Kirsty Blackman MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

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

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

  More

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

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

  More

  I would be quite happy with that. I have no issue with it. I think that no recourse to public funds should not apply to anyone. I especially do not think that it should apply to any family with children under five. So many issues are created by no recourse to public funds. Obviously, there are eligibility criteria for other social security funds. You cannot get universal credit if you are earning a hundred grand a year. Eligibility conditions are in place, and in some cases those conditions make a huge amount of sense, but if a family is here and has not been here very long, why should they not be able to claim PIP if they are working and need a bit of extra support in order to work? Personally, I do not see a problem with that, but then I think that migration is a good thing. I am not standing up in the main Chamber telling my constituents and the general public that migration is terrible and we need to stamp down on it. Aberdeen is a significantly better city thanks to the number of people who have come from different countries to live in it. I love the education that my children are getting about how different cultures work, because of the number of people in Aberdeen who have different backgrounds. I think that is a good thing that we need. We need migration. Scotland has a very different landscape. We are in favour of migration to Scotland, particularly for some jobs. For the economic growth that the Government are striving for, we need migration in Scotland. To return particularly to NRPF and child poverty, as I said, if we cannot get rid of no recourse to public funds entirely, getting rid of the situation in which families with children under five are subject to no recourse to public funds would be a good step forward. As the hon. Member for Sheffield Hallam stated, there is a significant issue around the numbers. I do not have much faith that the Government will be able to produce any numbers on how many people have no recourse to public funds. I have asked a string of written parliamentary questions about this issue in the past. The previous Government were very clear that they had no idea how many times they had stamped “no recourse to public funds” on somebody’s visa. Trying to find out that information may be incredibly difficult. The No Recourse North East Partnership really struggled to identify the number of people in Aberdeen who needed our help and support, or who could potentially fall into a situation of poverty if they were, for example, made redundant or homeless, or had similar issues. We would like to know the number who could potentially be in that situation, and whose children could be in extreme levels of poverty as a result.

• 10 Jun 2025 · Nuclear Power: Investment · Hansard source

  More

  This £14 billion splurge on English nuclear power plants comes on top of £22 billion for English carbon capture and storage, while there is nothing for Scotland’s Acorn project. With Grangemouth allowed to close and the fiscal regime ruining the north-east’s energy jobs, this latest announcement shows that Scotland is not an afterthought—Scotland is not a thought at all. If nearly £40 billion can be found for English energy projects, why has money never been found for Scotland’s carbon capture project?

• 5 Jun 2025 · Relocating Civil Service Roles · Hansard source

  More

  My party was pleased to hear the announcement that GB Energy is coming to Aberdeen, which we have consistently said is the only sensible place for it, as Members would expect an Aberdeen MP to say. Given that GB Energy will bring a maximum of 1,000 jobs over the next 10 years, will the right hon. Gentleman please encourage his ministerial colleagues not to suggest that those jobs will replace the 400 jobs a fortnight that we are set to lose in the offshore energy industry over the next five years?

• 5 Jun 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Tackling child poverty is incredibly important. On Monday, the Leader of the House told me: “I will ensure that she and the House are updated on the timings for the child poverty taskforce”. —[ Official Report , 2 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 33.] I would appreciate an update on the timings. When will we know when the announcements will be made?

• 2 Jun 2025 · Arms and Military Cargo Export Controls: Israel · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden) mentioned the Government’s red lines. The Secretary of State for Business and Trade said that there were red lines that would make the Government stop sending F-35 parts, but the Minister has just been clear that it is not possible to stop sending those parts. If the Secretary of State says that there are red lines—and how are we not at those red lines, given what is happening in Gaza—what exactly is going on?

