Debbie Abrahams
MP for Oldham East and Saddleworth · Labour · United Kingdom
“I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and congratulate him on not just the content, but the tone of his delivery. He has elevated the status of not just this Parliament and this Government, but this country, by ensuring that everybody—all states and all individuals—are seen as equal before the law and in terms of human rights.”
“I welcome my right hon. Friend to his place and thank him for his statement. I particularly agree with what he was saying about social security and tackling the drivers of the high rates of young people not in education, employment or training.”
“] I have just about half a minute left, if that is convenient, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Committee recommends a more holistic approach to future assessments. The Department should consider the cumulative impact of policies on individuals.”
“We also heard that almost half of people aged 60 to 66 in the lowest income quintile were already classified as frail. These are people who are vulnerable to deterioration in physical and cognitive functioning.”
“The evidence that we received was clear: financial resources, the capacity to work, and good health help people manage the transition to a higher state pension age. However, many people reach their early 60s in poor health and unable to work, after years in low-paid and often physically demanding work.”
“There are other reasons why people leave work before state pension age, including becoming family carers. On the flip side, we heard about older workers who wanted to work but could not find a suitable job, and people who had left employment because of illness or caring responsibilities and could not get back into work.”
The complete record
Every one of 600 lines we hold for Debbie Abrahams, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 12.
“The total package of tax changes has allowed the Chancellor to make some incredibly important decisions to help with the cost of living crisis and boost living standards, including increasing the minimum wage and living wage, increasing the state pension, freezing rail fares and fuel duty, and cutting £150 from next year’s energy bills. I particularly want to talk about the abolition of the so-called two child limit. It is now believed that this measure drive the increase in child poverty from 3.6 million in 2010 to 4.5 million in 2024, causing a multitude of poverty-related harms, including an increase in the prevalence of young people not in education, employment or training. A person is five times more likely to be NEET if they experience childhood poverty, and more than half of the current NEET population belong to this cohort.”
“This was a positive, progressive Budget with fairness at its heart. These fiscal decisions will benefit most people, but particularly those who have been really struggling with the cost of living crisis over recent years. Those with the broadest shoulders have been asked to do their fair share of the heavy lifting, with all but the top 10% income households seeing the proportion of their net income increase by 2028-29. Fairer policies benefit us all, not just the recipients. As the International Monetary Fund has shown, reducing income inequality stimulates growth, but we also know that fairer societies improve educational attainment, social mobility, trust between communities, health status and much more. Collectively, these tax reforms are forecast to raise over £8 billion in 2029-30 from wealth and the wealthy.”
“This means that pensioners whose pension schemes became insolvent through no fault of their own, and that have failed to keep pace with inflation, will now have the situation rectified. That will benefit more than 250,000 pension protection fund and financial assurance scheme members, and I give credit to the Pensions Action Group and the Deprived Pensioners Association, and to the Pensions Minister for listening to me. This is a very good Budget. It gives hope, particularly to my constituents and others like them, so I am very grateful.”
“I absolutely agree. It is a shame that we need food banks at all—this is the state of what we have inherited, unfortunately. I commend the Health Secretary for the work that has been done to increase capital investment in the NHS, which will boost NHS productivity. A recent Health Equity North report, “Health for Wealth”, showed that by reducing the inequalities between the north and the south, and by improving health in the north, we can increase productivity by £18 billion a year. On health inequalities, I hope we can focus on the weighting given to resource allocation. My final point is about the commitment to index pre-1997 accrued pensions for inflation, capped at 2.5%, where scheme rules allow.”
“When the shadow Minister talks about people in work, is he referring to the families with three or four children who, despite the fact that they are working, are living in poverty? How dare he castigate them and say those awful things, when working families are struggling because of the appalling circumstances that the previous Government left us with?”
