Kirsty Blackman MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 11 Nov 2025 · Pensions · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State said that as part of the legal proceedings challenging the Government’s decision, evidence has been cited about research findings from a 2007 report. Who cited that evidence? Was it the Department for Work and Pensions or the Government, or was it the people opposing the Government in the court case? If it came from Government sources or from within the DWP, why was it not uncovered before? Can he give us every assurance that he is doing everything he can to ensure that all relevant evidence is uncovered in advance of the next decision being taken?

• 5 Nov 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am still not exactly clear why the Minister disagrees with Lords amendment 84. I understand that he is saying that DWP agents will look at EVM information and everything else, but what happens in circumstances when they have only EVM and not much else by way of information? Is he unable to agree with Lords amendment 84 because if the DWP has only EVM information, he wants decisions to be taken based only on that and not on anything else?

• 5 Nov 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is not easy to follow that excellent speech. I really appreciate the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) reading out the names of people who have been failed by the system that was meant to support them—and we should remember that the system is what failed them. As he said, in a number of cases they were incredibly strong people who had fought through adversity but were then failed by the system. A significant number of disabled people have had to fight for so much of what they have. They have had to fight every day just to manage to get to work or get to the shop. They have had to fight for so much, and the system that is meant to support them should not then be another battleground. I want to talk about a number of different things in the Bill, but I will start with the fact that this is not a happy Bill and the SNP does not support it. We are unhappy with a significant proportion of the Bill’s direction of travel, such as on the eligibility verification, not least because of the potential future risks. I said to the Conservatives when they were in government, and I will say again now that the Labour party is in government, that you will not be in government for ever. At some point, somebody else will be in government, and if it is somebody who shares the authoritarian ideas of some potential future leaders, I am not sure that I want them to have access to everybody’s bank accounts. We need to look at the proportionality of accessing universal credit claimants’ bank accounts to see if they are committing fraud. I wonder what proportion of universal credit claimants defraud the system, compared with the proportion of billionaires who defraud His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and do not pay the level of tax that they should be paying. I do not think it is proportionate for us to say that universal credit claimants need to have their bank accounts looked at because they are likely to commit fraud, whereas people who earn millions and millions of pounds and store it in offshore trusts do not have exactly the same constraints put on all the many bank accounts that they may have. It is disproportionate for us to assume that social security claimants are more likely to defraud the system than anyone else, especially given that we have significant levels of proof that other people do defraud the system and that a significant number of the errors made—through overpayments, for example—are made by DWP itself, rather than by the claimants. The hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) talked about elements of Lords amendment 43 and vulnerable individuals who may be disadvantaged. If we could trust that DWP never or very rarely makes mistakes, I could understand the Government putting forward this Bill. From the written-down facts in coroner’s reports, and from all our constituency casework, we know that DWP makes mistakes. I am not blaming individuals at DWP for making those mistakes; there are sometimes systemic failures and sometimes individual failures. Mistakes are made at DWP, and adding both another layer of places where it can make mistakes and a further ability to sanction people—for example, by taking their car away or looking at their bank accounts—will not be proportionate until DWP is much less likely to make mistakes and to greatly overpay carers, for example, and then attempt to claw back the money. The Government need to get the Department in order before taking action against individuals. I understand that there are people who defraud the system—I am not doubting for a second that that is the case—but, as the hon. Member for Horsham said, putting the word “error” first might have been helpful, given that a significant proportion of the money that is overpaid is due to error. I turn to the costs and savings mentioned in Lords amendment 43, on how much it costs to recoup money and to undertake an investigation in order to see whether somebody is defrauding the system. We know that a school meal debt system was set up, and we have had bailiffs at people’s doors looking for under £10 of school meal debt. Sending a bailiff to somebody’s door for under £10 involves a disproportionate cost, and I hope that everybody in this room thinks that we should not be spending so much money, and upsetting somebody’s life that much, for the sake of £10. If a person cannot afford to pay £10 of school meal debt, they have pretty significant problems, and sending a bailiff to their door is not going to help. We only know about some of these bailiff situations because they have been brought to MPs, or because they have been reported by various organisations. Aberlour Children’s Charity has done a huge amount of amazing work on public sector debt and some of the methods that are used to recoup that money. The Government should have to report whether it costs a disproportionate amount for us to ensure that we are not paying out a very small amount. I think it is completely reasonable for that question to be asked. I think it is completely reasonable as well—the hon. Member for Poole talked about this—to think about vulnerable groups and whether they are overly disadvantaged by the system being put in place. Will people with learning difficulties, specific mental conditions and physical disabilities, and those from certain minority communities that are already marginalised, for example Gypsy Travellers, be specifically disadvantaged by the changes? All Lords amendment 43 asks is for reporting to ensure that those vulnerabilities, if there is an entrenchment of inequality and an increase in the disadvantage faced by people, are reported on, so we aware of it and there is transparency, and so we can see that it is creating a significant additional disadvantage on an already vulnerable and marginalised community. I would therefore really appreciate it if the Government agreed, rather than disagreed, with Lords amendment 43. Finally on Lords amendment 43, the amount of money proposed to be saved by the Bill in its entirety—the total amount of savings—is, I understand, £1.5 billion. Governments of all colours are monumentally bad at reporting back on how much savings have been achieved by any of the measures they put in place on just about anything. Unless a tax is hypothecated, for example, we do not see exactly how much money is saved or exactly how much money is spent, and whether it delivered what was promised by the Government. Again, it is Governments of all colours who do not do post-implementation reviews in the right amount of time, and when there is a change of Government they sometimes just forget that post-implementation reviews exist. We will not know with any level of accuracy, unless we get proper reports on costs and savings, exactly how much money is saved and whether the Government have met their target or expected amount of £1.5 billion, so I have significant concerns. I appreciate the Minister’s answer to me on Lords amendment 84. I had not understood what he had said originally on his position on Lords amendment 84 and the answer he gave me in response did clarify his position. I do not agree with his position, but I now understand why the Government hold that position. I still think it would be important to ensure there are things in place other than the EVM. I understand the Government want a little bit more flexibility and that they are saying they have to look at all the other information they hold. It is possible that the DWP may not hold any more information or may hold very little more information. Therefore, the decision to initiate a fraud investigation could be taken almost entirely, if not completely entirely, on the EVM. That is why I still disagree with the Minister’s position. I would like a requirement for the DWP to have more than just that one piece of information. My understanding is that that was what Lords amendment 84 intended to do in the first place, but I appreciate that other amendments in lieu have been tabled by the Government to provide a little more clarity on what is expected. I would expect them to look at all the information provided, as the Minister said. I am just concerned that they may not hold lots of information, and a requirement to look at all the information they hold when they only hold one piece of information gets us back to the situation we were in at the beginning, where it could hinge on one thing rather than looking at a wider suite of things. Generally speaking, Madam Deputy Speaker—I will sit down in just a moment—the SNP is not in favour of the Bill. We have significant concerns. If the Minister, when he responds, confirmed that the Government will do as much as they can on transparency, and that they will report back on the level of costs and savings that are created by the Bill, that would give me a measure of comfort. I still will not support the Bill, and I might still vote against some of the amendments tabled today, but I think it would make Members from across the House a bit more comfortable to have a better understanding of what is happening and whether the Bill is working as the Government intend.

