Kirsty Blackman MP: speeches

Speeches

• 3 Jun 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  It is also clear that the Prime Minister had made up his mind, and it almost did not matter what people said. There was an awareness of the article that had been published saying that Peter Mandelson stayed in Jeffrey Epstein’s house while Jeffrey Epstein was in prison—it does not get much worse than that. The Prime Minister had made the decision, as we can see from a whole lot of this documentation. I appreciate the reasons for how the redactions have been made, and I appreciate that this massive amount of work was pulled together by a significant number of people dealing with things in all different formats. However, there is a significant lack of consistency in this document that makes it really difficult to work out what is going on. For example, there are spaces in the document. If we look at page 199 of part III, Jon Garvie apparently sent a blank message, to which Peter Mandelson replied, “Quite”. I do not know how he could have replied “Quite” to a blank message. The document does not have stars, it does not say that the message has been redacted and it does not explain what the message was. At other points in the document, it does say what the messages were and what the redactions are—a certain picture, or something. As I have said, I appreciate the amount of work that was put in to pull this document together, but we are not getting the full picture. We are not seeing everything because the document has in some places been put together in a not very helpful way. I turn to the Morgan McSweeney messages. As I have mentioned, Morgan McSweeney has lost his phone and therefore cannot provide WhatsApp messages. However, on page 173 of part III, he has provided group WhatsApp messages. The document specifically says that the “messages were provided to the Cabinet Office by Morgan McSweeney”. As the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips) said, it would be really nice if there was an explanation of why the information that is not there is not there. She gave back a nil return: she was asked for her messages with Peter Mandelson, and she replied that there were no messages with Peter Mandelson. On the Morgan McSweeney stuff, for example, it would be helpful if it said against these group chat messages that he could access only these group chat messages through another method, and he could not access his own personal messages, which is why we do not see them, or that he had disappearing messages on, and that is why we cannot see them. We do not know the reason: we do not know if it is because there is nothing, or because there was something, but it has now gone. I think that the level of transparency we are getting is deeply unhelpful. On the speech by the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), I have never had a constituent say that they would like less transparency. I have never had one say that they would like to know less about why the Prime Minister appointed Peter Mandelson; they want to know why the Prime Minister appointed Peter Mandelson. Today is perhaps the wrong day to make a call for there to be less information. I think that our discussions about this decision should be centred on the victims. The fact is that the Prime Minister made these decisions knowing about the victims, and knowing that Peter Mandelson was friends with Epstein and continued to be friends with Epstein. It did not matter what red flags were shown up by the processes; the political decision had been made. We know that. We know that the appointment was announced in advance of these things taking place. We know that the decision had been made. We know that—for some reason that I am still not totally clear about—the Prime Minister thought Peter Mandelson was the best person for the job and the person who would do the best for national security, the people of these islands and the Labour Government. That was the decision-making process that the Prime Minister must have gone through. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom), said that we do not know what was in the driver’s head. We do not have that really key piece of information. We can have the driver apologise and say, “I’m sorry, I shouldn’t have done it,” but until they explain why they did it, we are not going to understand it, and the apology sounds hollower than I think the Prime Minister would like it to. On transparency, we know that, even though there has been a significant amount of work and there is a significant number of documents, we do not have everything. Some things have been held back because of the police investigation or because of national security. I completely understand and accept that that is the case. However, there are other things that we do not have. On 4 February, the day the Humble Address went through, I submitted a number of freedom of information requests to the Cabinet Office. I received an acknowledgment of those FOI requests and, on 9 March, I received an email telling me that there was a delay in responding. I have received nothing since. Despite submitting an FOI request on 4 February, I have received nothing but an acknowledgment and then one update from the Cabinet Office, on 9 March, telling me that it was very sorry about the delay. It would be very helpful if those on the Government Front Bench could ensure that I get a response to my FOI requests, because it is a legal requirement for Governments and the Cabinet Office to provide responses to such things and to make it clear if there is a delay why there is a delay, or if they are not going to provide a response why they are not going to provide a response. I would be interested to know how many members of the public have submitted FOI requests relating to the decision-making process or messages about Peter Mandelson, and have not received adequate responses from the Cabinet Office. I do not know why the Cabinet Office has not responded to me, but I would be concerned if it was doing exactly the same thing with members of the public, who do not have the ability to stand here and criticise the Cabinet Office. The last thing I want to talk about is where things are with the Prime Minister and his currency at the moment. The Prime Minister is not standing here defending himself. The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister is once again having to fill that role—I do not envy him. We have heard a defence of the Prime Minister’s decision from very few Members on either side of the House. I do not think anybody is trying to defend the Prime Minister’s decision. That brings us back to the Prime Minister’s judgment and to the fact that he made this decision. It was not, as some have tried to say, some civil servants or special advisers who made the decision. It was the Prime Minister who made the decision, however much his arm may have been twisted. Perhaps, as was suggested by the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, it was others who really pushed this appointment and did the decision making. Maybe it was down others, in which case why would you have a Prime Minister who can be so easily led by others that they are willing to appoint somebody who was friends with a convicted paedophile to the most senior role in the ambassadorial service? We must assume that the Prime Minister is not that easily led. We must assume that the Prime Minister cannot have his arm twisted by officials or special advisers, in which case he made the decision. He is not standing here explaining why he made that decision. He is not meeting the victims. The worst thing that has been uncovered today is the fact that the Prime Minister has had requests from those victims and not met them. That is despite the fact that we can see in the mass of documents before us the people who the Prime Minister did meet—people who my constituents would be much less keen on him meeting than the actual victims of Epstein. The Prime Minister has a significant number of questions to answer. This is not the change that he promised when he stood on his manifesto in 2024. This is not a Parliament that is working for the benefit of people. It is a Parliament that is continuing to hide things, and to duck away from having the difficult conversations and from listening to the people it really needs to listen to the most. The Government need to take a long hard look at themselves, change their priorities, and listen to the requests that are being made by the people who have been harmed the most by this complete shambles.

