Ukraine (Flight MH17) and Gaza

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I do not think the comparison is a fair and honest one. Weapons are being launched from a neighbouring country into Israel. The Israeli Government have a duty to protect their people and stop those missiles being launched. Internal terrorism is an entirely different situation.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

I offer my condolences to families and friends who lost loved ones on MH17. I agree that we need to have strong EU leadership with a single voice and to send a clear message to Russia.

On Gaza, I am absolutely stunned by the Prime Minister’s change in tone. Will he unreservedly condemn the indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks on the Palestinian people, particularly civilian women and children, and the breaches of international law and the Geneva convention?

[The Prime Minister]

I believe I have been thoroughly consistent over many years on this issue. It is very important that Israel obeys the norms of international law. It is right to condemn it, for instance, over illegal settlement activity, and I do. It is right to push everyone towards a peace process. It is right to accept that Israel has a right to self-defence, but it is right to be very clear that that means restraint, proportionality and avoiding civilian casualties. I could not have been clearer.

Debate on the Address

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Wednesday 4th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I will take one more intervention and then I will make some more progress.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

One in six children living in poverty comes from a working household. In some parts of my constituency, it is one in three children. What specific measures in the Queen’s Speech will eradicate child poverty, as promised in the coalition agreement?

[The Prime Minister]

What will help those families is for us to make sure that we have an economy that is creating jobs, that we cut people’s taxes, that we protect those at the bottom who are working hardest and that we ensure that we freeze their council tax, cut their petrol duty and help with the cost of living by reducing the cost of government. That is what we need to do in this Parliament.

I listened to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, and I have to say that there was a complete absence of anything approaching a coherent plan. There was nothing on the deficit, nothing on taking long-term difficult decisions and nothing on growth. That is his problem. It is not that he went to campaign in some target council seat but did not know the name of the leader of the council, or that he campaigns on the cost of living but apparently does not know the cost of his own groceries; it is that he has no coherent plan for our economy. He has nothing to say about how genuinely to improve our public services and nothing to say about strengthening Britain’s place in the world. What he has is a ragbag, lucky dip, pick’n’mix selection of ’70s statist ideas, which would set back this country, after all the work that we have done to turn it around. He has a policy on rents that would restrict access to housing; a policy on trains that would put up fares and increase overcrowding; a policy on energy that would risk power shortages and higher bills; and a policy on national insurance, which he repeatedly refused to deny today, that would increase taxes for hard-working people. Frankly, it is a revival of Michael Foot’s policies paid for by Len McCluskey’s money.

European Council

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Monday 10th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

We were very much discussing the diplomatic, political and economic steps that needed to be taken, rather than any military steps, but I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important for us to maintain a proper level of defence spending. Britain has one of the top five defence budgets anywhere in the world. However, I think that even more important than the amount of money that we spend are the capabilities that we buy with that money. It is very important for us to modernise the way in which we spend our money, and we should encourage all European countries to do that as well.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

I appreciate that last week the UN special envoy to Ukraine ran into some difficulties, but what discussions have taken place about the UN’s role in the escalating crisis in Crimea?

[The Prime Minister]

It is important that the UN is at the centre of this, not least because it makes it even more difficult for the Russians to slide away from their responsibilities—they often appeal to the UN and cite the UN charter when making their arguments. Therefore, the UN should be part of the contact group that would include the EU, the United States and European countries such as the UK. In that way, the UN can play a major role in helping to pursue a path of talks and diplomacy, which is the right way to de-escalate the conflict.

Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mark Field]

I accept that, but realistically we in the UK probably also need our Government to make clear some of the benefits of trade—some of us in the Conservative party are convinced that the best future lies within the European Union, hopefully with a certain amount of reform going on as well. None the less, it is important that our Government make that strong case.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

Is the hon. Gentleman able to comment on earlier remarks by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) about exempting the NHS from the TTIP? Currently it is not exempt, although I have asked several questions of the Government to ensure that it is.

