Kirsty Blackman MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 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?

• 18 Dec 2025 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  We are thinking of all Ukrainians today, particularly the around 2,500 who found sanctuary in Aberdeen; they will be spending Christmas worried about their friends and family who remain in Ukraine. According to the Defence Committee, the most effective way to ensure long-term security for Ukraine and the strongest possible European defence framework is to have strategic unity with our European allies. Will the Minister confirm the reasons behind the refusal to join the SAFE—Security Action for Europe—programme?

• 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?

• 17 Dec 2025 · Asylum Reforms: Protected Characteristics · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree, and there was a very similar case in my constituency. There was a woman here with her young child, and it had been agreed that her husband was eligible for reunification with his family here under the ARAP scheme, but he was in hiding in Pakistan. No matter how much we pressed the Home Office, the woman and her young child were left here without their husband and dad. He was unable to come over, because the Home Office refused to take action. Part of the issue is the lack of humanity and consideration for individual circumstances created by the Home Office machine. Blanket policies discriminate against people in protected groups, not taking into account that there are nuances, differences and family circumstances that need to be in place. Going back to the requirement to contribute, that will cause particular issues for those who cannot, or find it difficult to, contribute in the classical sense. The UK Government said there would be special consideration of vulnerable groups, but have not laid out what those will be and what the consideration looks like. Not making clear who those vulnerable groups are and how those considerations will work risks significantly disadvantaging people. It is worth noting that, eight years on from receiving asylum and the right to work, the average income of refugees in Scotland is only £13,000, which is significantly lower than the median income. That is partly because refugees, by their nature, have suffered trauma, post-traumatic stress disorder and are unable to work full time in many cases, through no fault of their own. Due to that level of discrimination, and partly because they may not have long-term settled status, employers may be less keen to take them on. People who are trying to work, or have even been working full time for eight years, are earning significantly less than average. If we try to measure contribution, compared with people who were born here and have had a settled life—white men, for example—it will be difficult for any refugee from a protected characteristic group to meet that bar. Other issues include regular reapplications and a reduction in appeals. There will be a 30-month period to reapply for status. We know that 50% of appeals from women win. A reduction in the number of appeals, allowing only one and no subsequent appeal, will entrench the fact that the Home Office makes wrong decisions. If 50% of appeals win, the Home Office has clearly made wrong decisions in half the cases that go to appeal. The people more likely to appeal, whose cases are negatively looked at, have more complicated pasts and issues with disclosing what they have faced. Regarding trauma and violence against women and girls, the UK Government have suggested that not disclosing trauma early in the process will likely have a negative impact on their case. If people do not disclose their protected characteristics, there will likely be a negative consideration from the Home Office. People born here who have experienced sexual violence can take 20 years to come to terms with the situation and raise it with the authorities. We are expecting refugees, who have been through significant trauma, to disclose that information to a legal aid lawyer they do not know. He could be a man from their community who looks like an authority figure or the person who abused them, or might be part of the religious community that perpetrated the abuse. We will punish them for not being able to disclose the sexual violence they faced, or their sexual orientation to someone they do not know. We also know that when it comes to legal aid, for example, the increase in the number of appeals will significantly gum up the system, and the system is already significantly gummed up. The UK Government inherited a system that was a mess in terms of the length of time that asylum decisions took. Adding in a significant number of extra reassessments at 30-month periods is simply unworkable. We are already waiting years for people to get decisions—even children who are supposed to have special consideration and who are supposed to receive decisions more quickly. We got an email from a constituent this week whose children have still not received a decision. We have had a number of emails from constituents about asylum decisions, but the one that struck me came in yesterday. We had spoken to the Home Office about it and the