• 5 Nov 2025 · Violence against Women and Girls · Hansard source

  More

  One of my constituents was domestically abused by someone on a dependant visa. She has been trying to obtain information from UK Visas and Immigration about whether that person is still in the United Kingdom, or still has a visa. Would the Minister consider a measure similar to Clare’s law, so that people have the right to ask what a person’s current visa status is and UKVI can release that information to them?

• 4 Nov 2025 · Welfare Spending · Hansard source

  More

  No, thank you. What we should be doing in the Budget and in the child poverty strategy is talking about how the welfare system should support people and about how the welfare system fails to support people. I wish the Minister for Social Security and Disability well in his work co-producing his report, but the welfare system is currently broken, and that is not because the costs are spiralling out of control. The welfare system is currently broken because people are being demonised simply for claiming enough to live on.

• 4 Nov 2025 · Welfare Spending · Hansard source

  More

  It is interesting to hear what is being put forward, considering that this lot on the Conservative Benches created the welfare system that we currently have, and that lot on the Labour Benches are keeping it going. The reality is that the mini-Budget that massively changed house prices and meant mortgage interest rates went through the roof has contributed to the cost of living crisis. The reality is that Brexit has meant that we are all worse off. The reality is that, with a UK Labour Government now, the economy is not growing: there is no creation of jobs and, for example, we still have a massive issue with productivity. We still have an incredibly broken system, and the problem is Westminster—it is all of you; every one of you on both sides has contributed to the current system. People are not standing up today to talk about the fact that we have child poverty, and to say that what the welfare system should be doing is improving that system so we do not have so much child poverty. Child poverty is reducing in Scotland. However, the child poverty strategy was pushed back from the spring to the autumn, and now the Minister for Social Security and Disability is saying that it will be the end of the year. When he stood up, he said he was going to seek the support of the House for the Government’s mission, but he is not actually going to do so. What he is going to do tonight is vote against the Tory motion. The Government have not put forward an amendment laying out their plans for what they intend to do. The Tory motion is a complete and total mess. The Tories seem to be trying to assign value to humans. They seem to be saying, “As long as you’re earning a significant amount of money, you were born in the UK and you’re a British citizen, you’re okay. If you are not—if you don’t fit in those boxes—you are somehow less valuable.” Both sides have been making the argument that people are either getting universal credit and other benefits or they are in work, but those two things are not mutually exclusive. For a significant number of people, work does not pay. The income of a significant number of people has to be supported by the welfare system, because the economy that both sides have created means they are not getting enough money to be able to pay for the basic things they need. The price of butter, olive oil, potatoes and rice has gone through the roof, and people cannot afford their energy bills because of rampant inflation, which continues, and the cost of living crisis continues to bite because wages have not kept pace with those prices. The current welfare system is not reducing poverty, but it also has to support people currently in work because they are not getting enough money. If the Conservatives are assigning value to humans—saying that people who are not UK citizens do not necessarily deserve benefits—they are going to be having very interesting conversations with expats in Spain and Canada, with which we have reciprocal social security arrangements. They will be immensely furious that they will no longer be eligible for any of the support they receive from those Governments, and I think it is bizarre for the Conservatives to support such a position, given how many of those expats are Conservative voters who are going to be monumentally stuffed as a result of the Tory position. I think it is absolutely ridiculous that we are here listening to the Conservatives, who created this system, arguing about how terrible it is. What we should be doing—