[Mark Field]

If the hon. Lady will allow me, I will not comment on that but will leave it to the Minister. I wanted to speak about financial services, and I appreciate that time is tight.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Thank you for calling me, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise to the House for not being able to be here for the first part of the debate. I will end my remarks in time for my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) to conclude the debate.

We should be extremely cautious about the whole process that has been put before us. If anyone has looked at the experience of the free trade agreement between the US, Canada and Mexico, they will quickly see who benefits and even more quickly who loses as a result of it. The people who lose out are those who are on the margins of society, those who are vulnerable and those who are open to great exploitation. Thus, farm workers in Mexico have lost their jobs in favour of high-tech farming imports from the US; and US companies have moved across the border to Mexico to exploit lower wages. Mexican trucks are not allowed to drive into the US beyond a short distance from the border. There are a lot of restrictions. It is not an equal power relationship. It is a very damaging power relationship. The agreement is unpopular in the US and Canada, but it is also unpopular with many people in Mexico, who see themselves losing out as a result of that.

I give that as an example. We should be extremely cautious about the claims that are made. When the North American Free Trade Agreement was reached, it was claimed that there would be several million new jobs as a result. The result has actually been the loss of about 1 million jobs. The same exaggerated but unsubstantiated claims about jobs and the profits that will be made by particular companies are being made about the transatlantic agreement.

There are specific concerns. Why is there such secrecy surrounding the negotiations? Why are all the documents not on the table? Why are the demands made on European public services by the American negotiators not made public? Why are the demands made in the other direction not also made public? I suspect that, if the agreement ever comes to fruition, every Parliament in Europe and the US system will be presented with a fait accompli: they will be told that they have to accept it.

There are huge concerns. Many of my colleagues have raised concerns about the NHS. We all, I hope, support the principle of a health service free at the point of use. What we do not support is the destruction of our health service in favour of a series of companies coming in to take over very efficient services delivered by public sector workers.

[Debbie Abrahams]

Is my hon. Friend not concerned that the Government still refuse to say that the NHS will be exempt from the TTIP negotiations?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Absolutely. It seems strange that we cannot say that we are going to exempt the NHS from discussions. I am sure plenty of pressure will be put on to exempt cultural industries, particularly from France, which will probably be accepted. The same thing should apply to the NHS.

There are a couple of other issues that I want to mention. The first relates to our ability to decide the future of our own public services. At the moment, Britain’s railway system is a combination of a state-owned rail company and privatised services. The European directive on railways envisages a totally privatised system across the whole of this continent. I suspect that, under the kind of agreement we are discussing today, privatisation would be foisted on everyone on both sides of the Atlantic.

Secondly, concerns have been raised about working conditions, health and safety at work conditions and environmental protection. I am sure that all those companies that are busy lining up to destroy union organisation in the USA would want to do exactly the same on this side of the Atlantic. Various Members have mentioned environmental protection and environmental conditions. In the US, there are far fewer environmental protection measures—there is much more genetically modified food on sale and in regular supply, for example. Are we to destroy many of the hard-fought and hard-gained social advantages across Europe in relation to farming systems, to animal protection and welfare and to health and safety, in favour of a free-for-all for those big companies? We need to be very careful. Democracy is the issue, and democracy ought to be the means by which we decide these issues, rather than secret negotiations resulting in a fait accompli being presented to us.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend makes a sensible point. The point of setting tax rates is to raise revenue, not to make a political point. What the Opposition want to do is make a political point because they believe in the politics of envy, not in raising money for public services. In the end the truth is this: the top 1% of taxpayers in our country are now paying 30% of the total income tax take. As I said, the richest taxpayers are actually going to be paying more in every year of this Government than when those two on the Opposition Front Bench sat in the Treasury and made such a mess of our economy.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

Q3. More than 300,000 people are reported to be paid less than the minimum wage. I was heartened by what the Prime Minister just said, but if that is the case and he really is committed to the minimum wage, why have there been only two employers prosecuted in the past four years and half the level of investigations?

