Ms Diane Abbott
MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington · Independent · United Kingdom
“Opposition Members seem to need reminding that the early release programme was devised by a Conservative Government. We have been debating at great length, in the media and among politicians, keeping people in prison for longer.”
“I have been in the House for some of them, and each one was accompanied by the same grand assertions that the Home Secretary has made this afternoon: that they would bring fairness to our immigration system and fairness to our asylum system. They did not. They simply took away rights and treated people badly.”
“People born here were deported. Families were split up. People lost their jobs. Others were denied re-entry to the country after holidays or travelling to family events, including funerals. That scandal is not over, and it is not something that we can move on from.”
“I listened with great care to the Home Secretary’s speech, and one of the things she said—she said it more than once, in different phraseology—was that her legislation is designed to remove the burden of asylum seekers from the shoulders of British people.”
“I would argue that that legislation has failed to do what Ministers said it would do; in fact, it has made people’s lives harsher and more difficult.”
“The Home Secretary will be aware of how important it is to make sure that Members of this House get the protection and defence that they need. At one point, I got as much abuse and as many threats of violence as all the other women MPs put together, so it is important that we take this issue seriously.”
The complete record
Every one of 602 lines we hold for Ms Diane Abbott, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 13.
“The Home Secretary will be aware of how important it is to make sure that Members of this House get the protection and defence that they need. At one point, I got as much abuse and as many threats of violence as all the other women MPs put together, so it is important that we take this issue seriously. We should recognise—I can speak to this, because of my years in the House—that the situation has gotten much, much worse with the rise of online activity. We need to find a way to make online companies more accountable for the abuse and threats of violence that they allow on their platforms. We need to make them aware of the importance of protecting Members of Parliament.”
“The Home Secretary referred earlier to immigrants coming here to live off the taxpayer. I put it to her that not only do a disproportionate number of immigrants find themselves in work, whether legal or illegal work, but the children of immigrants pay tax. She should remember that.”
“I would argue that that legislation has failed to do what Ministers said it would do; in fact, it has made people’s lives harsher and more difficult. I would argue that if the Bar Council or any amount of legal bodies are saying to the Secretary of State that this legislation is unfair and unduly cruel, and will not achieve the result that it is meant to achieve, she needs to look again. This very negative and hostile rhetoric and language about asylum seekers and immigrants is not what one would want to hear in this House. My parents were immigrants, and many of my relatives were asylum seekers. We need to be talking about the contribution that immigrants and asylum seekers have made to this country, not talking about them as if they are some kind of burden.”
“People born here were deported. Families were split up. People lost their jobs. Others were denied re-entry to the country after holidays or travelling to family events, including funerals. That scandal is not over, and it is not something that we can move on from. Very many victims of that legislation are still facing severe delays, wrongful rejections and low payouts. Maybe the Minister should talk to some of the people waiting for their compensation, because there is a view that Ministers or officials are trying to wait out the victims. It is as if they are hoping that, year by year, there will be less victims to give compensation to. The legislation before us is being sold and explained in exactly the same way that nearly 40 years of immigration legislation has been sold to this House.”
“I have been in the House for some of them, and each one was accompanied by the same grand assertions that the Home Secretary has made this afternoon: that they would bring fairness to our immigration system and fairness to our asylum system. They did not. They simply took away rights and treated people badly. One example of a piece of legislation that was introduced in precisely the same terms in which she is introducing this Bill is the Immigration Act 2014, which was created in the name of the hostile environment. Again, the House was told that it would bring fairness. Instead, it led directly to the Windrush scandal. People who had been invited here, with cross-party support, to help rebuild Britain after world war two were treated in the most shameful way. People who had given their lives to the UK were deported.”