• 27 Oct 2025 · North Sea Oil and Gas Industry · Hansard source

  More

  Every single one of us has been criticising Government policy, not criticising Petrofac, the expertise and workers at Petrofac, or any of the workers in our oil and gas industry. The Minister says that he has been spending time in Aberdeen. Does he have any idea how it feels to be in Aberdeen just now, with another hammer blow coming? And it is because of the Government’s policies; it is because there is this massive gap. Skilled workers in the oil and gas industry will just go abroad; they will go elsewhere. It does not matter whether we retrain them; the jobs are not there for them right now. What is he going to do to plug that gap? What will he do to keep these skilled workers in Scotland, in Aberdeen and in these islands, and not drive them away?

• 23 Oct 2025 · Black History Month · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree. I have met the Association for Black and Minority Ethnic Engineers. Unfortunately, I did not realise it was having its conference next week, but I thank the hon. Member for letting me know. It is a fabulous organisation. There continues to be a very tough glass ceiling in engineering. We are getting a huge number of more diverse candidates and graduates coming through in engineering, but at the highest levels of senior management—for example, in the energy industry—we are struggling to make that breakthrough, and to have enough black and minority ethnic individuals, so I support his comments. I support the Association for Black and Minority Ethnic Engineers, and I will do everything I can to assist it in breaking that glass ceiling. There is also a glass ceiling for female engineers. There is intersectionality here; it is particularly difficult for black female engineers to get to the highest senior management positions. I will keep doing everything I can to support that organisation and others. To build on what the Mother of the House said, and what the hon. Member for Brent East said about the protests, the societal views being expressed right now are horrific. However, there has been an undercurrent for a very long time, and this is stuff that people have been thinking. Part of what drove some people to vote for Brexit was views such as, “There’s too much immigration—I don’t want all these people here.” I am sure all Labour Members have read “The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists”; they will know that it talks about the Conservatives of the time putting forward the racist narrative that “All your problems are caused by the immigrants. We just need to get rid of them.” This has been a narrative for 100 years, and we still need to counter it—perhaps more so today than ever, and certainly more than we have needed to at any other point in my adult life. We need to do everything we can to stop these racists being allowed to say anything they want.

• 23 Oct 2025 · Black History Month · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister agree that not only do we need to be not racist, but we need to be anti-racist, in order to tackle the situation in society right now?

• 23 Oct 2025 · Black History Month · Hansard source

  More

  I was pleased to hear the hon. Member highlight some good practice. As a parent, you get slightly obsessive about your children’s health and tend to google what is going on with them. The NHS website—nhs.uk—has improved monumentally over the years. For instance, when it comes to rashes it says, “Rashes will present differently on black and brown skin,” and it shows pictures of how that might look. I am glad that the hon. Member highlighted good practice. Does he think it is possible to lift and shift the good practice we see, such as on the NHS UK website and with the Greater Manchester example he mentioned, and do that across the board?