• 19 May 2025 · Gender Self-identification · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you for chairing this debate, Mr Mundell. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) on moving the motion on behalf of the Petitions Committee. I will focus on the text of the petition by talking specifically about what a gender recognition certificate is and is not needed for. A person does not need a gender recognition certificate to update their driving licence, passport, medical records, employment records or bank account, and they do not need one to go into a toilet or changing room—nor do they need a birth certificate to go into a toilet or changing room, I hasten to add. The point of a gender recognition certificate is to allow someone to update their birth or adoption certificate. That allows them the human right of privacy. A gender recognition certificate allows someone to get married or form a civil partnership in their affirmed gender. Again, it allows them that privacy; it allows them and their partner to have the correct genders on their marriage or civil partnership agreement. A gender recognition certificate also allows someone to update their marriage or civil partnership certificate. A gender recognition certificate also allows someone to have their affirmed gender on their death certificate. Imagine if your partner, father, mother or child died and they had to have the wrong gender on their death certificate. Imagine how that would compound the misery you are already feeling. Those are the things that a gender recognition certificate allows someone to do. It might also change their pension entitlements, which is really important for people who are not getting the correct pension entitlements, particularly if their partner dies. People can apply to have a gender recognition certificate even if they have not had any surgery or treatment. The hon. Member for South Cotswolds mentioned the issues with gender-affirming care and gender identity clinics, and the extremely long waiting times even for initial appointments. Imagine if people did not have to have a gender dysphoria diagnosis to apply for a gender recognition certificate; they would not even need to see the gender identity clinic should they not wish to.

• 19 May 2025 · Gender Self-identification · Hansard source

  More

  I agree, and the court ruling made it clear that the Scottish Government had acted in line with the EHRC’s guidance, but that it was the guidance that was wrong, because it should have been done on the basis of biological sex, not gender. I am aware that I am pushing up against the time limit, but lastly, I am concerned about the direction of travel with the EHRC. It would be sensible to have an independent body look at making these decisions. Given the EHRC’s current positioning and the comments it has made—and given that, a few weeks ago, I was at a celebration of 15 years of the Equality Act and a number of people from LGB Alliance and Sex Matters were invited to that celebration, but there was only one transgender person in the room—I am concerned that the EHRC is not able to be an unbiased arbiter of the law on this issue. Actually, I think the EHRC has an impossible job right now, because we cannot interpret the Equality Act on the basis of biological sex. It does not make sense unless we tell everyone that they must have three toilets—if we are defining all toilets as single-sex spaces, and if businesses continue to be required to have single-sex toilets. The easiest way to solve this would be to say that every business should have unisex toilets for everybody, because then everyone could access every toilet. However, I do not think we want to get to that position, so the Government have only two options. They can either talk to the EHRC and ensure that it is being completely unbiased, or they can change the Equality Act so that its meaning is totally clear, including on the definition of sex. That way, it would be clear that we are actually trying to protect human rights, particularly the right to privacy and the right of trans people to die a dignified death in their affirmed gender, if that is the phrase we want to use. I think we are failing right now, and changes need to be made to protect our constituents.

• 14 May 2025 · Ministerial Code: Compliance · Hansard source

  More

  In recent times we have seen an increasing trend of the Government failing to make statements to the House first, despite there being no barrier to them doing so. Last Thursday was a mess, with the Minister of State for Business and Trade trying to withdraw the statement on the UK-US trade agreement, despite Members having waited here for seven hours for the statement to materialise. The decision to abolish NHS England was relayed to the House on 13 March, having been trailed in the media beforehand. On Wednesday 12 March, an urgent question was granted on an announcement that had been made the day before on the sustainable farming incentive being cancelled. On 6 March, a consultation on North sea energy that had been announced to the media the day before was relayed to the House in a statement. In February, the Government changed the refugee citizenship rules, and they still have not informed the House. On Monday this week, the Prime Minister announced the contents of the immigration White Paper via a speech that mirrored Enoch Powell, despite Parliament sitting later that day. This is a consistent pattern of behaviour by the UK Government. I am concerned that there is little point in having a ministerial code if the Government can ignore one of the key principles with no sanction and apparently no consequences. The Government are nearly a year into their term, so disorganisation or a lack of familiarity with the rules can surely no longer be cited as reasons for consistent breaches of the code. I believe that the UK Government should adhere to the principles set out in the ministerial code, and that the Leader of the House must urgently set out how she intends to improve the situation and ensure that there is adherence.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  There continue to be many problems with the Bill, but I recognise that the Minister and his team have had extensive conversations with the Scottish Government and made a number of amendments as a result. I welcome the communication between the two Governments and urge the Minister to ensure that the DWP team have extensive conversations in advance of the coming welfare Bill so that it will not need so many Government amendments on Report for how it interacts with Scottish legislation and Scottish systems. I turn to new clause 1 on carer’s allowance. It would be completely fair to wait until a review has been done—there needs to be a significant look into that—as clawing back money from people without seeing the results of that review would be incredibly problematic. I am therefore happy to support the new clause. On sickfluencers, I am concerned that although the shadow Minister has tried to draft new clause 21 to exclude people giving advice, it might unintentionally catch some of those people. On that basis, I am not keen to support it as I would be worried about people who offer genuine advice being caught up in that. However, I understand that she attempted to draft it carefully to try to avoid that. I would be more than happy to support amendment 11 —the SNP will support it—on the suspicion of wrongdoing. I am thinking in particular about the speech made by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). I was not going to mention the propensity of former MPs to claim things fraudulently, but in looking at who actually costs the taxpayer significant amounts of money, if the Government were to say, “We know that people who hold millions of pounds in offshore trust funds often dodge tax, so we are going to survey all their bank accounts,” I imagine that there would be some sort of uprising, particularly from some wealthier people we are aware of. But because the Government are saying, “It’s cool; it’s just poor people who will be impacted,” we are all expected to assume that this surveillance is fine. It is not fine; it is an absolute imposition on people’s lives. As many have said, it is treating everybody as though they are fraudsters. Let us look at the amount of money set to be saved. The Government will save less money annually than the DWP makes in overpayments. Rather than imposing on so many people’s civil liberties, surely cracking down on DWP official error overpayments, which would save more money, would be a better place to begin. It is absolutely daft. I completely agree with new clause 7, tabled by my colleagues the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry), particularly in relation to the reasonable expectation that people could understand that they had been overpaid. A constituent contacted me recently because they had a letter telling them that they are to be migrated to universal credit. They are terrified that they will be deported because the word “migrated” was used in that letter. They do not understand the language used by the DWP. Given that universal credit is so complicated to calculate, so many people could not reasonably have been expected to understand that they were being overpaid. The DWP should take that into account before looking at mass surveillance.

