Personal Independence Payment: Disabled People

Debate between Jim Shannon and Diane Abbott

Wednesday 7th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Ms Abbott]

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.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the right hon. Lady for securing this debate. Westminster Hall is full today, so this is clearly a massive issue.

PIP is effectively a lifeline to help to maintain people’s wellness and independence, and in many cases people’s employment, so more needs to be done. Furthermore, if a claimant no longer qualifies for the daily living component, any carer will also lose their direct access to carer’s allowance, which would be a loss of £10,000 on top of the other money that is lost. This situation is a minefield for those who are disabled and depend on PIP to continue having some quality of life. Does the right hon. Lady agree that today the Minister must give us many, many answers and change the policy?

[Ms Abbott]

It is indeed a cruel and brutal system that needs reform. It does not need cuts.

Elements of the Labour party seem to want to claim that the loss of the by-election in Runcorn and the fact that Labour lost two thirds of the council seats we were defending was all about immigrants. However, voter surveys show that, far from being all about immigrants, the single most important reason for vote-switching was anger at the Government for the winter fuel allowance and welfare cuts, such as the proposed cut to PIP. Immigration came well down the list.

Labour people who went out knocking on doors said that two issues came up over and again: cuts to winter fuel payments; and cuts to personal independence payments. 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. 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.

Israel and Palestine

Debate between Jim Shannon and Diane Abbott

Monday 16th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I start by making my position abundantly clear: I am, and always have been, a steadfast friend of Israel. My commitment to the state of Israel is rooted in its right to exist as a secure and democratic homeland for the Jewish people. For me, that principle is non-negotiable. I hope that my remarks will reflect both my empathy and my unwavering belief in Israel’s right to defend itself.

Those who champion such measures as a ban on arms sales to Israel fail to acknowledge the existential threats that Israel faces daily. To remind the House, on 7 October Hamas murdered some 1,200 people. Babies, children and elderly civilians were slaughtered on that day. I have to be blunt: the scale of the barbarism was unthinkable. The world witnessed graphic evidence of men beheaded, women raped and children murdered. If we in this House fail to stand unequivocally against that level of evil, we fail humanity itself. Hamas do not aim for co-existence or peace; their very charter calls for Israel’s destruction.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Jim Shannon]

I am going to keep to the four minutes—I am sorry. I would normally give way, but I am going to follow Mrs Harris’s rules.

It is deeply misguided to suggest, as one of the petitions does, that we should deny Israel the tools it needs to protect its citizens. At the same time, it is essential to acknowledge the human cost of the conflict in Gaza. Thousands of innocent Palestinian civilians, many of them children, have tragically lost their lives as well. Their suffering cannot and must not be ignored.

Hamas’s strategy is to use civilians as human shields and embed their terror infrastructure in hospitals, schools and residential areas. As Brigadier General Doron Gavish said, Hamas deliberately target civilians while hiding behind their own population. They hide among the skirts of women and among children. That is what Hamas do, because their goal is the destruction of Israel.

Although I respect the aspirations of Palestinian people, I firmly believe that the path to peace lies in negotiations, not unilateral declarations. Israel has repeatedly extended its hand in peace, most notably through the Oslo accords, but it has been met time and again with rejection and violence.

That brings me to the concept of a two-state solution. I believe in and support a two-state solution in principle, but let us be clear: peace cannot co-exist with the likes of Hamas. Any discussion of a future Palestinian state must begin with the dismantling of terrorist organisations that perpetuate hatred and violence. Can we hope for a lasting peace that allows Palestinians to thrive along alongside Israelis in safety, dignity and prosperity? I hope we can.

Abandoning Israel would have dire consequences not only for the middle east but for global stability. Israel is a cornerstone of western values in a region plagued by extremism and authoritarianism. To weaken Israel is to embolden its enemies, including Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas and other forces of radicalisation that threaten not just Israel but the wider world. Israel’s existence is not just a matter of geopolitics; it is a beacon of hope and freedom in a turbulent region. We must not allow that beacon to be extinguished by those who seek its destruction.

As we debate these petitions, let us do so with compassion for all those affected by this conflict, but let us also stand firm in our support for Israel’s right to self-defence and its quest for peace. That is critical, and that is what Israel wants, but it has to be a peace with justice. To abandon Israel now, in its hour of need, would be a betrayal not just of an ally but of the principles of freedom and democracy that this House holds dear.