Kirsty Blackman MP: speeches

Speeches

• 4 Jun 2026 · Pride Month · Hansard source

  More

  I am glad to have the chance to speak in the debate, although I echo the words of the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen): these things are always on a Thursday. As the sole woman in the SNP, and as the party’s women and equalities spokesperson, I find myself here on Thursdays way more often than my colleagues. It would be nice if we moved these debates around a little, and had them on a Monday occasionally. I cannot help but agree with every word that the hon. Member for Luton North said. I will try really hard not to be party political, and not to—this is the bit that I will find most difficult—look backwards. Instead, I will try to look forward. I will look for what we need to do. I will point out where things are today and how we can improve them, rather than looking at what was done in the past, but first, I recognise that although Pride is about celebration, it is also about being angry. We should be angry about the injustices. We can celebrate, party, dance, sing and use rainbow colours if we wish to, but we must remember that we are always fighting against those injustices, and trying to improve the world and our small part of it, so that everyone can live their truth and be who they are, including publicly. There are a number of things that I would like to see happen, changes that need to be made and things that I would like the Government to consider. I asked the Minister a question about the conversion therapy ban. I appreciate, and I believe in, her commitment to that— I have no reason to doubt it. It just rankles a little that when we were talking about the Equality Act judgment, Ministers would say, at the Dispatch Box, “We do support trans people, because we are delivering a fully trans-inclusive conversion therapy ban.” They have been saying that for two years. The trans community feels so hurt and alone as it is, so that rings hollow. Anything that the Minister can do to make sure that the ban happens soon, so that we can at least protect the trans community in one way, would be hugely appreciated. I turn to the EHRC guidance, how it will work and the impact it will have on people’s lives. An MP should be allowed to choose to tell people, from the Dispatch Box or elsewhere in this Chamber, that they are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or queer. They should be allowed not to choose to do that. The atmosphere and ethos should allow people to choose whether to do that or not. It should be their right to say that out loud or not. In the guidance, we are saying that trans people no longer have that right. We are saying that no trans person who is accessing a service will be allowed to remain quiet about their gender reassignment status; they will have to state what their biological sex is, according to the Equality Act. If they are booked into the NHS—taken into hospital, or into a mental health setting and sectioned—they will have to say to the doctor and the medical staff, “I was assigned female at birth.” They will have to make that clear; their right to privacy is gone. If someone who went to hospital had to say, “I’m bisexual” or “I’m gay” before they were assigned to a ward, that would be completely unacceptable, but we think it is okay for trans people to have to say that, even if it is not medically relevant. We think it is okay for trans people to have to say that before they can go to a swimming pool and into the changing rooms. We are telling people that they must explain what their biological sex is before they can access services. This is not proportionate guidance. It is not fair to take away that private-life right, which every one of us should have. We should be able to choose what we tell people about our gender identity, biological sex and sexuality. What we say about those should be up to us. For example, if somebody is living in a religious community that has only ever known them as a woman, they will now have to say, “I’m sorry—I can’t use those toilets. I’m not allowed to use them,” or else—I don’t know; I do not know what sanctions result from that. But the guidance does not work. I appreciate the issue of clarity in the law, which people have talked about. The prayer against the statutory instrument is praying against the guidance. However unhappy some of us are with the judgment, the early-day motion states that the guidance does not work, and that the statutory instrument should not be approved; it is not about overturning the Supreme Court judgment, no matter how many people would like to do that, or about changing the Equality Act. It is specifically about the guidance being inappropriate. I have put my name to the motion because I do not think that the guidance works, or understand how it will work. Trans people living across these islands should have the right to privacy and should not have to disclose their status to anybody who asks. I will talk about a few things that are probably less serious, but still important. Fertility issues in relation to gay and lesbian couples have been raised with me on many occasions. Will the Minister and the team look into the number of rounds of in vitro fertilisation treatment that are provided to people, and whether that involves discrimination on the basis of sexuality? Can any improvements be made to those systems to ensure that, no matter the sexuality of a couple or an individual, there is a level playing field and people are provided equal access to services? As was said, what children need is a loving family; it should not matter what gender the parents are when they are going for fertility treatment. Anything the Minister can do on that would be helpful. Let me turn to the social media ban. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies), spoke about the loneliness that there can be in being the only gay in the village, somebody whose voice is not heard, or somebody who cannot live their truth in their family. We need to be careful, in any decisions taken around social media bans, not to remove young people from communities they may have found, which might be the only places where they can live their truth, where they are supported and where they can see that there are other people like them. We need to ensure that there are impact assessments, so that we are not committing these young people, who already feel on the outside of things and that they are not accepted, to further isolation. I am not saying that definitely will happen; I am saying that the Government need to assess and consider these things when they take any decisions around social media bans. Let me also touch on neurodiversity, intersectionality and issues faced by people who fit into numerous categories of minority. It bothers me hugely that this is a prevalent thought for too many people: “You’re not really trans; you’re just autistic.” It is perfectly possible to be autistic and trans. It is perfectly possible to be one and not the other, or both. Too many people are told, or have suggested to them, “You’re just neurodiverse; don’t worry—you’re not really trans.” That is not listening to people and understanding their truth; it is not accepting them for who they are. People grow and change. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin), talked about young people being able to be themselves and accepted as themselves. Some of those young people will change as they go along their path and find the right fit for them. Some of them will be non-binary for a bit, and then realise that they are actually not non-binary at all. That is okay, and it should be okay. We all try things on. I dressed as a goth for a while as a kid; I do not recommend it—I am not nearly pale enough to dress as a goth, but I thought it was a good idea for a wee while. Until I found out who I was, what fitted and how I wanted to express myself, it was okay to try all sorts of things. We should accept young people as they do that, and support them on that journey, as they discover who they are. I want to raise a concern about school guidance. If a young person at school discloses to their teacher that they are a lesbian or bisexual, there is no automatic feeling that “We had better go and tell their parents, because this is really dangerous and scary.” Some of the guidance for schools states that, if a young person discloses that they are trans, their parents must be told. Now, it is not always safe for their parents to be told. It is concerning if teachers feel that they have to treat trans children differently and have a conversation with parents about that. Children need to feel that they can live their truth and speak to trusted adults about that, without fear that it will be passed on. I do not understand how we can justify treating this issue differently, and how we can say this is somehow dangerous and scary. The more that we treat it differently, and suggest that it is dangerous and scary, the more hatred and lack of understanding there will be for an already marginalised minority group. I want the Government, and all Governments, to think carefully when they are making decisions or putting out guidance about whether it stigmatises and minoritises an already attacked community—a community that is already finding things difficult. I appreciate the Government talking about DEFRA, for example, looking at the impact of growing up gay in rural communities—I cannot exactly remember the phrase. I appreciate that these things are being done much more throughout Government than they perhaps were. Women and Equalities Ministers are not the only people who ever think about the fact that gay people exist. I am glad that other Departments are doing that, but we need to do more of it, particularly when it comes to trans people and destigmatising and not minoritising individuals. My last point on trans people relates to puberty blockers. There still needs to be more thought about the best way forward. We are minoritising and stigmatising a community and saying to people that their reality and truth are not the reality and truth, that they are not allowed to believe that and that they are not allowed to be trans until they are 18. People are allowed to be gay before they are 18, but they are allowed to be trans only once they are 18. That is not what somebody has said from the Dispatch Box, but that is what it feels like to so many members of the community, and I would love the Government to consider that. Let me finish on a happier note. There is a charity in Aberdeen called Four Pillars. I remember more than 10 years ago sitting with Deejay, one of the team who runs the charity, and Deejay saying, “I have this dream of having a café, a drop-in place where people can go and be themselves and feel comfortable.” That café has now been open for a number of years. At the time, both of us laughed because we thought, “That’s never going to happen. We are never going to have that in the city centre of Aberdeen,” but we now have that safe space where people can be themselves. The café does all sorts of cool, fun things, such as dungeons and dragons nights and craft nights. It is a place where people can be themselves and are accepted no matter what that looks like. We need more of that acceptance. We need to ensure that gender non-conformity, for example, is more accepted, that we are not giving people a licence to challenge women with short hair. Why should men not wear skirts? Why should boys not wear pink? That is stuff we have been fighting against for so long, and the guidance we have now risks dragging us backwards. This is my very last point—I promise, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have heard about how lesbians are sometimes left out of this conversation and we have heard an awful lot about trans people, because of the risks and worries for the trans community, but there is a B in LGBT, too. It does not matter who someone is married to, it does not define their sexuality. If a woman is married to a man, that does not mean she is heterosexual. We can listen to people and accept that their truth may not be as stereotypical as it looks from the outside, and we should remember when we are talking about Pride and LGBT history that there is a B in LGBT, too.