• 23 Oct 2025 · Black History Month · Hansard source

  More

  I could not agree more. People have had these racist thoughts and have kept quiet about them, but they are now emboldened to say them out loud because of people like the Reform MPs, and because of the racist narratives being brought forward. No one should be looking to chase policies such as mass deportation. None of us should be putting forward those policies. We should recognise and celebrate the impact of people who have chosen to live in our country. I want to tackle one of the narratives put forward by some of the racists in my constituency: they have said that the saltire is a Christian symbol and is only for white Christians. That is not true. The saltire is for anybody who was born in Scotland, or chooses to come to our country to live, to contribute to working life, and to be part of our wonderful, vibrant communities. It is for every single one of us. It is not just for Christians and not just for white people; it is for everyone. We can all—everybody living in Scotland, everybody born in Scotland and, frankly, everybody who wants to—celebrate and love the saltire and claim it for our own. I know I am taking quite a bit of time, but I want to talk about a few more issues, particularly some Government policies. I really appreciate the work being done on removing the pay gaps, including the ethnicity and gender pay gaps. It is looking at what more can be done, and particularly at intersectionality, and cases where people are multiply disadvantaged. All of us have a responsibility to check our privilege. We have a responsibility to think about the fact that we have our privilege—we get high salaries as Members of Parliament, and we may be educated, white and middle-class—while other people face multiple detriments, and multiple forms of judgment and prejudice. They are finding it harder and harder to make it through. They are so tired because of the constant drip, drip—or sometimes gush—of negativity against particular immigrants. A few things in the immigration system disadvantage people who are not white. There is still a significant issue with the refusal of visitor visas for people from countries where people are not white. There is a significant refusal rate for visitor visas for people from Nigeria. I still struggle to fathom why some constituents should be less able to have their mum come over to see them graduate than others who are born in another country, but are white. It feels like there is a racial element to that. Any work that can be done to ensure that the visitor visa system is fairer, and to make it more likely that people can get their relatives over to visit, would be incredibly worthwhile. The “no recourse to public funds” system has now opened up, and applies to far more white people than it used to—I disagree entirely with “no recourse to public funds”—but under the system, there are families who are struggling to feed their children. There are families who were not supported throughout covid. What particularly bothers me is that they include families with young children. I do not think we should have the “no recourse to public funds” system, but if we are going to continue to do so, I do not think it should ever apply to families in which anybody is under five—or under 18. Children should never go hungry because a family has no recourse to public funds, particularly if family members have lived and worked here. Sometimes their having no recourse to public funds is no fault of theirs; a Home Office mix-up has put them in that situation, and they have been banned from working for a period. That is horrific, and “no recourse to public funds” needs to go. On the changes in residency requirements for leave to remain, so many of my constituents have contacted me saying, “I bought a house in Aberdeen because I was under the impression that I would get indefinite leave to remain after a five-year stay. The Government have now changed that to 10 years. I don’t know if they, or the next Government, whoever they may be, will ever allow me the right to stay, but I will have to continue to pay health surcharges every year in the meantime.” Those people may have chosen to live in Aberdeen in order to work in our NHS and to make our communities better. I do not think we should have any change at all in the residency requirements, but any move to make changes retrospective would be incredibly unfair. There would need to be an equalities impact assessment to show what percentage of people disadvantaged by the policy were from black and minority ethnic backgrounds. I am willing to bet that the figure would be incredibly high, and it is therefore a policy that no progressive Government should pursue. However, I wanted to be positive. I wanted to talk about the incredible work that my constituents have done, but I could not do so without recognising that it is a scary time. I hope that voices from across the House today—and the voices of my constituents, uplifting and championing their friends and colleagues, and those who work in charities—can at least bring a ray of sunshine right now. We cannot fix everything overnight, as the hon. Member for Brent East said. This is a very long-term project, but we will get there. We will keep causing a little bit of trouble—good trouble—where we need to, and we will do everything we can to ensure equality, recognise that we have more in common, and make the difference that really is needed.

• 23 Oct 2025 · Black History Month · Hansard source

  More

