to make a direct intervention to ensure that our constituents, including mine in Stoke-on-Trent Central, get their letters when they want them: on time?

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

  More

  That is an incredibly fair question. The Treasury has been unable to give me an answer, but I hope that the Minister will be able to when he sums up the debate. Regardless of one’s views on gambling, we must ensure that the implementation of new levies does not drive people into the black market, because that is where they are most exposed to risk. If people are to participate in gaming and betting, I would much rather they did so in UK-based, regulated services, where they can get help and support if needed, and where the taxes they pay can go towards funding our public services. It is a fair point, and one on which I hope the Minister will be able to provide an answer. I wonder whether the Minister could also give some thought to the following point. This taxation has been hypothecated, in the narrative, as being directly to fund the Government’s welcome lifting of the two-child benefit cap, but in reality that is not how taxation works in this country—we do not hypothecate specific taxation lines to pay for specific social policies; instead, the money goes into the Treasury pot, and the Treasury, in its infinite wisdom and benevolence, hands it out to other Departments, which then make their spending commitments. Now, the Government’s own OBR forecast suggests that, given the behavioural changes expected to take place as a result of the differential rates between the regulated and unregulated sectors, and given the people who will pay tax, the yield from this tax will potentially be down by a third by 2029-30—that means somewhere in the region of £300 million will be lost. If we are making this direct comparison, saying that the levy is needed to fund the welcome change in the two-child benefit cap, can the Minister set out where the additional funding will come from in 2029-30, if the reduction resulting from behavioural change takes place? Even if the Government are unable to support my new clause 8 tonight, a proper impact assessment would at least allow a better understanding of future challenges relating to the behaviour of consumers and the impact on tax yield. My new clause 9 seeks a similar impact assessment, but in relation to our friends in Gibraltar. The Minister will be acutely aware that the gaming and gambling sector is a huge part of Gibraltar’s economy—30% of its GDP comes from the sector, and it employs some 3,500 people. The gambling and gaming companies that have a footprint in Gibraltar pay Gibraltar corporation tax as well as any levies paid in the UK. However, because it is a top-line tax, rather than a bottom-line tax, any impact on the profitability of companies based in Gibraltar, or any behavioural changes in the stakes put through those companies, will have an immediate and direct impact on Gibraltar’s revenues. One third of Gibraltar’s tax receipts come from the sector, so anything we do in this place that has an impact on the sector there—I entirely accept that this is not an intended consequence of the decision—would leave a huge hole in its economy, and that will have to be filled. We are talking about potentially tens of millions of pounds, if not hundreds of millions. Gibraltar is, of course, one of the family of nations that make up Britain, and we have to ensure that, given its strategic importance because of our defence work, we do nothing that makes it less safe as a result of tax changes here. Of course, the Government of Gibraltar are currently putting through their Parliament the changes to the EU-Gibraltar treaty, which will help with the flow of the gaming sector’s workforce, given the cross-border nature of the workforce. However, Nigel Feetham—the Member of the Gibraltar Parliament who holds the justice, trade and industry brief—has said that what Gibraltar really needs is stability, and not to have “avoidable” decisions from the UK. I know that the Government will resist my new clause, but I ask the Minister to lay out what communications and active engagement he and the Treasury have had with our friends in Gibraltar. Gibraltar is of strategic importance to us and part of the family of nations that makes up who we are, and decisions that we take in this Finance Bill are having a huge impact on its economy and its ability to fund its public services, which contribute to our overall national defence. While Gibraltar is embedding the new treaty changes, it is important that it has some certainty about its revenue stream. The media are reporting that the Gibraltarian Government are looking at rapid diversification of their economy to make up the difference, but realistically we do not know what the impact will be on our economy, and they certainly do not know what the impact will be on theirs. The Minister will be acutely aware that as Gibraltar is dependent for 30% of its tax intake from one sector, even a small change here in the UK could have a hugely detrimental impact over there. I hope that he will address the stability that the Gibraltar Parliament has been asking for, and for which Nigel Feetham has rightly been asking in his engagements with the Treasury. Finally, I had not intended to do so, but I will touch on new clause 10 tabled by the Opposition about CBAM. I have often talked in this place about the importance of our manufacturing industries, and not least the ceramics industry, which falls outside the current proposals for CBAM but will be subject to the emissions trading scheme. There is a perversity about the emissions trading scheme and CBAM in that if we get it wrong, we will just drive up prices for consumers and for producers, while others are importing into our country ceramics produced using cheap Russian gas, which means that their price point is much below what we can produce them here. It also has the distorting effect that our exports become more expensive when they hit the CBAM—particularly for Europe. Therefore, while we are at a point of global turmoil and gas prices are increasing hugely overnight—the price per therm was 74p last week; it is now somewhere around 160p—there is some work to be done by the Treasury. I asked the Chancellor about that in her statement on Monday; unfortunately, she missed the point about gas-intensive industry and went straight to electric-intensive industry, which is different. When the Government look at how we do CBAM and where we will have free allowances for the ETS, will the Minister bear in mind those small sectors such as ceramics that are crucial to our foundational manufacturing? I am talking not about the tiles, tableware and giftware that I talk about so often, but about the advanced ceramics that we need in this country, which are dependent on a gas price that works and being able to trade across the European border without huge external tariffs being placed on them because of carbon leakage. Nuclear submarine air filtration systems are ceramic, and the rotor blades that go on small modular reactors made in Derby will require a ceramic powder coating for them to be utilised that will have to cross many borders. There is the potential that we price out British manufacturers as a result of the CBAM and the ETS if we do not have some of those lifelong allowances and we do not think about the interplay of components that travel over borders. Therefore, while I had not intended to speak about the Opposition’s new clause 10, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) made a valid point in terms of ceramics. Even if the Minister will not take the new clause forward—obviously we will not support it, because it is not a Government amendment—the hon. Gentleman’s point is worthy of consideration in a different form.