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

  More

  Does the Secretary of State believe that echoing Enoch Powell’s “rivers of blood” speech strengthens community cohesion?

• 25 Feb 2026 · Post Office Green Paper · Hansard source

  More

  In rural areas, the loss of post offices is an issue, but it is also an issue in cities, particularly when the local transport network does not necessarily link people with the post office. My community is still reeling from Spar closing the post offices in its shops. Will the Minister give us some comfort by saying that he believes that the remuneration package being offered will not just keep postmasters in the job, but encourage new postmasters to take up the job, particularly given that, as has been stated, we face another round of Bank of Scotland closures?

• 29 Jan 2026 · Holocaust Memorial Day · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to represent the SNP in today’s debate on Holocaust Memorial Day. Six million Jews were murdered. I was trying to think about what words to use to describe it. The word “tragedy” was one of the first I thought of, but a tragedy is something that is unavoidable—in my head, anyway, it is something that was going to happen. This was evil perpetrated by humans. The hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) talked about the brutality of which man is capable. That was the phrase that stuck with me from today’s debate. It is about the brutality that human beings are capable of inflicting on one another. The hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) talked about othering. The ability that human beings have to begin to “other” humans by grouping them together because of some perceived difference is horrific, and something that we should all be aware of and think of when we talk about the lessons of the Holocaust and learning from what happened in Nazi Germany. The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) talked about what happened, and a number of other Members have also talked about what did not happen. Not every single person in Nazi Germany was a Nazi, responsible for taking Jewish people to the camps, but enough people in Nazi Germany were willing to turn a blind eye to that. I am not blaming individuals for their actions—maybe their family were being threatened, maybe they were terrified, maybe they had circumstances that we cannot contemplate today—but every one of us who has moments when we do not stand up against hatred and othering needs to think about why we are not doing so. Whether we are Members of Parliament, members of the public, community leaders or faith leaders, we need to think about whether we would be able to sleep at night if we knew people would be looking back through history at our actions and considering us to have been bystanders, rather than people who took action when it was needed—when that othering was happening. Every human being has value. A person’s value is not based on their religion, their country of birth, the colour of their skin, which town they currently live in, how much money they make or what job they do. Every human being inherently has value, and we all have a responsibility as representatives to ensure that whatever differences exist between us, we recognise and stand up for the value of every one of our constituents and every one of the people across these islands. We have a responsibility to stand up to anyone, whether they are a Member of this place, a politician at a different level or a member of the public, and say to them, “No, somebody is not less because you have put them in a box—because you have suggested that they are somehow other. They have just as much value as you do; it does not matter what country they were born in, who they worship, or what religious text is sitting on their bedside table.” We all have value just because we are human beings, and we all have that responsibility. I want every one of us, whether we are in this Chamber or outside of it, to be able to sleep at night because we know that we have done the right thing—that we have stood up against that drip, drip, drip of the beginnings of hatred that can culminate where we ended up with the Holocaust. I find it very difficult to comprehend how someone can go from being slightly negative about somebody, or about a group, to the mass industrial murder that we saw, because I am not in that situation. I find it very difficult to contemplate how that can happen, but we know that it has—it happened not just in Nazi Germany, but in Srebrenica and Darfur. The hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) talked about the international rules-based order and the reason why it was set up. None of the international organisations that we have relied on and listened to was set up simply as a trading organisation. The genocide convention was put in place because every country needed to ensure that we had learned those lessons, and were collectively resolved to never do it again. Some comments are being made about international organisations, saying, “We can step away from that trading organisation,” but that is a bit misinformed, because it is not just about that. We must ensure that we are working together to prevent genocide, not by policing one another, but by assisting one another to ensure that every country sees the value of every human and that we never “other” people like that again.

