Kirsty Blackman
MP for Aberdeen North · Scottish National Party · United Kingdom
“I first raised the issue of self-generated images in Parliament more than four years ago. I have asked almost every single Culture, Media and Sport team about the issue of livestreaming. I am pleased to hear from the Secretary of State that action is being taken, and about the belt-and-braces approach that is coming in.”
“Labour promised £200 million for Grangemouth, none of which has materialised. Labour promised 1,000 jobs for GB Energy, and it turns out that a third of the 130 delivered so far are not actually in Scotland.”
“There is a geographical divide on this issue starker than I have ever seen in this place. Across all parties, every Member representing a Scottish constituency has stressed the issue of jobs, and how important this is to the north-east of Scotland.”
“There is a fundamental question here about what our priority is. Is it to reduce the bill, to reduce the amount of money that we are spending, or to ensure that disabled people can access all the human rights that the rest of us can, access society and be supported? We must recognise the extra costs of disability. What is the priority?”
“May I continue to encourage the Minister to talk to Social Security Scotland and our colleagues in the SNP Government about their experiences of the adult disability payment and whether the changes that have been implemented in Scotland would make a positive difference to those claiming PIP?”
“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.”
The complete record
Every one of 5,119 lines we hold for Kirsty Blackman, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 15 of 103.
“Make them jump through every single hoop. If we cannot ban them outright—which would be my preferred option—make them keep records, make them have adult-empowerment duties, and put them on a list of organisations that we, the Government or Ofcom reckon are harmful. If we end up in a situation where, due to the failures of this Act, young people commit suicide, and the platform is not categorised properly, there is then a reduction in the amount of protections, and in the information that they have to provide about deceased children to the families, because they are not categorised as category 1 or 2B.”
“They are required to meet hygiene regulations, register with environmental health and have checks of their records to ensure that they know who is being provided with piercings, because it is a risky thing. The Government are putting additional duties on them because they recognise that piercing is risky and potentially harmful. However, the Government are choosing not to put additional duties on incredibly high-risk platforms. They are choosing not to do that. They have been given the right to do that. Parliament has made its will very clear: “We want the Government to take action over those small high-risk platforms.” I do not care how many hoops 4chan has to jump through. Give it as many hoops as possible; it is an incredibly harmful site, and there are many others out there—hon. Members mentioned suicide forums, for example.”
“The additional duties for category 1 services involve a number of different things: illegal content risk assessments, duties relating to terms of service, children’s risk assessments, adult empowerment duties and record-keeping duties. As I said, the fact that those category 1-ranked platforms will be on a list is powerful in itself, but adding those additional duties is really important. Let us say that somebody is undertaking a risky business—piercing, for example. Even though not many people get piercings in the grand scheme of things, the Government require piercing organisations to jump through additional hoops because they are involved in dangerous things that carry a risk of infection and other associated risks.”
“Part of the issue with the content recommendation referenced in the conditions is that platforms are serving more and more exciting and extreme content to try to keep us there for longer, so we end up with people being radicalised on these platforms—possibly not intentionally by the platforms, but because their algorithm serves more and more extreme content. I agree that that content should have the lower threshold in terms of the number of users. I am not sure about the numbers of the thresholds, but I think the Government have that differentiation correct, particularly on the addictive nature of algorithmic content. However, they are failing on incredibly high-risk content.”
“If we were being safe by design, we would ensure, as far as possible—as far as the Government could do, we could do or Ofcom could do—that no young person would be able to access that functionality. As I said, it should have been included. I appreciate what the Government said about content recommendation and the algorithms that are used to ensure that people stay on platforms for a significant length of time. I do not know how many Members have spent much time on TikTok, but people can start watching videos of cats and still be there an hour and a half later. The algorithms are there to try to keep us on the platform. They are there because, actually, the platforms make money from our seeing the advertisements. They want us to see exciting content.”
