Kirsty Blackman MP: speeches

Speeches

• 4 Jun 2026 · Pride Month · Hansard source

  More

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

• 18 Dec 2025 · Violence against Women and Girls Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  I back the Minister’s comments about the effectiveness of public health on BBC Radio 4 this morning. I agree about the importance of conducting a public health campaign for this. Women for Refugee Women has surveyed women in the asylum system with no recourse to public funds. It found that 38% of them had stayed in abusive relationships because of their inability to access public funds, and that 38% of those women then went on to be raped. Will the Minister tell us whether the Government will agree to implement fully the Istanbul convention, including article 59, to afford real protections to all women?

• 11 Nov 2025 · Remembrance Day: Armed Forces · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier today, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Pat McFadden), made a statement. During the statement, he said: “Since then, as part of the legal proceedings challenging the Government’s decision, evidence has been cited about research findings from a 2007 report. That was a DWP evaluation of the effectiveness of automatic pension forecast letters. Had this report been provided to my right hon. Friend, she would of course have considered it alongside all other relevant evidence and material.” He went on to say: “I have of course asked the Department whether there is any further survey material or other evidence that should be brought to my attention as part of this process.” I pressed the Secretary of State on whether the information had been cited by the WASPI women, or whether the information had been cited by the Department for Work and Pensions, and was unable to get a clear answer. However, WASPI women have since contacted me and told me that they provided the report to the court proceedings. The report that was provided by the WASPI women, the Department for Work and Pensions Research Report No. 434, is called “Attitudes to Pensions: the 2006 Survey” and it was published in 2007. During the speech in December 2024 by the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall)—now the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology—announcing that the Government would not be compensating WASPI women, she said that the report from the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman “does not properly take into account…research from 2006 showing that 90% of women aged 45 to 54 were aware that the state pension age was increasing.” —[ Official Report , 17 December 2024; Vol. 759, c. 168.] The numbers about the 90% of women aged 45 to 54 come from the research report that was published. This is a document that the former Secretary of State did not have, according to the current Secretary of State, and therefore new decisions now need to be made and this needs to be looked at again. I am struggling to understand how we can get more information on whether this was indeed the report mentioned, whether the former Secretary of State did have that report, and if she did not have the report, how she was able to quote the report when she made her statement to this House in December 2024.

• 23 Oct 2025 · Black History Month · Hansard source

  More

  I was pleased to hear the hon. Member highlight some good practice. As a parent, you get slightly obsessive about your children’s health and tend to google what is going on with them. The NHS website—nhs.uk—has improved monumentally over the years. For instance, when it comes to rashes it says, “Rashes will present differently on black and brown skin,” and it shows pictures of how that might look. I am glad that the hon. Member highlighted good practice. Does he think it is possible to lift and shift the good practice we see, such as on the NHS UK website and with the Greater Manchester example he mentioned, and do that across the board?