• 17 Dec 2025 · Asylum Reforms: Protected Characteristics · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree, and there was a very similar case in my constituency. There was a woman here with her young child, and it had been agreed that her husband was eligible for reunification with his family here under the ARAP scheme, but he was in hiding in Pakistan. No matter how much we pressed the Home Office, the woman and her young child were left here without their husband and dad. He was unable to come over, because the Home Office refused to take action. Part of the issue is the lack of humanity and consideration for individual circumstances created by the Home Office machine. Blanket policies discriminate against people in protected groups, not taking into account that there are nuances, differences and family circumstances that need to be in place. Going back to the requirement to contribute, that will cause particular issues for those who cannot, or find it difficult to, contribute in the classical sense. The UK Government said there would be special consideration of vulnerable groups, but have not laid out what those will be and what the consideration looks like. Not making clear who those vulnerable groups are and how those considerations will work risks significantly disadvantaging people. It is worth noting that, eight years on from receiving asylum and the right to work, the average income of refugees in Scotland is only £13,000, which is significantly lower than the median income. That is partly because refugees, by their nature, have suffered trauma, post-traumatic stress disorder and are unable to work full time in many cases, through no fault of their own. Due to that level of discrimination, and partly because they may not have long-term settled status, employers may be less keen to take them on. People who are trying to work, or have even been working full time for eight years, are earning significantly less than average. If we try to measure contribution, compared with people who were born here and have had a settled life—white men, for example—it will be difficult for any refugee from a protected characteristic group to meet that bar. Other issues include regular reapplications and a reduction in appeals. There will be a 30-month period to reapply for status. We know that 50% of appeals from women win. A reduction in the number of appeals, allowing only one and no subsequent appeal, will entrench the fact that the Home Office makes wrong decisions. If 50% of appeals win, the Home Office has clearly made wrong decisions in half the cases that go to appeal. The people more likely to appeal, whose cases are negatively looked at, have more complicated pasts and issues with disclosing what they have faced. Regarding trauma and violence against women and girls, the UK Government have suggested that not disclosing trauma early in the process will likely have a negative impact on their case. If people do not disclose their protected characteristics, there will likely be a negative consideration from the Home Office. People born here who have experienced sexual violence can take 20 years to come to terms with the situation and raise it with the authorities. We are expecting refugees, who have been through significant trauma, to disclose that information to a legal aid lawyer they do not know. He could be a man from their community who looks like an authority figure or the person who abused them, or might be part of the religious community that perpetrated the abuse. We will punish them for not being able to disclose the sexual violence they faced, or their sexual orientation to someone they do not know. We also know that when it comes to legal aid, for example, the increase in the number of appeals will significantly gum up the system, and the system is already significantly gummed up. The UK Government inherited a system that was a mess in terms of the length of time that asylum decisions took. Adding in a significant number of extra reassessments at 30-month periods is simply unworkable. We are already waiting years for people to get decisions—even children who are supposed to have special consideration and who are supposed to receive decisions more quickly. We got an email from a constituent this week whose children have still not received a decision. We have had a number of emails from constituents about asylum decisions, but the one that struck me came in yesterday. We had spoken to the Home Office about it and the email said, “Could you please tell us what is happening with this case?” And the Home Office said, “No. If you have not heard anything by December, get back to us.” The person still has not had a decision, despite the fact that children are supposed to be considered more quickly. If the UK Government cannot meet their obligations now, how will they meet their obligations within a 30-month period? What will they do about legal aid to ensure that legal aid lawyers are willing to take on the more complicated cases, the cases of sexual or domestic violence, or where the individual presenting is LGBTQI? At the moment, legal aid lawyers often look at those cases and say, “No, it is too complicated. The legal aid money does not cover it. Why would I bother doing that when I can do an easier case?” There is a significant problem. If the Government are going to make sweeping changes, especially the significant number of reassessments, they need to fix the legal aid system, or people with protected characteristics will be negatively impacted even more than the people without protected characteristics. Going back to the family reunification changes that are being suggested, Home Office figures tell us that 92% of the people who receive grants under family reunification are women and girls—92%. On the massive reduction in the number of family reunification applications that are accepted or in family reunification routes, 92% are women and girls. I do not understand how the Government can suggest there is not a disproportionate impact on people with protected characteristics when just this one specific measure has a massive impact on women and girls specifically. I understand why the Government have not produced an equality impact assessment. They do not want to see what is in such an assessment, but they should produce one. They have a public sector equality duty to do so. The Home Office is still bound by the public sector equality duty. It does not not apply to the Home Office. It applies to the public sector and it has not published one. On the length of time and the possibility of people being required to wait 20 years to receive leave to remain, we know that the lack of stability adds a significant negative impact on people. We know that that lack of stability is multilayered in the impacts that it has. I have already touched on the issues with employment. Employers are less likely to take people on if they do not have permanent leave to remain. Employers do not necessarily understand the immigration system. Good employers can be terrified of falling foul of the Home Office. If they can see that somebody was born in another country and does not have citizenship yet, they decide not to employ them. That means people are stuck in limbo for a significantly longer time because of the Government’ s decision—much longer than in some other countries, by the way. Not enabling people to work at 12 months makes us an outlier in Europe. In some EU countries, people can work from day one. In many countries they can work from two months. That gives an increased level of stability than if requiring people to be out of work for 12 months, and then only able to access jobs on the occupation shortage list or immigration list. Some of those jobs are not as acceptable or not as possible for people who have protected characteristics. A disabled person may not be able to access some of those roles. If we are more flexible in the roles that people can access, we are more likely to have people able to contribute, because they will be more able to do jobs that work for them. That lack of stability also means, potentially, that people will have no recourse to public funds for a significant length of time. No recourse to public funds is horrific and should be cancelled, particularly for those people with dependants. I never again want to see a family come in to my office whose children are malnourished because the UK Government have said that they have no recourse to public funds, or who are being threatened with homelessness because they are unable to claim anything. I had a family come in whose four children had not eaten fruit for days. How is it acceptable that the UK Government can decide that people have no recourse to public funds, and then keep them in limbo for such a long period? Women for Refugee Women looked at the number of destitute women and spoke to them about what destitution meant for them in the asylum system. Of the women in the asylum system who had no recourse to public funds, 38% had stayed in an abusive relationship because of their inability to access public funds and the fear that they would be homeless or destitute as a result of leaving that relationship. A further 38% of those women who stayed in abusive relationships were raped as a result. The UK Government’s policies are forcing women into destitution and unsafe situations and relationships. Among women in that group who were destitute as a result of the UK Government’s policies, 8% were forced into sex work to get enough money to feed themselves or their children, or to clothe their children. How is this a humane situation when it is negatively impacting women more than men and where those protected characteristics are not being protected?

