Kirsty Blackman MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 9 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  That clear information from the Dispatch Box is what I was asking for. Hearing that will give people a lot of comfort. As the Minister is aware, a commitment from the Dispatch Box will be looked at when it comes to any sort of legal challenge in relation to the descriptors. If people are not asked if they can or cannot do something reliably on other days, I will expect disabled people’s charities to use the Minister’s comment from the Dispatch Box when they bring mandatory considerations or challenges to say, “The Minister was utterly clear that I have answered the question correctly, in line with the legislation.” I encourage them to do so. Given the way the legislation is written, I will still not support the severe conditions criteria and the cut. I agree with colleagues who have said that 750,000 people are expecting to lose money as a result of this. As one of my Labour colleagues, the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), has said, this is still £2 billion of cuts on disabled people that the Labour party has chosen to make, or that is what it says in the impact assessment. It has chosen to make that cut to 750,000 people, asking itself, “Where can we make £2 billion of cuts? I know, let’s do it to disabled people.” We could have an additional £2 billion in taxes on the very richest people who do not rely on that money for the everyday items that they desperately require.

• 9 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member has been a real champion for her constituents in this and she is absolutely correct: this is not the first place that I would expect any MP to look to save money, and especially not the first place where I would expect a supposedly progressive Government to look to save money. I am deeply disappointed that we have ended up in this situation and unlike what was said before, I do not think there are victorious faces on the Back Benches. I think people on the Government Benches are absolutely heartsick, no matter what side of this debate they are on. They wish that those on the Government Front Bench had not put this forward and that they were not in the position of having to pick a side, because it should never, ever have come down to a Labour Government choosing to make cuts on older people, children in poverty and disabled people as their first matter of business.

• 9 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  We are at a really interesting point with this Bill: a year’s worth of politics happened last week, and it feels like there is more to come. Like the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), I begin by thanking all the disabled people’s organisations who have worked incredibly hard and assisted us in winning some concessions. No matter where we end up, they should be incredibly proud of the work they have put in, as should the disabled people already receiving PIP and the universal credit limited capability for work element who have continued to fight on behalf of future claimants even though they have no selfish need to do so. That shows the strength of the community and the amount that disabled people care for each other. It is unfortunate that disabled people need to come together in a group to fight what is supposed to be a Labour Government. Given the change promised by Ministers, that first change should not have been to attack older people by cutting the winter fuel payment. The Government have also refused to take action on child poverty by bringing forward the child poverty strategy, and now they are balancing the Budget by cutting money from disabled people. This is not the Labour party that I wrote about in my history Highers—I wrote about the rise of the Labour party, what it was founded on, and how the whole point of it was about supporting people and the principles of the left. This is not what I imagined a Labour Government would look like. I had hoped that they would actually deliver for some people—for disabled people and those the Tories spent 14 years marginalising—yet they are choosing to make the easy cuts that affect disabled people. I do not think those are the right cuts to make. I agree entirely with my Green colleague, the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry), who suggested that there are much better ways of balancing the Budget. The fiscal rules are self-imposed, anyway. To look at some of the specific issues with the Bill, I agree with the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion in relation to the essentials guarantee and amendment 39. Making people poorer will not magically improve their health. I fully agree with new clause 11 on co-production, and I urge the Minister to take action on that. In Scotland we have created the adult disability payment. If the Minister looks on the Social Security Scotland website, he will see that it says “social security is a human right...any of us, at any time…may need this support.” We centred the decision making on dignity, fairness and respect. I am not saying for a second that the adult disability payment is perfect—there are issues with every system—but I urge the Minister to look at how it was co-produced and the lessons we learned from that when he is planning the co-production of the review of PIP assessments. I am massively concerned that we are not clear about the basis on which the Timms review is being done. What is the point of the review? I understand that it is to review the PIP assessment process—I have got that bit—but what is the Government’s aim? Is it to cut billions of pounds from the PIP bill? Is it to make the assessment process more humane so that people with chronic conditions do not have to fill in the same form over and over again, explaining what it is that they cannot do? Is it to reduce the number of mandatory reconsiderations? Is it to make the system better, centring it on dignity and respect? Some clarity from the Government on that would be incredibly helpful.