“If systems were safe by design, young people simply would not have access to livestreaming at all; they would not have access to that functionality, so there would be that moment of thinking before they do something. They would not be able to do peer-to-peer livestreaming that can then be shared among the entire school and the entire world. We know from research that a significant number of child sexual abuse materials are impossible to take down. Young people may put their own images online or somebody else may share them without their consent. Organisations such as the Internet Watch Foundation do everything they can to try to take down that content, but it is like playing whack-a-mole; it comes up and up and up. Once they have fallen into that trap, the content cannot be taken back.”
“I completely agree. That is an additional reason why livestreaming is one of my biggest concerns. That functionality should have been included as a matter of course. Any of the organisations that deal with young people and the removal of child sexual abuse material online, such as the Internet Watch Foundation, will tell you that livestreaming is a huge concern. The hon. Member is 100% correct. That is the way I talk to my children about online safety: once something is put online—once it is on the internet—it cannot ever be taken back. It is there forever, no matter what anyone does about it, and young people may not have the capacity to understand that.”
“The Minister is making the case that the Secretary of State’s hands are tied by the Act —that it requires stuff in relation to the number of users. Can she tell us in which part of the Act it says that, because it does not say that? If she can tell us where it is in the Act, I am quite willing to sit down and shut up about this point, but it is not in the Act.”
“Therefore, it seems that he does not consider suicide forums and livestreaming to be relevant; if he did, he would surely be bound by the “must” and would have to make regulations about them. It is frustrating that the Act does not do what it is supposed to do and does not protect young people from livestreaming. The Minister said that it protects people from seeing that illegal content, but it does not prevent them from creating it. The Government could make regulations so that every platform that has a livestreaming functionality, or even every platform that has child users on it—there is a lot in the Act about the proportion of children who use a service—is automatically included in category 1 because they consider them to be high risk.”
“They have decided to do that despite Parliament being pretty clear in the language it has used. I am not terribly happy with the Online Safety Act. It is a lot better than the situation we have currently, but it is far from perfect. As the Minister said, I argued in favour of keeping the stuff about legal but harmful content for adults. I argued against the then Government’s position on that, but the Act is the Act that we have. The Minister’s point does not make sense. The Secretary of State has to take into account the number of users and how quickly things are disseminated, but he must make regulations about functionalities or factors that he considers relevant.”
“In fact, schedule 11 says earlier that the Secretary of State “must make regulations specifying conditions…for the user-to-user part of regulated user-to-user services relating to each of the following”, which are the “number of users…functionalities of that part of the service, and…any other characteristics of that part of the service or factors”. The Secretary of State must therefore make regulations in relation to any other characteristics of that part of the service or factors “relating to that part of the service that the Secretary of State considers relevant.” He must do that, but he must only take into account the number of users. The Government, however, have decided that taking into account is much more important than “must” do something.”
“In schedule 11, it says: “In making regulations under sub-paragraph (1), the Secretary of State must take into account the likely impact of the number of users of the user-to-user part of the service, and its functionalities, on how easily, quickly and widely regulated user-generated content is disseminated by means of the service.” Perhaps I cannot read English, or perhaps the Minister, her legal advisers and the team at DSIT read it in a different way from me, but the Secretary of State having to take something into account and the Secretary of State being bound by something are two different things—they are not the same. It does not say that the Secretary of State must regulate only on the specific number of users.”
“Thank you, Sir Christopher—I appreciate that prod. I did look at Standing Orders this morning, but could not find that bit, so that is incredibly helpful. On what the Minister said about schedule 11 and the notes that she has been passed from her team on that point, I appreciate her commitment to share the Government’s legal advice. That will be incredibly helpful; it would have been helpful to have it in advance of this Committee.”
“They should just be honest about the fact that they have decided that they cannot be bothered to take action. They cannot be bothered to have a fight with Ofcom because it is not important enough. Hiding behind the legislation is incredibly cowardly—it does not say that.”
