Kirsty Blackman MP: speeches

Speeches

• 2 Jun 2026 · Clean Energy Transition: Supporting People in Work · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden) is right: those jobs are not there yet, and we risk losing the incredible talent in our energy industry as my constituents move abroad to find jobs. My constituency has historically had some of the highest numbers of patents in the UK, so we have the innovators we need for the energy transition. How will the Minister and the Government ensure that this gap is filled and that people can find jobs to power that transition, rather than leaving us because there are no jobs just now?

• 21 May 2026 · Middle East: Economic Response · Hansard source

  More

  The UK is losing 1,000 oil and gas jobs a month. The Chancellor is aware of that, and we have made it very clear to her that we are keen to move to the oil and gas price mechanism as soon as possible—we urge her to do that. On the foreign branch profits announcement today, have the Government modelled the job losses that may occur as a result of this change in the oil and gas taxation regime? Can she tell the House how many jobs might be lost as a result?

• 19 May 2026 · Energy Security · Hansard source

  More

  Will the shadow Minister give way?

• 19 May 2026 · Energy Security · Hansard source

  More

  On protecting people right now, my constituents are losing jobs. Thousands of jobs are being lost every few months in the north-east of Scotland because of the Government’s continuing to keep the energy profits levy: Labour’s tax on Scotland’s jobs. Will the Minister make a commitment to move from the EPL to the oil and gas price mechanism in order to protect jobs for my constituents?

• 19 May 2026 · Energy Security · Hansard source

  More

  Will the shadow Minister give way?

• 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.

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

  More

  I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Local jobs would have been created. We have rural population decline; we need to encourage people to move to rural areas by creating those jobs. This UK Government, and past UK Governments, have failed the people of north-east Scotland who work in the energy industries. We need change, or those jobs will continue to disappear. Scottish National party Members have tabled amendment (c) to the King’s Speech. The amendment says, “having lost confidence in your leadership”— Oh no, sorry, that is not our amendment—that is what the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) said. I will try again. The amendment says: “It is clear that the Prime Minister no longer has the trust or confidence of the public to lead this change.” No, apologies; the hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) said that. I will try again to find the amendment that we have tabled about the Prime Minister and our confidence in him. What about these? “It is in the best interest of the country and the party that the Prime Minister sets out a swift timetable to ensure that a new leader is in place to regain the confidence of the public.” No, that was the hon. Member for Hexham (Joe Morris). I am sure I have got our amendment here somewhere, so let me try again. “It’s clear that the Prime Minister no longer has the trust or confidence of the public, or large swathes of the Parliamentary Labour Party”. No, that was the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Gordon McKee). “The Prime Minister has…failed to instil confidence in his leadership”. No, that was the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell). Sorry, I will find the amendment—it is somewhere here, I am sure of it. Does it say, “the public across the UK has now irretrievably lost confidence in you as Prime Minister”? No, that was the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed). I am sure I have the amendment somewhere. Does it say, “it’s clear from countless doorstep conversations that my constituents have lost confidence in him”? No, that was the hon. Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger). I am sure it is here. Does it say that “you, Prime Minister, have lost the trust and confidence of the public”? No, that was the hon. Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh). Our amendment says: “At end add ‘but respectfully regret to inform Your Majesty that the Prime Minister does not have the confidence of this House.’” Given my amazing confusion about the similarity between what a significant number of Labour Members have said in public and our amendment—it is almost the same wording—I assume that our amendment will be by far the most popular amendment tabled. It clearly has significant cross-party support. I have not yet heard any Member talk in the Chamber today about their confidence in the Prime Minister.

• 11 Mar 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q7. Westminster’s tax on Scotland’s energy is holding back investment, and it is costing thousands of families their livelihoods. After months of refusing to do so, the Chancellor has now finally said that she is committed to change. Will the Prime Minister confirm to the House today when the oil and gas price mechanism will be introduced to provide certainty for jobs, certainty for investment and, crucially, certainty for energy security?