• 18 May 2026 · House of Commons · Hansard source

  More

  Mr Speaker, two of my colleagues have been elected to Scotland’s national Parliament, so this is a bittersweet task for me. Ordered, That the Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the Burgh Constituency of Aberdeen South, in the room of Stephen Flynn, who, since his election for the said Burgh Constituency, has been appointed to the Office of Steward and Bailiff of His Majesty’s Manor of Northstead in the County of York.— (Kirsty Blackman.)

• 18 May 2026 · Backing Business to Create Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  Madam Deputy Speaker, may I give you a heads-up? I am going to mention a number of hon. Members, all of whom I have contacted in advance to let them know that I will be mentioning them. There has been an awful lot of talk about regulation in the debate. I remind the Conservatives that the vast bulk of regulation that businesses are labouring under was created during or prior to their 14 years in office. A huge amount of the regulation affecting businesses that transport things abroad or sell things overseas is because of Brexit. There are many reasons why regulation has come in, and not all of them are down to this Labour Government. I agree that it is important to listen to businesses—something that the Labour Government are singularly failing to do—when they ask for easy, small changes to be made that will make their lives significantly easier. The Labour Government—all Governments —should listen to those businesses and consider making those changes. Since 2024, the Government have been mired in stagnation. They do not seem able to do or achieve anything. Some of the pre-consultation draft Bills that were suggested in the last King’s Speech never made it to Parliament—we never saw them—so even putting aside the current chaos, how can we believe that all the things in the King’s Speech will come before this Parliament for us to make decisions on? On regulation, the Office for Tax Simplification was started and cancelled by the Conservative Government. If we need a simpler tax system, then surely an Office for Tax Simplification would be the sensible route to take, but that is not the only burden that is faced. I agree that to keep people safe, keep businesses profitable and ensure that businesses can export to wherever they want, we need simpler regulations that make sense and have a purpose—not regulations that are there just because they are what we had 100 years ago, 50 years ago or 20 years ago. On the red tape around regulation, there is more to be done on pension funds. Despite the Pension Schemes Act 2026, which I largely support, there is still more that can be done to free up some of the money in pension funds. For example, I would love to see more pension fund money going into building more social housing. We know that we will get a return on social housing, as people pay rent on those social houses. I would love to see flexibility introduced, so that the Government can create pipelines for smaller-scale energy projects, such as renewable energy projects for communities, and social housing. Pension funds could then invest our money in them. We must remember that it is our money in those pension funds, but that money is not being invested in ways that will ensure growth, in both living standards and the economy. Touching on my constituency and jobs in Aberdeen, I recently met a business in my patch called Lows Tradional Fish & Chips. Lows is an excellent chipper; we call them chippers in Aberdeen, but everybody else seems to call them chippies. Lows talked to me about the increase in its energy costs, which have more than tripled. It is important that the UK Government consider that seriously. They claim that they have targeted support for businesses. It should not be just for high-energy businesses that have to use significant amounts of electricity and gas to make ceramics and other goods; that support should extend to smaller businesses that use significant amounts of heat—for example, in order to cook fish and chips. In Aberdeen, the fish is generally haddock, not cod. The Chancellor needs to keep those businesses in mind when making her announcement later this week—potentially on Thursday—about energy costs. Oil and gas jobs in Aberdeen are disappearing like snaw aff a dyke, which means “very quickly”. That is the legacy of the Conservative Government, who created the energy profits levy, and the result of this Government not listening to people. The Conservatives can talk about drilling all they want, but if they cancel renewables, there is no future for our energy industries. The Labour Government can talk about renewables all they want, but unless we fill the gap in between, all those folk from my constituency and across the north-east—the engineers, and the people who are innovating and creating amazing products that ensure we can exploit energy and provide energy security—will go away. They will go to Malaysia to work, and they will not be here, paying taxes and inventing those things. We need both types of energy generation, and neither of the two main parties are offering that.

• 12 Mar 2026 · Defending Democracy Taskforce · Hansard source

  More

  It was an honour to serve on the Speaker’s Conference and, in all the work that I have done on security, I have tried to be a voice for the smaller parties, and particularly for people who are further away from Parliament. One of the biggest strengths of the Speaker’s Conference was the extent to which it listened to Members’ experiences. I appreciate the huge amount of work that has been done to improve data gathering, and the fact that we are much better at pooling together our understanding of the threat, but will the Minister reassure us that Members’ experiences will be listened to, in addition to looking at the data, so that we can build on the strengths of the Speaker’s Conference?