• 17 Dec 2025 · Asylum Reforms: Protected Characteristics · Hansard source

  More

  There should be some methodology, but the Government are going the wrong way on this. They are looking to tighten up the modern slavery and trafficking regulations and make it more difficult for women to claim that they have been trafficked—even when they have. We know that there are women that have been held in Yarl’s Wood or detention centres after being trafficked because they do not have the correct paperwork. Of course they do not have the correct paperwork; they have been trafficked, used in sex work and forced into these horrific situations, and the Government are putting them in a detention centre and then saying that they will not get a visa because they did not have the right documentation. We have a responsibility to protect people. It says in “Restoring Order and Control” that there are some rules in relation to the European convention on human rights and the Refugee convention around which there are not discretionary powers. For some—for example, in relation to family life—the public interest can be balanced against that requirement. However, when it comes to trafficking, the Government do not have that discretion. If they refuse to believe trafficked people, and it is later agreed that those people have been trafficked, the UK Government are putting them through more trauma. They are putting people who have experienced worse things than most of us could ever imagine through more trauma because they refuse to believe them. Then, because they may disclose this late, as they do not want to talk about the sex work that they have been forced into and the rapes they have suffered—because it is very difficult to talk about those things—the UK Government say to them, “Well, you didn’t disclose this in time, so you can’t be a true asylum seeker. You can’t be a true refugee because you didn’t come forward and talk about the most horrific moments in your life to a man that you don’t know.” That is in relation to legal aid support. There are major issues with the continuing lack of stability. The changes away from hotel accommodation to some of the accommodation at barracks can mean that people are more isolated and less able to access support. In Aberdeen, we have little in the way of lawyers who can cover asylum cases—and immigration lawyers in general, actually—and people are having to travel significant lengths in order to get that, on their £7 or £9 a week. Someone cannot get from Aberdeen to Glasgow on seven quid a week—it cannot be done for less than about 30 quid, unless it is on a Megabus, and even that can be quite dear. Accommodation does not take into account the fact that provision is not there. If people are going to be put in Cameron barracks in Inverness, for example, it is even more difficult for them to get to Glasgow or Edinburgh in order to speak to the right lawyer who will be able to help and be willing to take on their immigration case. Creating that extra level of isolation for people who are already struggling—putting people in an isolated community in the Cameron barracks, rather than in a community setting where they can integrate—means that people who are isolated will become even more so, and people who are at risk will become even more at risk. We know that even in hotels, people suffer as a result of their protected characteristics, and who are at risk of harm as a result of unsafe situations. That is multiplied when people are moved out of hotels into places such as barracks. I have a few more things to cover. In relation to the assessment of safe countries for removal, the blanket designation of a country as safe is inherently incredibly risky. It may be safe for some people to be in Syria right now, but it is not safe for everyone. It is not safe for a Syrian woman who came here as a result of gender-based violence to go back to her family in Syria—or to go back to Syria at all—because of the likelihood that her family would take action against her. It is not safe for a gay person who fled because they were correctively raped to go back to Syria. The decision about blanket designations is really difficult, considering the Government are saying that they are looking at vulnerable groups and talking about individuals. Creating a blanket safe designation that can be changed at any point in that 20-year period means they can suddenly say to someone, “You are going to have to go back to this country where you were correctively raped, because the UK Government have now decided—with very little in the way of parliamentary scrutiny—that this country is safe.” The problem is that we have not got that information. The Minister may feel that there will be special categories in place, but we have not been told that. We have not been given the impact assessment for how that will look. We have not been told what those provisions will be. Somebody who is living here, who is terrified about being sent back, has no comfort right now, because they do not know whether their case will be considered separately or whether their country will just be deemed safe and they will be sent back.

• 17 Dec 2025 · Asylum Reforms: Protected Characteristics · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the potential impact of proposed asylum reforms on people with protected characteristics seeking asylum. There have been a lot of announcements in relation to immigration policy in the year and a half since this Government came into office. There has been a startling lack of equality impact assessments alongside those announcements, and I want to draw the House’s attention to the disproportionate and negative impact on people with protected characteristics of some—in fact, most—of the announcements the UK Government have made since July 2024. I am going to focus on certain groups of people with protected characteristics: women, queer folk and disabled people, and I will also touch on very young and very elderly people. Some of the changes to asylum policy announced by the Home Office, particularly in the “Restoring Order and Control: A statement on the government’s asylum and returns policy” in November 2025, have failed to take account of the fact that the negative impacts are not felt uniformly across the board. They have failed to take account of the fact that many people in groups with protected characteristics already face a level of discrimination and increased barriers simply as a result of being a member of a group with protected characteristics. Before I come to the substance of my speech, I want to thank a number of organisations that have provided a significant amount of information and done a huge amount of research. Those are Women for Refugee Women, Rainbow Migration, the Helen Bamber Foundation, whose briefing was truly excellent and really heartbreaking, and the Scottish Refugee Council. As I say, many of the changes made will have a significant negative impact, such as the change to the length of time that people have to stay and the requirement to contribute in order for people to be granted leave to remain. The requirement to contribute is not well defined and has a disadvantaging impact on those who are not able to work or study in the normal sense. For example, a disabled person might struggle to access full-time employment, and therefore the UK Government might consider that they have not contributed in the same way as other people, so they might be more likely to be refused leave to remain. The same issue applies to women, particularly those with caring responsibilities. For a woman who has come here from Afghanistan, for example, who could not learn when they were in Afghanistan because they were banned from education—certainly further or higher education—or because of the circumstances they were living in, with an abusive family or a requirement for women to stay in the home and not do any learning, it is even more difficult to get into work or study, because they simply do not have the skills due to those gaps in their education.