• 10 Mar 2026 · Cost of Living: Families · Hansard source

  More

  Inflation might be lower than projected, but prices are still rising. Fuel prices at the pumps might be lower than the Tories promised, but they are still higher than they were, and energy costs are still not down to what the Government promised in their manifesto. Will the Chancellor recognise that families are really struggling at the moment and put in an emergency package of measures to support them through the cost of living crisis?

• 9 Mar 2026 · Unemployment: Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  One in three—or more than one in three—people in my constituency are employed directly or indirectly or in induced jobs in the offshore energies industries. Given the continuation of the tax system for oil and gas, investment in that industry has reduced. Is the Secretary of State confident that the Government’s measure of the number of jobs lost, particularly in the oil and gas industry, is truly accurate, given that people are generally not signing on for universal credit but rather doing things such as moving to Dubai and Doha?

• 9 Mar 2026 · Middle East: Economic Update · Hansard source

  More

  Families are already struggling with the ongoing cost of living crisis, and the Chancellor has failed to bring down energy bills in the way that was promised in the manifesto. As prices continue to soar and international events cause people real anxiety as they look on, people are struggling and feeling the squeeze from the cost of living more than ever before. Will she now recognise that this is a crisis for families and put in real support to help them through the cost of living crisis?

• 3 Mar 2026 · Spring Forecast · Hansard source

  More

  It is not just an uncertain period for North sea workers; it is a crisis, and it has been a crisis for years. Investment has completely disappeared, jobs are being haemorrhaged and events make it even more clear why we need a home-grown energy supply and why we cannot rely on importing from overseas. Will the Chancellor, as she meets North sea leaders tomorrow, listen to their calls on the energy profits levy, give confidence on the future of the industry and ensure that my constituency and those across the UK do not continue to haemorrhage these jobs?

• 26 Jan 2026 · Cost of Living: Support for Families · Hansard source

  More

  Food and energy costs remain high, and a significant number of families are struggling—more than they ever have before—to try to make ends meet. Has the Minister given any consideration to matching the SNP’s Scottish child payment to ensure that more families with children can be kept out of poverty?

• 14 Jan 2026 · Science and Discovery Centres · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you for keeping us all in line today, Mrs Harris—although I think this is a fairly good-tempered debate, because we are all in favour of our local science centres. I congratulate the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden) on introducing the debate. It was really cool to hear about the CAT; it is one of those science centres that has been around a bit longer than the others, but it sounds as though it is doing absolutely amazing work. That is one of the things I wanted to touch on: although this is a network of science centres, they are all different. They all work for the benefit of their local communities, looking at the innovation, technology and science that makes the most sense for those, rather than the Government’s priorities, because that is how it should be. They should be capturing the imagination of the people in the local area, and they can do that only if it is relevant and if they are able to keep moving with the times and catching that imagination. In Aberdeen we have the Aberdeen Science Centre, which was in my constituency until the boundaries changed. It was refurbished in 2020 and is in a stunning building—it was an old tram shed, so it looks really cool—but it was first opened in 1990 on a different site, and next month it will be 36 years old. I think I first visited the Aberdeen Science Centre, which was originally called Satrosphere, before I even went to school. It has always been part of the fabric of our city. Everybody goes there as a schoolchild; it is a place that everybody goes along to and visits, and that everybody knows about. When the centre moved to the new premises, it suggested getting rid of one of the exhibits, which is a sheep: visitors press the button and the sheep eats the food, and it goes around the sheep and then something comes out the other end. There was uproar from the parents of the children who currently go to the centre, saying, “How dare you get rid this exhibit that we loved when we were children?” The comment that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr made—that a visit as a child can have a lifelong impact—absolutely resonates. Everyone who has had those science centres in their life for as long as I have will remember those visits when they were a child. I sometimes find it difficult in debates when we talk about the economic impact of these things or the innovation they drive. We could also just talk about the fact that they are joyful places to be. We do not have to justify an art gallery on the basis of its economic impact; we can justify these science centres on the fact that they create curiosity and joy in children—and adults. I love going to science centre; it is very difficult to get me out of Aberdeen. I come to London for work, but I do not like leaving my city; it is the best place on earth. However, I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee Central (Chris Law) that the Dundee Science Centre is one of the few places that I would trail to with my children when they were little, because it is absolutely excellent. It had diggers that they could play with, and my little boy, who was tractor-obsessed, completely loved going to visit. As the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) was saying, in this time when people are willingly denying facts and we are fed up of experts, having that hands-on experience of science and actually talking about how the earth moves and the way that climate change is changing our society and creating extreme weather events, or about the industries in the local areas and the science that fuels them, gets the next generation of people excited about those things. It gets them thinking about how those things work in a way that the school classroom cannot always manage. Sometimes it does—sometimes we are lucky enough to have an inspiring teacher who can make us think and consider the future; there are many of them out there—but going and getting hands-on in a science centre is something really special. Lastly, on the differences that there are, our science centre in Aberdeen has, in recent times, covered climate change and has had a link with NASA when it had a spacecraft made in the science centre. It is currently running a Demystifying AI programme and there are some ridiculous photos of me in the science centre trying out virtual reality, because I always get super excited by it. Given the importance of these centres to us and all our constituents, the changes they make in people’s lives and their lifelong impact, it is reasonable for us to ask two things: please look at funding, and please choose a Government Department. It does not cost the Government anything to do that. Just choose one—and champion these centres.