• 9 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman mentioned the NHS and waiting lists. Does he share my concerns about the severe conditions criteria and the requirements for the diagnosis to be made by an NHS professional, in the course of NHS duty, when people may not have access to that? There is also a requirement for the condition to be considered “lifelong” by NHS professionals or health professionals, who may be unwilling to say that schizophrenia or bipolar disease, for example, are “lifelong” because they do not want to tie people down to that diagnosis.

• 9 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  No! The Timms review is about personal independence payment; I am talking here about are the descriptors relating to limited capability for work—they are totally different things. I do not understand how the Timms review could possibly cover this paragraph, because it is about personal independence payment and the assessment process for that. If it is covered by the Timms review, why have the Government not removed it from the Bill? Why is there not a clause in the Bill right now that removes the severe conditions criteria and that specific paragraph?

• 9 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for clarifying that. It would be great if the Minister could clarify from the Dispatch Box that there is no requirement on him or his review to save money. If the hon. Member can give that commitment on behalf of the Minister, that is great, but has the Treasury asked the Minister to reduce the bill? If the terms of reference say, “We do not want money to be saved,” that is grand, but I could not find that in the terms of reference. I would like to hear from the Minister on whether he has been asked to save money through the review. Disabled people looking at this have already been terrified by the Government’s actions and their “Pathways to Work” Green Paper. I think we should hear from the Minister whether he will be trying to save money or putting dignity, fairness and respect at the heart of the decision-making process and ensuring that co-production happens with that. I have some questions about the severe conditions criteria. I am concerned because the Bill’s wording is different from what the DWP has been putting out in press releases. Press releases such as the one quoted today in The Guardian have been saying that people with fluctuating conditions will be eligible under the severe conditions criteria. However, the Bill says that a claimant would need to have a condition “constantly”. The Minister needs to give an explicit commitment from the Dispatch Box. The UK Government have decided not to give the Bill a proper Bill Committee, where we would have asked these questions, hashed this out and got that level of clarification, and people are really scared. As the Minister will know, a significant number of amendments have been tabled on these conditions, from parties across the House. Concerns have been raised, because schedule 1 to the Bill states: “A descriptor constantly applies to a claimant if that descriptor applies to the claimant at all times or, as the case may be, on all occasions on which the claimant undertakes or attempts to undertake the activity described by that descriptor.” So if one of the descriptors is about being able to get around or being able to wash yourself, that paragraph says that the descriptor must apply “constantly”. If that is not the case, we need a clear explanation about that from the Minister. I cannot find the need for a condition to apply “constantly” in previous legislation. It seems to me that this is a new addition.

• 7 Jul 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Obviously that can happen only where there are surplus funds, and there may not be surplus funds in all circumstances. I just want to give the Minister a heads-up in relation to the questions about employee benefits. It would be useful in Committee to have more information about the Government’s analysis of how many of these surplus releases will directly benefit the employees rather than the employers. I understand that the Government, with their mission for growth, want investment in growing the company as well, but what kind of split does he expect to see? I do not expect an answer to that today.

