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?

• 24 Jun 2026 · Nottingham Maternity and Neonatal Services · Hansard source

  More

  First, I want to thank the families who were bereaved and harmed by Nottingham University hospitals NHS trust—some of the most courageous and selfless people I have had the privilege of knowing, including my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh). They have for years relentlessly pursued the truth, justice, accountability and real change, often at great personal cost, and not only for their own families but to prevent future families having to endure similar trauma and cruelty. I also want to express my sincere gratitude to Donna Ockenden for her service to Nottinghamshire. I am so thankful that it was her who led this review. The scale and magnitude of the systemic failures uncovered by the review are truly harrowing. Mothers and babies were harmed and even died through the most shocking negligence and indifference. Families were lied to, disbelieved, blamed and gaslit. Mistakes were covered up and regulators failed to do their jobs. One of my constituents included in the review summed up well where we go from here when she told the Secretary of State that “we need immediate action and we need long-term accountability”. On immediate actions, will the Secretary of State set out a timeline of when he expects to be able to implement the recommendations in full? On accountability, is he open to a statutory inquiry, provided that it does not delay criminal proceedings?

• 11 Jun 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  On 21 May, the Government laid the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s draft code of practice for services, public functions and associations before the House. Since then, a litany of trans-led organisations, human rights groups, charities and trade unions have come out in opposition, citing the harm it poses to trans people, the contradictions it contains and how unworkable it will be to implement. Last week I tabled early-day motion 240, which would disapprove the draft code of practice. [ That the draft Code of Practice for Services, public functions and associations, a copy of which was laid before this House on 21 May, be disapproved. ] This is the mechanism set out in the Equality Act 2010 for MPs to be able to prevent the code from coming into force. In less than two weeks, 128 MPs have signed—almost one in five—making it the most-signed early-day motion since the last general election. It is supported by trans-led organisations, Amnesty International, Unison, the GMB and ASLEF. Would the Leader of the House not agree that this level of widespread, cross-party concern warrants the code being debated and voted on, and will the Government therefore allocate time to do so?

• 9 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T4. We all know that social care is in crisis, with huge staff shortages, unmet needs and councils’ finances being pushed to the brink, so it is disappointing that the King’s Speech did not contain anything on social care. Given that the full Casey review is not expected until 2028 and that implementation is estimated to take up to 2036, what steps is the Minister taking now to alleviate pressures in the system? Will the Government expedite social care reforms so that we can meet our manifesto commitment on a national care service?

• 1 Jun 2026 · Equality Act 2010: Code of Practice · Hansard source

  More

  The EHRC code of practice fails everyone. It effectively pushes trans people out of public life, it subjects all women to gender policing based on stereotypes, and it does not provide clarity to organisations that want to be trans-inclusive. For example, a charity that wants to put on a women’s coffee morning that is open to the public cannot, according to the guidance, be trans inclusive without being open to the whole public. The Government’s equality impact assessment warns of the disproportionate risk of violence and sexual assault towards trans women if they are forced to use men’s services, as well as the increased harassment of anyone who does not conform to gender stereotypes. Why are the Government pushing ahead with this? Why not instead withdraw the guidance, and legislate to clarify that the Equality Act 2010 was always intended to be trans inclusive? For goodness’ sake, it was passed after the last Labour Government passed the Gender Recognition Act in 2004.

• 19 May 2026 · Energy Security · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. It would probably be best not to have a candid discussion about this in the Chamber. Yes, the King’s Speech provides headings, but I am afraid that is all they are—they are hints at what we need; they are not the sum of it. It is not that the change has been promised but I do not believe it is coming. It has not been promised. We are doubling down on the mistakes we have made. What we have heard from the Prime Minister is, “We’ve done great things in government. You just haven’t realised it yet.” Tinkering around the edges was never going to cut it. Chasing the far right on immigration was never going to work. If we do not learn these lessons now, it will be too late. We will be squandering the generational opportunity of a Labour Government to transform this country for the better, and we will be allowing the far right to win, and I refuse to sit here quietly and let that happen.

