Remembrance Day: Armed Forces

Debate between Kirsty Blackman and Caroline Nokes

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

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.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for having given notice of her point of order, and I take it that she has notified both the Secretary of State at the DWP and the former Secretary of State at the DWP of her intention to refer to them in the Chamber.

[Kirsty Blackman]

indicated assent.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

This, as the hon. Lady will know, is not a matter for the Chair, but she has put her point very much on the record and I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have noted her comments.

Code of Conduct and Modernisation Committee

Debate between Kirsty Blackman and Caroline Nokes

Thursday 25th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

Congratulations to you and your colleagues on your new roles, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish you the very best of luck in dealing with all of us in our time here.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Sureena Brackenridge) on her excellent maiden speech, and particularly on her passionate message to her students, who I am sure miss her very much too.

I want to speak about the motions on the Order Paper. There is a huge amount I could say about the ways in which this House should be modernised; I have been speaking and thinking about it for years. I am probably one of the few Members who has spent many hours poring over the Standing Orders, considering how they could best be changed to improve this House. Not many people are quite as geeky about that as I am. However, I will not focus on that. Instead, I want to talk about the motions in front of us.

Motion 4 has been badged as a “second jobs” motion. It relates to paid employment, but it does not include the paid employment that constituents think of when they think about second jobs. They think about the Members appearing on GB News weekly, but that is not covered in the proposed changes. As the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) said, constituents think about the people doing work for a financial institution, but again, that is not included in the motion.

The changes to the rules are good, but the motion should not be badged as relating to second jobs. What it does is increase the transparency and restrictions on Members of Parliament who seek to use their privileged knowledge to get paid employment. We all have knowledge of parliamentary procedure because we are MPs, and the motion prevents us from using that to get money. That is a laudable aim, but it is not the change that the House needs in order to fix the issue of second jobs. I will support the Government’s changes, but they need to go far further.

I have several concerns about the motion on the Modernisation Committee, beginning with its incredibly woolly remit, which is:

“to consider reforms to House of Commons procedures, standards, and working practices; and to make recommendations thereon”.

Its remit is not to modernise the House of Commons, which I would have been more supportive of. If we gave the Committee an understanding that it needs to drag the House into the 20th century—never mind the 21st century —by increasing the amount of modern working practices and the ability of MPs to represent their constituents in Parliament, that would be helpful, but the remit is not there. It is just “to make recommendations”, so I am disappointed that the Government have not gone further on that.

The issue of the make-up of Members is significant. It is not just about the smaller parties that are not the first, second or third in the House wanting to have a voice, but about the way that the Government have chosen to arrange the Committee and the number of Members that they have chosen to have on it, which mean they have guaranteed that it cannot have a Northern Ireland member. The membership will be divvied up between the Labour party, the Conservatives and the Lib Dems, so there will never be a DUP Member or anyone making decisions on the Committee who is struggling with the geographical challenges that are unique to Northern Ireland Members.

The SNP would have liked a seat on the Committee. I am pleased to hear what the Leader of the House said about trying to ensure that all voices are heard, but like the shadow Leader of the House, I would like to have had more conversations with her beforehand about it, so that we could have suggested our views on the best way for our voices to be heard. If she really wants to work collegiately, we are happy to do that, but unfortunately this has not got off to the most collegiate start. The Government should consider the best way to do that, because I am concerned about the geographical issue.

The Leader of the House spoke specifically about the experience of all Members in this place. I would like the Committee to consider hearing from former MPs who also have significant experiences. It may be that we do not currently have MPs with certain disabilities, or who have experienced the proxy voting system, but we did formerly.

During covid, I did a huge amount of work with the Procedure Committee, which met online almost every day in the early days of lockdown. We considered every possible way to make the House covid compliant and made a huge number of recommendations to the Government, some of which could be incorporated to make the House more modern as time goes on.

I am pleased that the Leader of the House committed that the Modernisation Committee will take evidence from those Committees, but there will still be no SNP voice to feed into the Modernisation Committee, because we are unlikely to get a seat on any of those Committees. It is all well and good taking advice from those places, but the smaller parties are again being restricted in how they are being heard. I am happy to support the creation of the Committee, but I would appreciate it if the Leader of the House tried to work in a more collegiate way than she has so far.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call Neil Duncan-Jordan to make his maiden speech.