Kirsty Blackman MP: speeches

Speeches

• 3 Dec 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I figured that, as I had only about 17 minutes in which to speak on Report, the House deserved to hear from me again on Third Reading, but I shall be very brief in expressing my views and those of my hon. Friends. Members spoke earlier about people’s understanding of pensions, and I continue to have concerns about people’s understanding of defined contribution schemes. People who are given a figure for how much money is in their defined contribution scheme are often confused about what that will actually mean when they hit retirement. Those schemes are very different from defined benefit schemes, and, given the massive increase in the number of people investing in defined contribution schemes rather than defined benefit schemes, those issues will continue unless an incredible amount of education is provided so that people can understand what they might receive in their pensions, rather than just the amount in the total pot. The Minister has made a number of changes to the Bill that I appreciate, not least the pre-1997 indexation for the Pension Protection Fund. The fiduciary duty announcement that he made today is, I think, extremely helpful in clarifying for trustees what their objectives are. He also mentioned that the Association of British Insurers had come up with an agreement. In my experience of serving on a significant number of Bill Committees, it is very unusual for so many changes to be made. I appreciate the fact that the Committee members were listened to, and that some of the concerns raised by Members in all parts of the Committee have been tackled during the Bill’s progress. I have already raised concerns about the short notice that we had for some of the amendments and new clauses and the fact that we were not properly able to scrutinise the Government changes, both in Committee on Report. Finally, let me thank Matt and Fergus, who helped me with some of this. We rarely see pension Bills presented, and I would love to see another—shortly, probably. Given that the Minister has made commitments in relation to fiduciary duty, and given that he said he expected such a measure to appear in primary legislation with guidance to follow, I assume that a Bill will follow those commitments. I also think that the adequacy review may—hopefully—kick up some requirements for legislation. This House should get used to talking about pensions. As the generations shift, the state pension will become a smaller percentage of what people rely on in retirement, and auto-enrolment and defined contribution schemes mean that significantly more people will rely on private pensions. Ensuring that they have the best possible outcomes for retirement is something that all Members of the House can support, and we need to have a legislative framework that keeps pace with how people are actually investing for the future, rather than one that reflects how people invested 20 or 30 years ago. As the Minister will be aware, I would be delighted to debate more pensions Bills as they come forward. We will do our best to provide cross-party support wherever we can. Bill read the Third time and passed.

• 3 Dec 2025 · 2025 Budget · Hansard source

  More

  The autumn Budget made minor tweaks to Wales’s borrowing limits. Scotland has stronger borrowing powers, allowing us more flexibility for investment in capital projects. Can the Secretary of State tell us why the tweaks to Wales’s powers were so small? Why have those tweaks not even made up for the inflationary losses since those limits were first set?