“I listened with great care to the Home Secretary’s speech, and one of the things she said—she said it more than once, in different phraseology—was that her legislation is designed to remove the burden of asylum seekers from the shoulders of British people. I live in a part of the world that has as many asylum seekers and immigrants as anywhere else. Over the centuries, we have had Irish immigrants, Jewish immigrants, Caribbean immigrants, south Asian immigrants, Turkish immigrants and African immigrants. None of them was a burden on anyone’s shoulders, and my constituents will be dismayed to hear her talk in those terms. The Home Office website tells us that there have been well over 150 pieces of primary legislation or policy changes on immigration since 1988.”
“The Secretary of State will know that many women are never more vulnerable than in childbirth. It is about not just the vulnerability, but the horror of what women and their babies are exposed to in childbirth. We see inquiry after inquiry, and nothing seems to improve. Very many of those who suffer during childbirth are black women and their babies. The Secretary of State said himself that “Black babies are still more than twice as likely to be stillborn than white babies, and black women are almost three times more likely to die during pregnancy or shortly after birth than white women.” The whole House wants to see progress, but it is not enough to have another inquiry or another report; what black women want is equity of treatment and fewer black women and their babies dying.”
“Knowing that history, which goes back 30 years, and given what is known, it is one thing to say, as the Prime Minister insists on saying, “Nobody told me; nobody told me anything,” but what this House wants to know is: why did the Prime Minister not ask?”
“The Prime Minister has gone on at considerable length about process and procedure, but ordinary people do not really care about process and procedure; they want transparency, and they want to know that they can have confidence in the words of elected politicians like all of us in this Chamber. It was in the ’90s that Peter Mandelson had to resign from the Cabinet for the first time, because of his dealings with the millionaire Geoffrey Robinson. A few years later, he had to resign from the Cabinet for the second time, because of his relationships with the billionaire Hinduja family. Peter Mandelson has a history.”
“The Iranian regime is a threat to us all, not least to its own population. I implore Ministers to remember the importance of a debate in Parliament, just as we had on Iraq, if we move further in our involvement with Trump’s war.”
“The Prime Minister will be aware that very many of our constituents remember the Iraq war, and they will have noted the similarities with this war: both in the middle east and both illegal. Of course, the current Iranian regime is horrible, violent, murderous and a threat to international order, but does he accept that our constituents are not prepared to see this country dragged into another war of the nature of the Iraq war?”
“The Secretary of State will be aware how traumatic it is for a child to grow up with special educational needs and to support such a child. She will also be aware that disproportionate numbers of those children come from marginalised communities, and of those parents’ anxiety that these reforms will mean, in the long run, that children will lose access to support that they are legally entitled to now. The Secretary of State has said that she wants to reform the SEN system once and for all, but we cannot reform it without the work and the support staff. Just recently, a London borough has seen a third of its staff resign. Will the Secretary of State tell the House how, in order to deliver on her aspirations, which we all share, she will make sure that the staff are there, are paid, and do not face the pressures that they face currently?”
“Nobody in this Chamber wants to defend the regime of Maduro, but what some of us want to do is to stand up for the importance of a rules-based international order. I might add that because my parents were born overseas, I take the question of national sovereignty extremely seriously. We cannot have a situation where a country, because it is bigger and stronger, walks into a smaller country, snatches its political leadership—whatever people think of that political leadership—helicopters it out and puts it on a show trial in an outside country. That cannot be something that this Government are prepared to support. Let me add, I know that the Opposition are blithe about what Trump is doing—”
“Blithe. I know that the Opposition are blithe about what Trump is doing, but let me say this: there will be countries that will look at Trump’s attitude and carelessness towards issues of sovereignty and think, “What happens if we have that threat? Who will be willing to stand up for us? Who will be willing to stand up for our national sovereignty?” As far as I have heard thus far, it will not necessarily be our Ministers. And there will be individuals—”
“My question is: what would the Foreign Secretary say to British voters—ordinary British voters; not left-wing British voters in particular—who do not understand why a British Prime Minister is not willing to stand up for an international rules-based order and is not willing to defend national sovereignty?”
