Debbie Abrahams

Party affiliation

Parliament's party history for this member: Labour (13 Jan 2011 – present).

Register of interests

Register on Parliament's site

Latest on this tracker 198

1. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Debbie Abrahams

   The Global Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Sanctions Regulations 2026

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I, too, welcome these regulations on global human rights and international humanitarian law sanctions. We know that sanctions are a vital tool for the Government to use to promote our British values, particularly in relation to the rule of law, democracy and human rights. By designating individuals or entities responsible for human rights violations, for example, we send a clear message that the UK stands firm against despots such as Vladimir Putin. Sanctioned persons face penalties including director disqualification in this country, asset freezes and being prevented from travelling to Britain. Those are significant penalties, and those who are designated to face them are designated only on reasonable grounds. Although the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 was certainly an important piece of legislation, recent events have shown the incompleteness of its implementation. Of course, the Global Human Rights Sanctions Regulations 2020, which the regulations that we are debating replace, were correct to punish those who perpetrate violations of human rights. However, it <span id="8" class="column-number" data-column-number="8"></span>was clearly an oversight to punish those acts while not taking equivalent action for serious breaches of international humanitarian law. What do these new, expanded regulations mean? As the name sets out, the Global Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Sanctions Regulations 2026—I will just call them the new regulations—expand the former regulations so that serious breaches of international humanitarian law around the world now constitute designate-able activity. Previously, that was not a consistent policy of the British Government. Such breaches could be designated in countries that face their own UK geographic sanctions—regimes such as Sudan, Syria, Myanmar and the Democratic Republic of Congo. This is a common-sense change. Some examples of serious breaches include armed actors targeting defenceless civilians, performing public executions and a state deporting or transferring parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies. One of the chief catalysts for this action was the Israeli Government, under Benjamin Netanyahu, making a clear statement that they intend to bury the prospect of a Palestinian state, and with it the two-state solution, through illegal settlement expansions, particularly in the case of the E1 project. That breaches the rights of Palestinians to self-determination. Israel always had the right to defend itself in a proportionate manner after the heinous terror attacks of 7 October 2023. However, what we have seen in both Gaza and the west bank has gone far beyond that. This Government have thankfully accepted the 2024 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice that Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory is unlawful. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was exactly right to say in his statement on 8 September: “If the occupation is illegal, do we want to maintain, at the level of principle, normal economic relationships? We say no.”<span id="vol790_col887" class="cross-reference" data-house-id="1" data-column-number="887" data-volume-number="790" data-external-id="9EF80BBA-19DA-424B-AB6A-7356E1C91517">—[<em>Official Report</em>, 8 September 2026; Vol. 790, c. 887.]</span> Nevertheless, without a new statutory instrument, normal economic relationships with illegal settlements would have been effectively maintained. The previous regulations did not afford the Government the power to systematically oppose the creation of illegal settlements through financing and construction originating in the UK. The previous regulations, while a good step, were inadequate for the Government to deliver on their obligations under international humanitarian law. Although I wholeheartedly support the replacement of the previous regulations with the new ones, two questions remain, which I would like to put to the Minister. How will the Government monitor those who commit acts that may make them liable to designation? How swiftly will we act on reliable reports of such acts? I am sure that, in the case of the Government’s ambition with its allies to stop E1 being built and protect the two-state solution, the Foreign Secretary’s statement to the House on 8 September and the joint statement from this and other Governments on how we will take action against settlement expansion were a meaningful factor in the Israeli Attorney General delaying the opening of construction and financing tenders to mid-November. To support the Government’s action, the Britain-Palestine all-party parliamentary group, which I co-chair with my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), has written to over 150 financial and business entities, trade associations <span id="9" class="column-number" data-column-number="9"></span>and regulators to inform them of the obligations that these regulations place on them, their members and those under their regulatory purview. Currently, we have had a response from 27 of those entities. It is evident that the Government’s initial announcement on 8 September was a good warning for them to avoid involvement in E1. Nevertheless, that response rate suggests that people have not quite got the message. We cannot afford to march to the edge of action, only to falter when we have finally shown the collective action of the UK and our allies to be a powerful threat against breaches of international humanitarian law. I therefore ask the Minister: what work is his Department undertaking to ensure that this unity of purpose, particularly between those who are co-signatories of the joint Foreign Ministers’ statement on the two-state solution of 8 September, translates into unity of action? Does he also view these measures as sufficient to combat activities to maintain existing settlements? If not, what action will he take to ensure that that is the case? Only yesterday, I was approached by a journalist who had evidence of jobs in medical clinics in illegal settlements being advertised in this country at an event in London last weekend. I know that the Government were outraged by the advertisement of illegal settlement properties at the Great Israeli Real Estate Event, which took place a few months ago in London, so what action can they take to ensure that these activities cannot happen again? As I said, I fully support these new regulations. However, I would be interested to know whether creating a set of activity-based regulations applying to all existing settlements, not just the new ones, would be a better approach. I am grateful to you for allowing me to speak, Mr Stringer, and I thank the members of the Committee.