• 23 Oct 2025 · Black History Month · Hansard source

  More

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

• 23 Oct 2025 · Black History Month · Hansard source

  More

  It is quite scary to follow the hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) and the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), who are both formidable advocates against injustice. I have done several debates with the hon. Member for Brent East, and I have so much respect for how she speaks to the Chamber. She was talking about that tiredness that people are feeling just now, from constantly having to fight for every single thing, and constantly having to argue against the injustices being served on her constituents and mine, as well as those of a significant number of Members across this House. It is absolutely tiring, but if she or the Mother of the House ever wants a cup of tea, a bit of allyship or, as we say in Aberdeen, a bosie—a cuddle—they should give us a shout. We are happy to oblige and to be united together. The Mother of the House highlighted the cognitive dissonance that some politicians seem to have: they stand up and talk about Black History Month, while simultaneously refusing to discourage people who are protesting against migrants. That is really important. We need to remember that we cannot talk about the injustices that so many people face just once a year in this Chamber; we need to be fighting every single day. Every day that we have energy, we should be using it to ensure that there is an anti-racist narrative across society. I represent Aberdeen North, one of the more diverse constituencies in Scotland. I will focus on the city of Aberdeen, because the census results are broken down by city rather than constituency, so it is much easier to do that. About 13.4% of people in Aberdeen come from a BME background, which is not that high, but over 20% of people in Aberdeen were not born in the United Kingdom, which is pretty high for Scotland. Some 2.5% of people in Aberdeen were born in Nigeria. There are 5,600 Nigerians—people who were born in Nigeria, not the descendants of immigrants—living in Aberdeen. We have a significant number of people who are working every day, who are contributing and who are making a difference. I will mention some individuals, from both the past and present, who have made a difference in Aberdeen and Scotland. However, I note that there are so many people whose names we will never mention, who are working quietly as carers or in our NHS and doing jobs that are really difficult. I have been a carer, and it is a really hard, physical job that so many people do not want to do. To those who are making people’s lives better and doing miracles every single day, and whose names I do not mention, thank you for your contribution. It is massively appreciated. I will first talk about some figures from the past. There is a wonderful part of the University of Aberdeen website that talks about the history of black Aberdonians and people who graduated from the university. Christopher James Davis, who was from Barbados, graduated in 1870—we think he is the first black graduate—in medicine, and then went to volunteer as a doctor in Sedan during the Franco-Prussian war. Sadly, he died from smallpox in the same year that he graduated. Nathaniel Thomas King graduated from Aberdeen in 1876. He moved back to Nigeria and was one of the trailblazers in improving sanitation in Lagos. Again, he was another medicine graduate from Aberdeen. Edward Tull-Warnock was a dentist in Aberdeen and Glasgow. His father was born in Barbados, although Edward was born in Folkestone. His brother was probably the first black commissioned officer in the British Army. As I say, Edward himself was a dentist, and he was not called up to the war because of that. We needed dentists during that time, particularly because so many people who volunteered or who were called up were rejected on the basis of the quality of their teeth and how likely they were to be ill as a result, so dentists were often an exempted occupation. Edward practised as a dentist for a significant number of years, latterly in Glasgow. Again, he was a real black trailblazer—potentially the first black registered dentist in Scotland. In some of these cases I am saying words such as “potentially”, and I cannot talk about early women graduates of Aberdeen University because the registers just are not there. The rolls are there, but there is not enough information and the research has not been done. The university is looking to rectify that in the future, but, again, there are stories that will maybe never be told, because we just do not have the information. I want to highlight some of the people in my constituency, and in Aberdeen more widely, who are making a difference, and whose stories might not otherwise be heard. Bertha Yakubu MBE came to Aberdeen in 1993 and really struggled with isolation. Bertha and the African Women’s Group in Aberdeen wrote a book called “African Women Speaking”, one of the most powerful books I have ever read. It is about their experiences of coming to Aberdeen and Scotland, how different it was from the countries they were born in, how different the experience was, and how difficult they found it to integrate, to find fellow feeling, and to find love and support in the community in Aberdeen. It really is a brilliant book, and I urge Members to get hold of it. Bertha now does a huge amount of work supporting women who are suffering from domestic violence by providing them with kinship, love and support, and by just being there for them. That is sometimes what people need to gain the courage to flee. I want to talk about Ify Anyaegbu, who is in charge of FACEYOUTH, a charity that focuses on mental health. It focuses on young people, and on reducing the disadvantage that they feel in Aberdeen. I have met her on a number of occasions, and she is an absolute force of nature. She will do everything that she can to try to reduce disadvantage in Aberdeen. Jane Akadiri is the founder of Touch of Love, an empowering and uplifting Christian community in the city. It does a huge amount of good, particularly with disadvantaged groups and people on the lowest incomes. Florence Igboayaka, the founder of the Period Place, has written a book called “The Period Comic”, which is excellent. If young people aged between eight and 14 want to learn about what periods are like, the comic is a fabulous place to start, and I thoroughly recommend it. She has also created a line of period products for women with heavier period flows, which I understand a lot of African women have. Across the UK, a significant number of women from all heritages are not served well by the period products currently on the market. She also started, in Aberdeen, the “walk to give her a voice”, which is focused on ensuring that women feel safe, and can walk in their communities and talk about the things that matter to them. We should be able to talk about periods and the menopause, and to get the support that we need. Those are some incredibly inspiring women, and my city would not be the place it is today without all the work that they do in our communities.

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

  More

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

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

  More

  The hon. Gentleman mentioned the NHS and waiting lists. Does he share my concerns about the severe conditions criteria and the requirements for the diagnosis to be made by an NHS professional, in the course of NHS duty, when people may not have access to that? There is also a requirement for the condition to be considered “lifelong” by NHS professionals or health professionals, who may be unwilling to say that schizophrenia or bipolar disease, for example, are “lifelong” because they do not want to tie people down to that diagnosis.

