Debbie Abrahams MP: speeches

Speeches

• 2 Jul 2026 · Historical Forced Adoption · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Prime Minister for his really heartfelt statement—I think everybody here could feel that. Does he agree that we must recognise that a lack of empathy and dehumanising approach was adopted in this practice? I am minded that the statement “Don’t judge someone before you walk in their shoes” should apply. Unfortunately, in some service areas, we do not apply that principle, and it is demonising and dehumanising people. We need to recognise and support our common humanity.

• 1 Jul 2026 · Israel: E1 Zone Expansion · Hansard source

  More

  As co-chairs of the Britain-Palestine all-party parliamentary group, my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) and I have written to over 43 organisations that have, or are suspected to have, previously been involved in unlawful expansion in the occupied territories. That was to warn them of the potential issues should they try to bid for these tenders. We have also been in contact with counterparts in Europe and Australia who will be doing a similar thing, and we hope that Members in the New Zealand and Canadian Parliaments will follow suit. On what the Government can do, the Minister has mentioned monitoring. Have the Government written to these entities, not just made a statement, to make them aware of their responsibilities? What will the Government do if they are found to bid for these tenders?

• 30 Jun 2026 · Department for Work and Pensions · Hansard source

  More

  With the leave of the House, I congratulate the hon. Members for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Lara Bird) and for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden) on their maiden speeches. I thank all the Back Benchers who have contributed to today’s debate. I wholeheartedly support what my right hon. Friend the Minister has said about how we can transform people’s lives, and that is not necessarily by cutting individual support for vulnerable people. We must make sure that employment support provides an impetus for people, including young people and disabled people—there is still a 30% disability gap—and gives them opportunities. We can reduce social security spending by £20 billion by the end of this Parliament if we have some innovation and can do things at pace. [Interruption.] This has been a wonderful debate. I thank those who have contributed. The changes that were introduced in 2017 actually caused harm, and we do not want to introduce harm that will make things worse for people; we want to make things better, and much more supportive. Do I need to keep going, Madam Deputy Speaker?

• 30 Jun 2026 · Department for Work and Pensions · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for that intervention; long may that work continue. About one in eight young people are not in work, education or training. That is more than a million young people. It is the first time since 2013 that have we seen figures on that level. Ill health, and especially mental ill health, is a major driver of that. While programmes such as Connect to Work are welcome, with funding of around £820 million, they appear to be modest, relative to the scale of the challenge. The Government’s plans may support up to 90,000 young people into work, but that is still only a fraction of what is needed. The key test is outcomes—how many people move into sustained work. The accounts of the Department for Work and Pensions remain qualified, due to fraud and error amounting to nearly £10 billion in overpayments. Service quality issues persist; there are communication failures, discrimination findings and serious backlogs. The carer’s allowance overpayment scandal caused profound distress, and Access to Work delays are unacceptable. These are not marginal issues; they affect whether support reaches people fairly and on time. For the DWP, value for money must include timeliness, accuracy and trust. The most egregious failings relate to safeguarding. Last year alone, the Department undertook 90 internal reviews, including following claimant deaths and serious harm to claimants. Since 2010, there have been 10 prevention of future death reports from coroners warning that the systems must change. Our Committee has described the safeguarding approach as deficient. While some progress has been made, it remains too slow. Incremental change is just not good enough. Machinery of government changes and local delivery models risk blurring accountability, so while local flexibility is important and place-based approaches are essential, outcomes must be consistent. Parliament must be able to see clearly who is responsible for delivery. The overarching issue is the lack of a clear link between spending plans and outcomes. While improvements have been made, scrutiny is weakened when Parliament cannot see how success will be measured. A clearer, strategic plan linking spending to measurable outcomes is essential. The debate is not about whether social security spending is necessary—it clearly is—but whether a Department spending £300 billion is using resources effectively, fairly and transparently. I would be grateful if the Minister answered three questions in her response. What outcomes will this spending deliver? How will progress be measured? Who is accountable if delivery fails? The challenge is to show that the estimate is aligned with the scale of the problem, operationally credible and capable of delivering services with dignity and respect. Finally, I thank my Clerk and all his team for their excellent support for the Committee.