• 7 Jul 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Auto-enrolment was a fairly substantial intervention by the Government in pensions. Since 1997, pensions have had to increase in line with inflation, and that was an intervention by the Government. There has been a long trail of interventions by the Government in how assets are managed and where they are held, but pension trustees are still required to get a return. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about specific projects, and I would be particularly concerned if we were looking at specific projects, but the mandation relates to UK assets, and the funds in which they could be invested. I would love to see much more investment of pension funds in social housing, for example, where the trustees can get a pretty great return, but they will still have a fiduciary duty and responsibility. For defined-benefit schemes, the member will always get what they have been promised they will get. No matter how the fund is managed, they have a defined benefit from the scheme, unlike in a defined-contribution scheme, where it depends on the size of the pot as it grows—but I am going to carry on, because I have a lot to cover that is not to do with mandation, and as I say, the LGPS does not apply in Scotland. On value for money, I think the Bill is good, because comparing pension schemes is difficult. Comparing any financial schemes is difficult because they are all laid out in different ways and the fees are calculated in different ways, so it does not make sense to most people. Some of stuff on requiring the publication of information on value for money in certain ways is important, and the surveys are also important. I have slight concerns about the chapter on value for money because, in comparison with the small pots consolidation section, there is no requirement to publish the regulations in draft before they actually become regulations. There is a requirement for consultation, as there is in both those chapters, but not a requirement for publication in draft. I think it is important for those to be published, so the widest possible range of views can come forward, because value for money is so important for such a wide range of people, whereas some of the other stuff in the Bill is much more technical and will have an impact on far fewer people. The point about publishing the regulations in draft is important. I am disappointed that the Government have not made more moves on adequacy, but given where we are in the cost of living crisis, I can understand why it may be difficult to get cross-party political consensus on the creation of adequacy provisions. This Bill could have taken more of a look at pensions in general, rather than being about pensions specifically, because in a lot of ways the Bill is seeking to do is improve every individual’s pension pot’s potential for growth. That is an admirable aim, but some of the larger picture could have been included—for example, in relation to auto-enrolment, the under-22s and people earning small amounts of money who do not qualify. The right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) alluded to the mid-life MOT, which I have previously shouted about. I agree that people should be sent an appointment for a mid-life MOT, in the same way as they are asked to get their bowel cancer screening sent through the post. It should be exactly the same with a mid-life MOT, which is so important, but so many people duck and dive about it. Millennials are coming up to reaching this point, but millennials are a generation particularly averse to thinking about retirement, because we do not think it will happen to us. We think we will die before we get there, because there is an incredible amount of cynicism among millennials. We tend to avoid thinking about it because we are not going to reach that point, so forcing millennials—in the nicest possible way—by giving them such an appointment and making it for them means they are much more likely to undertake it. On guided retirement, again I think the Bill tackles the issue pretty well by ensuring that people have more information. I am particularly concerned about the people who draw down the 25% tax-free sum of money, and then do not have a plan for the rest of it. How many of them have just thought about the 25%, and have not thought about the rest of it, or about how complicated and unpredictable annuities can be depending on the year? I am thinking about somebody I know who does not smoke or drink and runs 10 km a couple of times a week, but they will get a smaller annuity than somebody who does the opposite. Do people know how unpredictable it is—how much they will get and the fact that they cannot tell from what the pot looks like the actual outcome to cover their living expenses? Any kind of understanding people can be given about that is really important. I do still have concerns about some of the issues with freedoms and how financially disadvantageous it can be for a significant number of people. I agree with some of the stuff on the consolidation of small pots. I have a concern about the fact that the Secretary of State or the Minister can make changes to the definition of small pots by looking at some consultation and then bringing a statutory instrument to the House. I would appreciate some clarification, and agreement that the Minister will consult pretty widely before taking a decision about changing the definition of small pots in secondary legislation. On surplus release, I would disagree with a chunk of the Conservative Members who would use it for slightly different things. I press the Minister on the balance between the economic growth mission and what employees will get as a result of surplus release. I am pleased to hear that trustees will have some flexibility, but I am concerned that that creates a system with a number of tiers, because it depends on how passionate the trustees are about helping the employees or helping the Government’s growth mission. I would ask for some guidance from the Government about what they expect. When they are making that deal with employers, they have to agree with the employer where that money will go—how much of the money will go to increasing the pension pots and how much into people’s salaries. There will need to be a significant amount of guidance for trustees on where the Government expect money to go. It would be appreciated if we could be involved in the creation of that guidance, or at least be consulted on what it is supposed to look like. On megafunds, there is a bit of a “wait and see” on what megafunds, both master trusts and the superfunds, will look like and how they will pan out. I can understand looking at other places the Government consider to be successful in how pension funds are managed and the very large investments that could be created as a result of huge funds. I appreciate that overheads can be reduced and that funds can be run more efficiently as a result, and that investments can be made into very large, long-term patient capital projects if the fund is significant. My specific question on superfunds is about new entrants to the market. The Bill states that there is an ability for transitions. Organisations likely to meet superfund status at some point, given a certain amount of time, will be given slack until they can reach that status, which is utterly sensible. But then it talks about new entrants coming in to become a superfund. There is a pathway and the ability to get approval to do that, but only if they are innovative. I am slightly concerned about what innovative means, because it is not defined—I think it will be defined in secondary legislation. Why should they be innovative? Surely, if a new entrant is excellent, that should be enough? Innovative concerns me. I do not really understand what it means, or why it is in the rules for new entrants. Anything the Government can say to explain what they think that is supposed to mean, and what they intend it to mean in the secondary legislation, would be helpful. On the whole, the SNP is cautiously optimistic about the Bill. We believe there need to be some changes and we have specific questions in various areas, such as: on the rationale in relation to mandating; on the rules on value for money and how they will impact individuals; and on the consolidation of small pots and how they will ensure individuals have better outcomes. It is not in the Bill, but ensuring the pension dashboard happens so that people can see the consolidation of small pots happening in real time would be incredibly helpful. The best outcome we can get is for everybody to have an adequate pension when they reach retirement. We will not get that if people cannot see and cannot understand what they have in their pensions and if those small pots are not consolidated.