• 12 Mar 2026 · International Women’s Day · Hansard source

  More

  It is always difficult to follow the hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler)—I am genuinely in awe of her speeches, including the one she just gave. I was also in awe of the speech made by the hon. Member for Gorton and Denton (Hannah Spencer). Like the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), I wish I had delivered a maiden speech that was anywhere close to as good as hers. Her passion for and her understanding of her constituents were very clear. So many MPs in this place do not understand their constituents or their constituency when they are first elected, but it is clear that the new hon. Member for Gorton and Denton is one of her people, and she really understands how people in her patch feel. Her constituents are very lucky to have such a representative. I thought about how best to approach this speech. Would I make a political speech, raging about all the injustices, or would I talk about all the unseen women—those who are doing all the heavy lifting, but whom we do not talk about and do not notice? I thought about how best to put across what I thought, but honestly, I have had the busiest week in Parliament that I have ever had, so I am going to try to give a speech in which I do not cry. That is my bar for today. If I do that, I will have won. A member of my team, Alma, is one of the most wonderful humans I have ever met. She was born in Denmark and spent a lot of time there. She was telling me that in Denmark, International Women’s Day is called Kvindernes Kampdag, which I have probably pronounced wrong. That means “women’s struggle day” or “women’s fight day”. It is about recognising the fight and the struggle that women face, but it is also about fighting and struggling for women. I thought that was such a good thing for all of us to think about, because that fight and struggle is ongoing; it has not been won. As the hon. Member for Brent East said, things are not in a good way. Things are less safe than they have been for a very long time. We need to continue to support, recognise and fight for the unseen women. We talk about unseen work sometimes, and about the fact that there are women doing jobs that nobody notices. Let me tell Members: we would notice very quickly if those women were not doing them, because things would not work. We are all here today, able to have this debate, because of a member of the House staff who ensures that these debates happen. It is her birthday today. I am not going to say her name, because she would probably kill me, but I want to recognise that she is one of the many unseen women in this place who ensure that we can do what we do, and that we have the time and space to make speeches. She has made the time this Thursday for us to speak about the issues affecting our constituents and women around the world. A number of people have spoken about oppressive states, and what is happening in the many countries around the world where the situation, systemically and because of how things are run by the state, is becoming worse for women. Some of that is because of various religions’ extreme interpretation of religious texts, which requires women to behave in a certain way, but some of it is not. Some of it is just because we continue to have patriarchal societies throughout the world. Men are historically bigger and stronger than us and are able to keep that patriarchy in place. There are hugely gendered expectations on young women growing up. That is made worse by the fact that they are on the internet. We see those gendered expectations not just in classrooms and on the television shows that young women see; they are in the games that they play online, and in the online spaces that they inhabit. They are everywhere that women are expected to be subservient to men. A number of us have spoken about women having to be better than men to get to the same position. I have spoken a lot about the phrase “hard-working families”. Sometimes, when people say “hard-working families”, they mean middle-class families; they mean people earning £40,000 or £50,000 a year. They do not mean people working as carers. They do not mean people trying to get four kids out the door in the morning, with the right shoes on the right feet. They do not mean the people doing the everyday jobs that we desperately need done. They do not mean the bus drivers, or the people working to ensure that all our lives run smoothly. The hon. Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) mentioned the way that we look at society, and the value that we give to rules. I have been thinking for a long time that we should really tip this issue on its head. We should think, “Which jobs do we need people to do?” We need people to be carers. We need people to look after children in nurseries. We need people to be teachers, nurses and doctors. We need people to do all the public-sector roles that we desperately need. However, we do not value those roles. We do not pay those people more than the living wage, in a lot of cases. Those are the people whose jobs we desperately need or society would fall apart, yet for some reason, we continue to think it is okay that they continue to be at the bottom of the pile. These jobs are overwhelmingly jobs that women are in, and we need to think about the gendered expectation that women will continue to do all of the hard work and we will pay them very little for doing so. Imagine if they did not—imagine if women went on strike. Imagine if every woman we know who is working in every job we know went on strike. How quickly society would fall apart if the women stopped doing all of that work that we do not see! That is why we need to fight for all of those unseen women doing those unseen jobs. We need to fight so that we can ensure it is not just women who are filling those roles; we need equal opportunities at the top of the pile and at the bottom of the pile. We need to be able to lift women out of some of those roles, but we also need to ensure that men can take up some of those roles. Perhaps we would get more pay for carers if more men were carers—there are some, but I think that would tip things in a good direction. I have a couple more things to say in relation to Parliament. I thought it was really interesting that the statement on the defending democracy taskforce took place just before this debate. I struggle more than I ever have to tell young women to come to Parliament and become an elected representative. It is harder than it has ever been. Part of that is because of social media and the toxic climate that there can be, particularly out in the world where there is so much polarisation and ideological position-taking, which results in the abuse that women and Members from ethnic minority backgrounds face. Standing in front of a class of young women and people from a variety of different ethnic backgrounds, it is very hard to say to them, “This is a great job—you should do it.” What I find myself saying to them is, “This is a really hard job. This is a job where you will face abuse, but it is worth it to make a difference.” I think that, across the parties, we are genuinely all working together to try to ensure that democracy is defended and that younger people—or older people—thinking about going into politics can truly consider doing so, and can take on those roles without fear that they will be abused. Again, the hon. Member for Brent East talked about the expectations on women. I remember doing BBC TV—I think it was the Queen’s Speech. I was sitting there, and the journalist turned to me when Theresa May got out of the car and said, “What do you think of Theresa May’s outfit?” I was like, “Um, she looks very resolute?” He said, “Okay, you’re right, I shouldn’t have asked you that. I’ll ask the man on the panel instead—what do you think of Theresa May’s outfit?” That’s not the point. It is not about what Theresa May is wearing; it is about what she is doing and the importance of this moment. Whether I agreed or disagreed with the Conservative Prime Minister, she was stepping out of that car as Prime Minister. It was really important, and talking about what she was wearing was not the right thing to do in that moment. The hon. Member for Brent East talked about those expectations—about being too smiley or not smiley enough—and the fact that we simply cannot win. No matter what abuse is thrown at me, I guarantee that I have said worse to myself. I am my own greatest critic, as are many of the women who I meet and know across Parliament. I am the SNP’s only woman MP right now, because of being wiped out by you guys, frankly. It is not that we did not stand lots of women—we did—it was just bad electoral luck on our part and losing lots of seats. As the only woman MP in the SNP, finding that fellowship and support across the House is really difficult right now, so I have been happy to support and work with people who are organising the women’s caucus and trying to get it off the ground, for the sake of people like me and women in other parties—particularly small parties—who do not have those natural relationships within our parties. We cannot find those people unless we happen to bump into each other in the Tea Room; we do not get that at group meetings. It is really important that we push forward with the women’s caucus, so that women can have that place where we get support; I commend all the Members who have worked really hard in trying to bring it forward. The last thing I want to touch on is menopause, because Members are right: it is not talked about enough. It is not something that I ever heard discussed in my home when I was a child. It is not something that I knew existed. I am sure I knew that periods stopped at some point, but I did not know much beyond that. The more groups of women who are past their 30s I speak to, the more I learn about menopause. I just want to say, how unfair is it that itchy ears are a symptom of menopause? These women have everything else to deal with; they are dealing with so much rubbish. For anyone who did not know, itchy ears are a symptom of menopause—I think that is my public service announcement for the day—so if you hear women in your life talking about having itchy ears, be kind to them and give them a bit of support. It is really important that we hold each other up, support one another and work on a cross-party basis to further the rights of women, and ensure that those unseen women are supported and that we pay an awful lot more money to people working in roles that, traditionally, have mostly been held by women, in order to recognise their contribution.