• 30 Jun 2026 · Department for Work and Pensions · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this debate. The Department for Work and Pensions supports nearly 23 million people and spends around £300 billion each year—around £1 in every £5 of Government spending. Some £164 billion is spent on pensions and pension-age benefits—a third more than the more-frequently-criticised spending on working-age benefits and on children—which has come under growing pressure from an ageing population. Debate about that spending has at times been framed in stark terms, but understanding people’s lives makes clear just how essential this support is. My Committee has consistently argued that, alongside efficiency, the system must treat claimants with dignity and respect, yet too many report experiencing the opposite. Improvements will only come if the Department is open, honest and willing to learn. The estimate seeks nearly £14 billion of additional resource, with much of that reflecting demand-led need. The central question is not just about cost, but whether the system is fair, timely and trusted. Reducing support at individual level is not cost-free: cuts to disabled people’s support in 2017 increased poverty and poor mental health without improving employment outcomes, and of course there are wider costs to the NHS and public services. Investment matters. Evidence suggests that reducing inactivity among young and disabled people by 5% could yield £20 billion, and that there are strong returns from employment support programmes, such as Connect to Work. Preventive investment is key. What should the House test? The Secretary of State has spoken of shifting from administering benefits to transforming lives, and we welcome that ambition, but delivery depends on cross-Government action and effective local implementation. This is not just about the DWP.

