Kirsty Blackman MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 19 Mar 2025 · Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source

  More

  I start by acknowledging the clear impact that I have had on the hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward). I am not sure why or how I have had that impact, but it was clear that she was drastically upset at me, despite the fact that I had been sitting quietly throughout the debate until that point. I will talk about why the Labour Government took this decision—why the Chancellor’s first decision was to target pensioners. It was because the Government talked in their manifesto about the fiscal rules that they would put in place, and said that they would not raise taxes on working people, among a number of other policies. However, they then found themselves in a bit of a bind: “What can we do to reduce the cost in-year? What is an easy target?” The Treasury team obviously said, “Well, how about cutting the winter fuel payment? You can do that in-year. You can make the change in this Budget, in the current financial year.” That has left the Scottish Government in a rubbish situation. Because those decisions were taken in-year, it reduced our block grant after we had set our budget in Scotland. We could not magically come up with the £147 million that the UK Government had taken from us with no warning, despite saying that they were going to reset the relationship with the Scottish Parliament. They took that money away in-year. This is supposed to be a Labour Government. My former Procedure Committee colleague, the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley), talked about the universality of benefits. I wholeheartedly agree that that is what we should have. I believe that we should have universal social security systems and universal basic income, and that everybody who deserves the social security net should be provided with it. Then we should tax non-doms, tax share buy-backs, rejoin the single market and have a more progressive tax system—like the one in Scotland—in order to pay for those things. Universal benefits mean that, yes, absolutely, one or two millionaires who buy champagne with their winter fuel payment will get it, but they also mean that every single person who needs it will get it. The choices being made will exclude some of those millionaires, but they will also exclude the people who were freezing in the minus 1°C weather in my constituency overnight. That is a shoddy decision by the Labour Government. I do not understand what the point of Labour is just now.

• 19 Mar 2025 · Ethnic Minority People: Discrimination · Hansard source

  More

  Aberdeen mosque and Islamic centre in my constituency was vandalised while worshippers were inside. I am pleased that the local community came together and helped with the clean-up. The University of Glasgow has published a report that says that one in three Muslim students are victims of Islamophobic abuse. Does the Minister agree that the Government and the House have a responsibility to ensure that racist stereotypes are not putting our Muslim community at risk of a rise in hate crime and far-right extremism?

• 18 Mar 2025 · Welfare Reform · Hansard source

  More

  Has the Secretary of State ever been diagnosed with depression? I have—I have been in a situation where just getting up in the morning, having a shower and brushing your teeth feels like the biggest fight. Does she think that putting people who have been diagnosed with a mental health condition through more reassessments will make their mental health condition better or worse?

• 17 Mar 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Can the Minister reassure people who have had an amputation or have schizophrenia, terminal cancer or uncontrolled epilepsy that tomorrow’s announcements will not mean a cut in their social security?

• 26 Feb 2025 · Online Safety Act: Implementation · Hansard source

  More

  I thank you for chairing this debate, Mr Stringer, and I congratulate the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) on bringing this debate to Westminster Hall. It is a subject we have talked about many times. I want to make a number of points. The first is about safety by design. Page 1 of the Act states that the internet should be “safe by design”, yet everything that has happened since in the Act’s implementation, from the point of view of both Ofcom and the Government in respect of some of the secondary legislation, has not been about safety by design. It has been about regulating specific content, for example, and that is not where we should be. Much as I was happy that the Online Safety Act was passed, and I was worried about the perfect being the enemy of the good and all that, I am beginning to believe that the EU’s Digital Services Act will do a much better job of regulating, not least because the Government are failing to take enough action on this issue. I am concerned that Ofcom, in collaboration with the Government, has managed to get us to a situation that makes nobody happy. It is not helpful for some of the tech companies. For example, category 1 is based solely on user numbers, which means that suicide forums, eating disorder platforms, doxing platforms and livestreaming platforms where self-generated child sexual abuse material is created are subject to exactly the same rules as a hill walking forum that gets three posts a week. In terms of proportionality, Ofcom is also failing the smallest platforms that are not risky, by requiring them to come to a three-day seminar on how to comply, when they might be run by a handful of volunteers spending a couple of hours a week looking after the forum and moderating every post. It will be very difficult for them to prove that children do not use their platforms, so there is no proportionality at either end of the spectrum. In terms of where we are with the review, this is a very different Parliament from the one that began the conversations in the Joint Committee on the Draft Online Safety Bill. It felt like hardly anybody in these rooms knew anything about the online world or had any understanding of it. It is totally different now. There are so many MPs here who, for example, have an employment history of working hard to make improvements in this area. As the right hon. and learned Member said, we now have so much expertise in these rooms that we could act to ensure that the legislation worked properly. Rather than us constantly having to call these debates, the Government could rely on some of our expertise. They would not have to take on every one of a Joint Committee’s recommendations, for example, but they could rely on some of the expertise and the links that we have made over the years that we have been embedded in this area to help them make good decisions and ensure some level of safety by design. Like so many Members in this place, I am concerned that the Act will not do what it is supposed to do. For me, the key thing was always keeping children safe online, whether that is about the commitments regularly given by the Government, which I wholeheartedly believe they wanted to fulfil, about hash matching to identify grooming behaviours, or about the doxing forums or suicide forums—those dark places of the internet—which will be subject to exactly the same rules as a hill walking forum. They are just going to fill in a risk assessment and say, “No children use our platform. There’s no risk on our platform, so it’s all good.” The Government had an opportunity to categorise them and they choose not to. I urge them to change their mind.