• 18 Dec 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  If I may crave your indulgence for a brief moment, Mr Speaker, I thank you and your deputies for all your service this year; all House staff, particularly those who keep us safe and those who will be working over Christmas; and all Members’ staff, who will in many cases continue to be on the frontline in helping people over Christmas. In Aberdeen, the fiscal situation means that a number of people are losing their jobs in the oil and gas industry. The Department for Work and Pensions and the Treasury measure that by looking at how many people are claiming unemployment benefits, such as universal credit. That misses the key point that many people are moving abroad, retiring or simply moving out of the workforce completely and not claiming benefits. Will the Leader of the House ask the Work and Pensions Secretary and the Treasury whether there is a better way to measure accurately the number of jobs that are being lost?

• 3 Dec 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

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

• 27 Nov 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  I will start by welcoming a few of the measures in the Budget. I was contacted yesterday by the Pension Protection Fund about the indexation of pre-1997 pensions. The hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) fought hard for this on the Pension Schemes Bill Committee, and I spoke about it on a number of occasions, so I am pleased that this change is being made. I think it will make a real difference to the oldest and poorest pensioners who are covered by the Financial Services Authority. I want to talk about the two-child benefit cap. Alison Thewliss, previously my colleague, who fought very hard to get the rape clause removed, is delighted that this change is being made. The SNP has worked incredibly hard on this, not just over the course of this Parliament, in which we have moved two votes in the House specifically on the two-child benefit cap, but in previous Parliaments, because we know that it is the most cost-effective way of taking children out of poverty. In fact, yesterday in Scotland we tabled measures to mitigate the two-child cap in Scotland from next year. Thankfully we will no longer have to mitigate that policy, because the UK Government have agreed to do it. We are pleased that this has happened and are very glad that the Government have caught up. However, I point out that it has taken some time, and about 100 children a day have been pushed into poverty as a result of keeping the cap in place. I invite Labour Members to reflect on the fact that a number of their colleagues were suspended for supporting my party in our move to scrap the two-child benefit cap. If it is the right thing to do today to get children out of poverty, it was the right thing to do then. Turning to the total welfare bill, I have heard of a number of people—particularly from parties that are further to the right—talking on the radio about the growth of the total welfare bill and the fact that by the end of the forecast period it will reach £406 billion. The growth that is happening is about £91.5 billion, and almost half of that —£44 billion, which is 48%—is in pensions alone. I do not think it is right to couple those two things together when talking about the growth of the welfare bill. I understand that people do, and that the Red Book and Blue Book also couple them together. However, when people who say that we should get the welfare bill down talk about this £406 billion figure, they really need to be clear that half of that increase is in pensions. It is because we have the pensions triple lock and an increase in the number of pensioners. Looking at the OBR’s figures in the fiscal risks report that was published in July, out to 2070 there is a significant increase in the percentage of GDP going to pensioners—from 5% to 7.7% by 2070. I am aware that it is quite a way in the future, but we need to be clear that, because of the growing number of older people, and the fact that they are living longer, there is an increase in the number of pensioners. Therefore, there is an increase in the amount we are spending on pensions. It is right for the Government to have to justify why they are increasing the welfare bill, but talking about that entire £406 billion figure as an increase in the welfare bill is not the right way to go about it, if that is what we are looking to tackle. There are a couple of things more that I want to raise. With regard to energy prices and the cost of living generally, on coming into power, the Labour Government promised a £300 reduction in energy prices. Even with the Chancellor’s changes, we have seen a continued increase in the cost of energy. In fact, even with a £150 rebate, there will be more money on energy bills for the average family than when the Labour Government came into power. The SNP put forward a proposal