Nadia Whittome MP: speeches

Speeches

• 10 Sept 2026 · Social Housing Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  One major driver of the housing crisis has been the selling off of our council homes under Thatcher’s right-to-buy scheme. Not only has that greatly reduced the supply of social housing, exposing more people to higher rents and the insecurity of private renting, but we now know that it has indirectly inflated private rents by shifting low-income households into market-rate renting. That is why I welcome the Bill’s aims of protecting existing social housing stock and incentivising the building of more social rented homes. I also commend its commitment to provide greater social security and stability for social tenants who are victims and survivors of domestic abuse. However, while the Bill turns over a new leaf in our housing policy, I am concerned that it does not go far enough on right to buy. New social homes will only be protected for 35 years, and existing tenants will wait seven more years to buy their homes at a discount, so we will still lose our social housing stock, just at a slower pace. The argument we often hear against removing right to buy from existing social housing is that it would be unfair to those hoping to buy their homes at a discount, but selling public assets to private individuals at a loss to the state is accelerating the housing crisis for all. Since council homes began being sold off at a discount, the state has effectively given away an estimated £194 billion, and to add insult to injury, 41% of those homes are now in the hands of private landlords. The Government rightly recognise that we need to replenish our social housing stock, so as well as a mass programme of council house building, we must help local authorities to recover former council homes through grants and a stronger right of first refusal policy. These measures will, in the long term, pay for themselves. A typical private tenant spends over a third of their income on rent today, compared with only 10% in 1980, so we need more drastic measures to tackle the housing crisis, and that includes stabilising our social housing stock. We should be ending right to buy completely, as Wales and Scotland have, because every year delayed is another year that we fail the hundreds of thousands of people without a secure home, the over 170,000 children in England who are in temporary accommodation and, of course, the millions paying extortionate rents to their landlords.

• 14 Jul 2026 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making an incredibly emotional speech. I know, from the Nottingham maternity review, the harm and hurt that is caused when people with knowledge and involvement in institutional failures are allowed to dodge accountability and scrutiny. Does she agree that it is therefore vital there is no exemption from the duty of candour, including for the security services, and that campaigners, including our hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne), have been right to fight for so many years for a Hillsborough law that is worthy of the name and that can truly end cover-ups?

• 14 Jul 2026 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 13 Jul 2026 · Immigration and Asylum Bill · Hansard source

  More

  There is little evidence that the Bill will do what it claims and fix the most serious issues in our asylum system. In fact, experts say that it will divert focus and resources to a system that is unfair, unsafe and unworkable. There are many problems in the Bill, but for the sake of time I will focus on the independent immigration appeals authority. The Government say that to tackle the backlog they will replace the tribunal system, which is made up of judges, with a new system of adjudicators, who are not legally qualified but who are given power and responsibility to make what are, in many cases, life and death decisions. The Government claim that they will be independent, but they are appointed by the chief executive, who is appointed by the Secretary of State. That undermines the independence of the judiciary and the separation of powers, which are key cornerstones of our democracy. The Law Society says that it risks “more wrong decisions, more court challenges, higher costs and longer uncertainty.” Poor Home Office decision making drives the appeals backlog. In the last financial year, 39% of appeals were granted, and more than 10,000 were withdrawn because the Home Office abandoned its initial decision. Rather than building new expensive bodies, the Government should invest in the existing system and get asylum decisions right the first time. The Government could have brought forward a Bill containing evidence-based policies that would fix our broken asylum system—for example, a not-for-profit asylum accommodation system to improve living conditions and integration, genuinely safe routes that are not severely restricted and heavily capped, and fast tracking of obviously well-founded asylum cases such as those from war zones. Instead, I am ashamed to say that the Bill is a betrayal of our party’s values, and I cannot support it. I urge the Government to withdraw this Bill, and instead to work with sector organisations and experts to create an immigration and asylum system that is rooted in compassion, justice and human rights.

• 13 Jul 2026 · Immigration and Asylum Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is great to hear my right hon. Friend supporting schemes like Homes for Ukraine. The reason we do not see Ukrainians crossing the channel on small boats is because, rightly, we have a safe and legal route. Why not expand those safe and legal routes to places like Sudan and Eritrea, because obviously if an asylum claim comes from those countries, at the very least they should be fast-tracked? That would help to clear up the backlog, so would she support that?

• 9 Jul 2026 · Timms Review: Interim Report · Hansard source

  More

  The interim report rightly recognises what disabled people have long been saying, which is that PIP is a broken system. What assurances can the Minister give that the recommendations of the final report will be grounded in disabled people’s right to social security, right to independent living and right to participate in society? Will disabled people and their organisations properly shape the next phase of the reforms, rather than merely being consulted on them?

• 9 Jul 2026 · Israeli Settlements: Trade Ban · Hansard source

  More

  The continued expansion of illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied west bank and East Jerusalem is having a profound impact on Palestinian communities, where military violence and attacks by extremist idealogues are spiralling. Poverty is pervasive and economic development is almost non-existent thanks to Israel’s systemic abuse and seizure of Palestinian land and resources. Palestinians are being forced out of their homes, while road closures and checkpoints prevent them from accessing the services they require. Israel has committed ethnic cleansing and war crimes, as well as genocide, in Gaza. Children have been targeted, maimed and killed. It is right that the Government have recognised the state of Palestine, introduced sanctions on certain individuals and groups, and suspended some arms licences, but that is nowhere near enough. The time for expressing concerns and taking limited action was over decades ago. To continue with the strategy when Israel has committed and continues to commit genocide beggars belief. We must stop looking the other way; we must not allow financial support for Israel’s crimes. There have long been calls to ban trade with illegal Israeli settlements and the Government must heed those calls now. Spain has already implemented a package of import restrictions on Israeli settlement goods, and earlier this week the Irish Parliament approved legislation banning imports from settlements. The proposed law states that it is designed to abide by Ireland’s “international legal obligation, as identified by the International Court of Justice in its advisory opinion”, and it specifically includes taking steps “to prevent trade relations that assist in the maintenance of the illegal situation created by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory”. The Government agree that Israel’s control of the west bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza amounts to occupation under international law, so why are we refusing to comply with international law by failing to ban trade with illegal settlements? That is the bare minimum—I would argue we should be implementing much broader economic sanctions against Israel—but it would at least be a start. By failing to do so, we are contributing to the systemic abuse of human rights and international law on which the settlements rely. History will remember the way that the international community stood by and allowed Israel to commit crimes against humanity. I am afraid to say that the Government are on the wrong side of history, but they do not have to stay there. They could and should pull every lever at their disposal to pressure Israel to comply with international law. A ban on trade with illegal settlements is a lever that we should have pulled long ago.

• 7 Jul 2026 · Human Rights in Kashmir · Hansard source

  More

  I have been contacted in recent weeks by many constituents who are desperately worried for their loved ones in Kashmir, and who are struggling to reach them because of the communications blockade. Does the Minister agree that such communication shutdowns, which have also been used by Indian-occupied Kashmir, are often an attempt by authorities to hide and cover up the crimes and human rights abuses they are committing? What assurances can she give us that the Government will put pressure on the Pakistani Government to stop any blockade?