“I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement—I appreciate its technical nature. Clearly, it is a concern that this evidence was not made available to our right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) last year and I know that he will investigate that. I appreciate that he will not be able to give a specific date as to when he may be able to decide what this evidence means for his final conclusions, but is he able to give a timeframe for when he will be able to report back to the House?”
“I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on an excellent and really important debate. May I take her back to what she was saying about the food industry, wider population prevention measures and what this means for school meals and for our poorer communities, who are reliant on food supporters, such as the Trussell Trust and others, in terms of the type of food made available to them?”
“Health Equity North recently produced an analysis for the Select Committee that revealed that getting just 5% of people with disabilities or health conditions into employment would yield cost savings of over £12 billion. What progress is being made with employers to enable sick and disabled people who want to work, and are able to do so, to get into employment?”
“I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and add my congratulations to him, the National Security Adviser and all his Ministers on the months and months of work that they have done that has contributed to this—it was so generously acknowledged by the US envoy to the middle east, if not by the Leader of the Opposition. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, as work towards a just peace continues apace, the principle of Gazans for Gaza, whether that is in the governance arrangements or in reconstruction, must apply?”
“My constituents in Oldham East and Saddleworth were delighted to learn that Oldham has received a £20 million award from the Pride in Place programme. Will the Secretary of State expand on the transformational change that the award will mean to places like Oldham, where Government support was decimated under the Conservatives? In particular, what difference will be made by local people having a say in how the money will be spent?”
“I thank the Home Secretary for her excellent statement. I pay tribute to the men who were killed and I send my condolences to their family and friends, and the wider Jewish community. As the Home Secretary has said, there is no place whatsoever in the UK for hate crime of any sort, directed at any group or any individual, and those who propagate hate must be held to account. The Home Secretary proposes changes to the regulations in the Public Order Act 2023; in addition, will she undertake a review of the Online Safety Act 2023? Use of the online space is a key way in which messages of hate are propagated, and not enough is being done to stop that.”
“My constituent’s seven-year-old son has been waiting 13 months for an assessment, and she has had to give up her job to care for him. Does my hon. Friend agree that the issue has an impact on not only the children and their parents—as she rightly says—but the economy, if we are losing people who are already in work?”
“My hon. Friend is being very generous with her time. Just before this debate, I met Antoine Renard, who made a point to me about the disinformation that is being spread about rotten food, and emphasised the importance of having trusted NGOs, a point my hon. Friend made earlier in her speech. Does she agree that we must compel the President of the United States to recognise those points when he comes to the UK on a state visit next week?”
“I thank my hon. Friend for her statement. No one doubts her, and her team’s, absolute commitment to addressing the root causes of the abuse and exploitation that so many women and some boys have experienced. In my contact with women this morning—I speak on their behalf—I heard that they are absolutely committed and understand and reflect the commitment of my hon. Friend, but they are keen to know a bit more detail about when the chair can be appointed and about the relationship that the national inquiry will have with the local inquiries. My hon. Friend quite rightly said that victims and survivors should be engaged and involved in the appointment of the chair, and that is so important. Will she say more about how we will ensure that there is locality-specific representation as well? There are slight differences according to locality.”
“I was delighted to see the establishment of the disability advisory panel a week or so ago. [ Interruption. ] I am so sorry, Mr Speaker; I have a cold. How will the advisory panel link with the co-production in the Timms review?”
“I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, and I recognise the complexity of the issues that she is facing. I was very struck by Lord Dubs’s description of his personal circumstances on the radio this morning. His father left Prague as soon as the Nazis invaded in 1939. Lord Dubs got Kindertransport—he was one of the last ones out—and his mother followed a few months later. That is not the one or two-year timetable that we have talked about in terms of the parity of the scheme, so perhaps there needs to be an “Alf Dubs test” that would make sure that families facing similar circumstances, where their lives are in jeopardy, would be protected. He also mentioned ensuring that people understand why people flee as refugees. The conflation between economic migrants and refugees is, frankly, very unhelpful.”