email said, “Could you please tell us what is happening with this case?” And the Home Office said, “No. If you have not heard anything by December, get back to us.” The person still has not had a decision, despite the fact that children are supposed to be considered more quickly. If the UK Government cannot meet their obligations now, how will they meet their obligations within a 30-month period? What will they do about legal aid to ensure that legal aid lawyers are willing to take on the more complicated cases, the cases of sexual or domestic violence, or where the individual presenting is LGBTQI? At the moment, legal aid lawyers often look at those cases and say, “No, it is too complicated. The legal aid money does not cover it. Why would I bother doing that when I can do an easier case?” There is a significant problem. If the Government are going to make sweeping changes, especially the significant number of reassessments, they need to fix the legal aid system, or people with protected characteristics will be negatively impacted even more than the people without protected characteristics. Going back to the family reunification changes that are being suggested, Home Office figures tell us that 92% of the people who receive grants under family reunification are women and girls—92%. On the massive reduction in the number of family reunification applications that are accepted or in family reunification routes, 92% are women and girls. I do not understand how the Government can suggest there is not a disproportionate impact on people with protected characteristics when just this one specific measure has a massive impact on women and girls specifically. I understand why the Government have not produced an equality impact assessment. They do not want to see what is in such an assessment, but they should produce one. They have a public sector equality duty to do so. The Home Office is still bound by the public sector equality duty. It does not not apply to the Home Office. It applies to the public sector and it has not published one. On the length of time and the possibility of people being required to wait 20 years to receive leave to remain, we know that the lack of stability adds a significant negative impact on people. We know that that lack of stability is multilayered in the impacts that it has. I have already touched on the issues with employment. Employers are less likely to take people on if they do not have permanent leave to remain. Employers do not necessarily understand the immigration system. Good employers can be terrified of falling foul of the Home Office. If they can see that somebody was born in another country and does not have citizenship yet, they decide not to employ them. That means people are stuck in limbo for a significantly longer time because of the Government’ s decision—much longer than in some other countries, by the way. Not enabling people to work at 12 months makes us an outlier in Europe. In some EU countries, people can work from day one. In many countries they can work from two months. That gives an increased level of stability than if requiring people to be out of work for 12 months, and then only able to access jobs on the occupation shortage list or immigration list. Some of those jobs are not as acceptable or not as possible for people who have protected characteristics. A disabled person may not be able to access some of those roles. If we are more flexible in the roles that people can access, we are more likely to have people able to contribute, because they will be more able to do jobs that work for them. That lack of stability also means, potentially, that people will have no recourse to public funds for a significant length of time. No recourse to public funds is horrific and should be cancelled, particularly for those people with dependants. I never again want to see a family come in to my office whose children are malnourished because the UK Government have said that they have no recourse to public funds, or who are being threatened with homelessness because they are unable to claim anything. I had a family come in whose four children had not eaten fruit for days. How is it acceptable that the UK Government can decide that people have no recourse to public funds, and then keep them in limbo for such a long period? Women for Refugee Women looked at the number of destitute women and spoke to them about what destitution meant for them in the asylum system. Of the women in the asylum system who had no recourse to public funds, 38% had stayed in an abusive relationship because of their inability to access public funds and the fear that they would be homeless or destitute as a result of leaving that relationship. A further 38% of those women who stayed in abusive relationships were raped as a result. The UK Government’s policies are forcing women into destitution and unsafe situations and relationships. Among women in that group who were destitute as a result of the UK Government’s policies, 8% were forced into sex work to get enough money to feed themselves or their children, or to clothe their children. How is this a humane situation when it is negatively impacting women more than men and where those protected characteristics are not being protected?