• 7 Jul 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Auto-enrolment was a fairly substantial intervention by the Government in pensions. Since 1997, pensions have had to increase in line with inflation, and that was an intervention by the Government. There has been a long trail of interventions by the Government in how assets are managed and where they are held, but pension trustees are still required to get a return. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about specific projects, and I would be particularly concerned if we were looking at specific projects, but the mandation relates to UK assets, and the funds in which they could be invested. I would love to see much more investment of pension funds in social housing, for example, where the trustees can get a pretty great return, but they will still have a fiduciary duty and responsibility. For defined-benefit schemes, the member will always get what they have been promised they will get. No matter how the fund is managed, they have a defined benefit from the scheme, unlike in a defined-contribution scheme, where it depends on the size of the pot as it grows—but I am going to carry on, because I have a lot to cover that is not to do with mandation, and as I say, the LGPS does not apply in Scotland. On value for money, I think the Bill is good, because comparing pension schemes is difficult. Comparing any financial schemes is difficult because they are all laid out in different ways and the fees are calculated in different ways, so it does not make sense to most people. Some of stuff on requiring the publication of information on value for money in certain ways is important, and the surveys are also important. I have slight concerns about the chapter on value for money because, in comparison with the small pots consolidation section, there is no requirement to publish the regulations in draft before they actually become regulations. There is a requirement for consultation, as there is in both those chapters, but not a requirement for publication in draft. I think it is important for those to be published, so the widest possible range of views can come forward, because value for money is so important for such a wide range of people, whereas some of the other stuff in the Bill is much more technical and will have an impact on far fewer people. The point about publishing the regulations in draft is important. I am disappointed that the Government have not made more moves on adequacy, but given where we are in the cost of living crisis, I can understand why it may be difficult to get cross-party political consensus on the creation of adequacy provisions. This Bill could have taken more of a look at pensions in general, rather than being about pensions specifically, because in a lot of ways the Bill is seeking to do is improve every individual’s pension pot’s potential for growth. That is an admirable aim, but some of the larger picture could have been included—for example, in relation to auto-enrolment, the under-22s and people earning small amounts of money who do not qualify. The right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) alluded to the mid-life MOT, which I have previously shouted about. I agree that people should be sent an appointment for a mid-life MOT, in the same way as they are asked to get their bowel cancer screening sent through the post. It should be exactly the same with a mid-life MOT, which is so important, but so many people duck and dive about it. Millennials are coming up to reaching this point, but millennials are a generation particularly averse to thinking about retirement, because we do not think it will happen to us. We think we will die before we get there, because there is an incredible amount of cynicism among millennials. We tend to avoid thinking about it because we are not going to reach that point, so forcing millennials—in the nicest possible way—by giving them such an appointment and making it for them means they are much more likely to undertake it. On guided retirement, again I think the Bill tackles the issue pretty well by ensuring that people have more information. I am particularly concerned about the people who draw down the 25% tax-free sum of money, and then do not have a plan for the rest of it. How many of them have just thought about the 25%, and have not thought about the rest of it, or about how complicated and unpredictable annuities can be depending on the year? I am thinking about somebody I know who does not smoke or drink and runs 10 km a couple of times a week, but they will get a smaller annuity than somebody who does the opposite. Do people know how unpredictable it is—how much they will get and the fact that they cannot tell from what the pot looks like the actual outcome to cover their living expenses? Any kind of understanding people can be given about that is really important. I do still have concerns about some of the issues with freedoms and how financially disadvantageous it can be for a significant number of people. I agree with some of the stuff on the consolidation of small pots. I have a concern about the fact that the Secretary of State or the Minister can make changes to the definition of small pots by looking at some consultation and then bringing a statutory instrument to the House. I would appreciate some clarification, and agreement that the Minister will consult pretty widely before taking a decision about changing the definition of small pots in secondary legislation. On surplus release, I would disagree with a chunk of the Conservative Members who would use it for slightly different things. I press the Minister on the balance between the economic growth mission and what employees will get as a result of surplus release. I am pleased to hear that trustees will have some flexibility, but I am concerned that that creates a system with a number of tiers, because it depends on how passionate the trustees are about helping the employees or helping the Government’s growth mission. I would ask for some guidance from the Government about what they expect. When they are making that deal with employers, they have to agree with the employer where that money will go—how much of the money will go to increasing the pension pots and how much into people’s salaries. There will need to be a significant amount of guidance for trustees on where the Government expect money to go. It would be appreciated if we could be involved in the creation of that guidance, or at least be consulted on what it is supposed to look like. On megafunds, there is a bit of a “wait and see” on what megafunds, both master trusts and the superfunds, will look like and how they will pan out. I can understand looking at other places the Government consider to be successful in how pension funds are managed and the very large investments that could be created as a result of huge funds. I appreciate that overheads can be reduced and that funds can be run more efficiently as a result, and that investments can be made into very large, long-term patient capital projects if the fund is significant. My specific question on superfunds is about new entrants to the market. The Bill states that there is an ability for transitions. Organisations likely to meet superfund status at some point, given a certain amount of time, will be given slack until they can reach that status, which is utterly sensible. But then it talks about new entrants coming in to become a superfund. There is a pathway and the ability to get approval to do that, but only if they are innovative. I am slightly concerned about what innovative means, because it is not defined—I think it will be defined in secondary legislation. Why should they be innovative? Surely, if a new entrant is excellent, that should be enough? Innovative concerns me. I do not really understand what it means, or why it is in the rules for new entrants. Anything the Government can say to explain what they think that is supposed to mean, and what they intend it to mean in the secondary legislation, would be helpful. On the whole, the SNP is cautiously optimistic about the Bill. We believe there need to be some changes and we have specific questions in various areas, such as: on the rationale in relation to mandating; on the rules on value for money and how they will impact individuals; and on the consolidation of small pots and how they will ensure individuals have better outcomes. It is not in the Bill, but ensuring the pension dashboard happens so that people can see the consolidation of small pots happening in real time would be incredibly helpful. The best outcome we can get is for everybody to have an adequate pension when they reach retirement. We will not get that if people cannot see and cannot understand what they have in their pensions and if those small pots are not consolidated.