“I appreciate that the Minister will get in touch with me about the legal advice, but it will be too late. This statutory instrument will have been through the process by that time, and people will have been put at risk as a result of the Government’s failure. They have the power to take action in relation to functionalities and factors, and in relation to suicide forums, livestreaming and the creation of child sexual abuse material, and they are choosing not to. If the Government have decided that it is too difficult to do that, that those platforms are not risky enough and that not enough people are being harmed by them, they need to hold their hands up and say, “We’ve decided that this is the position we are going to take.” They must not hide behind the legislation, which does not say what they are telling us it says.”
“I absolutely agree, and that is a helpful clarification. If the Government have decided that it is too difficult to regulate high-risk platforms as category 1, and that they do not matter enough because they do not have enough of an impact, they should stand up and tell us that. Rather than saying that their hands have been tied by the Act—they manifestly have not—they need to take ownership of their actions. If they have decided that such platforms are not important enough or that they cannot be bothered having a fight with Ofcom about that, they should be honest and say, “This is the position we have decided to take.” Instead, they are standing up and saying, “Our hands have been tied,” but that is just not correct: their hands have not been tied by the Act.”
“I am pleased that the Minister is updating us with progress. Does she believe the poverty strategy will be announced quickly enough for there to be changes made in, for example, the spring or autumn statements, or are we looking into next year? Please could she give an idea of the timeline?”
“The Chancellor said that economic growth is the most important thing and this was an opportunity to get some of that economic growth. This was an opportunity to get something over the line and the UK Government failed to deliver it. How can the House and the public trust anything the UK Government say? How can they say that this is the founding mission if they then fail to deliver for a region that could really do with that economic growth?”
“This is a genuine question on the power to request information: will the DWP be able to request information from charitable organisations that are perhaps providing support to people, or from Members of Parliament, who may be providing support to constituents who come through our door?”
“I understand that it is probably not her fault, but I am really disappointed that we have not seen that letter in advance of today— [ Interruption. ] I am being told that it is being published.”
“That £10 billion or however much will be recouped will not fix mental health services to ensure that everyone is capable of getting up in the morning, having their breakfast, having a shower and opening the letters in scary, big writing that have come through the door. It will not ensure that people can engage in that system. It will not teach them to read and write—they may not be capable of that. I share the concerns of other Members that, for some individuals, the powers of recouping and of revoking a driving licence are entirely inappropriate. We have not had enough reassurances on that. My concerns about the Information Commissioner are still extant. The Secretary of State said that she has had a letter from the Information Commissioner.”
“Let us remember that we are talking about people who, in some cases, are incredibly vulnerable, and may have their driving licence taken away. The hon. Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) talked about two of his constituents who found themselves in a difficult situation and who did not have a huge amount of literacy. It is possible that one of those people could have had a driving licence. For disabled people, a car can be an lifeline—the most important thing. For people with mental health problems, opening letters can be really difficult. People might not engage with the DWP through no fault of their own, but because they are not getting the mental health support that they need.”
“It does not take into account that they will spend £420 million over the next few years just to increase the number of staff or the costs of the eligibility criteria. It is also not a net figure—it is just the headline figure right now. All the work being done on the legislation is to recoup a fairly insignificant amount of money, but it will put people through absolute hell. As has been said, the Bill will treat people as guilty rather than begin from the point of view that they are innocent. Potentially, it will put every person applying for benefits through an eligibility check through their bank. It will put them under surveillance in a way that is not compatible with the human rights that we should all expect.”
“As has been mentioned a number of times by Members from across the Chamber, the tax system creates a huge amount more fraud and a huge amount more could be recouped from that than from the social security system. I have major concerns about how the Government are approaching the issue. Why are they introducing this Bill before the child poverty strategy? Why is this more of a priority than cancelling the two-child cap and taking kids out of poverty? Why are the Government talking about nearly £10 billion a year owed to the DWP? Just to be clear, that is not what they intend to recoup. According to the impact assessment, at least 30% will be written off, so £10 billion is a misleading figure. It might be the total amount of fraud and error, but it is not what the Government expect to get back.”