• 17 Dec 2025 · Asylum Reforms: Protected Characteristics · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you for chairing this debate, Dr Huq. I thank all Members for contributing. I did not say that nobody should have to contribute—I will thank the Minister not to put words in my mouth in that regard. I do believe, however, that worthiness as a human being should not be determined by the ability to contribute economically. We are talking about humans who have been broken, those who have been persecuted and, specifically in this debate, those who have protected characteristics and have been through absolutely unimaginable horrors. I appreciate the Minister giving some level of clarity that there will be special considerations. We will be looking very closely at what comes forward in the equality impact assessment and on the special considerations. I believe that the Minister did not quite answer the question about improvements in legal aid; if he could write to us about what will happen on that, it would be appreciated. I thank all Members for their contributions today, and those who are standing up for people who have suffered unimaginable horrors. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the potential impact of proposed asylum reforms on people with protected characteristics seeking asylum.

• 17 Dec 2025 · Asylum Reforms: Protected Characteristics · Hansard source

  More

  There should be some methodology, but the Government are going the wrong way on this. They are looking to tighten up the modern slavery and trafficking regulations and make it more difficult for women to claim that they have been trafficked—even when they have. We know that there are women that have been held in Yarl’s Wood or detention centres after being trafficked because they do not have the correct paperwork. Of course they do not have the correct paperwork; they have been trafficked, used in sex work and forced into these horrific situations, and the Government are putting them in a detention centre and then saying that they will not get a visa because they did not have the right documentation. We have a responsibility to protect people. It says in “Restoring Order and Control” that there are some rules in relation to the European convention on human rights and the Refugee convention around which there are not discretionary powers. For some—for example, in relation to family life—the public interest can be balanced against that requirement. However, when it comes to trafficking, the Government do not have that discretion. If they refuse to believe trafficked people, and it is later agreed that those people have been trafficked, the UK Government are putting them through more trauma. They are putting people who have experienced worse things than most of us could ever imagine through more trauma because they refuse to believe them. Then, because they may disclose this late, as they do not want to talk about the sex work that they have been forced into and the rapes they have suffered—because it is very difficult to talk about those things—the UK Government say to them, “Well, you didn’t disclose this in time, so you can’t be a true asylum seeker. You can’t be a true refugee because you didn’t come forward and talk about the most horrific moments in your life to a man that you don’t know.” That is in relation to legal aid support. There are major issues with the continuing lack of stability. The changes away from hotel accommodation to some of the accommodation at barracks can mean that people are more isolated and less able to access support. In Aberdeen, we have little in the way of lawyers who can cover asylum cases—and immigration lawyers in general, actually—and people are having to travel significant lengths in order to get that, on their £7 or £9 a week. Someone cannot get from Aberdeen to Glasgow on seven quid a week—it cannot be done for less than about 30 quid, unless it is on a Megabus, and even that can be quite dear. Accommodation does not take into account the fact that provision is not there. If people are going to be put in Cameron barracks in Inverness, for example, it is even more difficult for them to get to Glasgow or Edinburgh in order to speak to the right lawyer who will be able to help and be willing to take on their immigration case. Creating that extra level of isolation for people who are already struggling—putting people in an isolated community in the Cameron barracks, rather than in a community setting where they can integrate—means that people who are isolated will become even more so, and people who are at risk will become even more at risk. We know that even in hotels, people suffer as a result of their protected characteristics, and who are at risk of harm as a result of unsafe situations. That is multiplied when people are moved out of hotels into places such as barracks. I have a few more things to cover. In relation to the assessment of safe countries for removal, the blanket designation of a country as safe is inherently incredibly risky. It may be safe for some people to be in Syria right now, but it is not safe for everyone. It is not safe for a Syrian woman who came here as a result of gender-based violence to go back to her family in Syria—or to go back to Syria at all—because of the likelihood that her family would take action against her. It is not safe for a gay person who fled because they were correctively raped to go back to Syria. The decision about blanket designations is really difficult, considering the Government are saying that they are looking at vulnerable groups and talking about individuals. Creating a blanket safe designation that can be changed at any point in that 20-year period means they can suddenly say to someone, “You are going to have to go back to this country where you were correctively raped, because the UK Government have now decided—with very little in the way of parliamentary scrutiny—that this country is safe.” The problem is that we have not got that information. The Minister may feel that there will be special categories in place, but we have not been told that. We have not been given the impact assessment for how that will look. We have not been told what those provisions will be. Somebody who is living here, who is terrified about being sent back, has no comfort right now, because they do not know whether their case will be considered separately or whether their country will just be deemed safe and they will be sent back.