“The entire House is concerned about victims, including the victims of attacks on women and girls. However, the entire House is also concerned about the men and women who will undoubtedly suffer miscarriages of justice if the right to trial by jury is curtailed. To quote from a lawyer: “The right to trial by jury is an important factor in the delicate balance between the power of the state and the freedom of the individual. The further it is restricted, the greater the imbalance.” That lawyer is our current Prime Minister. He wrote that in 1992—it was as true then as it is today. How can the Lord Chancellor propose a limitation of the right to trial by jury when he knows perfectly well the category of defendant who will suffer the ill effects?”
“The Foreign Secretary will be aware that Hurricane Melissa is of huge concern internationally, to those who have friends and family on holiday in Jamaica and to those of us of Jamaican heritage here in Britain. Will she give an assurance that in the horrific aftermath of Melissa, we will give every possible help and support to the people of Jamaica?”
“We will charge you thousands of pounds, even though we need you. You may have no rights as citizens or workers. We may even expel you from this country, where we have previously granted you and your family the legal right to stay.” That is not contributing to the cherishing of our migrant class; it is creating a class of third-class Gastarbeiter. Among all these other things, it is being suggested by those on both sides of the House that, “You may have to train British workers for your job.” I am old enough to remember when employers were responsible for in-work training. Sadly, this policy is the logical conclusion of Brexit and of putting the interests of business way before the interests of people. We should remember that all this debate on migration is largely aimed at people with black or brown skin.”
“Many in this House have waxed lyrical about the contribution made by the Windrush generation of migrants from the Caribbean, and I share that admiration for their bravery and their accomplishments. My mother was one of that generation of West Indian women who came to this country and helped to build our NHS. However, I point out to the House that at this point, the majority of Windrush migrants have not had their compensation. If the Minister is not aware of that, I urge her to look into it and ensure that these men and women get their compensation before they pass away. Although we can wax lyrical about the Windrush generation today, all too often in the current political debate migrants are spoken about as if they make no contribution at all. We say, “You can only come if you are highly paid. You cannot automatically bring your family.”
“In this Black History Month, I am sorry to have to say that any objective assessment of the current state of racial justice in this country would not be a wholly positive one. Representation is the great success story. We have to acknowledge the progress that is registered: we have a black female Leader of the Opposition, a Pakistani-heritage Home Secretary, a black Caribbean-heritage Lord Chancellor and at least 90 black and minority Members of Parliament. When I entered the House in 1987, there were no black MPs whatsoever, and for 10 years I was the only black female MP. Sadly, increased representation has not been accompanied by the improvement in policy and practice that some of us would have liked to see.”
“I am aware that many Members of this House are not paying attention to this debate, but hopefully some civil servants will read it in Hansard. My parents came to this country in the 1950s. They did not come to be a drain on the public sector, or to harm society in any way. They came to help rebuild Britain after the second world war, they came to contribute and, yes, they came to make a better life for their children. I have to pay them credit; I have to honour them and that whole generation—so I ask the Minister and the House that we move beyond the sort of debate we are having on migration and that we address issues in relation to race, including education and crime. We have to look at those issues. Otherwise, everything we are saying in today’s debate is purely lip service.”
“They have to hear that they get preference in housing—which is a sick joke, as anybody who deals with housing casework in ethnic minority communities will know. They have to hear that they are all sexual predators and paedophiles, which is the most monstrous lie straight from the 1930s political playbook. Finally, they face the indignity of being told that those who want to take to the streets, try to burn asylum seekers out of their accommodation and randomly attack Muslims have “legitimate concerns”. It is one thing to wax sentimental about the bravery and accomplishments of an earlier generation, but they were, without exception, migrants. I am confident that they would want a debate that looks not just back, but forward to a fairer and more just society in relation to race and migration.”
“What is true of education is true for black and Asian people throughout their lives and across all important areas, such as jobs, pay, housing, healthcare and mental health, as well as in all aspects of the criminal justice system. I remind the House that black people face higher police stop-and-search rates, higher rates of arrest and higher rates of conviction, and are more likely to receive custodial sentences for longer periods. There is a two-tier justice system in this country, and the victims are black people and, increasingly, Muslim men. On top of all that, those suffering these indignities have to listen to a daily diet of claims that they are all a drain on public services. Without migrants, many of our public services would not be as strong as they are.”