• 7 Jul 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  On that note, does the hon. Member agree that we should also make it easier for people to understand what a defined-contribution scheme pot actually means for them in retirement—that is, how much income it will get them on a monthly or annual basis, rather than just, “This is the value of the pot”?

• 7 Jul 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  On the pensions review, there is a massive cross-party consensus that there is an issue with its adequacy, and we want to see it tackled. Will Ministers agree to take this forward in as cross-party a way as possible? We all care strongly about it.

• 7 Jul 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  On auto-enrolment, the other missing group is those aged under 22. Auto-enrolment seemed to be set up with the view that people would go to university before entering the jobs market, but that is not the case for many people. It is possible that starting auto-enrolment earlier would mean much more adequate pension pots for people, because the earlier they save, the bigger their pot grows by the time they reach retirement.

• 7 Jul 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I start with an apology to the Minister, because I had a bit of a giggle when the timeline for pensions dashboards was mentioned. I have been here quite a long time, and I feel like we have been talking about pensions dashboards for that entire time. It has been suggested that they are just around the corner for most of the last 10 years. It feels like this is something that we rehash on a regular basis. It would be great if they really were just around the corner; I look forward to seeing them. The right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) will not be surprised to hear that our political ideologies are slightly different when it comes to interventionism and what the Government should or should not do. It is completely acceptable for the Government to give some direction on the largest assets, but I am specifically not talking about the LGPS, because it does not exist in Scotland. That part of the Bill does not apply to my constituents, so I will not touch too much on that.

• 1 Jul 2025 · Parental Leave Review · Hansard source

  More

  Only 3% of women surveyed by Maternity Action had no financial worries during the course of their pregnancy. Given how awful that statistic is, will the Minister commit to listening to people with lived experience and co-producing the outcomes of the review with them?

• 1 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  If November 2026 is not a hard deadline any more, why do the Government need to push this Bill through today? Why does it have to get through before the summer recess so that it can go to the Lords in order that it can be in place before November 2026 if that date no longer matters?