“I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and the extensive work that he, his team and his officials have done to secure the international coalition of allies in the recognition of the state of Palestine—although that has been very much undermined by the Israeli Cabinet and what it proposes in relation to the E1 annexation plan. Is there more we can do to extend this coalition and increase the level of sanctions to stop this Israeli behaviour? Is it appropriate to transfer the UNGA meeting from New York to Geneva, as was done in 1988, so that the Palestinian delegation can attend?”
“I recognise the Foreign Secretary’s labours to get as many international allies on board and the importance of that, but clearly we must do more—this is not enough. Israel’s flaunting of international law and the devastating consequences of that—I understand that Israeli soldiers are reporting being told to kill children, to point and shoot—are completely unacceptable. As a starting point, perhaps we could ensure that we refuse the Israeli air force chief entry to the Royal International Air Tattoo. Also, as others have said, how will we get over here children who need care?”
“However, although we have launched the NHS 10-year plan, which contains many positive measures, the additional targeted NHS capacity will not come on stream until April next year.”
“There are many positive measures in the “Pathways to Work” Green Paper and the “Get Britain Working” White Paper that will have a significant positive impact on people’s lives, and that will help people into work, and to stay in work. However, there is also evidence of the impact other Departments will have on getting and keeping Britain working. Increasing NHS capacity and the funding allocation to areas of high health need will have a direct and positive impact on health status, participation in the labour market and, ultimately, productivity in those areas. The 2018 “Health for Wealth” report estimated that increasing NHS spending by 10% and targeting that at areas of high health need would reduce economic inactivity by 3% and increase productivity by £13.2 billion a year.”
“I will speak to my amendment 2(b) and the amendments associated with it. Before I get to the substance of my remarks, I thank the Bill Committee Clerks for their invaluable advice and amendment-drafting expertise. I thank the dozens of disabled people’s organisations, disability charities, academics and think-tanks who provided evidence to the Work and Pensions Committee’s “Pathways to Work” inquiry. I also acknowledge the Clerks team, and in particular the deputy Clerk, who led that inquiry. The role of Select Committees in improving Government policy is of immense importance and cannot be overestimated. As I said last week, there is general recognition that the social security system needs reform, but reform should not be equated to cuts to the support for vulnerable people.”
“In addition, the Government have agreed to protect people on UC health with severe conditions or a terminal diagnosis—both existing and new claimants—and to ensure that their awards will be uprated annually in real terms.”
“I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I agree that we need a more compassionate system, but I also believe we need a system that is co-produced by the people who will actually be affected by a new assessment process. Yes, we need a system that is more compassionate, but I think that that will be built in by the people who co-produce the new assessment. I was a little disappointed that the Government did not take the opportunity to include the co-production of the review in the Bill. I hope the Minister will address that in his remarks, but for that reason I support new clause 11 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball).”
“I applaud the Government for that; it was definitely the right thing to do when the evidence was provided. When our fiscal rigidity is set to cause harm and undermine what we are trying to do in the longer term, it is right that we think again, and Iusb therefore urge the Government to consider my amendments. There is strong evidence that the Government will make savings in social security spending in the long term through case off-flows. As I have mentioned before, that will be achieved naturally through the additional capacity in the NHS, the realignment of the labour market and, of course, the bringing forward of the employment support.”
“Let us be clear: this will apply to newly acquired conditions in particular. My argument is that by delaying the changes, we can ensure that people with a newly acquired disability or condition can receive treatment and care quickly by making sure that the NHS ramps up its treatment process. I do not think it is ideal, but it is a reasonable compromise, and I hope the Government will listen. As I said, people with both new and existing severe conditions will be protected. This, I understand, is covered in Government amendment 2 and new clause 1. There is significant evidence of the harms that disabled people would potentially have experienced if the Bill had remained in its previous form, but the concessions that have been made over the past couple of weeks have addressed that.”