• 25 Apr 2025 · Devolution (Immigration) (Scotland) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making an important case about Scotland’s unique needs and the way that our democracy differs. To go back to the economic point, the founding mission of this Labour Government is about growing the economy, so will my hon. Friend explain the impact of increasing migration? What is the impact on the economy of bringing more people in to do more jobs in the economy?

• 23 Apr 2025 · North Sea Oil and Gas Workers: Transitional Support · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree, and my hon. Friend would expect me to talk about the University of Aberdeen and Robert Gordon University in my constituency. Along with North East Scotland college, they have been doing really important work as part of the Aberdeen city deal and the energy transition zone to ensure that we have skills for the future. Aberdeen council has created a significant number of jobs and things like foundation apprenticeships to encourage young people into the sector, but we need people to think about tech as well as make it. We have the right ingredients, but we need to ensure that everybody has confidence in the commitments that are being made. That is where the gap is. I have spoken to the Minister about that, and I have no doubt that he is strongly committed to that, but my concern is that the industry does not believe that the Government are strongly committed to a just and managed transition. About 12% to 17% of people in Aberdeen city are directly employed in oil and gas, and a significant number are indirectly employed, but there has been a massive reduction in jobs since 2014. We have recently seen an increase in offshore wind revenue, but there are 4,000 fewer jobs so something is going wrong. My key ask is that the Government listen to people and have a plan. The world looks very different now from how it looked in July 2024. When the Government were elected, Donald Trump was not in the White House and we did not have the global uncertainty caused by that. Something like 20% of the liquefied natural gas that we import comes from the US, and we are involved in global trading markets for oil and gas, so the increase in global volatility means that we need to think more seriously about energy security. We have had to do that since Russia invaded Ukraine and since covid, but the situation is even more desperate now. To ensure energy security, we must take control of everything we can, and we must not rely as significantly on imports as we will if the Government maintain their current direction of travel, particularly given that we do not have gas storage and are basically using LNG ships as offshore floating storage. My key ask is for the Government to listen to people. The Minister does go out and listen to people, but they are saying that the Government are not getting it right. They are perfectly happy with some of the rhetoric, but they are concerned that action will not follow. They do not yet trust the Government’s commitment to a just and managed transition. Whatever the Government’s views—whether they are committed to a just and managed transition or not—they need to ensure that people believe they are. That is the gap, and my suggestion for dealing with it is in line with the North Sea Transition Taskforce’s “Securing the Future of the Energy Transition in the North Sea” and Offshore Energies UK’s most recent report: we must ensure that there is a kind of mission control, so that there is somebody in charge of this. I appreciate that the Minister, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland are talking about that and are willing to answer my questions, but nobody seems to be in control. There is no oversight at a governmental level; there is no one person in the Government about whom everybody can say, “That person is in charge of the just and managed transition.” There is no group that has been set up. We have all seen just transition plans from many organisations, including the Government, but nobody seems to be saying, “This is the just transition plan. This is what we are following. This is where we want to go.” A commitment from the Government that they would be willing to look at the key asks from the OEUK and in the North sea transition plan would make a big difference. We need to say, “This person is designated the just transition mandarin”—or however we want to style them—“and they are in charge. This is who we go to if we have a concern. This is who will ensure that decisions are being taken across Government to protect these jobs.” There are other things the Government could do in terms of the £28 billion commitment and the spending review. There will be uproar if that £28 billion is cut during the spending review. I beg the Government not to cut that money. There is a Department for Energy Security and Net Zero consultation that has closed, and there is another consultation on the fiscal regime. My slight concern on those is about the timing. Oil and gas companies will make final investment decisions and plans for next year perhaps in August or September this year. If we do not have an outcome by that point, particularly on the fiscal regime, companies will say things are too uncertain and will not invest next year. Again, we will see the loss of jobs as a result. The timing is key. The Government may not be able to announce their final decisions—around the fiscal regime, for example—but if they could give industry a direction of travel in advance of investment decisions and financial plans being made, we would not lose next year. I am really worried that we are at the point where we will lose next year and all the associated jobs as a result. The Government are not yet getting this right. They need to do more listening and to ensure that they are taking control. The facts and the context have changed in the past year, because of the global changes and the job losses we continue to see. I am not asking the Government to row back on what they planned; I am asking them to consider that the context and the facts have changed and, therefore, that the plan needs to change to recognise that. This is not about having to walk back from where we believe we should be. This is about ensuring that people in my constituency, and people across the country, who are employed in oil and gas—75% of workers are employed in the rest of the UK—have a secure future. We cannot see a gap as oil and gas jobs go down and renewables jobs go up, because we will lose all that talent and the incredible bonanza that we are at the best point to take advantage of. We might lose that just because people do not believe that the Government are committed enough. Now is the time to take these decisions and to ensure that people believe that the Government are committed to a just and managed transition.