  It is quite scary to follow the hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) and the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), who are both formidable advocates against injustice. I have done several debates with the hon. Member for Brent East, and I have so much respect for how she speaks to the Chamber. She was talking about that tiredness that people are feeling just now, from constantly having to fight for every single thing, and constantly having to argue against the injustices being served on her constituents and mine, as well as those of a significant number of Members across this House. It is absolutely tiring, but if she or the Mother of the House ever wants a cup of tea, a bit of allyship or, as we say in Aberdeen, a bosie—a cuddle—they should give us a shout. We are happy to oblige and to be united together. The Mother of the House highlighted the cognitive dissonance that some politicians seem to have: they stand up and talk about Black History Month, while simultaneously refusing to discourage people who are protesting against migrants. That is really important. We need to remember that we cannot talk about the injustices that so many people face just once a year in this Chamber; we need to be fighting every single day. Every day that we have energy, we should be using it to ensure that there is an anti-racist narrative across society. I represent Aberdeen North, one of the more diverse constituencies in Scotland. I will focus on the city of Aberdeen, because the census results are broken down by city rather than constituency, so it is much easier to do that. About 13.4% of people in Aberdeen come from a BME background, which is not that high, but over 20% of people in Aberdeen were not born in the United Kingdom, which is pretty high for Scotland. Some 2.5% of people in Aberdeen were born in Nigeria. There are 5,600 Nigerians—people who were born in Nigeria, not the descendants of immigrants—living in Aberdeen. We have a significant number of people who are working every day, who are contributing and who are making a difference. I will mention some individuals, from both the past and present, who have made a difference in Aberdeen and Scotland. However, I note that there are so many people whose names we will never mention, who are working quietly as carers or in our NHS and doing jobs that are really difficult. I have been a carer, and it is a really hard, physical job that so many people do not want to do. To those who are making people’s lives better and doing miracles every single day, and whose names I do not mention, thank you for your contribution. It is massively appreciated. I will first talk about some figures from the past. There is a wonderful part of the University of Aberdeen website that talks about the history of black Aberdonians and people who graduated from the university. Christopher James Davis, who was from Barbados, graduated in 1870—we think he is the first black graduate—in medicine, and then went to volunteer as a doctor in Sedan during the Franco-Prussian war. Sadly, he died from smallpox in the same year that he graduated. Nathaniel Thomas King graduated from Aberdeen in 1876. He moved back to Nigeria and was one of the trailblazers in improving sanitation in Lagos. Again, he was another medicine graduate from Aberdeen. Edward Tull-Warnock was a dentist in Aberdeen and Glasgow. His father was born in Barbados, although Edward was born in Folkestone. His brother was probably the first black commissioned officer in the British Army. As I say, Edward himself was a dentist, and he was not called up to the war because of that. We needed dentists during that time, particularly because so many people who volunteered or who were called up were rejected on the basis of the quality of their teeth and how likely they were to be ill as a result, so dentists were often an exempted occupation. Edward practised as a dentist for a significant number of years, latterly in Glasgow. Again, he was a real black trailblazer—potentially the first black registered dentist in Scotland. In some of these cases I am saying words such as “potentially”, and I cannot talk about early women graduates of Aberdeen University because the registers just are not there. The rolls are there, but there is not enough information and the research has not been done. The university is looking to rectify that in the future, but, again, there are stories that will maybe never be told, because we just do not have the information. I want to highlight some of the people in my constituency, and in Aberdeen more widely, who are making a difference, and whose stories might not otherwise be heard. Bertha Yakubu MBE came to Aberdeen in 1993 and really struggled with isolation. Bertha and the African Women’s Group in Aberdeen wrote a book called “African Women Speaking”, one of the most powerful books I have ever read. It is about their experiences of coming to Aberdeen and Scotland, how different it was from the countries they were born in, how different the experience was, and how difficult they found it to integrate, to find fellow feeling, and to find love and support in the community in Aberdeen. It really is a brilliant book, and I urge Members to get hold of it. Bertha now does a huge amount of work supporting women who are suffering from domestic violence by providing them with kinship, love and support, and by just being there for them. That is sometimes what people need to gain the courage to flee. I want to talk about Ify Anyaegbu, who is in charge of FACEYOUTH, a charity that focuses on mental health. It focuses on young people, and on reducing the disadvantage that they feel in Aberdeen. I have met her on a number of occasions, and she is an absolute force of nature. She will do everything that she can to try to reduce disadvantage in Aberdeen. Jane Akadiri is the founder of Touch of Love, an empowering and uplifting Christian community in the city. It does a huge amount of good, particularly with disadvantaged groups and people on the lowest incomes. Florence Igboayaka, the founder of the Period Place, has written a book called “The Period Comic”, which is excellent. If young people aged between eight and 14 want to learn about what periods are like, the comic is a fabulous place to start, and I thoroughly recommend it. She has also created a line of period products for women with heavier period flows, which I understand a lot of African women have. Across the UK, a significant number of women from all heritages are not served well by the period products currently on the market. She also started, in Aberdeen, the “walk to give her a voice”, which is focused on ensuring that women feel safe, and can walk in their communities and talk about the things that matter to them. We should be able to talk about periods and the menopause, and to get the support that we need. Those are some incredibly inspiring women, and my city would not be the place it is today without all the work that they do in our communities.