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

  More

  I am glad about the Minister’s meetings, but while he is at the Dispatch Box, will he give an assurance that there are no future surprises and no significant tax-change announcements planned that will disproportionately affect areas such as Gibraltar as a result of their dependence on certain industries?

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

  More

  I will speak to the two new clauses that stand solely in my name, which relate to the impact of the changes to the remote gaming and remote betting duties. I do not intend to relitigate the rights and wrongs of those changes; we have had a number of debates on that subject in this Chamber and in Westminster Hall, and the determination has been settled by Treasury. However, I do think it is important that we consider what I believe are the genuinely unintended consequences of the changes that the Treasury will introduce and how best to mitigate them. To mitigate them, though, we need to understand them, so new clause 8 simply seeks to get an independent assessment of the changes to the remote betting and remote gaming duties on the black market. I am sure that those of us who have participated in debates around gaming and gambling will accept that there are challenges that we need to address with problem gambling, but that requires people to participate in the regulated sector, where help and support is available for those who find themselves getting into trouble. The more people we push into the black market—where there is no support, no GamCare, no lock-out system—the more people are at risk of harmful activity and being preyed upon by predatory organisations and companies that are outside the UK, do not pay taxes here and are simply not worried about the participants. The independent study done by EY for the Betting and Gaming Council found that there is a potential for £6 billion-worth of stakes to be diverted into the black market as a result of this change. That is £6 billion of stakes that were going to be made somewhere, but will now go into the black market and will therefore not be subject to any taxation, including any form of potential corporation tax if they are staked outside the UK with one of the companies headquartered elsewhere, or to the remote gaming duty. That is a 140% increase on the potential stakes going into the black market. It also means thousands and thousands of people—our constituents—who will find themselves in an unregulated part of the gambling and gaming economy, where there is absolutely no help and support for them. The people who run those sites have no interest in the welfare of those individuals whatsoever; they simply want to try to maximise their profits. Every single one of us is no more than two clicks away from an unregulated gaming or gambling site, and we should be open and acknowledge the fact that that money often funds questionable activities overseas, including organised crime and, in some cases, terrorism. I recognise that the Treasury has, as part of broader changes to the betting and gaming regulations, identified £26 million for the Gambling Commission to try to mitigate some of the worst aspects of those activities, but we simply do not know what impact that will have; the assessment has simply not been done by the Government to determine whether that £26 million is enough. Frankly, every penny that could be spent on helping people in this country to avoid damaging gaming and gambling, and to enjoy regulated gaming and gambling, should be spent.

• 9 Mar 2026 · Immigration Policy · Hansard source

  More

  Given these changes, what changes to the national referral mechanism in relation to modern slavery does the Minister expect to see? What does the switch from a duty to a power for housing people waiting for asylum mean for the national dispersal method, including for places that have routinely had more people than was agreed, such as Stoke-on-Trent—and, if there are no changes, will he look at funding integration work in those places?