• 4 Feb 2025 · Draft Online Safety Act 2023 (Category 1, Category 2A and Category 2B Threshold Conditions) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  Is the hon. Member as concerned as I am that the Government seem to be ignoring the will of Parliament in their decision? Is he worried that young people particularly will suffer as a result?

• 4 Feb 2025 · Draft Online Safety Act 2023 (Category 1, Category 2A and Category 2B Threshold Conditions) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister is making the case that the Secretary of State’s hands are tied by the Act —that it requires stuff in relation to the number of users. Can she tell us in which part of the Act it says that, because it does not say that? If she can tell us where it is in the Act, I am quite willing to sit down and shut up about this point, but it is not in the Act.

• 4 Feb 2025 · Draft Online Safety Act 2023 (Category 1, Category 2A and Category 2B Threshold Conditions) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree. That is an additional reason why livestreaming is one of my biggest concerns. That functionality should have been included as a matter of course. Any of the organisations that deal with young people and the removal of child sexual abuse material online, such as the Internet Watch Foundation, will tell you that livestreaming is a huge concern. The hon. Member is 100% correct. That is the way I talk to my children about online safety: once something is put online—once it is on the internet—it cannot ever be taken back. It is there forever, no matter what anyone does about it, and young people may not have the capacity to understand that. If systems were safe by design, young people simply would not have access to livestreaming at all; they would not have access to that functionality, so there would be that moment of thinking before they do something. They would not be able to do peer-to-peer livestreaming that can then be shared among the entire school and the entire world. We know from research that a significant number of child sexual abuse materials are impossible to take down. Young people may put their own images online or somebody else may share them without their consent. Organisations such as the Internet Watch Foundation do everything they can to try to take down that content, but it is like playing whack-a-mole; it comes up and up and up. Once they have fallen into that trap, the content cannot be taken back. If we were being safe by design, we would ensure, as far as possible—as far as the Government could do, we could do or Ofcom could do—that no young person would be able to access that functionality. As I said, it should have been included. I appreciate what the Government said about content recommendation and the algorithms that are used to ensure that people stay on platforms for a significant length of time. I do not know how many Members have spent much time on TikTok, but people can start watching videos of cats and still be there an hour and a half later. The algorithms are there to try to keep us on the platform. They are there because, actually, the platforms make money from our seeing the advertisements. They want us to see exciting content. Part of the issue with the content recommendation referenced in the conditions is that platforms are serving more and more exciting and extreme content to try to keep us there for longer, so we end up with people being radicalised on these platforms—possibly not intentionally by the platforms, but because their algorithm serves more and more extreme content. I agree that that content should have the lower threshold in terms of the number of users. I am not sure about the numbers of the thresholds, but I think the Government have that differentiation correct, particularly on the addictive nature of algorithmic content. However, they are failing on incredibly high-risk content. The additional duties for category 1 services involve a number of different things: illegal content risk assessments, duties relating to terms of service, children’s risk assessments, adult empowerment duties and record-keeping duties. As I said, the fact that those category 1-ranked platforms will be on a list is powerful in itself, but adding those additional duties is really important. Let us say that somebody is undertaking a risky business—piercing, for example. Even though not many people get piercings in the grand scheme of things, the Government require piercing organisations to jump through additional hoops because they are involved in dangerous things that carry a risk of infection and other associated risks. They are required to meet hygiene regulations, register with environmental health and have checks of their records to ensure that they know who is being provided with piercings, because it is a risky thing. The Government are putting additional duties on them because they recognise that piercing is risky and potentially harmful. However, the Government are choosing not to put additional duties on incredibly high-risk platforms. They are choosing not to do that. They have been given the right to do that. Parliament has made its will very clear: “We want the Government to take action over those small high-risk platforms.” I do not care how many hoops 4chan has to jump through. Give it as many hoops as possible; it is an incredibly harmful site, and there are many others out there—hon. Members mentioned suicide forums, for example. Make them jump through every single hoop. If we cannot ban them outright—which would be my preferred option—make them keep records, make them have adult-empowerment duties, and put them on a list of organisations that we, the Government or Ofcom reckon are harmful. If we end up in a situation where, due to the failures of this Act, young people commit suicide, and the platform is not categorised properly, there is then a reduction in the amount of protections, and in the information that they have to provide about deceased children to the families, because they are not categorised as category 1 or 2B. We could end up in a situation where a young person dies as a result of being radicalised on a forum—because the Government decided it should not be in scope—but that platform does not even have to provide the deceased child’s family with access to that online usage. That is shocking, right? If the Government are not willing to take the proper action required, at least bring these platforms into the scope of the actions and requirements related to deceased children. I appreciate that I have taken a significant length of time—although not nearly as long as the Online Safety Act has taken to pass, I hasten to say—but I am absolutely serious about the fact that I am really, really angry about this. This is endangering children. This is endangering young people. This is turning the Online Safety Act back into what some people suggested it should be at the beginning, an anti-Facebook and anti-Twitter Act, or a regulation of Facebook and Twitter— or X—Act, rather than something that genuinely creates what it says in section 1 of the Act: an online world that is “safe by design”. This is not creating an online world that is safe by design; this is opening young people and vulnerable adults up to far more risks than it should. The Government are wilfully making this choice, and we are giving them the opportunity to undo this and to choose to make the right decision—the decision that Parliament has asked them to make—to include functionalities such as livestreaming, and to include those high-risk platforms that we know radicalise people and put them at a higher risk of death.