“I hope the hon. Member does not mind my intervening on him, but I want to pick up on the point he was making about people that come to this country and take benefits. Is he aware that during the pandemic, for example, people who have leave to remain were unable to avail themselves of any social security support as they do not have recourse to public funds, and that they were left absolutely destitute? I hope he will withdraw his remark, because it is just not true.”
“I agree with my hon. Friend—we hosted a Football Families for Justice event a few months ago. Most people are not aware that not all footballers make thousands and thousands of pounds a week. This is the least that we can do to ensure that the pleasure that they have given us is responded to when they find themselves afflicted with a neurological condition, such as Alzheimer’s disease or Parkinson’s. I hope that the Government will listen and support the new clause.”
“I would argue that a system that also supports a stronger economy and the green transition would benefit most people more than a system that is focused on higher returns.” Will the Minister help us to understand the context for the criteria in which mandation powers might be used? What will be the success criteria, other than the 5% investment from this approach? Should the sunset clause, to prevent the use of this mandation power beyond 2035, be brought forward to the end of this Parliament, as I mentioned? Do the Government guarantee that mandations should go no further than the aims of the Mansion House accord?”
“On fiduciary duties, Jesse Griffiths of the Finance Innovation Lab said that “while the fiduciary duty should be paramount for the schemes, the Government has a different and broader mandate, and it needs to look at the collective interests of all pension savers as a whole…In particular, when you think about the deep inequality that is embedded in the system, the ONS estimates that the bottom half of the population holds just 1% of all pension assets and the top 10% holds almost two thirds. If you just focus on growing the financial returns, most people will not benefit from that.”
“He wanted the Government to consider the unintended consequences of that. The liability-driven episode in September 2022 showed the potential risk of a lot of pension schemes effectively being asked to do the same thing at the same time. The Bill includes a sunset clause preventing the use of the mandation power beyond 2035. Pensions UK wants to see that timeframe reduce, saying it should be just for the lifetime of the Parliament. It also wants to see the scope limited, so the investment mandation cannot be prescribed beyond the allocations voluntarily committed to in the Mansion House accord, in other words the 10% of default funds into private markets, of which 5% are in UK-based assets.”
“He said: “It still has to work in the interest of members—that is important—but if we are removing the barriers and making it easier to invest, and at the same time, providing more of a pipeline for investment and trying to package it so that it works well with how the pension system can operate, you are creating opportunity.” He described mandation as “blunt” and “inflexible”, and said that it would be difficult to design a scheme that worked effectively in practice and did not give rise to unintended consequences. For example, he said that there would be a challenge in defining what counts as a UK investment. If the Government decided to mandate that schemes invested a particular percentage in the UK, how would the system respond to market movements that might temporarily reduce the percentage below that level?”
“Rachel Croft, of the Association of Professional Pension Trustees, said: “Forcing us to invest solely in the UK may run counter to that primary duty and focus, unless there is a pipeline of suitable investments in a format suitable for pension schemes to invest in. If that is the case, we will invest in them; if not, our primary duty will make us look elsewhere.” Chris Curry, of the Pensions Policy Institute, thought that it was possible to create more UK investment opportunities and benefit members.”
“In evidence on 14 July, the Committee heard concerns that that would interfere with the fiduciary duty of trustees to prioritise investments that they judge will bring the best returns for scheme members. In May, Yvonne Braun of the ABI told the Committee that it does not think the mandation is “desirable”. Instead, she said that the aim should be for it to be “a rational choice—that the UK is an attractive environment for investing”. The pensions industry wants the Government to concentrate on enabling the development of suitable assets for schemes to invest in, for example by improving the planning process and making the regulatory environment more predictable.”