• 23 Apr 2025 · North Sea Oil and Gas Workers: Transitional Support · Hansard source

  More

  I thank all Members, especially the Minister, for their considered comments. This issue is bigger than politics—it is more important than kicking around a political football. I am glad that so many people focused on the jobs. We want to ensure that we can take advantage of the opportunity and not just try to avert total disaster, because there is a prize to be won. I will finish with a quote from Paul de Leeuw from Robert Gordon University, who has said that the “urgency has shifted dramatically.” Therefore, Minister, the time to take action is now, in order to protect those jobs. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered transitional support for North sea oil and gas workers.

• 23 Apr 2025 · North Sea Oil and Gas Workers: Transitional Support · Hansard source

  More

  We have a huge amount of work to do, particularly with young people. When I talked to Developing the Young Workforce North East recently, I was heartened to hear that a significant number of young people in north-east Scotland still want to go into engineering, which is incredibly important, whether that is in fabrication or not, because engineering is involved in all of it. I am worried that we will lose that, because the industry is ageing, and the same thing is happening in offshore oil and gas. People see that their uncle, cousin or grandad was made redundant in oil and gas, and they worry about going into engineering. If young people are not excited and passionate about the future of renewables, we will not be able to build the amazing tech that we need to ensure that renewables deliver a profit and work commercially, so I am concerned about skills. One of the key things that the Government could do is ensure more UK content and fabrication. We have amazing fabrication works—not so much in Aberdeen, but around the north-east and the rest of Scotland and the UK. That is a point that I wanted to make: this is a significant problem not just for Aberdeen but for the rest of the UK, given that only 25% of the jobs in offshore oil and gas are in the north-east of Scotland.