• 3 Dec 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I would like to see much more conversation. Gateway benefits allow people eligibility for other things, and sometimes those do not work either. A person might be eligible for universal credit, but they do not necessarily get the follow-through to free school meals, for example. Anything we can do to make that path smoother, either in the cessation of benefits or in agreement on eligibility, would be really helpful. I agree with the hon. Gentleman; we have seen issues with carers, for example, being chased for overpayments that were not their fault. Again, I support the Government’s move on the consolidation of small pots, which I think is incredibly sensible. I am famously a massive supporter of the pensions dashboard and have never been at all critical of its timelines, but when it comes online there will be a rush for consolidation anyway. This is all about consolidation for people who have not touched their small pots, and making sure they get a return from that is totally sensible. Guided retirement and the mid-life MOT are mentioned in a number of amendments, and ensuring that people are given the correct advice at the correct time is incredibly important. When the Government do their sufficiency review—when we are looking at the adequacy of pensions and what people will get when they hit retirement—I would be very surprised if that and the consultation do not conclude that more people need more advice earlier. The more advice that people have on their pension, and the more money they put into their pension at the earliest time, the bigger their pension will be. I have already mentioned compound interest: if we put £100 into our pension when we were 21, it will be significantly bigger by the time we retire than if we put £100 into our pension when we are 40. That is just a fact. The more advice that we can give people at various important life stages, but particularly significantly before retirement, would be really helpful. That is another thing that should be included. Finally, the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) spoke at a press conference about the local government pension scheme and how terrible it is that it is spending so much money on fees. That was in September, after Second Reading, at which he did not speak about that. He did not table any amendments on it before the Committee stage, and he has not shown up to raise it on Report. It is almost as if Reform MPs are saying things in press conferences and not doing any actual work. [ Interruption. ] I told him I was going to mention him. It is almost as if they make statements in press conferences and do not do anything, just as they have not shown up today. Should a Reform Member have been particularly keen to make changes to the LGPS—such as to cap the level of fees it can pay, which are probably not unreasonable, as the LGPS is phenomenally successful in its returns for members—they could have amended the Bill, but they would have had to show up to do so. I suggest that the media organisations who are happy to cover press conferences ask the Members giving those press conferences what they will actually do to get their policies implemented. If such Members have an opportunity, they should use it rather than just shouting from the sidelines. As I think I have made clear, I am largely supportive of an awful lot of things in the Bill, the direction of travel and many of the technical measures, which are great fun to have a good look at. I have some concerns about pre-1997 indexation. I am delighted that it has happened, but more could have been done. I will be interested to follow the progress of the fiduciary duty statutory guidance and the sufficiency and adequacy review and whether there will be mandation powers. Lastly, on new clause 3, can we please make it easier for members who are terminally ill to have that conversation? I would very much appreciate the Minister committing to taking that away and considering how the PPF and FAS can get that information more easily without requiring people to jump through significant hoops.

• 3 Dec 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. Productivity and growth are real possibilities if there is better patient capital investment, not just in social housing and renewable energy projects, which I would dearly love to see and have spoken a lot about—in particular social housing—but in tech and appliances, so that companies can use capital investment that is invested for the long term. That could have a significant impact on productivity. Turning back to the Minister’s announcement around fiduciary duties and that definition, although there will of course be political argument about what best interests mean and how we define best interests, trustees will at least have the benefit of the guidance and will not necessarily labour under the misapprehension that they have to get the best possible financial return. I draw the Government’s attention to the Well-being of Future Generations Act 2015 in Wales, which I talk about a lot, and which is about making the best decisions for the future. It is not necessarily about chasing economic growth at any cost; it is not necessarily about building certain things. Instead, it is about ensuring that future generations are best provided for. Some of the lessons that could be learned from that could be put into the fiduciary duties consultation that is coming forward about what the term best interests actually means and how it could be defined. We have largely covered the mandation powers and their direction in the discussion of fiduciary duties. I am pretty relaxed about there being some mandation and some requirement, not least because of the points the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North made about the growth in the economy that is likely to occur should capital be invested more in things that will increase productivity. There probably is a balance to be struck between benefiting pensioners of today and the future; if there is a lower return for pensioners 30 years in the future, we might again be causing a level of generational unfairness that we need to think about. How does that balance up? Does that new hospital or that new social housing provide enough of a benefit for those younger people, who will become pensioners in 30 or 40 years? Does that stack up? I do not think that will be an easy decision to make. However, generally I think we can look at mandation; I do not take an ideological position against it like some with Conservative beliefs. I am, though, happy to support the Conservatives in their amendment that would require a report on what those mandation powers look like, because the more transparency from the Government—the more transparency from everybody in this place, frankly—the better. I therefore think a report on that would be absolutely grand. I will mention a couple of other things. New clause 3 about terminal illness is a really neat solution to a problem. My local authority has implemented a “Tell us once” policy, whereby if someone has had a bereavement in their family, for instance, they have only to tell their distressing story to the local authority once and everything will be changed—their council tax and benefits—and they will no longer get various charges. I therefore think the solution proposed in new clause 3 is neat. The Minister might come up with some issues around potential data sharing between the PPF and the DWP. However, if he could come up with a solution so that people do not have to tell their distressing story numerous times—having to explain again to somebody else that they are terminally ill and having to provide a huge amount of paperwork to do that when they have already had to do that with the DWP—that would be hugely helpful. My understanding from my conversation with the PPF on Friday is that it is pretty good at supporting members, and I felt that it would be willing to be flexible about this should it get direction from the Minister and should the data-sharing issues be sorted out, but I am just guessing—I am not putting words in the PPF’s mouth. I just feel that it is a very member-focused organisation and might be quite keen to support its members in that regard.

• 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.

• 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.

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

  More

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

• 9 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I corrected the Minister the other day on the definition of fiduciary duty, and the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire just made a similar error. The fiduciary duty is not to act in the best interests of scheme members but to act in the best interests of getting them the pensions they were promised, or of growing their pensions. It is not necessarily about their best interests; it is about the best interests of their pension and the size of it. We spoke about this quite a lot in relation to the local government pension scheme. There could be investments that make a person’s life significantly better than having an extra fiver a year in their pension. These are two different things. I appreciate that fiduciary duties should be what they are—I am not arguing with that; I am saying that the definition is not about acting in the best interests of scheme members but simply about growing their pension pots. In terms of the two Lib Dem amendments and the points made about the investability of projects, we could argue about chickens and eggs and what will come first: will it be the economy growing in order that pension funds can find more investable projects, or will it be a pipeline of projects ready for funds to invest in, which is what the witnesses giving evidence last Tuesday suggested they need? If the Government are clear, not necessarily that they will include mandation but that there is a stick at the end of the process if the carrots do not work, confidence in that pipeline will grow in order for those projects to be there. I would love those projects to include what the Liberal Democrats are suggesting—housing and regeneration of town centres, for example—as well as investment in renewable energy and an increase in energy efficiency measures.