• 19 May 2026 · Energy Security · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with every word that the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) has just said about first past the post and proportional representation. It is Labour party policy, and it unites the left and the right of the Labour party. I think it is probably one of the few things that my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) and I work together on passionately. If colleagues on the Government Benches think that first past the post was great for us in the last election, then just wait till the next one. Proportional representation is the right thing to do. It is the most democratic thing to do. It is also the best thing to do in our own self-interest. Our party came into government against a backdrop of the deindustrialisation, privatisation and austerity that, over the course of decades, have bled this country dry. That backdrop has left millions of people in abject poverty in the fifth richest country in the world, and millions more struggling to get by. Of course, people are enraged by the state of our society, but grifting far-right politicians declaring war on minority groups are exploiting this rage to sow division. They are funded by many of the people who cause these problems in the first place and who want us to punch down so that we do not look up at them. This threat is on our streets and in our political system, from the “Unite the Kingdom” rally, mocking Muslim women and calling for mass deportations, including of British citizens, to the Reform councillors celebrating the rape of a Sikh woman and saying that Nigerians should be melted down to fill potholes. Unless we want these people running this country, we have to get our act together. I want to be clear that this is not a criticism of the Secretary of State, who I think has done an excellent job in his role, particularly against some of the flat-earthers in the Opposition parties. However, while we have done some good things in government, including improving workers’ and renters’ rights, creating GB Energy and increasing funding to local councils, the fact is that we have not delivered change at the pace and scale that voters expect. There is also far too much that this Government have got wrong, such as attempting to limit jury trials and cutting benefits for disabled people, and their failures over the genocide in Gaza. These mistakes, and the refusal to learn from them, are fuelling the collapse of the two-party system and the rise of a multi-party political landscape, but the leadership’s strategy to stop Reform has just reinforced the narrative that immigration is what is wrong with our society. Not only is that completely at odds with Labour values, but it has also been a complete electoral disaster. We have smashed apart our own voter coalition, and as we haemorrhage votes to the Greens, we are also delivering seats to Reform. I refuse to put a positive spin on the last two years, because I want us to be better. We have to face unpleasant facts. I know it is painful. It is painful for all of us, because we all believe in the potential of a Labour Government. We all understand what is at stake here, and I know that colleagues who disagree with this analysis also genuinely want to improve people’s lives and stop a far-right Government, but I am afraid the argument that we can achieve this by sticking to a failed political strategy just does not hold water. This Labour Government need a total reset to show that they are listening, that they understand what they got wrong and that they have a clear plan to change, but their response to a catastrophic performance in the local elections has been to double down on the incrementalism that we have seen thus far, and that is what we see again in this King’s Speech. While there are positives, including the Hillsborough law, measures for Ukraine and a commitment to ban conversion practices, it is clear to most of us that they are not enough. We should be taking much bolder measures to tackle the cost of living crisis and rebalance the economy so that it works for working-class people. Let me give just two examples: rent controls, so that housing costs are affordable and people are not priced out of their communities; and nationalising utilities, to prioritise public need over private profit and bring down bills. We need to do that at the same time as unashamedly standing up for the full diversity of the working class—wherever people were born, whatever the colour of their skin, their religion, their sexuality or gender identity, whether they are disabled or not, and whether they are in work or not. Tinkering around the edges was never going to cut it.