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

  More

  I welcome the community cohesion strategy, which the Labour group of Hope not Hate, which I chair, has been calling for. The Secretary of State will know that the other side of the coin when building community cohesion is the counter-extremism work to stop people being radicalised in the first place, whether that is people on the far right with anti-Muslim hatred, or people on the far left with anti-Jewish hatred. What action will be taken to address those who perpetrate such myths about people, whether they be Muslim, Sikh, Hindu or Jew, and what resources might come from the Department to achieve that?

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

  More

  I welcome the Chancellor’s reiteration of the British industry supercharger scheme, but she will know that it helps only 10% of this country’s energy-intensive industry—electro-intensive industry in particular. The price per therm of gas is pretty much double what it was last week, so will she set out what help might be available for gas-intensive industry and for electro-industry that is not part of the supercharger scheme? Although we all hope that de-escalation comes, if it does not, will she meet the energy-intensive industries impacted by gas prices to see how they can be given immediate relief?

• 4 Mar 2026 · Department for Business and Trade · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) on securing this debate. I want to touch on three areas of Department for Business and Trade activity where the estimates and the funding it receives could be put to best use. One relates to the industrial energy problems that we face in this country, which I know the Select Committee has looked at. As the Minister is acutely aware, this has a direct impact on communities such as Stoke-on-Trent because of the foundation manufacturing industries that we still have that are energy intensive. I very much welcomed serving on the delegated legislation Committee that passed the statutory instrument to extend the reduction in electricity costs by up to 90% for the supercharger. I know that some of the estimates, if approved today, will go towards funding that. As always, I want to press the Minister on whether, as well as increasing the amount that the discount can be applied to, he would consider extending the scope of that discount to sectors that are currently outside it—namely, of course, the UK ceramic sector. It is not currently covered by the supercharger scheme, but a small amount of help would go a long way in securing the jobs in the communities that most need it. I also want to talk about the fact that Stoke-on-Trent is a foundational area of ceramics that is gas-intensive. The Government have previously discussed the fact that gas is an international commodity, the price of which is traded on the world market. With the events that are taking place in the middle east, we are all expecting to see an increase in world gas prices. That could result in a hugely damaging economic hit to sectors that are not eligible for any other form of relief. If any part of what is being approved today in the Department could be used as a cushion for those sectors that are unable to bring down those costs in any other way, it would bring relief to parts of my community. Some of the money that is being granted to the Department should be used to promote better buying British and building British procurement. The right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North has championed this, both in his role in this place and when he was running to be the West Midlands Mayor. He pulled together a wonderful strategy that I think we could learn from. Small and medium-sized businesses in Stoke-on-Trent tell me that they would love to do more business with the Government, public sector and commissioning bodies that have public money, but such contracts are often big and unwieldy and a challenge to access, as the businesses can meet only part of the contract rather than all of it. Anything we can do to break down those barriers to opportunities in procurement, and to focus on companies that make, build and employ people in this country, would bring an economic benefit to support communities up and down this country. Without costing the taxpayer any more, it would just be a better use of the money that we are spending. Finally, I want to touch on how we do trade protection. I am not a protectionist. I do not believe that we should be putting arbitrary tariffs on things to prevent imports, but I do worry about the ever-creeping non-market economy. Countries such as China and increasingly, sadly, Türkiye, are using manufacturing in their own bases to import into this country to undermine domestic production with the intention that once our own country’s ability to produce has gone down, they will raise their prices. That could involve tyres or ceramics, which would affect Stoke-on-Trent, or it could be other products that we become dependent on in this country. If we are not putting in the correct trade remedies to secure domestic production, or at least to make domestic production as competitive as imports, we run the risk of becoming dependent on countries on which we cannot rely for the things that we want to make and build in this country. That would be very damaging for our own national sovereign capabilities.

• 3 Mar 2026 · Small Charity Sector · Hansard source

  More

  One thing that might help is if there was a settled model for how small charities could quantify volunteer hours to use as a bank against matched funding. Some charities in my patch tell me that they have lots of social value but no cash, and when they go for matched funding, the funders want to see an income stream, not necessarily the other things they have. If there was a way that everyone recognised and supported of quantifying those other things, it could free up income from philanthropic organisations to be match funded against time, assets or skills.