“I used to get a number of emails and people walking through my door who were terrified about their upcoming PIP assessment—having to fill in those forms again, and sit and write a long list of the normal things that their child cannot do, on an annual basis. We have changed that in Scotland. We do not have regular assessments. If someone has a longer-term condition, they do not have to go through that awful situation on an annual basis. The Government need to focus on dignity, respect and co-production. That should be way ahead of conversations around fraud. It is important that the social security system, the procurement system and the tax system do not propagate fraud.”
“We need a social security system that works. I have asked the Minister on a couple of occasions about co-production, which an hon. Member also mentioned. Co-production is needed when it comes to changes to disability benefits. If the Government are to reduce the amount of money being paid out for disability and sickness benefits, they must work hand in hand with disabled people. They must not just say, “We are going to reduce it by this amount.” They need to sit round the table with disabled people to have those conversations and to make clear what changes they want. In Scotland, we have reformed the previous PIP system to create the adult disability payment and child disability payment.”
“I oppose the DWP elements of the Bill, which are not what social security should be about. As my friend, the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry), said, the social security system should be built on dignity and respect. Very few Members have said that we should have a social security system that works. Members have talked about tightening up eligibility criteria. Last week, people talked about the number of scroungers that there are—people not in work who are claiming social security benefits—and how desperately we must get them back to work. People should have opportunities, but it is also important that we have a social security system that catches people and supports them when they are not able to access those opportunities, because they are struggling with their physical or mental health or have learning difficulties.”
“I want to comment on a number of speeches that have been made. As the Scottish National party tabled a reasoned amendment, which unfortunately did not get selected, it will not surprise anyone that we have a number of significant problems with the Bill. Part 1 of the Bill relates to recovering the covid moneys and the services and goods that the Government received that were substandard, for which organisations need to pay the Government back. Since its scope does not extend to Scotland, I will not add many comments, except to note that I have a long track record of bringing up covid fraud, particularly PPE frauds, in this Chamber. I will support the Government’s work to recoup the money that was fraudulently taken in Government contracts that did not deliver.”
“The Government need to do what they can to put dignity and respect at the heart of the social security system and rebuild people’s trust in it before they introduce these sweeping, disproportionate powers. The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion mentioned the fact that there are so many unclaimed benefits. Surely ensuring that people have the money they are entitled to, ensuring that they have enough to live on, reducing child poverty and ensuring that not one child grows up in poverty should be more of a priority for the Government than introducing eligibility criteria and demanding that banks provide financial information on social security claimants.”
“Member for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky) very helpfully laid out the figures on every pound claimed fraudulently, which I genuinely thought was very helpful, disabled people feel that they are being lumped in with the entire group of people claiming fraudulently—whether they can or cannot work, whether they are being paid universal credit or PIP to assist them with their work, and whether they have a helpful employer or have not been able to find one. People feel they are being demonised by politicians simply for claiming social security, which they are entitled to. Until that trust is rebuilt, making the decision to look at their bank accounts, as in these measures, is the absolute wrong decision.”
“The DWP can now see into people’s bank accounts and say, “You don’t meet the eligibility criteria, so you won’t be getting the social security payment.” Until we have built up much a higher level of trust, most people will assume that these powers will create more errors in the system, rather than reduce them. Lastly, on a subject that I mentioned earlier, a massive number of disabled people have no trust in the social security system. They are massively concerned about the cuts coming down the line and concerned in particular that they will bear the brunt of those cuts, given the comments from so many politicians, using the word “scroungers” and talking about people fraudulently claiming benefits. Despite the fact that the hon.”