• 4 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I declare an interest as a holder of deferred membership of a local government pension scheme in Scotland, which will come into scope should the Government amendments go through, as I imagine they will. First, I thank the Government for working with the Scottish Government to make these changes and for taking the decision to agree with the Scottish Government’s request for these changes to be made. It is appreciated. While I am on thank yous, the people who manage local government pension schemes are managing an incredibly significant amount of money and are ensuring that benefits are provided to many millions of people in those schemes. The hard work they do to steward those funds appropriately cannot be overestimated, so I say thank you to all the trustees who take that action on behalf of so many of us. Those working in the public sector tend to get a lower salary than they would in the private sector, but they often get access to a defined-benefit pension scheme or a career-average pension scheme, which is better than many people in the private sector get. There is a bit of give and take there. On Tuesday, we heard from the Local Government Pension Scheme Advisory Board and also from one of the pension schemes. There was a commitment that came forward in the evidence to ensuring trustees are appropriately trained—I am not for a second saying that they are not appropriately trained right now, but we must ensure that level of training is provided when they have many other competing demands on their time. It is important that the Government ensure the correct monitoring, evaluation and also support of those organisations, so that if new training is required—for example, if environmental, social and governance provisions change, or decisions about where it is best to invest funds change—the Government commit to ensuring that trustees are given all the training they need. I believe that all pension trustees have a difficult job, but particularly those managing local government pension schemes, who are often local councillors—a task that, I know, is not a part-time job and is incredibly busy. The other concern raised on Tuesday, and which was just mentioned by my Liberal Democrat colleague, the hon. Member for Torbay, is about the locality of the decisions made. It is important that the pooling of resources means more investment in important and key projects than would result from a smaller organisation. Hopefully, the reduction in administrative costs will ensure that those schemes are significantly more efficient, but I am keen that we do not lose the local voice within the pension schemes that we have now. The case was made very eloquently on Tuesday that, while pension schemes take into account value for money—what we would have called best value in local government in Scotland—in decision making, they should ensure that they are not supporting projects that the community are absolutely up in arms about, because so many of their members will live in that community. Scheme members need that guaranteed return, but they also need their communities to be nice places for them to live. I am slightly concerned that, with pooling, the ability for local projects to be put forward could potentially be lost. Although I am not asking for any specific changes, I would ask that the Government keep an eye on that. Should there be significant numbers of smaller projects that are not being supported because of the changes that previously might have been supported, the Government should consider whether they need to take action to ensure that those voices are better heard and that those smaller projects still have the opportunity for investment. Thank you very much for allowing me to speak on this, Chair. I am assuming that we have also spoken on the clause stand part and are unlikely to debate that again at the end; I have therefore made most of my general comments here rather than particularly specific ones on the amendments.

• 4 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Perhaps it reflects my ideological position that I am much more comfortable seeing this happen with local authorities than I am here, and I am looking for more guardrails. In fact, there are more guardrails around how local government pension schemes do this. It can be done pretty much only if it is to reduce employer contributions, which increases the amount of money that local authorities have for either reducing council tax, as the hon. Member for Wyre Forest said, or for spending on whatever it is that they want to spend money on a day-to-day basis. I would like to see more power go to trustees. I am concerned—this was raised previously—about the level of employer pressure that could come to bear on trustees about releasing surplus, when it may not be in the best interests of all the scheme members but the employer might be really keen to use the money. I am also concerned that we have had quite a lot of different ideas about what the surpluses could be used for. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Torbay, made the same point as the Government about ensuring that employers could invest more to grow the economy, whether that is in bits of tech that make the company more productive or workplace benefits for those who are scheme members. Why did the Government decide not to strengthen the powers of trustees in relation to the surplus release? Could the Government look in future at tightening what surplus release could be used for? Trustees have a fiduciary duty to ensure that members’ pensions grow as promised, and that they get the benefits that they were promised or that their defined-contribution scheme in other circumstances grows at the right level. However, if the fiduciary duty applies, why is there not a similar application in terms of surplus release? Why is there not a similar requirement on trustees to ensure that that surplus release goes the way that we think it should go? On Second Reading, I said that there had not been enough clarity from the Government about how they want that surplus to be released. Are they encouraging or instructing trustees to release surplus to employers if it will be invested in the business, or if it is being done to invest in workplace training schemes? I am not convinced that there is enough clarity on this issue. Given the Government’s drive to ensure that more people are working and that there is a reduction in the amount of economic inactivity, they could say, “Actually, if you are going to use this to improve access to work, to ensure that you can employ more disabled people, we will absolutely sign off a surplus release, provided that you have met all the other criteria.” The Government could encourage trustees to do that. I feel as though there are more levers that the Government could use and that they are not taking this opportunity. I have not tabled any amendments on this issue, but I raised it on Second Reading. It would be great if the Government gave me some comfort that they are considering whether—in the future with the Bill or, down the line, in the guidance that is given to trustees—to strengthen the hand of trustees, so that they can direct employers better and so they do not come under pressure from employers; or whether the Government will take policy decisions or directions, and point them out to trustees so that they are encouraged to go in a certain direction to ensure that there is growth in the economy, which is apparently the Government’s first mission.