• 1 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Too much of what we have discussed today has not centred disabled people, the Bill or the changes that we are being asked to vote on. We are being asked to vote on the Second Reading of the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill. We have had some reassurances from the Government and they made some announcements yesterday. Yet even if we take those into account, the principles of the Bill are wrong. This is the wrong Bill at the wrong time, which will attack people and make their lives worse. It cuts money from disabled people, and it is driven entirely by the need to make cuts and not by the need to improve the welfare system. If, for example, the PIP numbers are spiralling out of control, perhaps the Government could concede that there are more disabled people than there were before. Perhaps there are more people that need additional support. The number of people on the state pension increases at a rate larger than the population of Leicester every year. Perhaps that is because there are more older people than there were in the previous year. Perhaps the increase in PIP numbers is happening because more people are struggling to live their lives. Perhaps that is because, as Scope has said, £1,095 a month is the additional cost of living with a disability. If this is a Labour Government who are on the left, who care about making people’s lives better, and whose principles are those of the party that created the welfare state and the social security safety net, why are they now choosing to dismantle it? Why are they choosing to go for disabled people when there are lots of other ways they could make savings? They could scrap their self-imposed fiscal rules. They could choose to have a more progressive taxation system. They could choose to levy this £2 billion of savings—or £5 billion, however much it is today—on someone other than the people who are already struggling. Those people are already living in a world that is made for neurotypical people and for people who are healthy. They are already struggling with the additional costs of having to heat their homes more and having to buy special food. That is what PIP is used for: to allow people to get to work when they are struggling because they cannot do the 40-minute walk in the way that able-bodied people can. It is for people who cannot sit at home and put the heating off because they need a consistent level of temperature to manage their chronic pain. This Bill will take money away from those people in the future who have exactly the same conditions as those who are eligible now, and it is purely on the basis of cost. This is absolutely not about reforming the welfare system. Yesterday, the Secretary of State stood up to answer a question from me. She said: “I do not expect the hon. Member to have read every line of our manifesto, but reforming the benefit system was in it.” —[ Official Report , 30 June 2025; Vol. 770, c. 32.] It was not. Reforming the benefit system was not in the Labour manifesto. It talked about “reviewing universal credit” and said it would “reform employment support”. It did not talk about reforming the benefit system. The Government are going to have a hell of a time when they get this Bill through to the Lords, because the Lords are going to know that this was not in the Labour party’s manifesto. If the Government are going to reform the welfare system, they should look at the issues that the Timms review is looking at, but to be fair, I do not have a huge amount of trust in the Timms review, given that the Minister said to me the day before “Pathways to Work” was published that I would be reassured and that I would welcome the proposals in it. The Minister honestly thought that I would welcome, on behalf of disabled people up and down the United Kingdom, the fact that they would have to get four points in one of the components of the personal independence payment to be eligible, and that I would welcome the fact that people would have the payments that they live on taken away. They use that money to be able to live. As I have said, this UK Government making these changes are supposed to be a Labour Government. I want to talk about a couple of the specific matters in the Bill. First, the issues in “Pathways to Work” in relation to age discrimination continue to apply. They have not been fixed. There is nothing in this fudge of a compromise that changes them. A disabled person under 22 could have exactly the same additional costs as a disabled person aged 25. A two-tier system is being put in place. Also, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has said, there are major issues with the proposals on severe conditions in relation to limited capability for work. It is clear that the Secretary of State does not know what it says in the Bill. The Bill says that the descriptor must apply “at all times” for the claimant to be classed as meeting the severe conditions criteria. If I cannot do something 95% of the time, but 5% of the time I can, I will not be considered to have a severe condition. Unless the Government promise to make changes to this, the severe conditions criteria will apply to hardly anybody. People with Parkinson’s, ME or MS, for example, and who have recurring or remitting conditions will really struggle to claim this benefit. The Government need to reprioritise and to rethink. They need to listen to disabled people and to understand the impact that this will have on their lives.

• 30 Jun 2025 · Welfare Reform · Hansard source

  More

  If this is what Labour thinks people voted for and what people wanted when they voted in July last year, why was it not in the Labour manifesto? Why did Labour not put in its manifesto that it was going to cut the winter fuel payment, keep the two-child cap and push 150,000 more disabled people into poverty? Is it perhaps because the Secretary of State realised how deeply unpopular and wrong these changes would be?