• 28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source

  More

  First, it is important that in all of this we are centring Epstein’s victims, who have so often been forgotten. Their courageous campaign for justice and accountability continues and we must all do all we can to support it. I have heard the argument that this is all a distraction from the real issues that we should be discussing. I would like nothing more than for us to be focusing on what the Government have delivered, such as: bringing NHS waiting lists down; raising the minimum wage and lifting children out of poverty; and pushing for even greater ambition. Unfortunately, it is because of serious mistakes made by No. 10, such as appointing Peter Mandelson, that those achievements are being overshadowed. I also do not doubt that the Conservatives are attempting to use this issue for their own gain ahead of the local elections. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Emma Lewell) said, that is politics—of course our political opponents will try to exploit our weaknesses. Nevertheless, I believe that our constituents do care about the honesty of politicians and that they deserve nothing less than the whole truth on this matter. This vote is not on whether we in this House believe the Prime Minister misled Parliament or not, but whether we believe there are questions the Prime Minister needs to answer, and that the Privileges Committee should look at the matter and give its assessment. I appreciate that the Foreign Affairs Committee inquiry is ongoing—I commend its Chair, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), for her fantastic work—but the purpose of that inquiry is not to look at the Prime Minister’s conduct. I have listened to the Prime Minister’s arguments and unfortunately I am yet to be convinced that he has definitively not misled the House, even if inadvertently. I am concerned that, given Sir Olly Robbins’ evidence, pressure was put on the Foreign Office regarding Mandelson’s appointment. If I remain unconvinced, I am sure there will be a sizeable number of our constituents who are also unconvinced. Why not let the Privileges Committee settle this matter once and for all? As is often said, sunlight is the best disinfectant. If we are to preserve what little trust still remains in our political system, it is vital that Ministers demonstrate the utmost transparency. And it is vital that we, as MPs, no matter our political allegiance, do not allow the impression that we are in any way attempting to cover things up for the leadership of our parties. That is why I am extremely disappointed that Labour MPs are being whipped to oppose the motion. Votes on House business are not normally whipped, and even Boris Johnson’s Government did not whip Conservative MPs to oppose his referral to the Privileges Committee. I am not making any comparison between his behaviour and that of the Prime Minister’s, but our Government must be seen to be holding themselves to far higher standards than the mess of sleaze and corruption that Johnson’s Government came to represent. I wish that the Prime Minister would refer himself to the Privileges Committee, demonstrating his confidence that he has nothing to hide and preventing entirely the need for a vote. Colleagues will be aware that the Prime Minister and I have had our political differences—that is to be expected in a broad-church party—but I want to be clear that that has absolutely no bearing on my vote today. I would rather stick to debating those politics, not matters of integrity, so it brings me no pleasure to vote for the motion today. But this is about doing what is right by our constituents, for trust in politics and for the party that I have been a member of for almost half my life.

• 12 Feb 2026 · LGBT+ History Month · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered LGBT+ History Month. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for approving this debate. I am pleased that it has become a regular fixture of the calendar in the world’s gayest Parliament. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow and Gateshead East (Kate Osborne), who made the application with me and whose relentless work for LGBTQ+ rights inspires me every day, not least her victory at the Council of Europe, where her report on banning conversion practices passed with a resounding majority. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I am pleased that the Government have confirmed that they will publish a draft Bill to that end, and I hope the Minister will use today as an opportunity to set out more details and timelines. I appreciate the irony of one of the younger LGBTQ+ MPs opening a debate about LGBTQ+ history. Luckily, I respect my elders, so if any of my colleagues who lived through that history would like to intervene, correct me if I am getting it wrong and reveal how old they are, they will be more than welcome—although I am confident that even the most senior among them will not be able to recall ancient Greece, which I will mention later. I do think, however, that it is appropriate for someone like me to open the debate, because in so many ways I am a product of LGBTQ history. The life I lead today —that I am able to be an openly queer MP, that I was taught in school about LGBTQ+ people, that I can marry my girlfriend if we so choose, that discrimination against me is banned—is because of the struggle of generation upon generation of LGBTQ+ people, from the Gay Liberation Front to those who overturned section 28, from Lesbians and Gays Support the Miners to those who set up Switchboard, and from anti-AIDS activists to the gay MPs upon whose shoulders we stand. They include Maureen Colquhoun, the first openly lesbian Member of this House, who fought tirelessly for gender equality and sex workers’ rights, and Chris Smith, who came out in 1984 at a rally against gay employees being banned from his local council. Thanks to the last Labour Government responding to the LGBTQ+ rights movement, the age of consent was equalised, section 28 was repealed, civil partnerships were granted, same-sex couples can adopt, trans people can have their gender legally recognised and the Equality Act 2010 was passed. I feel immensely grateful to those who came before me that I did not experience many of the horrors that they did. I wish that those who are no longer with us could see us now: the record numbers who are comfortable and safe identifying as their true selves and who live better and more equal lives because of everything that they fought for.

• 12 Feb 2026 · LGBT+ History Month · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I had no idea I was expected to wind up.

• 12 Feb 2026 · LGBT+ History Month · Hansard source

  More

  I just want to thank everyone so much for taking part in the debate. Everyone made incredibly powerful contributions, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes). I hope that the Government—and, indeed, everyone—heed his words.