• 17 Dec 2025 · Asylum Reforms: Protected Characteristics · Hansard source

  More

  The UK Government have said that they are looking at increasing the number of countries they have returns agreements with, so that people who have committed crimes can be sent back. Let me talk once more about the LGBT issue. If a trans or gay refugee is here, and it is illegal for them to be trans in their country—they are likely to be beaten up or correctively raped as a result of being, for instance, a lesbian in their country—the UK Government expect them to live openly here, in the sexuality that they are, but with the threat of their country becoming a safe country and their being sent back. People will now know that they are gay, because they have had to live openly here, and that threat of return will now continue for a significantly longer period of time. Gay and trans people are now in a horrific Catch-22: they are forced to live openly here to have their refugee status agreed, but if their country is designated as a safe country, they may be sent back. Pakistan is apparently safe for trans people because, according to the UK Government, people face only discrimination, not persecution, for being trans in Pakistan, despite the fact that somebody can come here as a trans refugee having been persecuted in Pakistan. The UK Government say, “It is okay, because it’s a discrimination thing, not persecution thing; don’t worry—you’ll be fine.” The Government expect them to live as an out trans person here—knowing that their cousin might see them on Facebook, or that somebody might hear about them living their real life and being themselves here—but, as a result of the UK Government’s policies, they will be forced to go back to somewhere where they are at an even higher risk of persecution. On the Equality Act 2010, the public sector equality duty says that public sector organisations must have due regard to protected characteristics and try to ensure that people are not discriminated against because of those characteristics, despite the fact that the Government’s policies will more negatively impact people with protected characteristics. I have asked questions about the special consideration of vulnerable groups, because we need significantly more information about that. I do not expect the Minister to provide all that today, but I would like a commitment that that information will be forthcoming; otherwise, people will be terrified because they will have, hanging over them, the possibility that the Government will not take into account whether someone is trans or has suffered from gender-based violence in other places. On the length of time before disclosure, I just do not believe that we can set a time limit when it comes to violence against women and girls or gender-based violence. We cannot tell people that they have to disclose things within a certain period of time or they will not be granted refugee status. That is not something we can force on victims. Changes need to be made in that regard. There has been no impact assessment. I asked written parliamentary questions about equalities impact assessments, and we were told that they would come in due course. When? When will we get the equality impact assessments? I would love the Home Office to act in a trauma-informed way, but it seems that we are not going to do so. For some reason, the public interest—which is, apparently, in deporting as many people as possible—cannot be balanced with the need to look after people who, through no fault of their own, have gone through unimaginable horrors. That will have a detrimental impact on all those who are seeking asylum. On the legal aid crisis, I would love reassurance from the Minister that the Government are going to make changes to legal aid. I do not understand how they are possibly going to manage a 30-month time period when they cannot manage the current time period. I finish with a statement from Layla, who spoke to Women for Refugee Women about why she came to the UK and what her experiences were here. The UK Government talk about removing the pull factors, but the pull factors are not the economy or the fact that people can get jobs. Layla puts it better than I ever could. She said: “I didn’t see the UK as a cruel type of country. The idea is that the UK is a Great Britain: we will save you, especially women’s rights, human rights. We initiate all the law, international law, you name it. The UK is a very outstanding country. But when I came here, I feel like it’s a fake, because why do you need to show that you are so good in the eyes of the world, but you are treating asylum seekers like this? It’s hypocrisy.”

• 17 Dec 2025 · Asylum Reforms: Protected Characteristics · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the potential impact of proposed asylum reforms on people with protected characteristics seeking asylum. There have been a lot of announcements in relation to immigration policy in the year and a half since this Government came into office. There has been a startling lack of equality impact assessments alongside those announcements, and I want to draw the House’s attention to the disproportionate and negative impact on people with protected characteristics of some—in fact, most—of the announcements the UK Government have made since July 2024. I am going to focus on certain groups of people with protected characteristics: women, queer folk and disabled people, and I will also touch on very young and very elderly people. Some of the changes to asylum policy announced by the Home Office, particularly in the “Restoring Order and Control: A statement on the government’s asylum and returns policy” in November 2025, have failed to take account of the fact that the negative impacts are not felt uniformly across the board. They have failed to take account of the fact that many people in groups with protected characteristics already face a level of discrimination and increased barriers simply as a result of being a member of a group with protected characteristics. Before I come to the substance of my speech, I want to thank a number of organisations that have provided a significant amount of information and done a huge amount of research. Those are Women for Refugee Women, Rainbow Migration, the Helen Bamber Foundation, whose briefing was truly excellent and really heartbreaking, and the Scottish Refugee Council. As I say, many of the changes made will have a significant negative impact, such as the change to the length of time that people have to stay and the requirement to contribute in order for people to be granted leave to remain. The requirement to contribute is not well defined and has a disadvantaging impact on those who are not able to work or study in the normal sense. For example, a disabled person might struggle to access full-time employment, and therefore the UK Government might consider that they have not contributed in the same way as other people, so they might be more likely to be refused leave to remain. The same issue applies to women, particularly those with caring responsibilities. For a woman who has come here from Afghanistan, for example, who could not learn when they were in Afghanistan because they were banned from education—certainly further or higher education—or because of the circumstances they were living in, with an abusive family or a requirement for women to stay in the home and not do any learning, it is even more difficult to get into work or study, because they simply do not have the skills due to those gaps in their education.