• 25 Feb 2026 · Grenfell Tower Annual Report · Hansard source

  More

  Nothing can ever undo the harm caused at Grenfell. I was in Parliament on that day, swearing in, when we saw everything that had unfolded. Nobody in my city of Aberdeen can ever get over the Piper Alpha disaster of 1988, but the resulting safety case produced by the Cullen inquiry meant that we had a much safer North sea and such a tragedy could never happen again, which brought people some solace. Will the Minister join me in urging stakeholders in Scotland to respond to the Scottish Government’s consultation on fire safety guidance, as we update the Scottish building standards to ensure that that guidance is as good as possible and all those working in that area can comply with it?

• 24 Feb 2026 · Online Harm: Child Protection · Hansard source

  More

  This makes me more frustrated than just about anything else in this place: the levels of ignorance, stupidity and hypocrisy from so many people in here, specifically about children’s access to social media. I fully intended to support the Lib Dems’ position, but the longer their spokesperson, the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), spoke, the less I wanted to do so. I do not believe that the Government’s position on this is 100% right. I am glad that they are having a consultation, but I do not like the way that they are amending the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which is a devolved Bill, to change the territorial extent to bring that into scope. A Bill that we have not scrutinised, because it is a devolved Bill, will now have a reserved section in it. At the moment, the Bill does not apply to Scotland, apart from one clause; now, it will apply to Scotland, because it will include this. As we have not had the opportunity to scrutinise it, we have not been involved in that process. I do not think it is right that the proposed amendment should come forward in this way, although I appreciate why the Government are doing it. That is why I am asking for the amendment to be shared with us as soon as possible so that we can see it, because we have not had a chance to look at the Bill as it has gone along. The Lib Dems have said that they have made their position clear. I have so far been able to find three amendments and new clauses to the Online Safety Act put forward by Lib Dems during its passage through the House. One of them was put forward by the Lib Dem spokesperson, who asked for an independent evaluation within 12 months of whether more platforms should be subject to child safety duties—this is the same party that is currently accusing the Government of kicking the can down the road, despite asking for a 12-month independent evaluation. There is hardly anything in the Lib Dems’ previous positions that helps me to understand their current position. The Tory party’s position is totally incoherent, too. The Tories refused my amendment on reducing habit-forming and algorithmic features. They also refused my amendments on livestreaming. By the way, before the Minister’s “Dear colleague” letter, livestreaming had been mentioned 53 times across the two Houses. A third of those mentions were me talking about how livestreaming for children should be banned. Before today, Roblox had been mentioned 32 times across both Houses—15 of those mentions were me saying that Roblox is not a safe platform for children. I am massively in favour of improving the online world for children. I think social media should be about looking at videos of cats. I love videos of cats—they are absolutely brilliant. That is what it should be for. I also think it is a great place for children to interact with one another. Like some others in the Chamber, I have been making the case that there are dangers on social media that can be easily tackled by changing the Online Safety Act. We could have got rid of those algorithmic features for children, for example. We could have got rid of livestreaming for children through the amendment I tabled. We could have got rid of children’s access to private messaging features with people they do not know, through another amendment that I tabled to the Online Safety Act. I do not like the way the Government are doing this, though. They are proposing an amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, and then we will have secondary legislation that will, possibly, amend the Online Safety Act—I am not 100% clear on how it is going to go. I appreciate that there needs to be a consultation. Before the 2024 Parliament, there were about three people in this entire place who had any grip of what the online world might have been like for children. One of them was the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah), who talked about some of these things. I asked the Minister at the time whether Fortnite would be included in the scope of the Online Safety Act, and they said, “If there’s text chat.” Text chat in Fortnite—it is an online game! There is not enough expertise in this place. Much as I hugely appreciate the people who work on writing Bills and the work of some of the experts at Ofcom, they are not experiencing the online world that children are experiencing. That is why we need to listen to ensure that any changes that are made tackle the most harmful behaviours, places and functionalities on the internet. I appreciate that the Government are trying to take action on this now. However, one of the few things that has made me cry in frustration in this place was one of the first things this Government did when they came in, when they brought in secondary legislation to categorise platforms and refused to include the small, high-risk platforms that had been added in the House of Lords. They said they were categorising as category 1 only platforms like Facebook, which meet a certain threshold. I was so frustrated by that choice by the Government. There needs to be more listening and learning about where the actual dangers are, and taking action on them. Please, do that in consultation with those of us who do understand this. Please, listen to experts on this.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Online Harm: Child Protection · Hansard source