• 25 Jun 2026 · Connect to Work Programme · Hansard source

  More

  I am pleased to present the Work and Pensions Committee’s second report in our employment support for disabled people inquiry series. Our first report, “Disability at Work”, examined workplace issues impacting on disabled people and those with long-term health conditions, who I will now refer to as disabled people. These include challenges finding employment and then staying in work. Today’s report looks at the Government’s Connect to Work programme, an employment support programme that aims to reduce health and disability-related economic inactivity. One of our labour market’s most persistent and challenging issues is the disability employment gap. With nearly one in four of the working-age population being disabled, equivalent to 10.4 million disabled people, it is quite staggering that only 5.5 million disabled people are employed when we know millions more want a job. It is a disability employment rate of 52.8%, compared with 82.5% for non-disabled people—a disability employment gap of nearly 30%. After historical falls, the gap has remained around 30% since 2012, and it remains above the OECD average. Disabled people and people living in disabled households are far more likely to live in poverty than any other group. The extra costs that disabled people face and the lack of employment opportunities are key factors. As most disabilities are acquired, many disabled people have been employed before becoming inactive or unemployed. Their skills and experience are being wasted—a lost opportunity for the individuals, their families, and indeed the country. Last year, the Committee commissioned an economic analysis of the potential savings in Department for Work and Pensions spending and returns to the Exchequer from programmes like Connect to Work, and how such programmes could make that difference. That analysis was modelled on previous successful employment support programmes, and the economists estimated that if 5% of currently unemployed or inactive people—including disabled people—moved into employment, that would generate £20 billion over the life of the Parliament. The Committee’s inquiry on employment support for disabled people showed that there are multiple barriers to work, including features of the workplace itself, issues preventing people from finding and getting into work, and things making it difficult to remain in work. Rather than attempting to cover all those issues in a single report, we felt it would be much more helpful to produce a report on each aspect. We also hope to report on Access to Work once the Government have published their proposals for reforming that scheme, which we hope will be very soon. Our “Disability at Work” report highlighted the structural and cultural factors in workplaces that continue to limit opportunity. We found that barriers facing disabled people in workplaces are present across all stages and aspects of employment, from recruitment to workplace adjustments, employer attitudes and opportunities for progression. The report I present today complements that report by focusing on the support people need before entering work, or when they need help to get there. Our message is clear: closing the disability employment gap requires a joined-up system, not isolated programmes. Let me recognise the significance of Connect to Work, a major, evidence-based programme with real potential. Launched in October 2024, it is intended to support up to 300,000 people—principally disabled people—into sustained paid employment over five years. It is part of the Government’s broader welfare reform strategy to reduce health-related economic inactivity, a strategy that is both economically important and, more importantly, central to improving lives. The Committee is clear that we welcome Connect to Work. The programme is voluntary, grounded in well-established supported employment models, and combines national scale with local flexibility, offering scope for more tailored and responsive support. Models such as individual placement and support, and the supported employment quality framework, demonstrate strong outcomes in sustained employment, as well as in confidence, skills and wellbeing. These approaches are personalised, integrated with services, focused on real jobs and provide ongoing support. Connect to Work adopts these principles, which is one of its greatest strengths. The programme is well designed, but success depends on delivery. A key feature is its devolved delivery model. Local authorities have flexibility to design provision based on local needs, but with that flexibility comes risks—risks to do with, for example, consistency of delivery; workforce capacity; integration with health, skills and local services; funding certainty; and managing the transition between programmes. We heard that different commissioning approaches can lead to variation in service quality and uneven experiences for participants. The Government need to find a balance between flexibility and consistency. The Committee’s central conclusion is that Connect to Work’s strengths will matter only if that translates into consistent, integrated and properly resourced support on the ground. To date, delivery has not been without difficulty. We heard that early implementation has been more complex and more burdensome than expected. The Department for Work and Pensions acknowledged that aspects of the early process were “clunky and unsatisfactory”. Local authorities told us that delivery plan processes were lengthy and administratively demanding, and guidance was at times unclear or inconsistent. Finally, engagement by the Department seemed to vary across areas. Programmes of this scale depend not only on policy design, but on systems, processes and relationships. Early friction risks undermining confidence and delaying impact. In addition, more than £1 billion of employment support funding devolved to local authorities from Connect to Work for other employment support programmes this year needs to be clearly defined. There should be monitoring of outputs and outcomes. We welcome the steps that the Department has taken to address that, and the Committee will return to this issue to assess progress. Successful delivery needs skilled practitioners and specialist expertise. Some local authorities were confident that they had the necessary capacity, but we also heard of difficulties recruiting staff with the necessary skills, loss of expertise during delayed commissioning, and a wider shortage across the sector. Without the right people to deliver them, even the best designed programmes will not succeed. We therefore call on the Government to set out clearly how they will ensure sufficient capacity, co-ordinate workforce development and address gaps. Perhaps the most significant part is integration. Connect to Work sits alongside other national initiatives, such as Work Well. Its success depends on services delivered by numerous providers, such as those to do with health and skills. Integration, particularly with the NHS, is essential. Where systems are joined up, outcomes improve. Where they are fragmented, people fall through the gaps. Effective triage, clear pathways and strong local partnerships are therefore critical. This is not simply about programme delivery, but a coherent network of support. We recognise the significant investment that the Government are making, but we identified concerns about rigidities in financial management across financial years, and uncertainty beyond the current spending period. For a programme of this scale, long-term certainty is essential, so that local authorities can invest in staff and the infrastructure needed to support delivery. That confidence needs to extend beyond the end of the current spending period. We therefore call on the Government to provide a clear statement of intent about the programme’s future. We also heard concerns about gaps in provision during the transition from the work and health programme pioneer to Connect to Work. In some areas, that left individuals with limited support at a critical time. While the Government have acknowledged these gaps, we are not persuaded that their full impact has been adequately assessed. This points to a broader issue, which is the need for better system-wide planning when programmes change. As noted at the outset, this report is part of a wider programme of work. There is also our “Disability at Work” report. In addition, we have identified Access to Work as a crucial piece of the puzzle; it plays a vital role in supporting people once they enter employment, enabling necessary adjustments and support in the workplace. We therefore intend to examine it in more depth once the Government have set out their proposals for reform. Before I finish, I thank the Committee team, particularly Polina Eaton and Paul Owen, and everyone who provided written and oral evidence to us and attended engagement sessions with us. I believe that our report sets out a balanced assessment of Connect to Work. The programme should help disabled people to get genuine access to meaningful, sustainable employment on equal terms, but its success is not guaranteed. That depends on effective and consistent delivery, a skilled and supportive workforce delivering the programme, integration across services and sustained Government commitment. The policy is sound; the test now is whether the strong foundations that the Government have established translate into consistent, high-quality support in practice. That requires programmes and systems that work together to close the disability employment gap. I commend this report to the House.