in advance of the Budget talking about a bank levy similar to one that was introduced previously, specifically to pay £300 to billpayers to ensure that that Labour promise was met. We still believe that the cost of living is too high. Let us look at the current 4.9% level of food inflation. It is impossible not to buy food; everybody has to buy food, just like they have to pay for energy. People can avoid taking foreign holidays and they can avoid buying a car, but they cannot avoid buying food and paying for their homes to be heated. Those inflation figures are therefore key and important. Lastly, as hon. Members would expect, I will talk about the energy profits levy and oil and gas. Yesterday, alongside the Budget, the North sea future plan was published, and that entire document includes one mention of the energy profits levy and just when it talks about responses to surveys. Not once in that entire document do the Government mention the energy profits levy. I receive emails from people about oil and gas and the just transition, and the energy profits levy is the key measure that is causing a thousand jobs a month to be lost. If economic growth really is the Government’s key priority, they need to look at the energy profits levy, and they need to do so before 2030. My constituents are losing their jobs and that economic growth is failing as a result of this UK Government’s policies.

• 4 Nov 2025 · Welfare Spending · Hansard source

  More

  It is interesting to hear what is being put forward, considering that this lot on the Conservative Benches created the welfare system that we currently have, and that lot on the Labour Benches are keeping it going. The reality is that the mini-Budget that massively changed house prices and meant mortgage interest rates went through the roof has contributed to the cost of living crisis. The reality is that Brexit has meant that we are all worse off. The reality is that, with a UK Labour Government now, the economy is not growing: there is no creation of jobs and, for example, we still have a massive issue with productivity. We still have an incredibly broken system, and the problem is Westminster—it is all of you; every one of you on both sides has contributed to the current system. People are not standing up today to talk about the fact that we have child poverty, and to say that what the welfare system should be doing is improving that system so we do not have so much child poverty. Child poverty is reducing in Scotland. However, the child poverty strategy was pushed back from the spring to the autumn, and now the Minister for Social Security and Disability is saying that it will be the end of the year. When he stood up, he said he was going to seek the support of the House for the Government’s mission, but he is not actually going to do so. What he is going to do tonight is vote against the Tory motion. The Government have not put forward an amendment laying out their plans for what they intend to do. The Tory motion is a complete and total mess. The Tories seem to be trying to assign value to humans. They seem to be saying, “As long as you’re earning a significant amount of money, you were born in the UK and you’re a British citizen, you’re okay. If you are not—if you don’t fit in those boxes—you are somehow less valuable.” Both sides have been making the argument that people are either getting universal credit and other benefits or they are in work, but those two things are not mutually exclusive. For a significant number of people, work does not pay. The income of a significant number of people has to be supported by the welfare system, because the economy that both sides have created means they are not getting enough money to be able to pay for the basic things they need. The price of butter, olive oil, potatoes and rice has gone through the roof, and people cannot afford their energy bills because of rampant inflation, which continues, and the cost of living crisis continues to bite because wages have not kept pace with those prices. The current welfare system is not reducing poverty, but it also has to support people currently in work because they are not getting enough money. If the Conservatives are assigning value to humans—saying that people who are not UK citizens do not necessarily deserve benefits—they are going to be having very interesting conversations with expats in Spain and Canada, with which we have reciprocal social security arrangements. They will be immensely furious that they will no longer be eligible for any of the support they receive from those Governments, and I think it is bizarre for the Conservatives to support such a position, given how many of those expats are Conservative voters who are going to be monumentally stuffed as a result of the Tory position. I think it is absolutely ridiculous that we are here listening to the Conservatives, who created this system, arguing about how terrible it is. What we should be doing—