• 17 Dec 2025 · Puberty Suppressants Trial · Hansard source

  More

  Although I disagreed with the permanent ban, it is to the Secretary of State’s credit that he has been very clear about all the competing issues that he is balancing to make his decisions, and I appreciate that. There are young people who are hoping to be part of the clinical trial and to receive puberty blockers, whether that will genuinely make a difference to their lives or they believe that it will make a difference to their lives. How will he ensure that appropriate support is given to those young people who do not get to be part of the trial, when they have been hoping that it will change their lives?

• 16 Dec 2025 · Electoral Resilience · Hansard source

  More

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

• 8 Dec 2025 · Child Poverty Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During the statement, I asked about the evaluation measures that will be used. The Secretary of State said in response that I had not welcomed the removal of the two-child cap; in fact, I did so explicitly and at length during my speech on 27 November in response to the Budget. Can you advise on the ways in which I can get an answer on how the child poverty strategy will be evaluated, rather than statements being made about stuff I did not say but did actually say?

• 8 Dec 2025 · Child Poverty Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  It is nice to hear the Secretary of State acknowledging that child poverty in Scotland is lower than it is in England, and that it is reducing. Scotland is the only part of the UK where child poverty is going down—that is according to the graph in the Government’s own document. The document is 113 pages long: 34 are blank or just references and 25 contain an explanation of the problem, so less than half of those pages are about what the Government are going to do. Of the policies included in the document, almost every single one has already been announced. Why have we waited a year and a half for a child poverty strategy that is frankly unambitious? The published strategy has no evaluation criteria, other than just the two headline measures that the Secretary of State mentioned. When the “Best Start, Bright Futures” policy document was published in Scotland, it had evaluation criteria alongside it. Will she lay out the evaluation criteria that she will use to ensure that these changes make a positive difference for people?

• 3 Dec 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

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

• 3 Dec 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I would like to see much more conversation. Gateway benefits allow people eligibility for other things, and sometimes those do not work either. A person might be eligible for universal credit, but they do not necessarily get the follow-through to free school meals, for example. Anything we can do to make that path smoother, either in the cessation of benefits or in agreement on eligibility, would be really helpful. I agree with the hon. Gentleman; we have seen issues with carers, for example, being chased for overpayments that were not their fault. Again, I support the Government’s move on the consolidation of small pots, which I think is incredibly sensible. I am famously a massive supporter of the pensions dashboard and have never been at all critical of its timelines, but when it comes online there will be a rush for consolidation anyway. This is all about consolidation for people who have not touched their small pots, and making sure they get a return from that is totally sensible. Guided retirement and the mid-life MOT are mentioned in a number of amendments, and ensuring that people are given the correct advice at the correct time is incredibly important. When the Government do their sufficiency review—when we are looking at the adequacy of pensions and what people will get when they hit retirement—I would be very surprised if that and the consultation do not conclude that more people need more advice earlier. The more advice that people have on their pension, and the more money they put into their pension at the earliest time, the bigger their pension will be. I have already mentioned compound interest: if we put £100 into our pension when we were 21, it will be significantly bigger by the time we retire than if we put £100 into our pension when we are 40. That is just a fact. The more advice that we can give people at various important life stages, but particularly significantly before retirement, would be really helpful. That is another thing that should be included. Finally, the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) spoke at a press conference about the local government pension scheme and how terrible it is that it is spending so much money on fees. That was in September, after Second Reading, at which he did not speak about that. He did not table any amendments on it before the Committee stage, and he has not shown up to raise it on Report. It is almost as if Reform MPs are saying things in press conferences and not doing any actual work. [ Interruption. ] I told him I was going to mention him. It is almost as if they make statements in press conferences and do not do anything, just as they have not shown up today. Should a Reform Member have been particularly keen to make changes to the LGPS—such as to cap the level of fees it can pay, which are probably not unreasonable, as the LGPS is phenomenally successful in its returns for members—they could have amended the Bill, but they would have had to show up to do so. I suggest that the media organisations who are happy to cover press conferences ask the Members giving those press conferences what they will actually do to get their policies implemented. If such Members have an opportunity, they should use it rather than just shouting from the sidelines. As I think I have made clear, I am largely supportive of an awful lot of things in the Bill, the direction of travel and many of the technical measures, which are great fun to have a good look at. I have some concerns about pre-1997 indexation. I am delighted that it has happened, but more could have been done. I will be interested to follow the progress of the fiduciary duty statutory guidance and the sufficiency and adequacy review and whether there will be mandation powers. Lastly, on new clause 3, can we please make it easier for members who are terminally ill to have that conversation? I would very much appreciate the Minister committing to taking that away and considering how the PPF and FAS can get that information more easily without requiring people to jump through significant hoops.