“To my knowledge, none of the four past Secretaries of State for Education—or even the current Secretary of State for Education—have ever mentioned black children and education. They prefer instead to speak solely of the disadvantages of white working-class pupils. I will give another example of this rampant colour-blindness when it comes to education: the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which is currently going through Parliament, makes no mention of race. This year’s child safeguarding practice review says that there is a significant silence when it comes to talking about race and racism in child safeguarding. I have worked for many years on issues in relation to black children in education, and I plead with Ministers to start to address this issue. We are talking about millions of children who are being failed by the system.”
“Even after poverty is accounted for, mixed white and black Caribbean children and black Caribbean children have among the lowest levels of educational achievement. Among other things, black children see three times the amount of exclusion as white children. They are going into university in greater numbers, but the proportion is lower than in the population as a whole. The levels of exclusion for children—both black and white—have alarming consequences for their life chances. A former director general of the Prison Service, Martin Narey, said that on the day a child is excluded from school, they might as well be given a date and time to turn up in prison. If we wish seriously to address the life chances of this generation of black and minority ethnic children, we really have to address issues in relation to education.”
“I do agree. We have to be very careful about talking about progress when, as my colleague says, a lot of the debate on race is pursued by using code, but the issue still remains the colour of our skin. The hue and cry about immigration today does not apply to migrants from Hong Kong or Ukraine. I am not in favour of that, but the targeting and constant demonisation of migrants clearly highlights a theme; sadly, the theme is racism. Matters are hardly any better for the long-established black and Asian British communities in this country. Sadly, we have had successive Governments who attempt to deny the existence of racism at all. One issue that I feel very strongly about is educational underachievement.”
“A young lady who came to work for me years ago said that she had never seen the word nigger so often in her life, and she did not expect that.”
“I agree with the hon. Member that some of this negativity around race and asylum has always been there. Does she agree that the rise of Reform has emboldened people who always thought like that to speak publicly in that way? Does she also agree that none of the parties in this House should be chasing after Reform? That is a brick wall for a progressive party.”
“The entire House is concerned about the educational outcomes of working-class children in general, but does the Minister accept that if we only ever talk about white working-class children, black parents and black communities may believe that their children are being ignored?”
“The Minister will be aware that many of us in this Chamber think that Palestine Action is in a different category from the other two organisations that he is seeking to proscribe. Is he aware that several UN special rapporteurs, including those protecting human rights, say that they have told the UK Government that “acts of protest that damage property, but are not intended to kill or injure people, should not be treated as terrorism”?”
“It cannot be right that we have had concessions so late in the day, even in the course of the debate. If Ministers were proud of what they are doing, concessions would not be coming so late in the day. As I say, even at this late stage, we should withdraw the Bill.”
“I, myself, continue to oppose the Bill on moral, legal and political grounds. Millions of disabled people will watch this debate on television, hear about it from their friends and family or read about it in a newspaper. They will not be able to believe that the Labour party—the Labour party—is putting legislation through like this. If this legislation means anything at all, it means money coming out of the pockets of the disabled, otherwise what is the point of it? If you are going to save money in this financial year, disabled people have to lose money. It will be shocking to so many people listening and hearing about this that Labour Ministers are standing up and putting this through to hit Treasury targets. Even at this late stage, I urge colleagues to think about the people who put us here and withdraw the Bill.”
“It is not a coincidence that a not a single organisation which speaks for the disabled supports the legislation. It will become law before two important reviews—one into PIP itself, the Timms review, and the “Keep Britain Working” review—will actually report. The reviews, and in particular the Timms review, will actually be a dead letter. And because it is too late to change the face of the Bill, Members are being asked to vote purely on the basis of verbal assurances from Ministers. None of us would come to an important arrangement with our council on the word of councillors, so, with all due respect, why are we expected to vote for a law that will affect millions of people’s lives and drive hundreds of thousands of people into poverty purely on the basis of what Ministers claim they are going to do?”