[The Prime Minister]

We have seen, I think, about 700 penalties issued for not paying the minimum wage, so we are taking enforcement action, but we need to take more enforcement action. As the Chancellor has made clear, we also want the opportunity for the minimum wage to rise. As our economy recovers, it should be possible, listening to the Low Pay Commission, to restore the value of the minimum wage. We are keen to see that happen.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Wednesday 8th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue. There are two specific things we can do to help Portsmouth at this time. The first is the Portsmouth and Southampton city deal, which we should put in place, that will bring jobs and investment. Secondly, we should emphasise the fact that the massive programme of modernising the Royal Navy, with the aircraft carriers, the Type 45s and the future frigates, will by and large be based in Portsmouth, creating jobs and making sure it remains one of the most important homes for the Royal Navy. But my hon. Friend is absolutely right: added to that there is a future in Portsmouth in other marine industries and commercial and private sector industries, and we should do everything we can to encourage business to locate there.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

Q7. I would also like to pay my sympathies to Paul Goggins’s family; he was a lovely, lovely man.The Government have cut £1.8 billion from the social care budget, which means nearly half a million fewer people are eligible for social care. With home care charges up £740 a year since 2010 and the Government’s care cap nothing more than a care con, why is the Prime Minister not being honest with older people about the real care costs they will face under this Government?

[The Prime Minister]

Of course, difficult decisions have had to be taken right across Government spending, but if we look at health and social care, we can see that we have protected the health budget so that it is going up in real terms, and we have put some of that health budget—up to £3 billion—into social care to help local authorities. We now want to get local authorities and local health services working even more closely together to deal with the problems of blocked beds and to ensure that there are care packages for people when they leave hospital. We can really see the benefits in the areas of the country where this is working, and we want to make that happen right across the country.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Paul Uppal. Not here.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

T2. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Nick Clegg)]

As Deputy Prime Minister, I support the Prime Minister on the full range of Government policies and initiatives. [Hon. Members: “Oh no you don’t!”] Oh yes I do. I say to Opposition Members that the pantomime season is over. I take special responsibility for the Government’s programme of political and constitutional reform.

[Debbie Abrahams]

A and E departments across the country are in crisis, despite the valiant efforts of NHS staff, including staff at Royal Oldham hospital in my area. The cuts to social care mean that there is often insufficient support in the community to allow patients to be discharged from hospital safely, and beds are blocked as a result. Why did the Deputy Prime Minister support his coalition partners in the £3 billion top-down reorganisation and the £1.8 million cuts to social care when these things were predicted?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I wish that the Labour party would stop talking down the NHS. The fact is that A and E is performing better than it did under Labour. We have 300 more A and E doctors than there were under Labour; 2,000 more patients are seen every day within the four-hour limit than when Labour was in control; 1.2 million more people are now using A and E; and there is a new £3.8 billion fund to promote the integration of social care and health care that the hon. Lady advocates. Is it not time to support, rather than denigrate, the NHS?

Tributes to Nelson Mandela

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

Thank you for calling me to speak, Mr Speaker. I reiterate what other Members have said: this has been an exceptional debate and I am really grateful to be able to take part in it.

My husband John was born in Cape Town, South Africa in 1952, during the apartheid era. He is a man of mixed-race and under the apartheid racial classification system he was defined as a Cape coloured. The daily indignities that he, his family and countless millions of other South Africans had to face had a profound effect on him: where he lived, the school he went to—not only were schools segregated; he was not allowed to start until he was seven years old—and the buses and trains on which he was allowed to travel all had a tremendous impact on him. He talked very movingly recently at an Oldham school that he visited with me. He recounted the time when a young black man was involved in a road traffic accident. An ambulance came, but it was a white-only ambulance. They refused to treat him, went away and the young man died.

Relationships were, of course, monitored. People were not allowed to marry outside their racial group. We were not able to go back to South Africa until after the elections when Mandela came to power.