• 23 Oct 2025 · Black History Month · Hansard source

  More

  I appreciate that the draft will be published in this Session, but when the Minister has more information on the timeline for its publication—before or, as is more likely, after Christmas, for example—will she update the House so that we can get ready to scrutinise it and assist with her work, which we very much support?

• 16 Sept 2025 · Child Poverty Strategy (Removal of Two Child Limit) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to publish a child poverty strategy which includes proposals for removing the limit on the number of children or qualifying young persons included in the calculation of an award of Universal Credit; and for connected purposes. In July 2024, the Prime Minister said: “For too long children have been left behind, and no decisive action has been taken to address the root causes of poverty. This is completely unacceptable—no child should be left hungry, cold or have their future held back. That’s why we’re prioritising work on an ambitious child poverty strategy and my ministers will leave no stone unturned to give every child the very best start at life.” That was 426 days ago, but that action has not been taken. It will not be taken by today, by tomorrow or in the spring of 2025, as promised; it has been punted back to the autumn. Since the Prime Minister made this statement, 100 more children a day have been pushed into poverty by the two-child cap—100 more every single day. Failing to take action to tackle child poverty has left more children in families that are unable to afford the essentials. The two-child cap has pushed 730,000 more children into poverty. How much longer do these children have to wait? The two-child cap is cruel, and it must be scrapped now. These children and families are having their life chances and their futures actively harmed by the Labour party’s persistent dither and delay. If child poverty really was a priority for this Labour Government, the Prime Minister would have scrapped the cruel two-child cap on day one of his premiership. He has now had over a year to do so. Labour is supposed to be the party of the left. What more progressive policy could there be than drastically cutting child poverty overnight? The UK is the only country in the world that withholds state support from children based on there being more than two in a family. A lone parent with three children who works full-time for the minimum wage is currently £4,500 a year under the poverty line if they are affected by the two-child limit. Scrapping the policy would mean that that worker was still £1,000 a year under the line. Even on median earnings, a lone parent working full-time with three children is currently under the poverty line if she is hit by the two-child limit. The Child Poverty Action Group has said: “Poverty harms children’s health, social and emotional wellbeing, and education. It harms their childhoods and their futures.” The two-child cap is cruel, and children are having to go without essentials. Over 7 million low-income families are still going without essentials such as food, heating and basic toiletries. Joseph Rowntree Foundation figures for low-income families with three or more children show that almost nine in 10 went without essentials, over eight in 10 were in arrears, and seven in 10 had taken out a loan to pay for essentials. Of the families that responded to a Child Poverty Action Group’s rolling survey, 93% said that the two-child limit meant they struggled to pay for food. On the current trajectory, 34% of bairns will be in poverty by 2029-30, including half of all children in large families. Scrapping the two-child limit would bring 670,000 people out of severe hardship immediately, including 470,000 children. CPAG has said: “Abolishing the two-child limit is the most cost-effective way to reduce child poverty which is at a record level”. Other experts and charities agree with this assessment. Stop arguing about affordability, because scrapping the two-child cap will cut poverty at a stroke, and it is the most cost-effective way to do so. The two-child cap is cruel. How are we still having to argue about this? The new the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Pat McFadden), said last year that it is “open to debate” whether the two-child cap is a harmful policy. It is a harmful policy. It is harming families and children. Why on earth would the Prime Minister put someone in charge of the DWP who wilfully ignores every single expert when it comes to the two-child limit? The two-child cap is cruel, and it is disproportionately impacting children in larger families, women and those in minority ethnic communities; people who are already vulnerable and already suffering disadvantage as a result of multiple issues. The two-child cap is cruel and unfair. But, contrary to the Government’s arguments, this is not a problem of worklessness. Some 59% of families affected by the two-child cap have at least one working parent. By next month, 1 million children in working families will be hit by the two-child limit. Simply growing the economy will not change the lives of children in poverty. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation says: “We can’t expect children to be ready for school or able to learn if they’re going without the basics.” The UK Government will not see any progress on child poverty by the end of this Parliament, even with high economic growth, without investment in social security. We need real action to improve the lives of children and families the length and breadth of these islands. Scotland is the only part of the UK where child poverty is falling. This is a direct result of SNP policies, including the Scottish child payment, the Best Start grant and the baby box, as well as the SNP Government’s decision to mitigate the bedroom tax and the two-child cap. In the SNP, we recognise that the two-child cap is cruel, and we will mitigate it from March 2026, but we should not have to. On average, the poorest 10% of families with bairns are £2,600 a year better off in Scotland because of the Scottish Government’s actions. In Scotland, both relative and absolute poverty were nine percentage points below the UK average in 2023-24. Keeping the two-child cap in place is holding Scotland back from reducing child poverty as much as we would like. It is keeping children and families in the rest of the UK stuck in that cycle of poverty. Matching the Scottish child payment of £27.15 per child per week, scrapping the two-child limit, the benefit cap and the bedroom tax, would take 2.3 million households out of poverty overnight, including 96,000 in Scotland. Members should not just believe me that the two-child cap is cruel. The Child Poverty Action Group has testimonies from parents: “The two-child limit is the difference between us being in debt and not. We have utilities debt and at the end of the month have to use credit cards just to keep living. I didn’t expect to be on universal credit. No one would want to be, and I don’t plan to be on benefits for ever. But nobody knows what’s going to happen to them.” “We’ve been really struggling and although we’re starting to get out of debt, there are times when I don’t eat so I can feed the children. I do my best to put healthy food on the table, but it is not always possible and occasionally we’ve had to use a foodbank. I never have a haircut because I just can’t afford it. It doesn’t feel fair that just because your child was born after a certain date, there isn’t support for her and you have to spread the support over all three children.” “I have to buy things on credit and the children can’t do the clubs they want to do. The policy is punishing children—that’s what’s wrong with it. I’m a taxpayer and my children will grow up and pay tax—the country expects them to—but when they need support now, there’s no help for them—they’ve been deserted.” The two-child cap is cruel, and it is keeping children in poverty. Those who support scrapping the cruel two-child cap include: Save the Children, the Resolution Foundation, Sadiq Khan, Gordon Brown, Action for Children, Alison Thewliss, the Trussell Trust, Andy Burnham, AberNeccessities, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Aberlour, Neil Kinnock, Barnardo’s, Includem and the Child Poverty Action Group. There are so many important Labour members and so many incredible charities working to oppose child poverty and remove it. This is a key test of whether the Labour Government are capable of the change they promised the electorate, or whether Labour MPs will keep following a Prime Minister who is making the same mistakes that have hammered families and seen support for the Labour party collapse during his first year in office. Labour MPs must vote for the Bill and send the Prime Minister a clear message that a radical change in direction is urgent and essential. Downing Street is briefing newspapers that it will resist pressure from the SNP and Labour’s soft left to scrap the cap. What is the point in Labour if it is not even willing to support soft left policies? This Bill is a common-sense change that will support working people. It is a cost-effective way to take children out of poverty. It will ensure that families can make ends meet and that bairns are not facing a childhood without essentials. I know that many Labour MPs agree with me. If they hold their nose and refuse to vote in favour of the Bill in some misguided attempt to prop up the failing Labour Government, they will be choosing to put their party above the lives of children—children who live in their constituencies; children whose life chances are being hammered by the cruel two-child cap. All MPs, especially Labour MPs, must put maximum pressure on the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the Chancellor to remove the cruel two-child cap once and for all, and they can start by supporting the Bill. History will judge Labour Members by their actions today.

• 11 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Ms Lewell, I am aware that I cannot make a speech at this point, but will the Minister write to me on whether he is planning to do anything about pre-1997 indexation of the PPF and FAS? If he writes to me about that, I will be happy not to push new clause 18 to a vote.