• 3 Mar 2026 · Small Charity Sector · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on securing this debate and on his kind words about Noreen Oliver. I had the pleasure of meeting Noreen when I was first elected. The legacy she leaves in north Staffordshire is phenomenal. Noreen’s Recovery Lounge, which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, is in Fenton Manor in my constituency. It is a wonderful place, which provides the opportunity for people in alcohol and drug addiction recovery to spend meaningful time with other people and acquire work experience and skills. That is something that we should all aspire to. I commend to the debate the recent report from Voluntary Action Stoke on Trent, the infrastructure organisation expertly led by Lisa Healings and her team, that brings together multiple parts of the charitable sector, offering the support and guidance they need. The report points out that there are 396 registered charities operating in Stoke-on-Trent, spending a collective amount of £144.7 million. That is a phenomenal amount of investment into my city, and its value is huge. That money is being spent to prevent much greater demands on other services. It closes the gaps in some communities, to give people the life chances and opportunities they would not otherwise have. That money cannot come from the public sector alone. Nicky Twemlow, the newly appointed chief executive of the YMCA, founded the Made in Stoke network, which brings together people who have a physical or social connection to Stoke-on-Trent, trying to ensure that they can use their philanthropic aims to fund small charities in Stoke. It is a matchmaking service that is having a real benefit. Although there are many wonderful things in Stoke that I could talk about, I just want to touch briefly on three changes that would help. One issue is the short-term cycle of funding; charities often tell me that they get funding for one or two years. By the time they have stood up a project, it is time to start shutting it down again. By the time they have recruited staff, they are worried about redundancy costs. Another concerns large contracts for commissioned services by the third sector from public sector bodies, but the value of the contract is so large that small charities are shut out. Unless they can offer huge swathes of different services, they are unable to get a look in. The big charities mentioned by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green get all the spoils, when a coalition of smaller charities could deliver a service more effectively and with more focus on a community but they cannot compete on the price point. My final point, which I want to raise briefly, is around the complex nature of the needs that too many of these charities are meeting. In Stoke we have lots of good charities, such as Chit Chat 4U, Birches Head Get Growing or Step-Up Stoke CIC. They are often trying to meet one need, but that is spread across multiple phases. If there were a way the Government could help with multiple needs assessments that allow charities to work collectively, it would be a massive boon for my city.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Draft Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  The explanatory notes suggest that the increases are linked in part to the consumer prices index rate of 3.5%, plus a 6.5% tariff to compensate for other areas. But according to the figures in the statutory instrument, the range for some increases is as low as 1%; for others, it is 25%. Can the Minister set out why there is such variation in the percentage increase, and why there is a deviation from the explanatory notes, and the CPI 3.5% plus 6.5%, in the order?

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

  More

  I agree with the hon. Lady on this point. The other problem is that the motion caps the amount of debate at four hours—two hours for Second Reading, and then two hours for Committee and Third Reading. This will presumably have to be a meaty, multi-clause Bill to deal with an issue as complex as internet governance regulation, and it will be unamendable by this place because of the timescales available. It will not have the line-by-line scrutiny that would normally happen in Committee, and most of the amendments that get tabled will fall because there will not be time for Members to propose them. This is not a solution that brings consensus; this is the Lib Dems railroading through policies on a really complex issue that they cannot get through in conventional manners.

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

  More

  I thank the shadow Minister for giving way again; she is being very generous. I confess that I have not made my mind up on this. Let us suppose that there was a blanket ban preventing anyone under 16 from accessing material of this kind. How does the Minister envisage that being enforced? Will enforcement sit with the parents ultimately, and if they are not able to carry out that enforcement, what will be their criminal liability? There are genuine challenges when it comes to what children can access, and who is made ultimately responsible for enforcing a simple approach that could be quite complex to implement.

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

  More

  I agree with my hon. Friend; however, I would not say that it is undemocratic. I will be clear: I do not like the principles of Opposition parties taking over the Order Paper. I did not like it or vote for it when my party tried to do it when we were in opposition during the Brexit years, so I will not support it now. I will say that the next time a Minister stands up and says that we are moving at pace, I might pull my hair out—or what is left of it. What we need are some actual timescales for when things will happen. Otherwise, we will find ourselves talking in circles. Today, we have been able to establish the core principles, which we would agree on. That is a good thing. I hope that when the Minister winds up, he can give a little flavour as to when the consultation will start and how we can all get involved. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) and I will be doing events across our two constituencies with our colleges. That way, we can try and make sure that those views are harvested and fed in, and that a complex and nuanced issue gets the hearing it deserves so that we get the legislation right first time.