The great love of my husband’s life was cricket. Obviously, he had not met me at that time, although I think he would probably still say that cricket is the great love of his life! Sport was used to undermine people. John and his family, including his mum and dad, played in the street with sticks. There were no cricket clubs; they were segregated. In spite of that, John’s dad, Cec, along with Basil D’Oliveira, was selected to play for South Africa, but for a non-white South Africa. These dehumanising experiences had a profound effect on John and millions of others.

John felt much guilt at escaping from the horrors of apartheid when he came to live in this country in 1962, leaving others, including family members, to continue the struggle. His cousin was imprisoned during the regime, and that bore heavily on her life and that of the family.

For John and countless others Nelson Mandela stood as a beacon of hope. His drive for democracy and equality for all races was unrelenting, but what made him one of the most exceptional human beings of all time was that, in spite of all that he had been deprived of, the physical and emotional trauma that he was put through, he embraced that without bitterness or recrimination. It would have been so easy and understandable to have responded to that in a different way. I have no doubt that the relatively smooth transition from white minority rule to democratic South Africa was down to him.

Many people have said that Mandela made them want to do better and be better, and that is absolutely right. As much as he saw the goodness in others, we recognised the goodness in him. He was an archetypal leader, living the values he espoused with dignity, humility and honour, trying to make South Africa, and in turn the world, a better place.

The world is a better place as a result of Nelson Mandela. We have much to be grateful to him for and to learn from him. But it is far from perfect. Britain is still a very unequal country. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have been sincere in recognising his strengths and values, but words ring hollow if they are not followed up by action. I urge all hon. Members to consider that. It is unacceptable in this country in this day and age that one in four young black men is unemployed, and one in 14 young white men is unemployed. We must do something about such inequalities. They persist even across groups with the same educational attainment levels. We must redouble our efforts to build a fairer, more just society. It would be an insult to Mandela’s memory not to do so. Madiba, with love and gratitude, rest well.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Tuesday 19th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Nick Clegg)]

As Deputy Prime Minister, I support the Prime Minister on a full range of Government policy and initiatives. Within Government I take special responsibility for this Government’s programme of political and constitutional reform.

[Debbie Abrahams]

The Government have been rebuked by the UK Statistics Authority, the Office for Budget Responsibility and others for misleading statements by Ministers on welfare, economic, health and education policy. Given that this, unfortunately, slips between the ministerial and Members’ codes, what does the Deputy Prime Minister believe the punishment should be for Ministers who deliberately mislead the House and, more importantly, the public?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

It is incumbent on everybody on both sides of the House to make sure that the statistics we use, much as we might challenge them, are based in objective fact. However, on the day that the Labour party is literally making it up about child care costs and has been shown overnight to be using misleading statistics, and on the day when it claims that it will pay for new child care policies with a bank bonus tax that it has already spent 10 times over, I suggest that the hon. Lady’s colleagues think more carefully about the statistics they use.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I do not, and as we made clear at the time the £50,000 figure does not represent any policy of my party. However, I will not be shy about parading the fact that it is because of Liberal Democrats in government that we are giving a huge tax cut to over 20 million basic rate taxpayers, a policy that I was warned by the hon. Gentleman’s party leader at the time of the last general election was not deliverable. It has been delivered because of Liberal Democrats in government.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

T3. According to the Papworth Trust, nine out of 10 disabled people are having to cut back on food or heating because of the bedroom tax. The discretionary housing payments are derisory: they give £2.09 to disabled people, compared with the £14 that they are losing through the bedroom tax. How do the Government and the Deputy Prime Minister justify that? Is that the mark of a civilised society? Since it is not in the coalition agreement, will he call for it to be scrapped?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I read in the Sunday papers that the Labour party was going to get even tougher on welfare than the coalition, yet it has opposed £83 billion-worth of welfare savings. We have to bring the housing benefits bill down somehow. I assume that our rationale for the change is exactly the reason why, in government for 13 years, Labour maintained the same rules for households receiving housing benefit in the private rented sector.