  More

  I am confused about what the Liberal Democrats’ proposals are. The proposals laid out by the hon. Lady are not those introduced in the House of Lords. In the House of Lords, only user-to-user services were talked about, not addictive online gaming, for example. Are we discussing a Bill containing the proposals laid out in the House of Lords, or is the hon. Member putting forward new, ethereal proposals? I do not understand what this Bill is going to be. I was expecting to actually see it so that we could discuss it today.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I said I would not give way. Let me turn to where we are today. The Labour party is being a bit smug about the position we are in. The SNP has been absolutely consistent in calling for the removal of the two-child cap. Alison Thewliss stood in this Chamber and highlighted the rape clause at every possible opportunity; I think people got fed up with her talking about it so much, but she was one of the people leading the charge. On that note, I thank those Labour Members who did back removing the two-child cap at the earliest opportunity. I understand how difficult it is to do that, and I appreciate that they were willing to put their principles first. Today is a good day because the two-child cap is being cancelled. I am sad, though, that the Secretary of State said that he does not regret anything he has said before on this. That means he does not regret saying that it is “open to debate” whether the two-child cap causes harm, despite the fact that he is now saying absolutely the opposite. I am glad that the Government are finally scrapping this policy. Children should not be at the sharp end of Government decisions, just as older people whose winter fuel payment was scrapped should not be at the sharp end. None of them is able to take these decisions on their finances. None of them can work a few more hours: a six-year-old cannot do that; a pensioner cannot just work a few more hours, because they may be significantly over the pension age and unable to work. We need to recognise what has been said by a significant number of Members today, which is that so many of these families are in work. People are working hard; it is just that work does not pay—it does not pay enough. If we look at the stats, we see that people feel that the social security system should provide enough support for people to be able to live. We know that people living on universal credit—particularly large families—cannot afford the essentials, even if they are working. That is what this debate is about: giving people the best chance in life. The Government, however, are not going far enough yet. The strategy that came out of their child poverty taskforce was simply a reiteration of many things that had already been announced. It was a summary: “Here we are. Here are all the things we have announced already as a Government.” It does not have the ambition we need in order to see child poverty tackled. If we look at the stats, we see that the rate of children in poverty by the end of this Parliament will be exactly the same as it is now. This measure will not reduce child poverty over the piece; the same percentage of children will be in poverty as are in poverty now, because the Government are failing to have ambition. The UK Government should look at the Scottish child payment, as I asked them to do the other day. They should look at the amount of additional money being provided, particularly as of next year, to families with children under one, in recognition of the difficulty and importance of those first 1,000 days. They should look at those uplifts to ensure that people are taken out of poverty, at the baby box, at the Best Start grants being provided to families, and at the tackling child poverty delivery plan that the Scottish Government will bring out in March. Unlike the UK Government’s paper, which simply lays out a number of great things that the Government say they are doing, we have targets in our plan; We are looking at the actual difference that each of our policies make. I urge the UK Government to look at what is being done in Scotland and at the fact that child poverty is lower in Scotland than in any other part of the UK, and to consider what can be done to ensure that children have the best possible start in life, whether they live in England, Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland.

• 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.

• 13 Jan 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  This afternoon, I will present a Bill to strip Peter Mandelson of his peerage and kick him out of the House of Lords for continuing his friendship with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Since tomorrow afternoon is now legislation-free, will the Government please schedule the Second Reading of my Bill for tomorrow afternoon so that we can kick Peter Mandelson and all those who are pals with convicted sex offenders out of the House of Lords as soon as possible?

• 16 Dec 2025 · Electoral Resilience · Hansard source

  More

  In terms of looking at political finances, we are supportive of the review, and I thank the Secretary of State for announcing it today. Donations made to political parties are one thing, but donations made to either candidates or politicians are another thing and can be considered slightly differently. Can the Secretary of State confirm that this will be part of Rycroft’s review and that he will look specifically at donations to main political parties that are made outside the normal electoral cycle?

• 3 Dec 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I appreciate the chance to speak in this debate, especially without time limits—it is lovely. I absolutely love a very technical debate in the Chamber, but unfortunately not enough Members do. It would have been nice to see huge numbers delighted to talk about the technical aspects of legislation, but being a veteran of previous Finance Bills, I am aware that there is not often a huge turnout for these debates. I am thankful for—but have a few criticisms of—the Government’s position throughout the Bill. I will start with a couple of issues around timing. It is appreciated that the changes are being made. The hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) mentioned the Budget debates, and I mentioned in my speech then how delighted I was that the change had been made, and how great it was that pre-1997 indexation would be taking place. However, when I made my speech last Thursday, we had not yet seen the Government amendments. I was aware that there would be Government amendments, because it had been announced, but we did not have the opportunity to properly scrutinise them, or to consider whether those amendments should be amended, because of the timeline of when the details were provided. I appreciate that the Minister tabled the amendments in advance of the deadline, which is great, but there are questions that I potentially would have asked, and I may have tabled some probing amendments, if I had seen those Government amendments in advance. On the 1997 indexation, I apologise that on Thursday, when I was talking about this, I mentioned the FSA instead of the FAS—I apologise to the Food Standards Agency; I did not mean anything by it. If I do that again, I apologise. In terms of the PPF and the FAS, the PPF got in touch with me last week, and I had a good meeting with it about what the indexation will look like and how many members would potentially be impacted. It suggested that it was getting in touch with 165,000 members, which I thought was a very significant number, with an impressively fast turnaround in the time it was looking to reach out to them. Those are significant numbers, and I appreciate that. However, I am concerned that the uplift does not involve a one-off payment in order to bring the pre-1997 contributions up to some sort of level. The contributions were made pre-1997, so the compound interest on that would be unbelievable—it would be very significant. If there is no one-off payment to be made, and no recognition of the fact that the indexation has not taken place, then we are looking at adding 2.5% a year on to a tenner—or whatever—instead of 2.5% every year up until now, which would be a significantly different sum. I appreciate that the change has been made, and I also appreciate that the PPF levy is still going to have the potential to reduce to zero. The PPF’s plans are still intended to go ahead, and it is still able to meet its financial obligations, even with the changes that have been proposed by the Government. However, I would appreciate it if the Government considered the possibility of a small one-off addition to the pre-1997 accrual that members have, in order to bring them closer to what the pension should have been if they had had that indexation previously. Older pensioners are the group affected, some of whom are very unwell. As was mentioned by the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), a number of them are no longer with us. The Chair also mentioned Terry Monk, who has been in regular contact with me via email, and I thank him and all of the members who have fought so hard for this change. They have achieved something, although I expect they will probably go on fighting for more. I can understand that and I will be happy to back them in the search for more justice. On some of the other issues that have been brought up in this debate, around the fiduciary duties, the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) and I probably have a similar idea of what “best interests” looks like, what the words “best interests” mean, and what the interests of scheme members are. Some of the ideas that he was talking about around investments are ideas that I would fully align with. However, we can all define best interests in different ways. The shadow spokesperson, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), talked about the fact that fiduciary duties mean having to get the best returns—he said something like that—but it is not the best returns, but the best interests. Some people may define best interests as best returns, but some people may not. Some might define best interests as better transport systems for the majority of the scheme beneficiaries who live in a certain area, for example; if there were a more efficient transport system, more housing and better schools and hospitals, that would significantly benefit those members in that area.