• 27 Oct 2025 · North Sea Oil and Gas Industry · Hansard source

  More

  Every single one of us has been criticising Government policy, not criticising Petrofac, the expertise and workers at Petrofac, or any of the workers in our oil and gas industry. The Minister says that he has been spending time in Aberdeen. Does he have any idea how it feels to be in Aberdeen just now, with another hammer blow coming? And it is because of the Government’s policies; it is because there is this massive gap. Skilled workers in the oil and gas industry will just go abroad; they will go elsewhere. It does not matter whether we retrain them; the jobs are not there for them right now. What is he going to do to plug that gap? What will he do to keep these skilled workers in Scotland, in Aberdeen and in these islands, and not drive them away?

• 23 Oct 2025 · Black History Month · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree. I have met the Association for Black and Minority Ethnic Engineers. Unfortunately, I did not realise it was having its conference next week, but I thank the hon. Member for letting me know. It is a fabulous organisation. There continues to be a very tough glass ceiling in engineering. We are getting a huge number of more diverse candidates and graduates coming through in engineering, but at the highest levels of senior management—for example, in the energy industry—we are struggling to make that breakthrough, and to have enough black and minority ethnic individuals, so I support his comments. I support the Association for Black and Minority Ethnic Engineers, and I will do everything I can to assist it in breaking that glass ceiling. There is also a glass ceiling for female engineers. There is intersectionality here; it is particularly difficult for black female engineers to get to the highest senior management positions. I will keep doing everything I can to support that organisation and others. To build on what the Mother of the House said, and what the hon. Member for Brent East said about the protests, the societal views being expressed right now are horrific. However, there has been an undercurrent for a very long time, and this is stuff that people have been thinking. Part of what drove some people to vote for Brexit was views such as, “There’s too much immigration—I don’t want all these people here.” I am sure all Labour Members have read “The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists”; they will know that it talks about the Conservatives of the time putting forward the racist narrative that “All your problems are caused by the immigrants. We just need to get rid of them.” This has been a narrative for 100 years, and we still need to counter it—perhaps more so today than ever, and certainly more than we have needed to at any other point in my adult life. We need to do everything we can to stop these racists being allowed to say anything they want.