“Unfortunately, I have not seen it because I was not aware of its publication until the Secretary of State stood on her feet. It would have been helpful for Members to have been given that information beforehand, so that we could have read the Information Commissioner’s comments in advance of Second Reading, given a number of us have mentioned the significant concerns of the Information Commissioner in relation to the previous Bill. The Secretary of State said that the Bill is tough and fair. Another Member talked about tax and benefit fraud, and the issue with the DWP making overpayments. They suggested that this new system will ensure that overpayments are caught earlier. I suggest that that is a tad over-optimistic. The DWP makes mistakes and makes overpayments, and now we are giving it another place to make errors.”
“I appreciate that the Government have made changes around affordability, but they still do not assess either benefit clawbacks or the deductions on the basis of whether they are actually affordable for the people having to pay them back. Are the Government planning to put that in place at some point in future?”
“The individuals who are going to do the independent assessment will be appointed by the Secretary of State. Would it not be better for Parliament to agree the appointment of those individuals, so that we can be assured that they are actually independent?”
“I am not sure how long the Minister has left in her speech, but I have a question about the welfare cap. We are being asked to make two decisions: to approve the welfare cap, and to note the breach. She has made the case for how the Government are trying to get Britain working and why the breach has happened this year, but so far she has not made the case for why they are putting in a welfare cap this year and why we parliamentarians should agree to it.”
“People go to food banks because work does not pay and the two-child cap, for example, means that they do not have enough money to live on or to support their families. Why is the hon. Member supporting a welfare cap that bakes in the two-child limit?”
“I do not think that support is in place, and I do not think any Government have provided enough support to ensure that people are not left on the scrapheap.”
““Where can we try to improve things so that people who are pretty close to work anyway—who are not that far out, who have pretty stable lives and who do not have an incredibly chaotic lifestyle—can access work?” We will be letting down those people who have chaotic lifestyles and who are so far away from being able to get into paying work—particularly full-time paying work—if we reduce the amount of disability benefits they can claim or reduce the amount of support they can receive, when they are a year away from having the stability to be able to access work. The social security safety net is not a safety net unless it provides support to people who absolutely cannot work right now, and who will need 12, 15 or 18 months, or two years, of intensive support to get to a position where they can achieve part-time work.”
“I have dealt with people in my constituency surgeries who are being supported by third sector organisations, which are being hammered by the national insurance changes and will not be able to provide the support they have been providing. I have dealt with individuals who are six months away from having the consistency in their lives to be able to get up at 8 o’clock every morning. My concern is that all Governments—I am not specifically blaming the Labour Government—look for quick wins. They look for the low-hanging fruit.”
“Once they have solved the problem, and once the welfare system has improved in the way they are trying to improve it, the numbers and the spend will reduce. I am, however, not entirely convinced that everything the Government are putting in place will reduce the spend, because they are battling against a number of factors. Even if they manage to get jobs to pay better, even if they further increase the minimum wage so it is closer to a living wage, even if they ensure there are more opportunities, and even if the Chancellor’s opportunities for growth actually exist and create many more jobs, there will still be a significant number of people whom the system is not set up to support.”
“Everyone would be jumping up and down, saying, “That’s backwards,” if we said, “We are going to put a cap on the number of people who can receive chemotherapy, and on the amount spent on it, because we are going to reduce the rates of smoking, obesity and other risk factors. We are going to have a healthier population, so it is okay for us to cap chemotherapy. We are going to put all this stuff in place to ensure that we reduce the spend on chemotherapy.” We should first spend the money and solve the problem, and then the spend will reduce. That is the whole point about the welfare cap—it is backwards. By having a welfare cap, the Government are saying that they will reduce the spend on welfare by doing all the things that they are not yet doing. They have not solved the problem.”
“I am glad that they are reforming jobcentres so that they will be assisting people in a way that they maybe have not been doing in recent times. I am pleased about all of that, but we need to recognise that 38% of those on universal credit are already working. It is just that their work is not paying enough or is not offering flexible enough hours if they have childcare or other caring commitments, and therefore they need that top-up. The welfare cap covers not only benefits and other elements of social security provided to people who are out of work, but child benefit and a huge number of different things. It is not entirely focused on people who are out of work, although I appreciate the Government’s action on that. The right hon. Member for Islington North talked about how the welfare cap is a bit backwards.”