• 4 Feb 2025 · Draft Online Safety Act 2023 (Category 1, Category 2A and Category 2B Threshold Conditions) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Sir Christopher—I appreciate that prod. I did look at Standing Orders this morning, but could not find that bit, so that is incredibly helpful. On what the Minister said about schedule 11 and the notes that she has been passed from her team on that point, I appreciate her commitment to share the Government’s legal advice. That will be incredibly helpful; it would have been helpful to have it in advance of this Committee. In schedule 11, it says: “In making regulations under sub-paragraph (1), the Secretary of State must take into account the likely impact of the number of users of the user-to-user part of the service, and its functionalities, on how easily, quickly and widely regulated user-generated content is disseminated by means of the service.” Perhaps I cannot read English, or perhaps the Minister, her legal advisers and the team at DSIT read it in a different way from me, but the Secretary of State having to take something into account and the Secretary of State being bound by something are two different things—they are not the same. It does not say that the Secretary of State must regulate only on the specific number of users. In fact, schedule 11 says earlier that the Secretary of State “must make regulations specifying conditions…for the user-to-user part of regulated user-to-user services relating to each of the following”, which are the “number of users…functionalities of that part of the service, and…any other characteristics of that part of the service or factors”. The Secretary of State must therefore make regulations in relation to any other characteristics of that part of the service or factors “relating to that part of the service that the Secretary of State considers relevant.” He must do that, but he must only take into account the number of users. The Government, however, have decided that taking into account is much more important than “must” do something. They have decided to do that despite Parliament being pretty clear in the language it has used. I am not terribly happy with the Online Safety Act. It is a lot better than the situation we have currently, but it is far from perfect. As the Minister said, I argued in favour of keeping the stuff about legal but harmful content for adults. I argued against the then Government’s position on that, but the Act is the Act that we have. The Minister’s point does not make sense. The Secretary of State has to take into account the number of users and how quickly things are disseminated, but he must make regulations about functionalities or factors that he considers relevant. Therefore, it seems that he does not consider suicide forums and livestreaming to be relevant; if he did, he would surely be bound by the “must” and would have to make regulations about them. It is frustrating that the Act does not do what it is supposed to do and does not protect young people from livestreaming. The Minister said that it protects people from seeing that illegal content, but it does not prevent them from creating it. The Government could make regulations so that every platform that has a livestreaming functionality, or even every platform that has child users on it—there is a lot in the Act about the proportion of children who use a service—is automatically included in category 1 because they consider them to be high risk.