• 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.

• 3 Dec 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  To take us back to the consultation and action to provide guidance for trustees, we all think that is a good thing, as trustees have a difficult job to do and providing them with more guidance is incredibly helpful. On the timeline for the consultation and the legislation arising from it, it would be incredibly helpful if the Minister could, as soon as possible, provide us with a road map for what that will look like when it returns to the House and, in particular, set out whether it will involve primary or secondary legislation.

• 3 Dec 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I figured that, as I had only about 17 minutes in which to speak on Report, the House deserved to hear from me again on Third Reading, but I shall be very brief in expressing my views and those of my hon. Friends. Members spoke earlier about people’s understanding of pensions, and I continue to have concerns about people’s understanding of defined contribution schemes. People who are given a figure for how much money is in their defined contribution scheme are often confused about what that will actually mean when they hit retirement. Those schemes are very different from defined benefit schemes, and, given the massive increase in the number of people investing in defined contribution schemes rather than defined benefit schemes, those issues will continue unless an incredible amount of education is provided so that people can understand what they might receive in their pensions, rather than just the amount in the total pot. The Minister has made a number of changes to the Bill that I appreciate, not least the pre-1997 indexation for the Pension Protection Fund. The fiduciary duty announcement that he made today is, I think, extremely helpful in clarifying for trustees what their objectives are. He also mentioned that the Association of British Insurers had come up with an agreement. In my experience of serving on a significant number of Bill Committees, it is very unusual for so many changes to be made. I appreciate the fact that the Committee members were listened to, and that some of the concerns raised by Members in all parts of the Committee have been tackled during the Bill’s progress. I have already raised concerns about the short notice that we had for some of the amendments and new clauses and the fact that we were not properly able to scrutinise the Government changes, both in Committee on Report. Finally, let me thank Matt and Fergus, who helped me with some of this. We rarely see pension Bills presented, and I would love to see another—shortly, probably. Given that the Minister has made commitments in relation to fiduciary duty, and given that he said he expected such a measure to appear in primary legislation with guidance to follow, I assume that a Bill will follow those commitments. I also think that the adequacy review may—hopefully—kick up some requirements for legislation. This House should get used to talking about pensions. As the generations shift, the state pension will become a smaller percentage of what people rely on in retirement, and auto-enrolment and defined contribution schemes mean that significantly more people will rely on private pensions. Ensuring that they have the best possible outcomes for retirement is something that all Members of the House can support, and we need to have a legislative framework that keeps pace with how people are actually investing for the future, rather than one that reflects how people invested 20 or 30 years ago. As the Minister will be aware, I would be delighted to debate more pensions Bills as they come forward. We will do our best to provide cross-party support wherever we can. Bill read the Third time and passed.

• 3 Dec 2025 · 2025 Budget · Hansard source

  More

  The autumn Budget made minor tweaks to Wales’s borrowing limits. Scotland has stronger borrowing powers, allowing us more flexibility for investment in capital projects. Can the Secretary of State tell us why the tweaks to Wales’s powers were so small? Why have those tweaks not even made up for the inflationary losses since those limits were first set?

• 3 Dec 2025 · 2025 Budget · Hansard source

  More

  1. What recent discussions she has had with the Welsh Government on the potential impact of the Budget 2025 on Wales.

• 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.

• 26 Nov 2025 · Cost of Living · Hansard source

  More

  In the 16 months since the King’s Speech, when Labour MPs were whipped to vote against scrapping the two-child cap, how many children have been pitched into poverty as a result of the Government’s refusal to scrap the cap?

• 26 Nov 2025 · Cost of Living · Hansard source

  More

  10. What discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the potential impact of her policies on the cost of living in Scotland.

• 18 Nov 2025 · ExxonMobil: Mossmorran · Hansard source

  More

  We are seeing 400 jobs go, and we saw jobs go at Grangemouth. Is the Minister surprised that people in Aberdeen and the north-east of Scotland, who are arguing for a just transition and being promised 60,000 jobs five years hence, have no faith in this Labour Government?

• 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.

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

  More

  indicated assent.