• 23 Oct 2025 · Black History Month · Hansard source

  More

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

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

  More

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

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

  More

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

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

  More

  I really appreciate the trip down memory lane that the hon. Member for Wyre Forest has taken us on. I wish I had the tenacity to hold on to “I told you so” for 14 years. I am going to say it all the time anyway, even though I will not be able to hold on as long as he has. Turning to the Liberal Democrats’ new clauses 1, 40 and 43, I am aware that the Government, and the people of these islands, are looking at the sufficiency and adequacy of pensions and ensuring that people can have adequate pensions when they reach retirement age. I appreciate that the review is being undertaken and that work is being done, but this is about an additional way to ensure that people think about that as early as possible. I have a colleague who says “EMILY”, which stands for “Early money is like yeast”, and it is the same in election campaigns as it is in pensions. The earlier people boost their pension fund the more it grows, because of the magic of compound interest. It is great that we have auto-enrolment at a relatively early age—albeit not early enough—so that people can begin to grow their pension pot. However, I do not think people understand the importance of putting as much money as they can into their pension pot as early as possible, as has been said, particularly when they are in their mid to late 20s and have so many competing interests—trying to get on the housing ladder, or paying for their university debts or for small children, who cost an inordinate amount of money. When people have all those competing interests at the same time, funding their own pension can fall down the list of priorities. However, if they were aware of how important it is to put that funding in as early as possible and how much it would mean to them in retirement, they might make slightly different choices. There are an awful lot of good things in these new clauses that could be explored. Around 40 is a sensible age at which advice could be provided, as new clause 1 suggests, because that would give people enough time to make some changes. Giving people more advice when they are initially auto-enrolled would also be incredibly sensible. They might not read it then, but they might. The more we can do to provide people with advice, the better, because then they will have the opportunity to take it up. As the pensions dashboard comes online, that may create a higher level of interest in finding out what everything looks like. Earlier in Committee, I made some points about DC pots and the difficulty in translating that number into what someone’s annuity, or their monthly or weekly payment, looks like, and that only increases and compounds the problem. People do not understand what this means for them in retirement, because it is difficult to do those sums without advice. It is not easy to try to work out, and even if people are given advice at 40, although it may take into account their circumstances at that point, these could drastically change by the time they reach retirement age. They may have a very different level of annuity from that which was suggested, even with the same predicted pension pot growing in the expected way. On targeted advice for cohorts that are saving less, with the review of adequacy it would help if the Government would commit to ensuring that undersaving groups are strongly considered, so that all the advice and tactics—whether automatic appointments or ensuring that people are given access to the pensions dashboard—are in place for the highest engagement. Lastly, on the auto-enrolment sessions, I have spoken about how when people hit 50 they are posted a bowel cancer screening test, and when people are of an age for vaccines they are given an appointment and just need to go along. People are posted a letter or sent an email saying, “This is the time and date for your smear test,” and they go along. We recognise that preventive measures are important. People are much more likely to take up that vaccine or smear test and are much more likely to also go to that session if we make it as easy as possible. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Horsham, mentioned the Pension Wise service. It has an incredibly high level of satisfaction. If only any of us on this Committee or our parties had that level of support from our constituents—we would be absolutely dancing to get that level of positivity. The Pension Wise service has that level of positive feedback because people recognise and appreciate the advice. However, that advice is given once, or only after a certain point. My understanding is that a 25-year-old cannot phone, ask for an appointment and get an understanding of where things are looking for them and where that protection is. However, sending people an actual appointment and telling them that this is the time is something. They can then choose to cancel that appointment. Obviously, some people will not turn up; we see some people not turning up for vaccines. It does not stop us sending invitations to those vaccine appointments because we know they increase uptake. I have heard this Government—or maybe the previous one—complain about increased costs if there is an uptick in the number of appointments. There would obviously be an increase in costs and pressure on the service should more individuals engage. However, more people having a sufficient pension and being able to take informed decisions—pay more, or withdraw their DC pension in a sensible way, rather than just putting it into a bank account, which we have heard is what a significant number do—will save the Government money and contribute to the economy. If we increase the number of people with better access to more money in retirement we will grow the economy. Although there is likely to be spending associated with increasing the provision of advice, it would make such a positive difference to those individuals and the economy that it could not be a bad thing. I do not know whether today is the time to add the requirement for those appointments. If the Government were willing to consider the possibility of sending out appointment invitations, that would help. I would still support the amendment, but it would help. I know the review is taking place. If the Government committed to considering that as part of the review, that would be helpful—of course, if they could commit to just doing it, that would be better. Doing so would give us all an assurance and understanding that they are not just putting blockers in the way because it is been suggested by somebody else. We would like the Government to seriously consider it. If they are not willing, they should reply to MPs about why it is not possible and why they think it will not increase uptake. Hon. Members who spoke about the cost of advice are absolutely correct. It is not that people do not want advice—some may not want advice and will not care, others will just take whatever they happen to get when they hit retirement age and some do not have the capacity to understand the advice if they were to seek it out—but some simply cannot afford advice. They do not have the money today to pay for that advice. There is a group of people who cannot pay for advice now because we are in a cost of living crisis. Their electricity bills and so on have gone up and the price of food is still suffering from inflation. Those people may not have a couple of thousand pounds—perhaps significantly more—lying around to pay for that advice. The people who will have the most in retirement are the most likely to grow their pensions further because they are the only ones who can afford the advice. As the hon. Member for Horsham said, we need more people to know about Pension Wise, so that they can get some advice and make good decisions. I would appreciate it if the Minister would seriously consider all the amendments that have been tabled by the Liberal Democrats. Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned .—(Taiwo Owatemi.)