• 4 Feb 2025 · Draft Online Safety Act 2023 (Category 1, Category 2A and Category 2B Threshold Conditions) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I appreciate the opportunity to speak in this Committee, Sir Christopher. Like at least one other Member in the room, I lived the Online Safety Bill for a significant number of months—in fact, it seemed to drag on for years. As the Minister said, the Online Safety Act is long overdue. We have needed this legislation for 30 years, since I was a kid using the internet in the early ’90s. There has always been the risk of harm on online platforms, and there have always been places where people can be radicalised and can see misogynistic content or content that children should never be able to see. In this case, legislation has moved significantly slower than society—I completely agree with the Minister about that—but that is not a reason for accepting the statutory instrument or agreeing with the proposed threshold conditions. On the threshold conditions, I am unclear as to why the Government have chosen 34 million and 7 million for the average monthly active users. Is it 34 million because Reddit happens to have 35 million average UK users—is that why they have taken that decision? I absolutely believe that Reddit should be in scope of category 1, and I am pretty sure that Reddit believes it should be in scope of category 1 and have those additional duties. Reddit is one of the places where the functionalities and content recommendation services mean that people, no matter what age they are, can see incredibly harmful content. They can also see content that can be incredibly funny—a number of brilliant places on Reddit allow people can look at pictures of cats, which is my favourite way to use the internet—but there are dark places in Reddit forums, where people can end up going down rabbit holes. I therefore agree that platforms such as Reddit should be in scope of category 1. The Minister spoke about schedule 11 and the changes that were made during the passage of the Act. The Minister is absolutely right. Paragraph 1(5) of that schedule states: “In making regulations under sub-paragraph (1), the Secretary of State must take into account the likely impact of the number of users of the user-to-user part of the service, and its functionalities, on how easily, quickly and widely regulated user-generated content is disseminated by means of the service.” However, that does not undo the fact that we as legislators made a change to an earlier provision in that schedule. We fought for that incredibly hard and at every opportunity—in the Bill Committee, on the Floor of the House, in the recommitted Committee and in the House of Lords. At every stage, we voted for that change to be made, and significant numbers of outside organisations cared deeply about it. We wanted small high-risk platforms to be included. The provision that was added meant that the Secretary of State must make regulations relating to “any other characteristics of that part of the service or factors relating to that part of the service that the Secretary of State considers relevant.” That was what the Government were willing to give us. It was not the original amendment that I moved in Bill Committee, which was specifically about small high-risk platforms, but it was enough to cover what we wanted. What functionalities could and should be brought in scope? I believe that any service that allows users to livestream should be in the scope of category 1. We know that livestreaming is where the biggest increase in self-generated child sexual abuse material is. We know that livestreaming is incredibly dangerous, as people who are desperate to get access to child sexual abuse material can convince vulnerable young people and children to livestream. There is no delay where that content can be looked at and checked in advance of it being put up, yet the Government do not believe that every service that allows six-year-olds to livestream should be within the scope of category 1. The Government do not believe that those services should be subject to those additional safety duties, despite the fact that section 1 of the Online Safety Act 2023 says platforms should be “safe by design”. However, this is not creating platforms that are safe by design. The regulations do not exclude young people from the ability to stream explicit videos to anyone because they only include services with over 34 million users, or over 7 million when it comes to content recommendation, and I agree that services in those cases are problematic. However, there are other really problematic services, causing life-changing—or in some cases, life-ending—problems for children, young people and vulnerable adults that will not be in the scope of category 1. Generally, I am not a big fan of a lot of things that the UK Government have done; I have been on my feet, in the Chamber, arguing against a significant number of those things. This is one of the things that makes me most angry, because the Government, by putting forward this secondary legislation, are legislating in opposition to the will and intention of the Houses of Parliament. I know that we cannot bind a future Government or House, but this is not what was intended or agreed and moved on, nor what Royal Assent was given on; that was on the basis that we had assurances from Government Ministers that they would look at those functionalities and small but high-risk platforms. For what Ofcom has put out in guidance and information on what it is doing on small but high-risk platforms, why are we not using everything that is available? Why are Government not willing to use everything available to them to bring those very high-risk platforms into the scope of category 1? The changes that category 1 services would be required to make include additional duties; for a start, they are under more scrutiny—which is to be expected—and they are put on a specific list of category 1 services which will be published. That list of category 1 services includes platforms such as 4chan, that some people may have never heard of. Responsible parents will see that list and say, “Hold on a second. Why is 4chan on there? I don’t want my children to be going on there. It is clearly not a ginormous platform, therefore it must be on there because it is a high-risk service.” Parents will look at that list and talk to their children about those platforms. In terms of the category 1 list, never mind the additional duties, that would have a positive impact. Putting suicide forums on that list of category 1 services would have a positive impact on the behaviour of parents, children, and the teachers who teach those young people how to access the internet safely. I guarantee that a significant number of teachers and people that are involved with young people have never heard of 4chan, but putting it on that list would give them an additional tool to enable them to approach young people and talk about the ways in which they use the internet.