• 11 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I would similarly like to offer thanks, particularly to Hansard colleagues and the other House staff who have had to put up with us. This has been a particularly well-natured Bill Committee. I appreciate that the Whip had to change during it, and I do appreciate the fact that both Government Whips had to carry the Committee a little to make sure that everything worked. I am not going to agree with how young the Minister is, although I do agree that all the Front Benchers who have spoken, as well as all the Back Benchers who have spoken, have done an excellent job. It is nice to be part of a Committee that is cross-party in that we agree on a lot of positives in the Bill, and we have also disagreed very agreeably throughout. Unfortunately, I do not have much in the way of staff members to thank, because this has been a one-woman band. However, I very much appreciate the hard work that everybody has put in to make sure that we can ask the Government lots of questions on the Bill so that the Government can do their best to answer us, even if we do disagree with the answer sometimes.

• 11 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I agree that there is a particularly high level of transparency in regulations around local government pension schemes that is not available in any of the other pension schemes that we are discussing. Because major primary pensions legislation does not happen often—we have a lot of secondary legislation around pensions—this is a real opportunity to ensure that the changes that are made have the desired and intended effect. I have asked various Governments about post-implementation reviews of legislation, and I have had some interesting responses from Government Departments that did not know which pieces of legislation required a post-implementation review, nor whether they had been done. Part of my concern is that no matter whether the Government change, if there is a change of personnel, there does not appear to be any tracking process in Departments to say when post-implementation reviews will take place or whether they have been done, and there is no feedback process in place either. Bill Committees that consider legislation have no right to an update on whether that legislation worked, and that makes no sense. If the Government say that a certain tax will take in £10 million over the next three years but nobody tells us whether that worked, how can the Government then expect us to believe that tweaking that tax will take in another £10 million when they cannot tell us how much it took in in the first place? My concern is that post-implementation review processes are not strong enough; there is not enough checking in Government to ensure that reviews take place. I appreciate that the Minister wants this to work. He wants consolidation to happen and to have the desired positive effects. He does not want the negative effects. This is about commitment to a level of transparency so that we can all see what has and has not worked. It is not a criticism, because we all largely agree on a good chunk of this legislation; it is about all of us understanding what things in the legislation have been more positive or more negative than expected.

• 11 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  If the new clause is pressed to a vote, I will not take part because it does not impact pensions in Scotland. However, I want to relay to the Committee and the Minister that I have heard a number of heartbreaking stories on this subject; I am aware that it is not the Minister’s fault that such situations have occurred. What has most impacted me is when I have heard the stories of people having to choose not to live with their partners if they are to continue to receive pensions. Someone’s deceased police officer partner may have died a significant time ago. Finding happiness in a new relationship is a lovely thing, but that person might have to choose between getting the survivor’s pension and living with their new partner. That is a horrific decision that nobody should ever have to make. It would be great if the Minister recognised the issue: that people are being pushed into making difficult choices because of how the schemes have been written. I do not necessarily want the Minister to commit to changing the legislation, as I do not know whether it is within his gift to fix this, but will he recognise that the current situation is unfair? I think that would be a step in the right direction.

• 11 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I have a brief comment on the direct marketing purposes. An increasing number of people rely on email communication to get updates on their pension, rather than paper updates. I am aware of a significant number of people of younger generations who are not keen on opening letters that come through their door. They may also not be keen on opening emails, but at least they will be able to search for them, because they will not delete them, and will be able to find out what is in them. I spoke to somebody the other day who was quite surprised at the low percentage of people who had signed up to use the app for the National Employment Savings Trust. Most of the providers and individuals I have spoken to have seen an increase in the number of people who are keen to use apps or communicate only via electronic communication. The point made by the hon. Member for Horsham is incredibly important. We need to ensure that a balance is in place and that people are provided with the correct and actual updates in a way that they want to receive them, but that they are protected from scams.

• 11 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Mr Speaker and previous Speakers have encouraged us as Members not to worry about repetition. Generally, the more we can talk about and highlight issues the better. Part of the point of the new clause is to ensure that the Minister recognises and says from the Front Bench that this is an important issue. Whether or not there is an actual consultation taking place, if we can have that commitment—we will probably ask him for that commitment again and again, given the nature of this place—we would be very happy to receive it. I agree with the hon. Member for Horsham that the balance is really important. When it comes to guided retirement products, it is key that companies do not worry that the privacy and electronic communications regulations, or any legislation, is going to get in the way of proper communications, but that people are also protected from potential scam communications, and that we are able to crack down on anyone undertaking scams and looking to take significant amounts of money—these are the largest amounts of savings that the vast majority of us will ever have in our lives.