• 23 Jun 2025 · Pride Month · Hansard source

  More

  Happy Pride to everyone in Aberdeen, in Scotland and in every part of these islands. The world is a pretty scary place right now in a huge number of ways. As the Minister said, LGBT people are normal just like the rest of us, and they are similarly feeling scared about the state of the world, not least in the wake of the Supreme Court decision and the impact that is having on trans people. The Minister said: “Our hard-won freedoms are never won in perpetuity”, and it is the case that trans people’s rights—their right to a private life, and their right to human rights—have been rolled back as a result of this reinterpretation of the Equality Act 2010. People are less able to live their lives with the freedom they should be able to have, and the Government need to do something about that. People keep using the word “clarity” about the EHRC guidance, but there is no way that it provides that. It requires trans people regularly to out themselves. They may still have protection on the basis of gender reassignment, but trans women no longer have protection as women as a result of this reinterpretation of the Equality Act, and that is not the way it should be. All I can say to my trans constituents and people across the United Kingdom is that I am sorry; we need to get this sorted and we need to keep fighting. On the decision taken by a number of Pride organisations, we have no entitlement to be there. There is no entitlement for political parties to be allowed to take part in Pride. For all that that we have done great things 50 years ago, 25 years ago, five years ago or two years ago—for example, there were the changes with the recourse provided to LGBT veterans—that does not mean that we should not be held to account for our lack of action, for failing to protect trans people properly or for the increase in hate crimes that we are seeing. It is absolutely right that Pride organisations should be able to use their voice to say to every one of us in this House, “You are not doing good enough. You need to do better. We need you to do more in order to protect the community.” If that is the way they choose to use their voice, they should absolutely go for it. I took part in our Pride in Aberdeen, as I have done on many occasions, including the first one 25 years ago. I marched with the crowd, as I always do in the Pride parade—not with Out for Independence, but with all the people I represent. It is the case that every one of us in this place needs to do better. We need to improve lives for our trans constituents. We need to fight this rolling back of rights, because people are terrified, and they are right to be pretty scared right now.

• 23 Jun 2025 · Pride Month · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member on taking this opportunity to say what she has said. It is not easy to say something like that in a Chamber like this. Having done something similar not that long ago, I absolutely respect her, and I join her in celebrating Pride month.

• 23 Jun 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Matching the Scottish child payment by raising the child element of universal credit would bring more than half a million children out of poverty. The Secretary of State has been clear that a lot of issues are being considered by the child poverty taskforce. Is raising the child element of universal credit to the level of the Scottish child payment one of those matters?

• 11 Jun 2025 · Devolution: Crown Estate · Hansard source

  More

  1. What recent discussions she has had with the Welsh Government on the potential merits of devolving the Crown Estate.

• 11 Jun 2025 · Devolution: Crown Estate · Hansard source

  More

  In contrast to that, recent research by the Crown Estate Scotland has revealed that in one 12-month period, the Crown Estate helped its tenants to generate an economic impact of £2.1 billion, and supported almost 17,000 jobs. A decade on from the devolution of the Crown Estate’s assets and revenue, Scottish voters are enjoying the benefit. How can the Secretary of State continue to justify withholding the same profits from Wales, when in Scotland, those profits are being put back into the Scottish purse, where they belong?

• 11 Jun 2025 · Child Poverty and No Recourse to Public Funds · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Gentleman agree, though, that that should not be the case? Those families should get support without needing a food bank to step in. Some people will always fall through the cracks, but it feels as if this is a system-wide problem, rather than just a couple of individuals falling through some cracks.