• 23 Apr 2025 · North Sea Oil and Gas Workers: Transitional Support · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered transitional support for North Sea oil and gas workers. I appreciate the chance to have this debate, Sir Desmond, because this is an incredibly important time for the oil and gas industry and those employed in and around oil and gas. I will lay out the context and where we are right now, and then talk about my key asks for the Government, given the current situation and people’s worries about the direction of travel. I want to start with a quote from the seventh carbon budget: “As of 2021, direct employment in oil and gas in Aberdeen has declined by nearly one-third since 2015. Household disposable income has fallen and poverty has increased…Some estimates indicate that around 14,000 people in the region will need to have moved to other roles or sectors between 2022 and 2030.” That is such a stark comment from a well-respected organisation, which has produced an incredibly useful and informative report. It says that household disposable income has fallen and that poverty has increased, albeit not in line with the national average—everybody is feeling the pinch of the cost of living—but as a direct result of changes to the energy industry and the lack of pick-up in the renewables sector to compensate for that. As a result of political uncertainty, the current situation and direction of travel, there is a real lack of confidence in the energy industry. We expect companies that have previously majored in oil and gas to fund a significant part of the renewables revolution. We expect them to put their money in and fund the offshore wind power that we will need. We expect their skilled workers to transfer into those industries. We are at the point now where we risk losing the significant edge that we have in skills, manufacturing capabilities and people. We risk losing that if the Government do not take action now to ensure that the transition is just and, importantly for this debate, managed properly. As a result of the lack of confidence, final investment decisions by oil and gas companies, or companies working specifically in renewables and not so much in oil and gas, are being pushed back. Whether that is to do with their inability to get grid connections right now or the Government’s changes to the energy profits levy and extension of the windfall tax—which, by the way, has been stopped in every other country that had such a tax—companies feel that the Government are not going the right way. Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce’s energy transition survey shows that political uncertainty and concern about the political direction of travel has gone from the seventh top worry to the top worry in just two years. Whatever the Government think they might be doing, and whatever rhetoric they might use, the industry does not believe that they have quite got it right, so they need to change where they are going.

• 23 Apr 2025 · North Sea Oil and Gas Workers: Transitional Support · Hansard source

  More

  I had concerns about the windfall tax in the first place. I thought that a windfall tax should be applied, but that it should have applied across the board to all those companies that made significant profits during covid, whether that was supermarkets, Amazon or oil and gas companies. Singling out the oil and gas industry was the wrong thing to do at the time. In terms of the comparative level of the tax, I do not know the answer, and I do not want to say something that is not right, but I felt that it was wrongly applied. A number of other companies made significant profits, and the oil and gas industry felt singled out, as though it was somehow different. I accept that it is different from other industries in a number of ways, but the levels of profit were not as high as they were in 2014, for example, and singling that industry out when supermarkets were making a much higher percentage profit than they had in previous years did not seem like the right thing to do. I appreciate the Government’s work on a skills passport for the industry. That is important, but there is no point having a skills passport if the jobs are not there. We have not seen the offshore wind industry increase at the pace we would like it to, and we cannot do all the work necessary to reduce the amount of oil and gas without those jobs for people to move to. In response to ET40, the 40th energy transition survey by the Aberdeen and Grampian chamber of commerce, one company said that “Forcing the end of oil and gas for our company before offshore wind is ready to replace the lost revenues” is one of its biggest concerns. That is how a significant number of companies feel right now. Companies are struggling to find people with the skills they need, whether in oil and gas or offshore renewables. The people who will be building offshore renewables will be working three-on, three-off shifts, in the same way that oil and gas workers do. It is really difficult to adjust to life on three-on, three-off shifts—it is not easy for workers to change their lives and ensure that someone is home looking after their kids if they have a family. Oil and gas workers have that transferability, because their lifestyle is already set up to do that. We are at a tipping point. The risk is that these highly mobile, highly paid oil and gas workers will go abroad. The responses to the ET40 survey show that a significant percentage of these people are moving to postings abroad either within company or in other companies. Despite the massive disparities in disposable income, an unbelievable number of people who live in Aberdeen North have been on holiday to Dubai. The majority of Members in this room will not have many constituents who have spent holidays in Dubai, whereas I have heaps, because they have that level of transferability and portability—they can up sticks and move to another country, because drilling is the same there. They might be doing it at a higher carbon cost and with fewer terms and conditions, but they are still getting a highly-paid job. They can uproot to do that, because they are used to moving around the world. If we do not take control of the situation now, we will lose the skills we need to power the renewable future, which is incredibly concerning. One of the UK Government’s founding missions is to grow the economy. We will not be able to grow the economy if we do not take advantage of this situation, and the time is now.

• 19 Mar 2025 · Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source

  More

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

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

  More

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

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

  More

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

• 3 Feb 2025 · AstraZeneca · Hansard source

  More

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

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

  More

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

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

  More

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

• 29 Jan 2025 · Welfare Cap · Hansard source

  More

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

• 29 Jan 2025 · Welfare Cap · Hansard source

  More

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