• 3 Dec 2025 · 2025 Budget · Hansard source

  More

  1. What recent discussions she has had with the Welsh Government on the potential impact of the Budget 2025 on Wales.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  I will start by welcoming a few of the measures in the Budget. I was contacted yesterday by the Pension Protection Fund about the indexation of pre-1997 pensions. The hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) fought hard for this on the Pension Schemes Bill Committee, and I spoke about it on a number of occasions, so I am pleased that this change is being made. I think it will make a real difference to the oldest and poorest pensioners who are covered by the Financial Services Authority. I want to talk about the two-child benefit cap. Alison Thewliss, previously my colleague, who fought very hard to get the rape clause removed, is delighted that this change is being made. The SNP has worked incredibly hard on this, not just over the course of this Parliament, in which we have moved two votes in the House specifically on the two-child benefit cap, but in previous Parliaments, because we know that it is the most cost-effective way of taking children out of poverty. In fact, yesterday in Scotland we tabled measures to mitigate the two-child cap in Scotland from next year. Thankfully we will no longer have to mitigate that policy, because the UK Government have agreed to do it. We are pleased that this has happened and are very glad that the Government have caught up. However, I point out that it has taken some time, and about 100 children a day have been pushed into poverty as a result of keeping the cap in place. I invite Labour Members to reflect on the fact that a number of their colleagues were suspended for supporting my party in our move to scrap the two-child benefit cap. If it is the right thing to do today to get children out of poverty, it was the right thing to do then. Turning to the total welfare bill, I have heard of a number of people—particularly from parties that are further to the right—talking on the radio about the growth of the total welfare bill and the fact that by the end of the forecast period it will reach £406 billion. The growth that is happening is about £91.5 billion, and almost half of that —£44 billion, which is 48%—is in pensions alone. I do not think it is right to couple those two things together when talking about the growth of the welfare bill. I understand that people do, and that the Red Book and Blue Book also couple them together. However, when people who say that we should get the welfare bill down talk about this £406 billion figure, they really need to be clear that half of that increase is in pensions. It is because we have the pensions triple lock and an increase in the number of pensioners. Looking at the OBR’s figures in the fiscal risks report that was published in July, out to 2070 there is a significant increase in the percentage of GDP going to pensioners—from 5% to 7.7% by 2070. I am aware that it is quite a way in the future, but we need to be clear that, because of the growing number of older people, and the fact that they are living longer, there is an increase in the number of pensioners. Therefore, there is an increase in the amount we are spending on pensions. It is right for the Government to have to justify why they are increasing the welfare bill, but talking about that entire £406 billion figure as an increase in the welfare bill is not the right way to go about it, if that is what we are looking to tackle. There are a couple of things more that I want to raise. With regard to energy prices and the cost of living generally, on coming into power, the Labour Government promised a £300 reduction in energy prices. Even with the Chancellor’s changes, we have seen a continued increase in the cost of energy. In fact, even with a £150 rebate, there will be more money on energy bills for the average family than when the Labour Government came into power. The SNP put forward a proposal in advance of the Budget talking about a bank levy similar to one that was introduced previously, specifically to pay £300 to billpayers to ensure that that Labour promise was met. We still believe that the cost of living is too high. Let us look at the current 4.9% level of food inflation. It is impossible not to buy food; everybody has to buy food, just like they have to pay for energy. People can avoid taking foreign holidays and they can avoid buying a car, but they cannot avoid buying food and paying for their homes to be heated. Those inflation figures are therefore key and important. Lastly, as hon. Members would expect, I will talk about the energy profits levy and oil and gas. Yesterday, alongside the Budget, the North sea future plan was published, and that entire document includes one mention of the energy profits levy and just when it talks about responses to surveys. Not once in that entire document do the Government mention the energy profits levy. I receive emails from people about oil and gas and the just transition, and the energy profits levy is the key measure that is causing a thousand jobs a month to be lost. If economic growth really is the Government’s key priority, they need to look at the energy profits levy, and they need to do so before 2030. My constituents are losing their jobs and that economic growth is failing as a result of this UK Government’s policies.

• 26 Nov 2025 · Cost of Living · Hansard source

  More

  In the 16 months since the King’s Speech, when Labour MPs were whipped to vote against scrapping the two-child cap, how many children have been pitched into poverty as a result of the Government’s refusal to scrap the cap?

• 26 Nov 2025 · Cost of Living · Hansard source

  More

  10. What discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the potential impact of her policies on the cost of living in Scotland.

• 18 Nov 2025 · ExxonMobil: Mossmorran · Hansard source

  More

  We are seeing 400 jobs go, and we saw jobs go at Grangemouth. Is the Minister surprised that people in Aberdeen and the north-east of Scotland, who are arguing for a just transition and being promised 60,000 jobs five years hence, have no faith in this Labour Government?

• 11 Nov 2025 · Remembrance Day: Armed Forces · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier today, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Pat McFadden), made a statement. During the statement, he said: “Since then, as part of the legal proceedings challenging the Government’s decision, evidence has been cited about research findings from a 2007 report. That was a DWP evaluation of the effectiveness of automatic pension forecast letters. Had this report been provided to my right hon. Friend, she would of course have considered it alongside all other relevant evidence and material.” He went on to say: “I have of course asked the Department whether there is any further survey material or other evidence that should be brought to my attention as part of this process.” I pressed the Secretary of State on whether the information had been cited by the WASPI women, or whether the information had been cited by the Department for Work and Pensions, and was unable to get a clear answer. However, WASPI women have since contacted me and told me that they provided the report to the court proceedings. The report that was provided by the WASPI women, the Department for Work and Pensions Research Report No. 434, is called “Attitudes to Pensions: the 2006 Survey” and it was published in 2007. During the speech in December 2024 by the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall)—now the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology—announcing that the Government would not be compensating WASPI women, she said that the report from the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman “does not properly take into account…research from 2006 showing that 90% of women aged 45 to 54 were aware that the state pension age was increasing.” —[ Official Report , 17 December 2024; Vol. 759, c. 168.] The numbers about the 90% of women aged 45 to 54 come from the research report that was published. This is a document that the former Secretary of State did not have, according to the current Secretary of State, and therefore new decisions now need to be made and this needs to be looked at again. I am struggling to understand how we can get more information on whether this was indeed the report mentioned, whether the former Secretary of State did have that report, and if she did not have the report, how she was able to quote the report when she made her statement to this House in December 2024.

• 11 Nov 2025 · Remembrance Day: Armed Forces · Hansard source

  More

  indicated assent.

• 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.