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

  More

  Although I am delighted by the intention of the hon. Member for Wyre Forest to get one over Reform with amendment 275, and I am quite happy to back that notion, I am also pretty happy with nationalised water in Scotland. Scottish Water is significantly better performing than the other water companies, so I would not automatically say that nationalised water is a bad thing, given that our water is lovely in Scotland. However, we could do with a little more rain on the north-east coast, given that we have had the driest spring and summer for 40 years, which is not ideal. I gently disagree with the hon. Member because the amendment does not take into account the Scottish context. I would love to see more investment in Scottish Water from pension funds or from Government-led investment vehicles or decision making. On amendments 248 and 249, I am much more relaxed about mandation than the Conservatives are, as Members might expect given my ideological position. I have much less of an issue with going in that direction. I have heard all the Government have said about not planning to use those powers. It is reasonable for the Government to direct the economy in certain directions—that is what tax and Government spend are for. A good chunk of that is about ensuring that we make interventions so that the economy grows in the way that we want it to. In many cases, Governments have historically refrained from picking winners when a decision to do so could have grown the economy faster. For example, historically, the Government could have given more backing to certain ports to ensure that they could grow, particularly through renewable energy or by building offshore wind farms, because we could do with more local capacity throughout the UK. Had Governments of all colours been clearer about which areas and regions they were backing, that understanding could have enabled those areas to win more contracts. On new clause 4, the options for how mandation could work and the investment vehicles that are in place, I have talked about affordable and social housing development. The biggest thing the Government could do to encourage social housing, in particular, is to cancel the right to buy, which would allow local authorities to build significant levels of social housing. That is how we are managing to increase our housing stock in Scotland. We are not there yet—nobody says that we are—but we are able to build new social housing in Scotland at a scale that most local authorities south of the border are not, because cancelling the right to buy has made it affordable. I would love to see more investment in social housing. I would have liked renewable energy to be included in the Lib Dems’ new clause 4. I appreciate that we cannot include everything, but it would have been nice, particularly when it comes to smaller renewable energy projects and in combined heat and power initiatives. Large-scale CHP makes a really positive difference in Aberdeen city. We have a large combined heat and power network, which heats a significant number of our multi-storey blocks at far lower prices. They are still seeing an increase in prices, absolutely, but they do not need to worry about putting money in the meter, because they know they will have hot water and heating for a fixed monthly fee, rather than paying more in winter and less in summer. Lastly, harking back to the Future Generations Commissioner for Wales, it would be interesting for the Government to consider whether any potential mandation benefits future generations, given the intergenerational gap and given that people my age and younger are increasingly of the view that we will never get a state pension, because it will simply not exist by the time we reach retirement age—I am sorry if not everybody is at that level of cynicism, but most people my age and younger are. Looking at where our private pensions are invested and at the Government’s direction of travel, it would at least be an interesting thought exercise, in advance of any Government decision on mandation, to consider whether that money would benefit future generations or make things worse for them. In Wales, decisions can be called in for judicial review, should a public authority act against the wellbeing of future generations. Looking at whether investments that could be directed by the Government would benefit or have a detrimental impact on future generations would be an interesting way to tie the Government’s hands. That way, we could see investment not simply in massive motorways, High Speed 2 or dual carriageways, but in things that have a demonstrable benefit, or at least no adverse impact, on the wellbeing of future generations. Surely that should be a positive thing for us all, given our huge responsibilities for the future of the planet and to those who will be living on these islands. Requiring that to be considered when the Government look at mandation could be a great way to do it. I am not sure what I will do when we come to new clause 4—it will be voted on at the very end because it is a new clause. I like the idea, but I am not convinced that I would go down that exact route. I will not be supporting the Conservative amendments in this group, which I understand the shadow Minister is terribly shocked about, but there are places where we can have significant ideological disagreements, and this is definitely one of them.

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

  More

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

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

  More

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

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

  More

  Q In relation to private assets and the investment in them, is the balance between carrots and sticks correct in the Bill, or should more carrots, for example, be provided to encourage that investment? Tim Fassam: That is another very good question. As the previous witnesses said, it is important to ensure that there is a pipeline of assets coming to us. A lot of what the Government are doing with the national wealth fund and the British Business Bank is helping with that. We would like to see—we would say this, wouldn’t we?—a little more focus on insurance versus banks. Banks are a vital form of capital—I am absolutely not suggesting they are not—but there is a skew towards banks. A few more insurance experts in the national wealth fund, and ensuring we have that pipeline of investable assets, could be valuable. We are very lucky in the UK that we have fantastic start-ups, and amazing universities that are generating brilliant ideas. What we really need is scale-up capital. At the moment, about 70% of firms that need major scale-up capital go overseas for it, and then their head office moves. We need to make sure that we have an attractive environment for those firms to stay in the UK, and that is where scale comes in. A number of witnesses have talked about the benefits of economies of scale and professional asset management capability. That is absolutely right; they are critical benefits. One of the less discussed benefits is if you want to—