“It should help us deal with that, particularly as it requires multi-employer DC schemes to have £25 billion in assets under management by 2030. That will give more schemes the advantage of economies of scale. In a very welcome step, in the May 2025 Mansion House accord—I pay tribute to the Chancellor and her team for achieving this—there was a pledge from the 17 schemes that were part of that accord to invest 10% of their portfolios in assets that will boost the economy by 2030, with at least 5% of these portfolios being ring-fenced for the UK. This is expected to release £25 billion to the UK economy by 2030. None the less, the Bill includes a reserve power that the Government could use to mandate DC schemes to invest more in the UK economy.”
“I want to make three points. First, we recognise that defined-contribution pension schemes have around £500 billion in assets under management. Around 20% of these assets are invested in the UK. That is down from 50% some 10 years ago. It is very welcome that the Government are focusing on this, so that we can ensure that these assets contribute to our growth. The Committee received evidence in May from the Finance Innovation Lab, which told us that the UK has had the lowest level of business investment in the G7 for 24 of the last 30 years. The fundamental driver behind that is the fact that the financial system, including pension funds, does not support business investment as much as it should. That again emphasises the point that the Bill is very welcome.”
“I understand and recognise what the Minister says about the PPF surplus being on the public sector’s balance sheet, but given that these people, who are in their 70s and 80s, are unable to live in dignity, what can we do to provide that for them in their later years?”
“The 2022 departmental review by the Department for Work and Pensions recommended that the PPF and the DWP work together to introduce changes to the levy, so that the PPF would have more flexibility in reducing and increasing the levy level. There is another issue, which the Pensions Minister will know about. PPF and financial assistance scheme members, particularly those in their later years, are really struggling. I came across a piece—I think it was in T he Daily Telegraph —that said that one of the key supporters of the Pension Action Group and a FAS member, Jacquie Humphrey died a few days ago, just 11 weeks after the death of her husband. They were both employed by Dexion, which folded, and, like hundreds of others, refused to leave it there. Is there any comfort that we can provide?”
“If the Pensions Minister is proposing to reduce that still further, will he set out the reasons behind that? What is the problem that merging them even further is trying to fix? Will he let me know about that in his closing remarks? Finally, I would like to touch on the pre-1997 indexation, as the Pensions Minister knew that I would. At the end of March 2024, the Pension Protection Fund had a surplus of £13.2 billion. The PPF has taken steps to reduce the levy from £620 million in 2020 to £100 million in 2025. However, under current rules, if it made the decision to reduce the levy to zero, it would then be unable to increase it again.”
“I understand what my hon. Friend says. There is always a balance to be found with long-term financial decisions, but this is partly a political decision, so I point to the Pensions Minister to come up with a response. Do the Government propose to consult on the design of the mandation power and how to mitigate against unintended consequences? Do the Government think that there is a case for changing the law on fiduciary duty to make clear that trustees can take account of wider issues, such as the impact of pension scheme investments on the economy and the environment? What would be the pros and cons of doing that? Briefly, I would like to touch on the LGPS. I slightly disagree with some of the shadow Pensions Minister’s points. Since 2015, the 86 funds have been formed into eight groups.”
“There is also, of course, the work that the Government are undertaking in other Departments. They are increasing NHS capacity to ensure that, for example, hip or knee replacements or mental health support are available in weeks, as was the case when I was an NHS chair under the last Labour Government, not the years for which people are now having to wait. They have introduced the Employment Rights Bill and the industrial strategy—I could go on. However, the Bill, as it is currently planned, risks undermining some of those excellent initiatives.”
“Those measures include the reform of jobcentres and the merger with the National Careers Service; the new right to try and the new regulations just announced; the Trailblazer programme, which will increase the opportunity for people to get closer to the labour market by working with community groups, the voluntary sector and health bodies; Connect to Work, providing employment support; “Keep Britain Working”, an essential and independent review undertaken by Sir Charlie Mayfield on how to reduce the appalling disability employment gap, which was not improved by the Opposition during their 15 years in power and which remains at about 29%; and—this is really important—the commitment to safeguarding, which is one of the key measures in the Green Paper.”