• 12 Feb 2026 · LGBT+ History Month · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree with my hon. Friend and I congratulate her on all her work on this since we were elected together in 2019. She is absolutely right and I commend the Government for their work in this area. At the same time, we must acknowledge that many in our community continue to suffer, both here and around the world. I am proud to be the co-chair of the APPG on global lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT+) rights. The situation for our siblings internationally varies immensely from place to place. In 65 countries—that is a third of all states—LGBTQ+ people are still criminalised because of who they are and who they love. While we see progress in some places, in others new discriminatory laws and policies continue to be introduced. Unfortunately, the UK is one of the places where the state of LGBTQ+ rights has been getting worse instead of better. In preparation for today, I rewatched the speech made in 2023 by, if I may, lesbian icon and my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle). I was struck by her reflection that she would scarcely have believed the progress that has been made in the three decades since she was first elected in 1992. I am devastated that I cannot say the same for my time here. During the past six years that I have been an MP, progress has not only stalled but things have gone backwards. Last year, the UK dropped six places to 22nd in ILGA-Europe’s ranking of LGBTQ+ rights in European countries. In 2015, we were No. 1. The only other countries that suffered a similarly dramatic drop last year were Hungary, whose far-right Government banned Pride marches, and Georgia, which is implementing Russian-style anti-LGBTQ laws. ILGA-Europe has been explicit that the Supreme Court ruling and the subsequent interim guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission are the cause of our regression, as trans people in this country can no longer fully obtain legal gender recognition. Many now live in fear of being terrorised out of public life, whether through discrimination, abuse and violence from those who have been emboldened to become the gender police, or through endless legal threats forcing more and more spaces to exclude them. We have to ask: what is the endgame here? What do people opposed to trans inclusion want trans people to do—live segregated lives that violate their privacy and dignity, and be forced back into the closet and somehow to stop existing? What about intersex people? What are they meant to do when their biological sex has always been more complicated than simply male or female? That is why I think that this month also acts as an important corrective to the lie that anti-trans activists often tell that sex is binary and that until recently gender identity was straightforward—man have penis, woman have vagina, trans people do not exist. Tell that to Roberta Cowell, the first known British trans woman to undergo gender-affirming surgery and have her birth certificate changed in 1951, or to Charley Wilson, a trans man and ship’s painter from the Victorian era, or to Eleanor Rykener, who was a trans, 14th-century embroiderer, barmaid and sex worker. Tell that, too, to intersex people who have been documented in texts from as far back as ancient Greek, Roman and Indian times, to the two-spirit people of indigenous north Americans or to the hijra in south Asia. As countless biologists, psychologists and societies across the world will attest, both gender identity and sex have always been complex, diverse and not simply defined by the genitalia that those opposed to trans rights, along with the media, are so obsessed with discussing. It is also not the case that more trans people have just appeared out of nowhere in recent years. Trans people have always existed, trans people will always exist and we should be proud that more people finally feel able to live as their true selves, rather than hide in shame and fear with dire consequences for their mental health. We should celebrate that, alongside the record numbers of people identifying as gay, lesbian and bisexual. Instead, a vocal minority hopes that if we make trans people’s lives as difficult as possible, if they are hounded and abused, maybe we can get back to a mythical time when they could pretend that trans people did not exist, when gay people were not in their face and when women knew their place. Let me be clear, the roll-back of rights is all linked, and efforts to narrow the definition of womanhood, police people’s gender expression and tie women to our biology are a patriarchal and homophobic wet dream. We are already seeing how the Supreme Court ruling and interim EHRC guidance are leading to women—cis as well as trans—being challenged and harassed in toilets and other single-sex spaces. Gender-critical activists have some brass neck claiming that they are advancing our rights through their actions. I appreciate the separation of powers between the legislature and the judiciary, and that the Supreme Court had the unenviable job of attempting to interpret the will of Parliament when making its ruling. I also appreciate that this Government therefore had no hand in the decision—but they are far from powerless. The interim guidance from the EHRC went far beyond even the Supreme Court’s ruling; we must ensure that the statutory guidance does not do the same. I hope the Minister can provide an update on where they are on that and confirm that the guidance will enable organisations to be inclusive of trans people instead of mandating their exclusion. Parliament could legislate to make clear our intention in the Equality Act. I do not believe for a second that that landmark piece of equality legislation passed by the last Labour Government, after the Gender Recognition Act 2004, intended the blanket exclusion of trans people. If the law needs to be clarified, Parliament should make that clarification. We should not be triangulating on issues of human rights. We should not allow trans people to be thrown under the bus in an attempt to appease a tiny, well-funded, radicalised minority who are not representative of women or the rest of the LGBTQ+ community. All of us in the House have a duty to all our LGBTQ+ constituents, including trans people. Trans people are the frequent topic of debate in this House, yet they have no ability to contribute to it. We must amplify their voices, experiences and concerns, and they are demanding that we oppose their exclusion. As a queer woman, I feel a particular debt to the trans community, because they fought for the rights that I enjoy today. They were on the Pride marches, they were at the die-ins, they lobbied their MPs, and I benefited from it. What kind of person would I be to pull up the ladder when the LGBTQ+ community has always been and will always be one, in struggle and in joy? There is no LGB without the T. We rise together and we fall together, and we must not let our trans siblings’ rights be taken.