   Hansard source
2. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Debbie Abrahams

   The Global Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Sanctions Regulations 2026

   Will the Minister also respond on why our regulations would not incorporate existing settlements as well?

   Hansard source
3. 8 Sep 2026·Parliament·Debbie Abrahams

   Israel and Palestine

   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 specifically agree with him that we must all play our part to protect our Jewish friends, colleagues and neighbours and ensure that they do not see this as collective punishment. Could he give details of the next steps around the SAMLA statutory instrument?

   Hansard source
4. 1 Sep 2026·Parliament·Debbie Abrahams

   Direction of Government

   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. If I may, I direct him to a report by the Work and Pensions Committee that came out just before the recess specifically on that point. My question relates to the middle east. I know he has made reference in the past to the importance of being able to hold Israel to account. What does he think is the appropriate action that we and our partners can take not only in ensuring humanitarian aid and access, but in relation to the unlawful settlements? On so many occasions, the law has been broken, and there is a real danger that the Palestine state will not be viable if we carry on in this way.

   Hansard source
5. 16 Jul 2026·Parliament·Debbie Abrahams

   Work and Pensions Committee

   I express my gratitude to the Backbench Business Committee for granting me the opportunity to present this Work and Pensions Select Committee report on our inquiry into the transition to state pension age, which is a really important area for us to examine. Our inquiry follows very closely on from the inquiry we held last year into pensioner poverty—that report was published this time last year. During that inquiry, we identified the real health and financial issues facing many working-age people as they approach state pension age. This was particularly evident following the increase in the state pension age to 66 back in 2020, but as many—but not all—know, the state pension age has started to rise from 66 as of April this year, and will reach 67 by April 2028. Our reports have shown that people experience the effects of that state pension age increase unevenly. Our transition to state pension age inquiry asked a direct question: what happens to those who cannot keep working until their state pension begins? The Committee recognises the pressures on the state pension system. In 2005, spending on the state pension and pensioner benefits was 5.3% of GDP. Twenty years later, as society has aged, that figure has increased to 6%, and it is estimated that by 2070 it will be as high as 9%. Over half of all Department for Work and Pensions spending is spent on the state pension and, as I have said, this is set to increase as our society continues to age. The Committee recognises the need to balance sustainability, adequacy and fairness in our social security system as a whole, including our state pension system. However, fairness must mean fairness not only between generations, but within generations. Fairness to those who are least well equipped to build a secure retirement is equally important. Unfortunately, it is clear that disadvantage, ill health and frailty are not spread evenly across the country; they are concentrated in some communities more than others, and they go hand in hand with poverty. It cannot be fair to ask those with the poorest health, the fewest resources and the greatest risks to face the increase in state pension age without support. 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 <span id="1134" class="column-number" data-column-number="1134"></span>often physically demanding work. As the Health Foundation’s recent report shows, since 2012 the healthy life expectancy—the average age someone is expected to live in good health—has fallen by two years, to 60.7 years for men and 60.9 years for women. Again, that is an average; in areas such as mine, a former industrial area, the healthy life expectancy for men and women is 56 and 58 years, so we can see the difficulties that the country is facing with this issue. Of course, different cohorts will have different healthy life expectancies as well. Many people experience disadvantages in older age as a product of a life lived in poverty, having few financial resources and having experienced insecure work and, often, poor housing. This poor health in later working life is reflected in different employment rates; for example, in 2025 only 42% of people aged 65 were in work. For those aged 66—the current state pension age—that figure fell to under 30%, less than one in three. However, ill health is not the only reason people leave work. The Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell), told us that while poorer people tend to leave work before state pension age because of ill health and/or disability, wealthier people are more likely to retire early because they can afford to do so. 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. Sometimes these people ended up having to draw down small pension savings just to get by before their state pension began. It is not generally recognised that the previous state pension age increase from 65 to 66 caused a doubling of absolute poverty among 65-year-olds. Our real concern is that the rise in the state pension age to 67 may have an even greater effect. The Committee heard that work-limiting health conditions among people aged 60 to 64 have increased from 28% in 2014 to 31% in 2024. 