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

  More

  I am sympathetic to all the hon. Lady’s arguments. However, it appears that we are about to have a Second Reading debate on an as yet unpublished Bill, when the motion on the Order Paper is about whether we have a day for that Second Reading debate. I am conscious, because I have been to the Vote Office, that the Bill is not available yet. What are we debating this afternoon? If we were to vote with the hon. Lady this evening, what Bill would we be asked to look at on that future day?

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

  More

  I will constrain my comments to three themes, and I want to start with policy. This has been a very interesting and wide-ranging debate. We have heard from many speakers across the House who have articulated the heartfelt and thoughtful concerns that all of us have about the pervasive way in which social media can influence our children, our friends, our families and young people in our society. I am the parent of a 15-year-old. I know what that battle is like—hearing the chirp of Snapchat going off every few seconds, it sounds like, some weekends, as my daughter and her friends communicate in the modern way, and trying to understand what she is doing on Roblox, the games she is playing, who she might be interacting with and the other platforms that, frankly, are alien to me, as someone who is past the age when that stuff makes much sense or is of interest. The simple answer is to say, “We should ban it all—just lock them all away until they’re 16, and it will all be fine.” I worry about my daughter walking down the street—I worry about who she is going to meet when she is walking to school and her interactions in the physical world—but simply saying, “Right, you’re staying in your bedroom until you’re 35”, which we discuss on occasion, is not a solution to those real-world problems. Part of it is about how we help young people to understand the misinformation and disinformation that they are coming across, and it is also about the way in which we regulate the content that platforms share. The part that has been missed today, in the many wonderful contributions from Members across the House, is that this is about not just the platforms that share the content but the creators who make that content in the first place—the people who go online to sow the seeds of hate and division: the homophobic content, the Islamophobic content, the antisemitic content that all too often is passed off as criticism of the Israeli Government, and the many far-right commentators in this country who put out toxic masculine culture commentary as though it is a reasoned point of debate. I understand what Conservative Members say about free speech, but we have always been a country and a society where it is not consequence-free speech—there are consequences to the things we say and the actions we take, and that is how we come to understand what the social norms are. We seem to have abdicated our responsibility for that in the online world. I turn to my second point. The 15-year-old I mentioned in an intervention earlier was, in fact, my daughter, who has now given me permission to out her in that sense. The facilities that I enjoyed when I was in my teens simply do not exist any more. My daughter’s world is as much her online friends and sphere of activity as it is the physical world in which we live. Disconnecting people from that because we think it is unsafe does a disservice to them. I am also slightly worried about the impact of the fact that we are soon to legislate, I understand and hope, on giving 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote—a policy that I think will mainly get cross-party support. I like to think that the political literature that I push through letterboxes in my constituency is of such compelling interest that every young person will snatch it from the letterbox, read it and think, “That is why I am going to vote for Gareth at the next election.” I am sure that the Liberal Democrats’ Focus leaflets have the same impact on young people in their constituencies. The reality is, however, that young people do not read the direct mail that we send out. They do not read our leaflets, or at least not as much as they should. Many young people derive their information, news and views from social media. If we say, “You know what? We are going to cut it off”, where will we force those young people to go?

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

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Lady is making excellent points on the substance, but they bear no resemblance to the motion on the Order Paper. Are you able to give me guidance on what is up for debate this afternoon? Can the hon. Lady point me to where what she is debating sits in the motion?

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

  More

  I do not wish to make this a procedural debate, but the hon. Lady presented a Bill earlier for First Reading. We have been asked to consider that Bill for Second Reading on a future date. That Bill is not available. Although I absolutely respect her approach for a cross-party consensus to design the Bill, as I understand it the Bill is already written and we are being asked to give over Government time for that to be debated on Second Reading. Again, what are we debating today if the Bill is not available but has been written and we will not have a Second Reading debate until sometime in March?

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

  More

  rose—

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

  More

  I have listened to what the hon. Lady has said, but last week I talked to a 15-year-old, who said to me, “We have no youth clubs. We go on the street, and I don’t feel safe and I get told I’m a nuisance. So I come home, and I interact with my friends online. Now I’m told I can’t do that.” I am not sure what the right answer is, and I sometimes think that not knowing the answer is as good as having absolute certainty all the time about everything. What would she say to that 15-year-old about the outcome for her? She is asking what she can do and how can she stay in touch with her friends. We do not have an answer to that yet, so what are the Conservatives offering?