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

  More

  If you will give me a bit of leeway, Mr Turner, I promise to speak only once on default pension benefit solutions. I might stray slightly outwith clause 42. I am looking for clarity from the Minister on default pension benefit solutions. We have heard a lot of concern about how communications cannot be made to members, how there are possible issues with advertising and how members are communicated with. Can the Minister confirm that he is taking that concern seriously and has ensured that, under the General Data Protection Regulation and other data protection legislation, schemes can communicate legally with members in order to provide pension benefit solutions without being traced by the Information Commissioner’s Office or marketing regulators? Providers have raised that concern regularly. I made it clear on Second Reading and in the oral evidence sessions that I think this proposal is a good thing. It is a massive concern that so many people are taking a lump sum without any plan for what that might look like or how the rest of the money will enable them to continue to live their life as they would like. I am really pleased that we are moving towards a better situation. However, we have not asked providers to do this before; it is something new. Providers will have to upskill themselves to make this change, both in their conversations with scheme members and in assessing whether the solutions that they provide are the correct ones. Pension providers and insurers are used to putting people in boxes and saying, “This is a box of people for whom this solution might work.” However, some providers may not be used to clumping people together like that and providing solutions that will work for as many of them as possible. I do not think that there is a different way to do it. However, I would appreciate reassurance from the Minister that this will be kept under review; that there will be a significant amount of conversation with providers, as well as with scheme members who are receiving advice or a direction to a default scheme; and that regulators will keep an eye on whether the suggested default pension benefit solutions are appropriate for as many people as possible. Of particular interest to me is the review timescale. What will happen to ensure that the proposal is working as intended? As I say, I think it is the right thing to do, but I want to make sure it works. I want people to have the best possible outcomes in retirement. If the position is marginally better than it is today, that will be good but not great. It would be lovely if it were way better, and if people were being suggested or guided to the solutions most appropriate for them. We do not just want to move from people dumping everything in a bank account to some people not doing so. It would be great to know that the solutions provided were working for a majority of people. I would welcome any comfort that the Minister can give me on the review period and on what reassurance Parliament will have that people are being offered the solutions. As I say, provided that I get decent answers from him, I will be quite happy not to talk again for this entire portion of the Bill. I am sure that people will be delighted to hear that.

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

  More

  I am happy to support the Liberal Democrat amendment. I have already mentioned the Regulatory Policy Committee’s impact assessment—it considers the monitoring and evaluation plan to be weak, saying: “The policies are all due to be reviewed in 2030. More detailed plans are needed, outlining success metrics, reporting requirements, and methodologies, across the policies.” The amendment fits quite neatly into what the RPC said, which looks for an understanding and acceptance that there needs to be regular reviews, given that the Government have not committed to a three-year—or shorter—time period on this issue. There seems to be widespread support for the small pots consolidation across the House. This amount has been picked, and as I said in a previous sitting, there is not necessarily a perfect answer. It could be that change is required, or that all the companies and organisations that are consolidating small pots immediately manage to do it amazingly. It could happen as smoothly as possible, as a result of which the Government could decide to increase the threshold. I think that compelling the Secretary of State to look at this is completely reasonable to ensure that they are doing it on a relatively regular basis, so that the threshold can be changed if necessary. There is potentially widespread support across the House for ensuring that there is a requirement to monitor the threshold on an ongoing basis. It is not that we do not trust, agree with or appreciate the Secretary of State’s work, but it would give us a level of comfort that it would be done regularly should the Minister accept that, consider something similar on Report or, at the very least, make a commitment from the Dispatch Box that a written statement will be made to Parliament on a fairly regular basis explaining the reasons for keeping or changing the level.

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

  More

  I rise to speak to clause 10 and the consultations that the Secretary of State will undertake in advance of making the value for money regulations. Subsection (7) says: “The Secretary of State must consult with such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate before— (a) making value for money regulations; (b) issuing guidance under subsection (6).” I appreciate that that is in there—it should be in there, as it is important. However, I do not know the road map off the top of my head, although the Minister might. Will the value for money regulations be published in draft in advance of the final decisions being made? I understand that they will go through the affirmative procedure when they do come before Parliament, but, in order to consult, will the Secretary of State publish the drafted regulations so that all of us can see them? Also, on the right people to consult, I would always recommend that the Secretary of State runs those regulations before the Select Committee in advance of publishing them, so that it can suggest any changes. It is far easier for the changes to be made in advance of the statutory instrument being laid, when it is in draft form, than for there to be an argument in a Delegated Legislation Committee—I am sure that nobody on either side of the House wants there to be arguments in a Delegated Legislation Committee. We would all, I am sure, hope that there would be widespread agreement in advance. The value for money regulations are really important, and it is important that they are got right. I am pleased that there is to be a consultation, but I push the Minister to agree that it will be significant—not just a couple of people in advance—so that potential problems with the value for money regulations are ironed out, and we do not see 273 amendments to them down the line.