“I agree with a number of the comments that have been made across the House today. I found myself nodding along with the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) there, and particularly with the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). I just want to highlight a couple of things before I get into the meat of my speech. We know that 38% of universal credit claimants are in work, so I am glad that the Government are talking about how to make work pay and how to get more people into work. I am glad that the Government are investing in strategies that will get young people into work, and that will get people who have been long-term unemployed, or even short-term unemployed, back into work.”
“Finally, on issues relating to specific geographical locations—the Minister mentioned Blackpool—hon. Members would not expect me, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen North, to avoid talking about the importance for Aberdeen of having a just transition. I mentioned doing things backwards; the Minister needs to ensure we build up renewable energy jobs before we knock down the jobs in fossil fuels. I am concerned that the Government are failing to do that in the right order, and that we will have gaps where people will become unemployed because of the UK Government’s actions.”
“It is absolutely about long-term planning. That is why we are making the case that we cannot have a welfare cap and that things are being done backwards. We should put in place all the supports that the Government are promising, and more, to get people to the position where they can get into work. The welfare cap is an unfortunate hurdle, particularly as it bakes in some of the cuts that have been made, such as the winter fuel payment. It seems that there will not be an increase in the level of paternity pay; it would be nice to see an increase in paternity pay levels and in the number of men taking up paternity leave. On young people not in education, employment or training—a phrase that was used earlier, when somebody said NEET—it would be great if young people had more chances and choices.”
“The nuclear defence enterprise for the UK is an extortionate vanity project. We would much rather the money was spent on conventional defence capabilities. The Minister states that the contract will drive efficiency to reduce waste and save over £400 million. Given that no major nuclear contract has ever come in under budget, how does she expect this to happen? On the 200 jobs that will be split between Cardiff and Glasgow, can she let us know when during the course of the contract these jobs will be delivered? Will it be at the end or earlier on, and what will the split be between Cardiff and Glasgow?”
“We need to mobilise them and take them with us, ensuring that we amplify their voices as they speak in favour of the better future that we all want.”
“The beginning of the road is reducing rights, taking up a Sharpie and writing that trans people are no longer to be recognised, and saying that people who riot against democracy are fine, cool and should carry on. Many of us are using our platform to say these things, but we are not winning. We need to tackle disinformation and misinformation, online and in person, and the diminution of rights that people have fought for. This is an incredibly poignant debate. I am proud of all the MPs who have stood up and argued against dehumanisation, and have related their experiences and those of constituents and survivors. We need to do that, and not just on Holocaust Memorial Day. Every one of us needs to work for a better future every single day. There are so many good people out there who care a huge amount about this.”
“You have to allow us the freedom to say things that dehumanise others.” We must counter that chipping away at the hard-won rights of minority groups. We need to stand there and say not just, “You’re wrong,” to people behaving in a racist way and using racist rhetoric, but, “No. We will not reduce the rights that trans people have. We will not reduce the rights that gay people have. We will not reduce the rights that Jewish people, Muslims and people of all faiths should have to practise their faith.” We should make a stand for equality and the rights that people have as well as against the hatred. Reduction in those rights is how we got to the far end of the road in Auschwitz.”
“The Jewish people are less human than you are, and they are to blame for your life being a struggle and for you finding things difficult right now.” We know that that divisive rhetoric is being used around the world right now. It is being used here. I am sure that all hon. Members have seen a rise in the number of emails to them saying, “I cannot afford to pay my energy bill, and that is because of the number of illegals in this country.” We all need to stand up against that. It is not just about countering the explicit hate that people come up with and the obvious racism and antisemitism that people send us in emails; it is about countering the people who will say, “Yes, but you have to allow us our free speech.”