• 4 Feb 2025 · Draft Online Safety Act 2023 (Category 1, Category 2A and Category 2B Threshold Conditions) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 4 Feb 2025 · Draft Online Safety Act 2023 (Category 1, Category 2A and Category 2B Threshold Conditions) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree, and that is a helpful clarification. If the Government have decided that it is too difficult to regulate high-risk platforms as category 1, and that they do not matter enough because they do not have enough of an impact, they should stand up and tell us that. Rather than saying that their hands have been tied by the Act—they manifestly have not—they need to take ownership of their actions. If they have decided that such platforms are not important enough or that they cannot be bothered having a fight with Ofcom about that, they should be honest and say, “This is the position we have decided to take.” Instead, they are standing up and saying, “Our hands have been tied,” but that is just not correct: their hands have not been tied by the Act. I appreciate that the Minister will get in touch with me about the legal advice, but it will be too late. This statutory instrument will have been through the process by that time, and people will have been put at risk as a result of the Government’s failure. They have the power to take action in relation to functionalities and factors, and in relation to suicide forums, livestreaming and the creation of child sexual abuse material, and they are choosing not to. If the Government have decided that it is too difficult to do that, that those platforms are not risky enough and that not enough people are being harmed by them, they need to hold their hands up and say, “We’ve decided that this is the position we are going to take.” They must not hide behind the legislation, which does not say what they are telling us it says. They should just be honest about the fact that they have decided that they cannot be bothered to take action. They cannot be bothered to have a fight with Ofcom because it is not important enough. Hiding behind the legislation is incredibly cowardly—it does not say that.

• 3 Feb 2025 · AstraZeneca · Hansard source

  More

  The Chancellor said that economic growth is the most important thing and this was an opportunity to get some of that economic growth. This was an opportunity to get something over the line and the UK Government failed to deliver it. How can the House and the public trust anything the UK Government say? How can they say that this is the founding mission if they then fail to deliver for a region that could really do with that economic growth?

• 3 Feb 2025 · Child Poverty Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  I am pleased that the Minister is updating us with progress. Does she believe the poverty strategy will be announced quickly enough for there to be changes made in, for example, the spring or autumn statements, or are we looking into next year? Please could she give an idea of the timeline?

• 3 Feb 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  This is a genuine question on the power to request information: will the DWP be able to request information from charitable organisations that are perhaps providing support to people, or from Members of Parliament, who may be providing support to constituents who come through our door?

• 3 Feb 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I appreciate that the Government have made changes around affordability, but they still do not assess either benefit clawbacks or the deductions on the basis of whether they are actually affordable for the people having to pay them back. Are the Government planning to put that in place at some point in future?

• 3 Feb 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Unfortunately, I have not seen it because I was not aware of its publication until the Secretary of State stood on her feet. It would have been helpful for Members to have been given that information beforehand, so that we could have read the Information Commissioner’s comments in advance of Second Reading, given a number of us have mentioned the significant concerns of the Information Commissioner in relation to the previous Bill. The Secretary of State said that the Bill is tough and fair. Another Member talked about tax and benefit fraud, and the issue with the DWP making overpayments. They suggested that this new system will ensure that overpayments are caught earlier. I suggest that that is a tad over-optimistic. The DWP makes mistakes and makes overpayments, and now we are giving it another place to make errors. The DWP can now see into people’s bank accounts and say, “You don’t meet the eligibility criteria, so you won’t be getting the social security payment.” Until we have built up much a higher level of trust, most people will assume that these powers will create more errors in the system, rather than reduce them. Lastly, on a subject that I mentioned earlier, a massive number of disabled people have no trust in the social security system. They are massively concerned about the cuts coming down the line and concerned in particular that they will bear the brunt of those cuts, given the comments from so many politicians, using the word “scroungers” and talking about people fraudulently claiming benefits. Despite the fact that the hon. Member for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky) very helpfully laid out the figures on every pound claimed fraudulently, which I genuinely thought was very helpful, disabled people feel that they are being lumped in with the entire group of people claiming fraudulently—whether they can or cannot work, whether they are being paid universal credit or PIP to assist them with their work, and whether they have a helpful employer or have not been able to find one. People feel they are being demonised by politicians simply for claiming social security, which they are entitled to. Until that trust is rebuilt, making the decision to look at their bank accounts, as in these measures, is the absolute wrong decision. The Government need to do what they can to put dignity and respect at the heart of the social security system and rebuild people’s trust in it before they introduce these sweeping, disproportionate powers. The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion mentioned the fact that there are so many unclaimed benefits. Surely ensuring that people have the money they are entitled to, ensuring that they have enough to live on, reducing child poverty and ensuring that not one child grows up in poverty should be more of a priority for the Government than introducing eligibility criteria and demanding that banks provide financial information on social security claimants.