“I deal month after month with dozens of people who are struggling with the welfare system. It is not that people do not accept that it needs reform. The problem is these reforms, which are unfair, ill thought out and, in the end, focused on saving money. On the question of the personal independence payment, too many Members talk about PIP as if it is too easy to claim, and that people are gaming the system or even engaged in some sort of scam. The truth is that PIP is generally not merely difficult to claim, but humiliating to claim. Any reform should deal with that. There are so many practical problems with the Bill. It is being rushed through in a week, which is ridiculous. There has been no formal consultation with the people whose lived experience it is concerned with.”
“Millions of disabled people will listen, view or read about this debate and its consequences, and feel fear. For some Members of the House, this is just an afternoon’s political cut and thrust, but for the disabled it is the rest of their lives. Members will have heard that we should be concerned about the rising trajectory of welfare spending in this country. Ministers say that all the time, but what about the rising trajectory of tax avoidance, or the rising trajectory of salaries in the City of London? Why must people on welfare bear all the opprobrium and have the money taken out of their pockets? We are the Labour party, and historically we have stood up against injustice. Why are we stepping away from that today? Anybody who has ever had anything to do with the welfare system knows that it needs reform.”
“This may be the most fateful Bill that we discuss this Parliament. It is literally a matter of life and death. I have heard talk today of the injustices of the current situation. What could be more unjust than someone losing their life because of poorly drafted legislation? We hear about panels. The people talking about panels presumably have not had much to do with them. I would not put my life, or the life of anyone dear to me, in the hands of a panel of officials. I stress, right from the beginning, that it is perfectly possible to support assisted dying, as I do, but not be prepared to vote for this Bill. There is so much that is problematic about it. First, as I believe is widely understood, there has not been enough time to debate the Bill. Secondly, a Bill of this seriousness should be given more time.”
“Who could be more voiceless than somebody who is in their sick bed and believes that they are dying? I ask Members in this debate to speak up for the voiceless one more time. There is no doubt that if the Bill is passed in its current form, there will be people among the most vulnerable and marginalised in our society who lose their lives unnecessarily. I therefore implore the House to reject this Bill—not because I am opposed to assisted dying in principle, but because my concern is for vulnerable and marginalised persons and communities.”
“As the former Prime Minister Gordon Brown has put it, our law should not “focus on the few who wish for assisted dying and do too little to support the majority of those facing their final days who want—and deserve—access to the best of palliative care.” What choice is it for those who think that, because their doctor raises it with them at all, they are being guided in that direction? An amendment that might have addressed that issue was rejected in Committee. It is a possibility that proponents of the Bill do not take seriously at all, but anyone who knows how institutions work should be watchful of it. I came to this House to be a voice for the voiceless—that has not always been favoured by my own leadership, but that is why I came to the House.”
“This Bill may produce choice for those of us, like almost everybody in this House, who have for the entirety of their adult life been confident in dealing with authority and institutions, but even then, the Bill would need amendments. But what choice does the Bill hold for someone who, all their life, has lacked agency, particularly in a family context, which may be particularly the case in certain cultures and communities? And what choice does the Bill offer to those who lack access to good palliative care?”
“There has been a lot of talk about there being no evidence of coercion, but within the family, the most powerful coercion is silence: it is the failure to answer when a question is put. If police cannot spot coercion in domestic violence, how can they be expected to spot coercion in assisted dying? The Royal College of Pathologists and the former chief coroner have pointed out that without a role for a coroner, the Bill raises the possibility of foul play. When an amendment was tabled in Committee to deal with that, however, it was opposed. The Bill would allow private for-profit contractors to run an assisted dying service with no profit cap and no transparency, but when an amendment was tabled in Committee to deal with that point, it was opposed. We have heard—and we will hear over and over again in this debate—about choice.”