• 11 Jun 2025 · Child Poverty and No Recourse to Public Funds · Hansard source

  More

  My understanding was that there was some flexibility and that the Young Scot website stated that, if somebody did not have a birth certificate, they could go in person to speak to the local authority. I still disagree that that should be the case; there should be more flexibility. There are issues with birth certificates, particularly for children born in other countries—for those born in Ukraine, for example, the birth certificate might have been left behind when they fled. That is a problem. All young people in Scotland should be able to get the Young Scot card and the free bus travel that it entitles them to. I have actually been in touch with my local authority about the issues with applying for those cards, so I agree that there needs to be more flexibility. Lastly, there is the issue of legal aid and the geographical spread of legal support. Despite the increasing numbers of people applying for visas in Aberdeen, we do not have much in the way of immigration lawyers, and we are Scotland’s third city—we are not a small place by any means. A lot of the Home Office infrastructure, for example, is in Glasgow and Edinburgh. People need to go down there to get their biometrics done, which is an expensive three-hour journey on public transport. Much more could be done in terms of legal aid immigration lawyers and the Home Office’s own infrastructure so that people can better access the visa systems. Today I would like a commitment from the Government that they will try to make the system better. It does not feel as though any Government that I have been faced with have tried to make the immigration system work for people who want to come here, live in our country, contribute and be part of these islands. Rather than the Home Office, under Governments of any colour, continuing to penalise people for having the audacity to want to live here, it should support people, welcome them, get rid of the hostile environment and say, “We welcome people to come and live here. We want you to be part of our communities.” People will never be able or willing to integrate if we keep saying, “We do not want you here”, and taking three years to decide on visa applications. Anything the Government can do to reduce child poverty would be incredibly helpful. I hope the child poverty strategy can include children whose parents have no recourse to public funds.

• 11 Jun 2025 · Child Poverty and No Recourse to Public Funds · Hansard source

  More

  I would like to correct the shadow Minister. The hon. Member for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake) and I both mentioned the pull factor, and the fact that there is no evidence for it. On stretched public services, the fact that people coming to study can no longer bring dependants has decimated the social care sector in Aberdeen. We normally rely on those dependants to work in our care system, and we are struggling to look after our elderly people as a result.

• 11 Jun 2025 · Child Poverty and No Recourse to Public Funds · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to take part in the debate and I appreciate your chairing of it, Dr Huq. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake) on securing such an important debate. The subject has been one of my hobbyhorses for a significant number of years. In Aberdeen, we have seen a massive increase in the number of people who have no recourse to public funds. Despite the fact that Aberdeen is not a dispersal authority, a few years ago, third sector providers and those who provide licensed support found that they were struggling with new issues that we had not seen before. We started a volunteer group called the No Recourse North East Partnership, which is now run by the Grampian Regional Equality Council, whose purpose was to see what support could be provided to people who have no recourse to public funds. It looked at issues mentioned by the hon. Lady, including what local authority support is supposed to look like and the consistency of that support. I agree that there is still inconsistency in local authority support. Local authorities are often not being funded for the support that they provide. In some cases, they are terrified that they will upset somebody’s immigration status and the person or family will be deported because the local authority has provided them with some level of housing or financial support. The landscape is incredibly messy. It would be great if the Local Government Association and COSLA in Scotland could get together with the Government to agree what pathways should be in place. Local authorities have a responsibility to protect children and to ensure that they are not suffering from the extremes of poverty, for example by being homeless, but they are unsure exactly what action they can take when somebody has no recourse to public funds. If we had an agreed pathway, everybody would get a consistent level of support, but we would also need funding to flow from the Government for that to happen. Although I do not think it should be down to local authorities to have to fill that gap, such an agreement would be a step in the right direction. If it were up to me, I would get rid of no recourse to public funds entirely. I do not think it is a status that anybody should be faced with. As the hon. Member for Sheffield Hallam said, none of us wants any child to be living in poverty. That is not the future and that is not why any of us is here in Parliament; we are here to make our constituents’ lives better. I do not see how having the status of no recourse to public funds, which ensures that children are growing up in poverty, is a good thing for anyone. As the hon. Lady said, it does not discourage people from coming here from other countries, and those children are not responsible for which country their parents were born in.