• 3 Feb 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The individuals who are going to do the independent assessment will be appointed by the Secretary of State. Would it not be better for Parliament to agree the appointment of those individuals, so that we can be assured that they are actually independent?

• 3 Feb 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I want to comment on a number of speeches that have been made. As the Scottish National party tabled a reasoned amendment, which unfortunately did not get selected, it will not surprise anyone that we have a number of significant problems with the Bill. Part 1 of the Bill relates to recovering the covid moneys and the services and goods that the Government received that were substandard, for which organisations need to pay the Government back. Since its scope does not extend to Scotland, I will not add many comments, except to note that I have a long track record of bringing up covid fraud, particularly PPE frauds, in this Chamber. I will support the Government’s work to recoup the money that was fraudulently taken in Government contracts that did not deliver. I oppose the DWP elements of the Bill, which are not what social security should be about. As my friend, the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry), said, the social security system should be built on dignity and respect. Very few Members have said that we should have a social security system that works. Members have talked about tightening up eligibility criteria. Last week, people talked about the number of scroungers that there are—people not in work who are claiming social security benefits—and how desperately we must get them back to work. People should have opportunities, but it is also important that we have a social security system that catches people and supports them when they are not able to access those opportunities, because they are struggling with their physical or mental health or have learning difficulties. We need a social security system that works. I have asked the Minister on a couple of occasions about co-production, which an hon. Member also mentioned. Co-production is needed when it comes to changes to disability benefits. If the Government are to reduce the amount of money being paid out for disability and sickness benefits, they must work hand in hand with disabled people. They must not just say, “We are going to reduce it by this amount.” They need to sit round the table with disabled people to have those conversations and to make clear what changes they want. In Scotland, we have reformed the previous PIP system to create the adult disability payment and child disability payment. I used to get a number of emails and people walking through my door who were terrified about their upcoming PIP assessment—having to fill in those forms again, and sit and write a long list of the normal things that their child cannot do, on an annual basis. We have changed that in Scotland. We do not have regular assessments. If someone has a longer-term condition, they do not have to go through that awful situation on an annual basis. The Government need to focus on dignity, respect and co-production. That should be way ahead of conversations around fraud. It is important that the social security system, the procurement system and the tax system do not propagate fraud. As has been mentioned a number of times by Members from across the Chamber, the tax system creates a huge amount more fraud and a huge amount more could be recouped from that than from the social security system. I have major concerns about how the Government are approaching the issue. Why are they introducing this Bill before the child poverty strategy? Why is this more of a priority than cancelling the two-child cap and taking kids out of poverty? Why are the Government talking about nearly £10 billion a year owed to the DWP? Just to be clear, that is not what they intend to recoup. According to the impact assessment, at least 30% will be written off, so £10 billion is a misleading figure. It might be the total amount of fraud and error, but it is not what the Government expect to get back. It does not take into account that they will spend £420 million over the next few years just to increase the number of staff or the costs of the eligibility criteria. It is also not a net figure—it is just the headline figure right now. All the work being done on the legislation is to recoup a fairly insignificant amount of money, but it will put people through absolute hell. As has been said, the Bill will treat people as guilty rather than begin from the point of view that they are innocent. Potentially, it will put every person applying for benefits through an eligibility check through their bank. It will put them under surveillance in a way that is not compatible with the human rights that we should all expect. Let us remember that we are talking about people who, in some cases, are incredibly vulnerable, and may have their driving licence taken away. The hon. Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) talked about two of his constituents who found themselves in a difficult situation and who did not have a huge amount of literacy. It is possible that one of those people could have had a driving licence. For disabled people, a car can be an lifeline—the most important thing. For people with mental health problems, opening letters can be really difficult. People might not engage with the DWP through no fault of their own, but because they are not getting the mental health support that they need. That £10 billion or however much will be recouped will not fix mental health services to ensure that everyone is capable of getting up in the morning, having their breakfast, having a shower and opening the letters in scary, big writing that have come through the door. It will not ensure that people can engage in that system. It will not teach them to read and write—they may not be capable of that. I share the concerns of other Members that, for some individuals, the powers of recouping and of revoking a driving licence are entirely inappropriate. We have not had enough reassurances on that. My concerns about the Information Commissioner are still extant. The Secretary of State said that she has had a letter from the Information Commissioner. I understand that it is probably not her fault, but I am really disappointed that we have not seen that letter in advance of today— [ Interruption. ] I am being told that it is being published.

• 29 Jan 2025 · Welfare Cap · Hansard source

  More

  People go to food banks because work does not pay and the two-child cap, for example, means that they do not have enough money to live on or to support their families. Why is the hon. Member supporting a welfare cap that bakes in the two-child limit?