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

  More

  I think this is the place to do it. In fact, I think every place is the place to do it. When we debated the Advanced Research and Invention Agency Act 2022, for example, I proposed that the organisation should be created on a net zero basis. I have tabled many amendments to whatever Bill I have been faced with that have included trying to meet our Paris agreement targets. I have served on Bill Committees quite a lot in the past few years—something my party keeps putting me up to do, for some reason. The Paris agreement is the biggest issue. I have spoken already about how trustees are required to act in the interests of scheme members’ pensions rather than the interests of scheme members themselves. The Labour Government have tried to overcome that more generally, in terms of decision-making powers. They have tried to do that in Wales with the Future Generations Commissioner, who has the ability to judicially review decisions taken by public bodies in Wales. They can be called in for judicial review, and the Future Generations Commissioner can say, “This decision will cause a problem for future generations. It should be reviewed.” The Government are failing in their ambition to do the same thing in this Parliament. It is bizarre that I am about the only person in this place shouting about how great the Welsh Labour Government’s Future Generations Commissioner is—it is a really good idea. When people out there are asked what the major issues currently facing the world are, many—particularly younger people—say that climate change is the biggest crisis we face. Scientists tell us that too, so it is completely reasonable that we ask everybody involved with anything to consider the impact of their decision making on our net zero target and on climate change. We ask all sorts of organisations to consider environmental, social and governance impacts. This is another time to do that, because we are creating a value for money framework anyway. We want value for money, but we want the best value—value for future generations. There is no point in everybody having great pensions if they do not live to see them because the planet is not here for them. If we ask scheme members what they want, I think a significant number would say, “I would like more investment in things that make the planet a better place. I would like more investment in renewable energy and insulation for houses.” They would say that those are some of their priorities. They would obviously still like a guaranteed return too, but it is completely reasonable, in terms of the value for money framework and the best interests of people out there, that we consider the Paris climate change agreement. Sewage is important too, but it is not quite the existential crisis that climate change is. A value for money framework must look at value for money in a wider sense. One of the things we have spoken about in Scotland a significant number of times is population wellbeing. The Scottish Government are finally members of the Wellbeing Economy Alliance. That is not necessarily about saying that GDP is not important; it is about saying that gross domestic wellbeing is important, and that sometimes we must take decisions that are slightly more expensive but will have a significantly less negative, or more positive, impact on the planet or the wellbeing of the population. When we think about a value for money framework, it is completely reasonable to talk about the Paris agreement. It is completely reasonable to ask about it in respect of any Government decision. I have written to the Chancellor in the past to ask for a carbon assessment to be published alongside the Budget—what is the impact on the Paris climate change agreement of the tax and spending decisions taken in the Budget, and how do they get us closer to our target? I am happy to support all the amendments. As the hon. Member for Torbay said, they are not about forcing people to take decisions that are net zero in nature; they are about forcing them to consider the Paris agreement, or the regulatory targets for sewage discharges, when taking decisions. I do not think it is too much for us to ask trustees to be mindful of the impact on the planet of the decisions they are taking. The vast majority of people in my constituency do not have significant savings. If we look at the general population, we see that about 50% of people have less than 100 quid in savings. They have very little money and are not able to invest in renewables projects. They are not able to direct their money because they do not have any money to invest. What a lot of them do have, following auto-enrolment, is pots of money invested in pensions, but they have very little ability to influence how that money is spent. Scheme trustees have a significant amount of ability to influence where money is invested, but scheme members do not, in the main, have that ability. If we asked people where they would like to see their pensions invested, many of them would pick things that might offer slightly less of a return but are significantly better for the planet. The aims in the amendments are admirable and I am happy to support them.

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

  More

  The Liberal Democrat and Conservative amendments are very different methods to achieve a similar outcome. Conservative amendment 258 is a bit wider, in the sense that it would require the affirmative procedure for a wider range of things, but both parties are concerned about the possibility of regulations allowing a surplus below the buy-out threshold level. I think the amendments are reasonable asks. I am generally in the habit of supporting more scrutiny of regulations; upgrading the requirements for regulations from the negative to the affirmative procedure is very much in my wheelhouse, given that it is so difficult for Parliament to oppose regulations made under the negative procedure unless the Leader of the Opposition puts their name to a motion praying against them. In practice, that very, very rarely happens. Given that both amendments are asking for relatively small changes to ensure increased parliamentary scrutiny, particularly where the threshold drops below the buy-out level, I think that they are not unreasonable. I am happy to support them both.

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

  More

  I was on that one as well. Torsten Bell: We have all made life choices. The thing that I am trying to avoid—and the reason why there are so many at this stage—is what has happened with other Bills, such as the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill in the last Parliament. I do not want to table loads of amendments on Report, after the line by line. That is the alternative. This is a very large Bill. The number of amendments, in part, reflects the fact that everyone has signed up to a Bill that is complicated and very large. My judgment was that it is right to get as many of those amendments down now, so that you have them for line by line. Also, I have gone out of my way over the last 24 hours to spell out to you all where the major changes are. The substance and the purpose of the Bill have not changed. In almost all cases, the amendments are relatively minor and technical.