Kirsty Blackman MP: speeches

Speeches

• 9 Mar 2026 · Immigration Policy · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister is unhappy that we are conflating two different announcements, but the issue is that the Home Secretary has not actually made an announcement about this matter—she has not come to the Chamber, set out the position and made an announcement. The Government are planning to make these changes without parliamentary approval, because the changes will not come before the House for debate. Will the Minister commit to ensuring that all hon. Members can have a voice, that the changes are not made through a negative statutory instrument, and that MPs from across the House will be able to make our points clear in order to ensure that the goalposts will not be moved after refugees have arrived here?

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

  More

  It is great to get a chance to speak in Committee on the two-child limit Bill. I am so pleased that this Bill is progressing and that this has happened. This is something we have stood from these Benches and argued about for so many years. It finally seems that it will be real. I got into trouble with a Government Minister for not welcoming the Bill—I have welcomed it at every opportunity and am pleased that the two-child limit is being removed. In fact, I had my own Bill to remove the limit, so I could hardly do anything but welcome this Bill. I stand to talk about the amendments. We support all three new clauses that have been put forward. New clause 1 would ensure that we look at the benefit cap, and I agree with the points that have been put forward about that. I particularly enjoyed the speech by the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) just now. It was spot on in talking about the impacts of poverty on the life chances of children forever. It is not just the two-child limit that has caused this. It is one element that has increased and exacerbated child poverty, but so has the benefit cap. Of the families covered by the two-child limit, 40% have a disabled family member in the household, whether it is one of the children or one of the parents. The benefit cap overwhelmingly hits people with disabled family members. If we are saying that personal independence payment and the additional payments made through the universal credit system, whether it is the child element or the limited capability for work element, are paid to recognise the additional costs of disability and the complex circumstances people face that contribute to their poverty, inability to work more hours, illness or ill health, why are we putting a cap on it? Why are we saying, “We believe that children cost more money and that people on universal credit deserve more money depending on how many children they have because children should not go hungry”, which I believe is what the Government are saying here, but then capping it? Why are we saying, “Children should not go hungry—unless you hit the benefit cap, can’t take on additional hours because of a set of complex circumstances or have complex health needs that require an adapted house that costs more to rent”, for example? Why are we saying that those additional payments are reasonable, but only for some people? The Government need to look at the benefit cap again. That is covered by new clause 1. There are a number of things the Government need to look at again, which are covered by the other new clauses. The Government have made welcome moves on clawbacks and universal credit repayments. They have reduced the percentage that people can pay back in clawbacks. However, they have not taken any steps to look at the affordability of clawbacks. They are just set at a percentage without taking into account whether people can afford to pay back universal credit that has been overpaid or paid as an advance. That means that some families are significantly disadvantaged. They may have more outgoings because they live somewhere like Brighton, where rents are absolutely through the roof, or like the north of Scotland, where heating costs a fortune because it is freezing more often than it is down here. None of the repayment schemes look at these additional issues or at whether people can afford them. I also urge the Government to look at whether that is contributing to child poverty. The hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) said something along the lines of, “We don’t solve poverty by ensuring that people have money,” but we literally do. We literally solve poverty by ensuring that people have enough money. That is the solution. The cure for poverty is to have enough money to pay for the heating, the food your children need, or a pair of shoes when your child needs them. It is incredible how fast they grow, by the way. I think my son went through about five sizes in the space of a year and a half. It is impossible to keep children in shoes that quick, or even to get to the shops that quick. Children grow really quickly and it costs an awful lot of money. It is therefore really important that the Government’s child poverty measures are monitored correctly to ensure that they make all the differences the Government are proposing. We need to see whether enough of a difference is being made and whether the measures are having the effect on outcomes that we want to see. The Government put forward a child poverty strategy that I felt was deeply unambitious. Other than the two-child limit stuff, it mostly laid out things that the Government had already announced. It was also almost entirely about only England or England and Wales and did not apply in Scotland, other than the universal credit stuff. For example, none of the childcare, free school meals or school uniforms stuff applies in Scotland. I still feel that we do not have enough information about monitoring, so the three new clauses, which would provide for additional monitoring of the reduction in child poverty, are incredibly important. The Government will not produce their baseline monitoring and evaluation report on the child poverty strategy until summer 2026, so we do not yet have enough information about how they will measure that. I would love it if we had Governments who were absolutely up front and honest about which measures are working and which are not, but we have consistently had Governments who introduce primary and secondary legislation but fail to do post-implementation reviews of it. They fail to tell us whether the legislation has had the intended consequence. Did it make £30,000? Did it make £30 million? That is perhaps what the Government told us the legislation would make, but because a post-implementation review does not happen, we do not see whether it was effective.

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

  More

  On a point of order, Ms Lewell, I am aware that I cannot make a speech at this point, but will the Minister write to me on whether he is planning to do anything about pre-1997 indexation of the PPF and FAS? If he writes to me about that, I will be happy not to push new clause 18 to a vote.

• 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.

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

  More

  Q In relation to investments and some of the stuff that was not invested in historically, if we are talking about renewable projects and affordable housing—things that, historically, pension funds have maybe not invested in—you said that investing in these projects is a problem for smaller companies until they build up that level of scale. Are there other barriers? Are there legislative barriers, or other barriers—maybe finding schemes to invest in—that you or other companies could do with additional help in overcoming? Ian Cornelius: Having a strong pipeline of investable assets is key. There is no doubt about that. Patrick touched on this earlier: one other inhibitor has been cost. It is actually quite expensive to invest in private assets. One of the things that NEST does successfully is to drive that cost down, but that is a barrier. The focus on cost rather than value in the past made it harder. The Bill shifts the focus towards value, which will be really helpful. There are a number of challenges that the bigger you are, the easier it is to work through. The Bill as a whole will therefore definitely be helpful, but collaboration with Government and across industry should help to unlock more of those attractive private market opportunities. Patrick Heath-Lay: I have previously discussed this with the Minister. There is a role for Government to play here. It was even acknowledged within the Mansion House accord that this is for the benefit of savers, and there is a role for all of us to play in finding those efficient routes to deploy that investment through. The problem right now is not whether there is investment to come; there is. The Mansion House accord has created that. There is a wall of capital potentially available. The issue is connecting it in the right way with the investable opportunities—not only the planning and whatever is needed to create those investment opportunities in the first place, but the routes of access and the investment vehicles used. There are further conversations to be had about how we can do that as an industry. Efficient deployment is probably the biggest challenge for us as an asset owner in ensuring that we are sharing that benefit back with members.