• 29 Jan 2025 · Welfare Cap · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with a number of the comments that have been made across the House today. I found myself nodding along with the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) there, and particularly with the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). I just want to highlight a couple of things before I get into the meat of my speech. We know that 38% of universal credit claimants are in work, so I am glad that the Government are talking about how to make work pay and how to get more people into work. I am glad that the Government are investing in strategies that will get young people into work, and that will get people who have been long-term unemployed, or even short-term unemployed, back into work. I am glad that they are reforming jobcentres so that they will be assisting people in a way that they maybe have not been doing in recent times. I am pleased about all of that, but we need to recognise that 38% of those on universal credit are already working. It is just that their work is not paying enough or is not offering flexible enough hours if they have childcare or other caring commitments, and therefore they need that top-up. The welfare cap covers not only benefits and other elements of social security provided to people who are out of work, but child benefit and a huge number of different things. It is not entirely focused on people who are out of work, although I appreciate the Government’s action on that. The right hon. Member for Islington North talked about how the welfare cap is a bit backwards. Everyone would be jumping up and down, saying, “That’s backwards,” if we said, “We are going to put a cap on the number of people who can receive chemotherapy, and on the amount spent on it, because we are going to reduce the rates of smoking, obesity and other risk factors. We are going to have a healthier population, so it is okay for us to cap chemotherapy. We are going to put all this stuff in place to ensure that we reduce the spend on chemotherapy.” We should first spend the money and solve the problem, and then the spend will reduce. That is the whole point about the welfare cap—it is backwards. By having a welfare cap, the Government are saying that they will reduce the spend on welfare by doing all the things that they are not yet doing. They have not solved the problem. Once they have solved the problem, and once the welfare system has improved in the way they are trying to improve it, the numbers and the spend will reduce. I am, however, not entirely convinced that everything the Government are putting in place will reduce the spend, because they are battling against a number of factors. Even if they manage to get jobs to pay better, even if they further increase the minimum wage so it is closer to a living wage, even if they ensure there are more opportunities, and even if the Chancellor’s opportunities for growth actually exist and create many more jobs, there will still be a significant number of people whom the system is not set up to support. I have dealt with people in my constituency surgeries who are being supported by third sector organisations, which are being hammered by the national insurance changes and will not be able to provide the support they have been providing. I have dealt with individuals who are six months away from having the consistency in their lives to be able to get up at 8 o’clock every morning. My concern is that all Governments—I am not specifically blaming the Labour Government—look for quick wins. They look for the low-hanging fruit. “Where can we try to improve things so that people who are pretty close to work anyway—who are not that far out, who have pretty stable lives and who do not have an incredibly chaotic lifestyle—can access work?” We will be letting down those people who have chaotic lifestyles and who are so far away from being able to get into paying work—particularly full-time paying work—if we reduce the amount of disability benefits they can claim or reduce the amount of support they can receive, when they are a year away from having the stability to be able to access work. The social security safety net is not a safety net unless it provides support to people who absolutely cannot work right now, and who will need 12, 15 or 18 months, or two years, of intensive support to get to a position where they can achieve part-time work. I do not think that support is in place, and I do not think any Government have provided enough support to ensure that people are not left on the scrapheap.

• 29 Jan 2025 · Welfare Cap · Hansard source

  More

  I am not sure how long the Minister has left in her speech, but I have a question about the welfare cap. We are being asked to make two decisions: to approve the welfare cap, and to note the breach. She has made the case for how the Government are trying to get Britain working and why the breach has happened this year, but so far she has not made the case for why they are putting in a welfare cap this year and why we parliamentarians should agree to it.

• 29 Jan 2025 · Welfare Cap · Hansard source

  More

  It is absolutely about long-term planning. That is why we are making the case that we cannot have a welfare cap and that things are being done backwards. We should put in place all the supports that the Government are promising, and more, to get people to the position where they can get into work. The welfare cap is an unfortunate hurdle, particularly as it bakes in some of the cuts that have been made, such as the winter fuel payment. It seems that there will not be an increase in the level of paternity pay; it would be nice to see an increase in paternity pay levels and in the number of men taking up paternity leave. On young people not in education, employment or training—a phrase that was used earlier, when somebody said NEET—it would be great if young people had more chances and choices. Finally, on issues relating to specific geographical locations—the Minister mentioned Blackpool—hon. Members would not expect me, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen North, to avoid talking about the importance for Aberdeen of having a just transition. I mentioned doing things backwards; the Minister needs to ensure we build up renewable energy jobs before we knock down the jobs in fossil fuels. I am concerned that the Government are failing to do that in the right order, and that we will have gaps where people will become unemployed because of the UK Government’s actions.