• 11 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak in support of the new clause tabled by the Liberal Democrats and new clauses 18 and 19, which were tabled by my wonderful colleague from Plaid, the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies). The witnesses who came before us last week to speak about the lack of indexation for pre-1997 pensions made an incredibly passionate and powerful case for changing the system. We mentioned earlier the Work and Pensions Committee’s report, which suggested that the Government need to look at this issue seriously. I was quite disappointed by the Government’s response, which did not actually say very much. All it said was that changing the system would have an impact on the Government’s balance sheet. Well, yes, it might have an impact on the Government’s balance sheet, but it would have a significant impact for people who are in this situation through absolutely no fault of their own. They did the right thing all the way along, but the company they were with collapsed and the Pension Protection Fund or the financial assistance scheme has not given them the uplift. The group of people we are talking about are getting older. They are not young any more. We know that older pensioners are the most likely to be in fuel poverty and to be struggling with the cost of living crisis. They are the ones making the choice about whether to switch on the heating. Given the rate of inflation that we have had in recent years, there is a real argument for utilising a small amount of the PPF’s surplus to provide a level of indexation. The cut-off is very arbitrary; it is just a date that happened to be put in legislation at that time. Were the Government setting up the PPF today, and the compensation schemes for people who lost their pension through no fault of their own, I do not think they would be arguing for not indexing pensions accrued before 1997. That would not be a justifiable position for today’s Government to take. I am not sure whether the Bill is the right place to do this, but my understanding is that it needs to be done in primary legislation; it cannot be done in secondary legislation. Given what I mentioned earlier about the significant length of time between pieces of primary pension legislation, if the Government do not use the Pension Schemes Bill to address this problem today, on Report or in the House of Lords, when will they? How many more of the pensioners who are suffering from the lack of indexation will have passed away or be pushed into further financial hardship by the time the Government make a decision on this, if they ever intend to? As I have said, I cannot see a justification for not providing the indexation. We know the PPF levy changes have been put in place because of that surplus, and there is recognition that the surplus exists and has not been invented—the money is there. I understand that the situation is different for the two funds, but particularly with the PPF, I do not understand how any Member of this House, let alone the Government, could argue against making this change to protect pensioners. It may have an impact on the Government’s balance sheet, but it does not have an impact on the Government’s income, outgoings and ability to spend today. The PPF money cannot be used for anything other than reducing the levy or paying pensions. It is very unusual to have such ringfenced, hypothecated money within the Government’s balance sheet, but this money is ringfenced. The Government cannot decide to spend it on building a new school or funding the NHS. It can be used only for paying the pensions of people whose companies have gone under. I very much appreciate the hard work of my colleagues in Plaid Cymru on this issue in supporting their constituents, as well as people such as Terry Monk, who gave evidence to us last week along with Mr Sainsbury. Now is the time for the Government to change this to ensure fairness and drag some pensioners out of poverty, so that they have enough money to live on right now during this cost of living crisis.

• 11 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I asked questions earlier about the consultation processes that DWP and the FCA are undertaking and about ensuring consistency in that consultation. This is a similar issue. I like the way that the new clause has been written to ensure that there are protocols so that everybody knows what side of the line they fall on. That can be a particular issue for organisations that have responsibility for both trust-based and contract-based pensions. They may be trying to scale or make efficiencies through investing or having similar default products, even though we are talking about two different types of scheme. It would be helpful if the Government would commit to ensuring that, where those issues arise, and people are having conversations with the FCA and the Pensions Regulator about what side of the divide they fall on, the Government are keeping a watching brief. If there is regular confusion, the Government should ensure that they clarify the guidance so that people know which side they fall on. Those schemes that are either hybrid or have some sort of umbrella that encapsulates both trust-based and contract-based regulation will then know which side they fall on. They will be able to comply with both regulators, if that is the requirement, or with one of them. As we said earlier, it is incredibly important that scheme members—current pensioners and prospective pensioners—get an excellent level of service. The vast majority of people do not know, and do not care, whether they are in a trust-based or contract-based pension scheme; all they want is to get as good a pension as possible when they hit retirement. Anything that the Minister can do to ensure that companies have a huge amount of clarity about where they fall, and that scheme members get the best outcomes when they hit retirement, would be helpful.

• 11 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I highlight again that the Regulatory Policy Committee considered the monitoring and evaluation plan in the impact assessment to be weak. It said that although everything would be reviewed around 2030, there were not many other points that the Government had committed to reviewing. In the new clause, I probably would not have picked a timescale of 12 months after Royal Assent, given the length of the road map and the timings for the introduction of a significant number of things. I appreciate that as the new clause is crafted, it can pick up on problems before they occur. If things are moving towards consolidation in advance of the timelines, the Government should be able to analyse where the prospective issues are. However, the Minister could commit to providing Parliament with a review, and either giving information to the Work and Pensions Committee or making information and statistics publicly available.

• 11 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. New clause 45 is about the transfer of the British Coal staff superannuation schemes’ investment reserves to members. I am aware of what the Minister said earlier about the various schemes where there have been unfairnesses and the fact that the Government generally do not make commitments about trying to overcome some of the unfairnesses in historical schemes. However, exactly those kinds of changes were made to miners’ scheme in the autumn Budget last year—the investment reserves were transferred to members and changes were made in relation to the future surplus—yet that has not happened for those who were in the British Coal staff superannuation scheme. I will not push the new clause to a vote, although my Plaid Cymru colleagues might do so on Report. It would be helpful if the Minister confirmed that he is aware that although the miners’ scheme has been changed, there is still an issue with the British Coal staff superannuation scheme, and that the Government are keeping that under review and considering what they can do to ensure that the surplus is transferred to members.

• 11 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give a commitment that the commission will specifically look at groups that are less likely to have a sufficient pension, rather than just looking at an average and increasing that average?