• 17 Jun 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q5. I associate myself with the remarks of the Deputy Prime Minister, and congratulate my constituent Sir Kevin Sinfield on all the work he does.Yesterday marked the 10th anniversary of the murder of our dear friend Jo Cox. As well as being a sister to our wonderful hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), she was a wife, daughter and mother, and we must not forget that. Jo’s mantra was always that we have“more in common than that which divides us.” —[ Official Report , 3 June 2015; Vol. 596, c. 675.] Will my right hon. Friend indicate what he thinks he should do, and in fact what we should all do, so that Jo’s beliefs and her legacy are always remembered?

• 9 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T9. There is overwhelming evidence that marketised health systems, as the NHS has become, increase health inequalities. Will the Health Secretary consider amendments to the Health Bill that will tackle the rising inequalities in existing health policies, including allowing local NHS organisations to determine if they need additional private sector capacity?

• 9 Jun 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  Last week, tenders for the expansion of the unlawful E1 settlements were launched, involving nearly 3,500 housing units, directly flouting international law and also putting the viability of a Palestinian state at risk. Moreover, as we have heard, on the 14th of this month there will be a real estate deal in London, which is about marketing the purchase of Palestinian land in the occupied west bank, including the Gush Etzion settlement—again, flouting international law, in this city. I welcome this morning’s updated and strengthened guidance warning businesses not to engage, and I welcome the additional sanctions that the Foreign Secretary has outlined, but we know that at least 43 businesses have been previously engaged in the expansion of settlements. What will be the consequences if they decide to ignore the guidance, and go ahead with becoming involved in these illegal expansions?

• 2 Jun 2026 · Milburn Review: Interim Report · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome Alan Milburn’s report. The Select Committee is in the concluding stages of its own youth employment, education and training inquiry. We take account particularly of the drivers, and the Minister is right. As the millennium cohort study has shown, more than half of NEETs have experienced adverse and persistent child poverty and family adversity over the last 15 years, which has contributed to the current level. I really think that the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), should recognise that and apologise. Is the Minister as concerned as me that we must not forget that, in addition to young people, hundreds of thousands of disabled people have had a lack of opportunity, and they have not had the profile that our young people are getting? They also need to be considered alongside young people, particularly in relation to employment support.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Our declining healthy life expectancy, as underlined in today’s Health Foundation report, is a real worry, but as Professor Sir Michael Marmot has shown, that is no surprise after 14 years of austerity and its impact on our public services. There is the potential for a significant knock-on effect on Department for Work and Pensions spending. What conversations has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had with the Health Secretary on this issue, and is it being considered in the Timms review?

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. For clarity, could he confirm to whom, and when, the UK Security Vetting report outcomes were made available? Could he also say what guidance is given to senior officials on matters that must be escalated to their Ministers?

• 15 Apr 2026 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I must say that I am slightly surprised by the shadow Minister’s speech. I understand that Pensions UK agrees with the asset allocation, and has welcomed the change that has been announced, which is in line with the amounts prescribed in the Mansion House accord. The accusations about the Government stealing pensioners’ money are just scaremongering. [Interruption.] If my hon. Friend the Minister wishes to intervene to point out how ludicrous that is, I am happy to give way to him. This is dangerous scaremongering, and given that the last Government presided over a doubling of pensioner poverty, they should be ashamed of themselves. I hope that, in his closing remarks, my hon. Friend will make clear where the UK stands on pension providers’ investments in UK assets. It seems that we are quite low in the rankings. Like Canada and Norway, I believe, we are in the 5% range, whereas Sweden and Switzerland are investing 10% in their countries’ investable assets. At the high end, Australia, Hong Kong and Japan are investing 20% or more. [Interruption.] I think it is my turn to speak. Perhaps we should reflect on how we are disadvantaged by that. I will support the Government today, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can clarify those points. It will not surprise my hon. Friend to hear that I want to briefly mention pre-1997 indexation. I know that it is not covered by the amendments that have been selected today, but it was debated in the other place. I know that he has already done a huge amount on providing indexation, but members of the financial assistance scheme are a very elderly group; they were particularly disadvantaged by the changes that were introduced, and there are fewer and fewer of them. I know it is difficult, given the appalling financial circumstances that this Government inherited and the difficulties that we face internationally, but I hope that when opportunity allows it, my hon. Friend will do the right thing by those FAS members.