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 Department has said that the poverty that pensioners and pre-pensioners experienced when the state pension age rose from 65 to 66 was mostly temporary, because people were lifted out of poverty as soon as they reached state pension age. However, temporary poverty can still do lasting harm—it can mean going without essentials and carrying stress into later life. Half of pre-pensioners are already frail; experiencing poverty, even temporary poverty, increases the risk of accelerating or exacerbating this deterioration in physical and cognitive function. These issues are not inevitable—they are solvable. First, older workers need better support, healthier workplaces and flexible working opportunities. The Government’s current approach is focused on supporting later working, including through the Mayfield review, which the Committee wholeheartedly supports and welcomes. As we have said in other reports this year, we wish the Government would do more to accelerate that work. However, it is unclear how many people would be lifted out of poverty by the Government’s current labour market measures. We hope that the Mayfield review will help in time, but it is a three to seven-year programme, <span id="1135" class="column-number" data-column-number="1135"></span>and even if change comes quickly, it could come too late for many people who are now approaching the state pension age. Support to stay in work often needs to reach people in their 50s, rather than in their mid-60s. That is why my Committee concluded that additional social security support is needed. That is not an abstract concern, but a direct and foreseeable effect of state pension age policy. For people unable to work, the longer wait for the state pension can mean a year or more on inadequate working age benefits, a year using up savings or a year of hardship. We recommend that the Government as a minimum consult on an uplift in universal credit in the year before state pension age, with the aim of introducing additional support by the end of this year. We heard that such an increase would cost around £600 million a year, but that must be considered alongside the estimated savings of around £10.5 billion a year once the state pension age is 67, compared with if it had stayed at 66. We recognise that work incentives matter, but the proposal is modest. It is targeted at people in the year before state pension age. Many of those out of the labour market at that point are unlikely to return to it. The overriding priority would be to prevent hardship that would otherwise be the predictable result of public policy enacted in the Pensions Act 2014. We also recommend that when the Secretary of State’s state pension age review commences, they consult on longer term support for those unable to work up to state pension age. That review should model costs and benefits, including the effects on work incentives downstream and on health and social care services. Our report also looks at Government decision making. The Government have relied on impact assessments from 2011 and 2013. We think those assessments are now outdated and insufficient. They do not reflect the recent increase in work-limiting ill health and deepening inequality in healthy life expectancy, and they do not provide a basis for understanding who would be most affected by the rise to 67. In 2023, the previous Government decided to proceed with the increase to 67, but said they would keep under review the position of people unable to continue to work. No such review had been published by the time of the 2024 general election, and the current <span id="1136" class="column-number" data-column-number="1136"></span>Government do not plan to evaluate the increase until after it is completed in 2028. That is too late. They will have missed an opportunity to identify risks and put mitigations in place before any further increases take effect. <em>[</em><em>Interruption.</em><em>]</em> 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. It should use evidence that reflects employment history, occupational class, health status, caring history, income and protected characteristics. It should consult the chief medical officer on health impacts. It should estimate likely poverty increases in time to act before they happen. I also mention the importance of communication. Not everybody is aware of the increase to 67, and we know from previous pension policy the impact that can have on people. Finally, I express my concern about the irresponsible rumours of a potential acceleration of the further increase in the state pension age. That fear-mongering is unhelpful, to say the least, and is untrue. I commend my report to the House.

   Hansard source
6. 16 Jul 2026·Parliament·Debbie Abrahams

   Work and Pensions Committee

   The Mayfield review came up with some good recommendations, which we thoroughly support, and I can direct my hon. Friend to other reports that made similar recommendations. It is important that we look at older people and not just people with health issues and disabilities.

   Hansard source
7. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Debbie Abrahams

   Historical Forced Adoption

   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.

   Hansard source
8. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Debbie Abrahams

   Israel: E1 Zone Expansion

   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?

   Hansard source
9. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Debbie Abrahams

   Department for Work and Pensions

   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.

   Hansard source
10. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Debbie Abrahams

    Department for Work and Pensions

    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.

    Hansard source

2024 General Election: Oldham East and Saddleworth

Election result on Parliament's site

Parliamentary career

Career on Parliament's site

Published contact details

Only the details Parliament publishes for this member. Contact page on Parliament's site