“10. Whether the commissioners have made an estimate of the proportion of the Church’s assets that may have a link to historical involvement with slavery.”
“My hon. Friend will be aware that there is a lot of interest in the relationship between the Church and the slave trade. Is she able to say over what period the Church made profits from the slave trade? Is she able to specify the names of the companies that the Church invested in, or even the names of the slave plantations? Is she able to quantify exactly how much money the Church made over the period when it was involved in the slave trade? And is she able to say whether the Church’s profit from the slave trade is still part of its income today?”
“Does my hon. Friend agree that far too many people do not have confidence in the face of authority, and that if a doctor raises assisted suicide with them—no matter how tactfully or professionally—they will feel that they are being steered in that direction?”
“I begin by thanking in advance all those who will take part in this debate, all those watching, all those in the outside world who are campaigning against the cuts and, above all, the disabled community itself, which, day by day, shows exemplary resilience and courage. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in her spring statement, raised the curtain on a series of welfare cuts: the health element of universal credit will be cut by 50% and frozen for new claimants, and the Office for Budget Responsibility has outlined that the planned cuts to disability benefits will reduce PIP for at least 800,000 claimants and cut health-related universal credit payments for 3 million families. And that is just the beginning.”
“I beg to move, That this House has considered Personal Independence Payment and disabled people. I am proud to have secured this debate today, and to be able to stand up for the disabled in the light of the catastrophic effects that the proposed cut to personal independence payments will have on them. This is the week after the council elections and the Runcorn and Helsby by-election proved disastrous for at least two major parties. The issue on everyone’s lips, and the cause of much of the disaffection, was welfare cuts, and specifically cuts to personal independence payments.”
“I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The Government insist that the rising disability benefits bill means that something must be done, but in a recent report, the New Economics Foundation revealed that the disability benefits bill has risen because there has been a rise in the number of disabled people and a rise in deprivation. But, as we learned from David Cameron’s round of austerity, cuts have consequences that severely limit, or even eliminate, their supposed savings.”
“I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. We need an equality impact assessment now, and I cannot understand why the Government are introducing these random welfare benefit cuts without allowing MPs to understand fully what the consequences will be. The fact that the proposed welfare cuts come on top of the cut to the winter fuel allowance and the failure to raise the child benefit ceiling makes everything worse. The furious response to their proposed welfare cuts, particularly the cuts to personal independence payments, seems to have come as a surprise to the Government. PIP is a benefit intended to help people who have a health condition or disability with the extra costs of living. Unfortunately, some people, including some Ministers, talk about it as if it were a handout.”
“PIP is certainly not an income, and I imagine that the Minister will be in contact with Leicester city council to try to understand what it thinks it is doing. The new points system that the Government are suggesting for people to qualify for the maximum level of PIP is particularly concerning. For instance, it will mean that people who cannot wash below their waist could lose points and lose benefits, and be expected to find a job. Focus groups are revolted when they hear that. The country’s anger at these cuts boiled over last week in spectacular fashion with the by-election in Runcorn, where Labour lost its 16th safest seat.”
“On the one hand, they insist that they are helping the disabled by putting them back to work, but on the other hand, they say this cut will save £9 billion. Well, they cannot do both. Putting disabled people into rewarding, sustained employment, which we would all support, means spending money on training, therapy and childcare. In the short run, putting disabled people into jobs will not save money; it will actually cost more. The only certain way that cutting PIP saves the billions of pounds that the Government want is by making PIP recipients live on less, and this is something that Ministers claim they do not want to do.”
“However, despite the catastrophic results last week, the Prime Minister has made it clear that nothing will deter him from pushing ahead with these cuts. So far, his only concession has been to say that he will go “further and faster.” In my Hackney North and Stoke Newington constituency, well over 8,000 people are on either personal independence payment or disability living allowance, which translates nationwide to hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of men and women whose fury will only mount as they find that, month by month, their payments are shrinking or disappearing altogether. The Labour leadership have not helped their case for cutting PIP by putting forward a set of contradictory arguments.”