“We do not even know the full number of claimants’ deaths or the full extent of the harms, but my Committee’s “Safeguarding Vulnerable Claimants” report, published in May, defined recommendations to prevent such harms from being done to claimants, and it has been at the forefront of my mind while I have been considering the Bill. I want to acknowledge some of the positive measures in the “Pathways to Work” Green Paper and the “Get Britain Working” White Paper, which I believe will have a significant and positive impact on people’s lives and help them to get into work.”
“For the last 15 years we have seen a punitive, even dehumanising, social security system in which not being able to work has been viewed with suspicion or worse—with devastating consequences, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell). Too many people relying on social security support to survive have died through suicide, starvation and other circumstances exacerbated by their poverty. Since 2010, under previous Administrations, 10 prevention of future deaths reports have been issued by coroners because of the direct causal responsibility of the DWP.”
“We have just completed our “Pathways to Work” inquiry. The Leader of the Opposition, who I think was the Equalities Minister in the last Government, did not mention, for example, the inquiry conducted by the Equality and Human Rights Commission—which was subsequently escalated to an investigation—into the DWP’s potential discrimination against disabled people. That is still outstanding. Nor did the Leader of the Opposition mention the investigation of the last Government by the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities for breaches of the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities—not once, but twice. What she said was therefore a little bit rich.”
“It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), my fellow Select Committee Member. I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about the need for reform of the social security system. I believe that the social security system, like the NHS, should be there for any one of us in our time of need, whether that need is a result of being in low-paid work or of not being in work at all, protecting us from poverty and destitution. Unfortunately, it did not do that under the last Government. If we become sick or disabled or if we can no longer work, the system should be there for us. I believe that the vast majority of people of working age want to work and do the right thing by their families, and, as the Committee heard, there is no evidence to suggest otherwise.”
“We have to ensure that that does not happen. There are risks: I am being very honest about that. As we heard in the evidence that my Committee received as part of our “Pathways to Work” inquiry, ours is an ageing society, with worse health than other advanced economies as a result of the austerity policies of the previous Government, including the cuts in support for working-aged people. According to a very good report—published in 2018, so before the pandemic—if we improved the health of those in the areas with the worst health in the country, we would increase our productivity by more than £13 billion a year. We need to look at that in the round.”
“However, people who are newly disabled or who acquire a health condition from November 2026 will also need help with their extra costs. The New Economics Foundation has estimated that 150,000 people will be pushed into poverty as a result of no longer being eligible for PIP.”
“I have not yet seen the details, but it is a subject that I raised, and, as we know, the funding will follow. Covid exacerbated these problems, as did the mental health crisis that we have experienced in the United Kingdom, especially among young people. A UK Millennium Cohort study shows that the key drivers of the NEETS levels are poverty and austerity, as well as other issues faced by families. Let me get back to the Bill. I thank the Government for the concessions that they have made to date to protect existing PIP claimants and people on UC LCWRA with severe conditions or terminal diagnoses. Th growing evidence of the potential harms that they would have experienced was significant, and it was the right thing to do.”
“I urge the Government to remove the reference to four points in clause 5. We can table amendments, but the Government should put a commitment to the co-production of the new PIP assessment review on the face of the Bill and delay the implementation of the freezing of UC LCWRA.”
“No—I am sorry, but I will not get an extra minute. Pushing people into poverty will, in itself, worsen their condition. It will make it easier for people to live independently, including going to work, if they get money through PIP. There is still confusion about the PIP review. Will it be co-produced with disabled people and their organisations? If so, why are we saying that the outcome of that review, and the new PIP assessment, is predetermined at four points? Therein lies the problem. Most of us are aware that this dog’s breakfast of a Bill is being driven by the need to get four points to the Office for Budget Responsibility to enable it to be scored for the Budget. The Governor of the Bank of England has said that we have to stop over-interpreting the OBR’s forecasts, which, as we know, are fallible.”