• 24 Jan 2025 · Unity Contract · Hansard source

  More

  The nuclear defence enterprise for the UK is an extortionate vanity project. We would much rather the money was spent on conventional defence capabilities. The Minister states that the contract will drive efficiency to reduce waste and save over £400 million. Given that no major nuclear contract has ever come in under budget, how does she expect this to happen? On the 200 jobs that will be split between Cardiff and Glasgow, can she let us know when during the course of the contract these jobs will be delivered? Will it be at the end or earlier on, and what will the split be between Cardiff and Glasgow?

• 23 Jan 2025 · Holocaust Memorial Day · Hansard source

  More

  It is not often in this House that everyone from every party speaks with one voice, and it is not often that we stand here and do not have political arguments, and that we all listen, nod and agree with all the speakers we are hearing. The Minister who introduced the debate did an excellent job laying out some of the cold, hard facts, and making clear exactly why we have Holocaust Memorial Day. The hon. Member for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky) brought humanity into that with his own family’s story, and we have heard from Members across the House about their personal views, the views of Holocaust survivors and the reading they have done, and about genocides and massacres that have taken place not just in the wake of the second world war but more recently. It is important that we remember all that. It is important that we use the privileged position that we have here, and the platform we have in this House. We are incredibly lucky that we can stand here and amplify the voices of our constituents. Right now, we have more of a responsibility to do that than ever. We are seeing the rise of antisemitism. In the wake of what happened on 7 October, we are seeing that on our streets. The Antisemitism Policy Trust has published two reports about the rise of antisemitism online and the inability of AI systems on some websites to find antisemitic posts. I urge the Government to look at those reports, particularly when it comes to the rise of issues on X. We are seeing the rise of Islamophobia. I am seeing constituents who are refugees and asylum seekers facing discrimination and prejudice that I had not seen in the 20 years I have been supporting and dealing with the public. It is new. It feels like we have tipped into a different world. We are seeing a rise in anti-trans, anti-gay and anti-lesbian hate on our streets as well. Now is the point when we all have to take action. We all have to recognise that whatever we have been doing to try to tackle this—whatever voices we have used and whatever moments we have taken—we have not done enough. We are not there yet. We have not managed to tackle this. Whether as a group of 650 individuals with a platform we are capable of sorting it out does not matter; what matters is that we try every single day to make that difference. The hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) and a number of hon. Members have said that a holocaust does not happen overnight. We do not go from having a happy community to mass murder in a couple of days. We go through stages, with a rise in hatred and the dehumanisation and othering of people. We go through a situation—like there was in Germany after the first world war—where the population feels hard done by, their lives are not as good as they could be and they want someone to blame. They have politicians, the media and people standing up and saying, “There are people you can blame for this.” In that case, the population were being told, “The Jews are the people to blame. The Jewish people are less human than you are, and they are to blame for your life being a struggle and for you finding things difficult right now.” We know that that divisive rhetoric is being used around the world right now. It is being used here. I am sure that all hon. Members have seen a rise in the number of emails to them saying, “I cannot afford to pay my energy bill, and that is because of the number of illegals in this country.” We all need to stand up against that. It is not just about countering the explicit hate that people come up with and the obvious racism and antisemitism that people send us in emails; it is about countering the people who will say, “Yes, but you have to allow us our free speech. You have to allow us the freedom to say things that dehumanise others.” We must counter that chipping away at the hard-won rights of minority groups. We need to stand there and say not just, “You’re wrong,” to people behaving in a racist way and using racist rhetoric, but, “No. We will not reduce the rights that trans people have. We will not reduce the rights that gay people have. We will not reduce the rights that Jewish people, Muslims and people of all faiths should have to practise their faith.” We should make a stand for equality and the rights that people have as well as against the hatred. Reduction in those rights is how we got to the far end of the road in Auschwitz. The beginning of the road is reducing rights, taking up a Sharpie and writing that trans people are no longer to be recognised, and saying that people who riot against democracy are fine, cool and should carry on. Many of us are using our platform to say these things, but we are not winning. We need to tackle disinformation and misinformation, online and in person, and the diminution of rights that people have fought for. This is an incredibly poignant debate. I am proud of all the MPs who have stood up and argued against dehumanisation, and have related their experiences and those of constituents and survivors. We need to do that, and not just on Holocaust Memorial Day. Every one of us needs to work for a better future every single day. There are so many good people out there who care a huge amount about this. We need to mobilise them and take them with us, ensuring that we amplify their voices as they speak in favour of the better future that we all want.