• 4 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I want to ask the Minister about the comments made on Tuesday in relation to the transparency already required of local government pension schemes. My understanding is that local government pension schemes are already pretty transparent, and that they are required to publish significant amounts of information. On the amendment and the requirement for annual reporting, the case was made on Tuesday—I forget by who—that a particular moment in time may not give a true picture of what is going on. Investments may not provide an immediate return. In fact, pension funds are not necessarily looking for an immediate return; they are looking for a longer-term return so they can pay out to tomorrow’s pensioners as well as today’s. Pension schemes are one of the best vehicles for the patient capital that we need to be invested in the economy for it to grow, so I am little concerned that a requirement for annual reporting on specific investments may encourage short-term thinking. Can the Minister confirm what transparency regulations there are in relation to local government pension schemes and how they compare with those for other pension schemes?

• 4 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I was thinking about how the amendment would work in practice in my local area. I live in the Aberdeen city council area. We are landlocked. We are surrounded by the Aberdeenshire council area. If those local authorities were in separate local government pension schemes, the effect of the amendment would be that Aberdeenshire council could not class an investment in Aberdeen as a local investment despite the fact that its local authority headquarters are in Aberdeen. That is the only sensible place for them because Aberdeenshire goes all around Aberdeen, and it is the only place to which someone can reasonably get transport from all the areas in Aberdeenshire. Although I understand what the hon. Members for Wyre Forest and for Mid Leicestershire are saying about the classification of local investments, I am not uncomfortable with the fact that the clause includes “for the benefit of persons living or working in” the area. If, for example, people in Aberdeenshire invested in a new swimming pool in Aberdeen city, I imagine that it would be used by a significant number of people in Aberdeenshire, and would absolutely be for their benefit. We should remember that the local government pension schemes will have to prove that the thing they are investing in is for the benefit of local people living or working within the scheme area, although it may be slightly outside it. For example, if they invested in a small renewable energy project providing renewable energy to local people across a border, they would fall foul of this. It would not be classed as a local investment despite the fact that it would be very much for the benefit of people living or working within the scheme area. The level of flexibility in the clause, and the fact that the schemes will have to justify their investments anyway, is more sensible than what the amendment suggests. I understand the drive to ensure that provision is made for local investment in local areas, but because of the nature of some of those boundaries, it makes more sense to keep the clause the way that the Government have written it.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  If the Government amendments in relation to the local government pension scheme go through, I have an interest as I am a deferred member of a local government pension scheme in Scotland.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I am pleased to hear you talking about what scheme members want, not just in terms of the return that they are expecting, but also the projects that are invested in. My question is about consolidation and local concerns that people might have. For example, they may not want a wind farm invested in because they are worried about the infrastructure that goes alongside that. If there is consolidation, will that remove the ability to take account of local concerns and to find great local investment opportunities? Will it dilute the input that people have locally, because it is taking it further away from them, or do you think it will be okay? Councillor Phillips : As we already know, the establishment of the pools does take it away. There is no denying that. The important thing is to have member representation on pools. The scheme advisory board has always been supportive of that, although you need flexibility in how you do it; I certainly would not go for 50:50, because of the governance and regulatory responsibilities that the administration authorities have. I think Border to Coast particularly has employee representatives on there, and that works very well. In particular funds, you will have representatives on the committee and on the pension board. That is always important. Getting the right engagement is always going to be a struggle, with all the rest of it, but, particularly with some of the ESG issues, that helps to better understand some of the issues. Of course, elected members that sit there are representatives of their community as well. They are aware as well. They are also aware that when they sit at the table on a pension, they have a responsibility first and foremost to that pension.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Obviously, there is a mix of people on some of these boards that you would not necessarily find on other trust boards. I have been a councillor, so I am well aware of the different directions you are pulled in if you are a councillor or an officer in local government. Are boards able to find enough engaged members to be on them who have got enough skill? You were also talking about training and ensuring that they are better trained; is that something that you are working on currently? Councillor Phillips: Absolutely. We laid recommendations from the board before Government some time ago. They have now been implemented and rolled out, and that is very much a crucial part of all of this. The headline is all about the pooling, but the Government’s changes, and training and developing your members, are absolutely critical because of the important decisions that they make.

• 21 Jul 2025 · Asylum Hotels: Migrant Criminal Activity · Hansard source

  More

  We have a responsibility to deal in the truth and to counter plainly false narratives. The Minister talked about the fact that this protest crossed over into mindless thuggery. Every one of us should stand up here and say that to our constituents or to anyone who gets in touch. People are spreading rumours that have no basis in the truth, including in my constituency, where last year a rumour went around about asylum seekers in hotels. It had absolutely no basis in the truth, but could have caused some sort of mob, like in Epping. This is dog-whistle politics. What is the Minister doing to tell people that, just as not everybody in any community in our country is a rapist, not everybody in migrant hotels is a rapist? We should do what we can to ensure that people are protected and decisions are made as quickly as possible.

• 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.