• 15 Apr 2026 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Going back to the asset aspect of the debate, I came across some new analysis from the New Financial that shows that over the last 10 years UK equities allocation by DC pensions has fallen from 25% to just 5%. It argues that this has helped create a self-fulfilling doom loop of lower demand, lower valuations and lower performance. It argues that an increase in allocation to UK equities would have delivered performance that was broadly in line with or better than the performance that most pension providers managed to deliver. That makes the Minister’s argument for him, but I wonder if he wants to comment on it?

• 13 Apr 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for all that he is doing towards de-escalating the conflict in the middle east. I agree with him that we should not get drawn into the conflict. May I ask him about Palestine, and the west bank in particular? More than 30 former UK ambassadors have said that any bidder for contracts to design, build or finance the E1 settlement expansions should see their business interests in and with the UK endangered. Does he agree?

• 25 Mar 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q3. I thank the Prime Minister for the funding for three new primary school nurseries in Oldham, but may I ask him specifically about Monday’s Liaison Committee meeting, at which he agreed that the Israeli settlements in the west bank are unlawful and that their expansion threatens the viability of a Palestinian state? Will he confirm, as he said he would, that any potential bidder for E1 contracts from the UK knows that this is unlawful, and will he set out exactly what will happen as a consequence?

• 17 Mar 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  I commend my right hon. Friend on her statement, and I thank her and her offices for the safe return of two of my constituents who were caught up in the original bombings. I support what my right hon. Friend says about the Government’s position not to get embroiled in this war of choice, but I note her equivocation around potential involvement in relation to the strait of Hormuz. If we are able to have further details about that, as appropriate, it would be really helpful. To what extent does she think that the international community’s lack of action—that includes from the UK—in holding Israel to account for its illegal actions in the west bank and Gaza has potentially made its action in Iran more likely?

• 16 Mar 2026 · Strait of Hormuz · Hansard source

  More

  A number of Arab ambassadors attended a meeting in the House of Commons last week. They were clear that the military action undertaken by Israel and the US emanated from the action that we have seen over more than two years in Gaza, and that the solution needed meaningful peace in the area. What are Ministers doing specifically about Palestine, given its importance in securing a lasting peace in the region as a whole?

• 3 Mar 2026 · Spring Forecast · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, and I absolutely agree that this year the British public will start to feel the difference that it makes to have a Labour Government. Will she expand on what she is doing to ensure that all dimensions of inequality—inequality of income, wealth, power and health—are tackled, and that the benefits are felt in all communities across the country?

• 2 Mar 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, and for his reassurance about the principles for involving the United Kingdom in any military action. For those on this side of the House, it is important that, as well as having a viable plan, we stand by the rule of law. Has my right hon. Friend been able to have any discussions with the Arab states, and with Turkey, about how we might build that plan for de-escalation as quickly as possible?

• 24 Feb 2026 · Gaza Healthcare System · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend and I were at a meeting at which we heard from human rights and medical aid experts. I was struck by the figure that on the World Health Organisation wait list 18,500 people from Gaza are awaiting medical treatment. East Jerusalem hospitals have stated that they are able to care for 50 a day, so there is local provision available. Is my hon. Friend as distressed as I am that that is being refused? Perhaps she can elicit some response from the Minister.

• 23 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The response to my right hon. Friend will be that everything that is being asked for—the outcomes that he would like—are in the terms of reference and will be addressed within the Education Committee’s child poverty strategy inquiry.

• 23 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Can the shadow Minister remind the Committee of the weekly rate for the standard UC allowance?

• 23 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Is the hon. Member aware of the tackling child poverty strategy and the inquiry by the Education Committee and Work and Pensions Committee looking at just that, as well as at the data the Education Secretary published before Christmas?

• 23 Feb 2026 · Schools White Paper: Every Child Achieving and Thriving · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Young people with special educational needs or disabilities, and with multiple disadvantage, are three times more likely to be not in education, employment or training. I appreciate what my right hon. Friend is saying about reducing the attainment gap, but will she expand a little more on that? Will she also pick up on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake) about co-production, and ensuring that people with lived experience and parents are engaged in this?