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

  More

  The introduction of the two-child limit by the Conservatives in 2017 has had a devastating impact on child poverty rates. Every day, it affects 1.7 million children, with a loss of roughly £3,500 a year for affected families. A huge 17% of children in my constituency live in families subject to this inhumane and unjust policy. It is also a policy that has failed on its own terms: a study by the London School of Economics found that it did not increase employment rates among those families affected, the majority of whom are already in work. Meanwhile, the wellbeing of hundreds of thousands of children became collateral damage in this reckless experiment, from living in overcrowded homes to going to bed hungry. It is utterly disgraceful that this cruel policy has remained in force for so long, and I know that many of our constituents have felt let down that our Labour Government did not act more quickly. I am therefore greatly relieved that the calls that so many of us have repeatedly made are now being heeded, and that the Government are finally scrapping the two-child limit. This would not have been possible without the tireless work of campaigners, who have spent almost a decade fighting for this change. Experts agree that the removal of the two-child limit is the most cost-effective way to cut child poverty, with the change expected to lift almost half a million children out of poverty by the end of this Parliament. With more than a third of children in my constituency growing up in poverty, I breathe a sigh of relief for the children and families in Nottingham East, and right across the country, who will finally be receiving the support that they should always have had. Poverty is a political choice, and this Bill proves that we can make decisions that have a real impact, but this must be the start and not the end. I am concerned that around 50,000 low-income families currently affected by the two-child benefit limit will gain nothing when it is lifted in April because of the benefit cap. I am also worried that children whose parents are subject to no recourse to public funds will continue to be at a disproportionately high risk of poverty because they are denied support. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has also warned that progress on tackling poverty is likely to stall without further action.

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

  More

  I thank the right hon. Member for that intervention. I agree with the points that he made, particularly because, from my constituency inbox, huge numbers of constituents are effectively evicted because landlords keep hiking their rents. That is why I back his call, and the calls of Sadiq Khan and Andy Burnham—our mayors—to allow local areas to introduce rent controls. I also back the calls of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation for universal credit to cover the cost of essentials such as food, toiletries and heating. Addressing people’s material conditions—their living conditions—is how we keep the far right at bay. We must show that we are on the side of working-class people. We must tax the multimillionaires and put money back into our public services and people’s pockets. We must do that at pace, so that no child grows up in poverty, in the sixth-largest economy in the world, so that people can see the difference that a Labour Government can make, and so that our society becomes a happier, healthier and more equal place for all of us to live. That must be our goal.

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

  More

  The shadow Secretary of State must know that the vast majority of families in poverty include at least one adult in work. She asks how this Bill is being paid for. Well, it is being paid for by increased taxes on gambling giants. Would it not be more truthful to say that the hon. Lady is on the side of gambling giants rather than children in poverty?

• 13 Jan 2026 · Puberty Suppressants · Hansard source

  More

  I remind the House that puberty blockers are still prescribed to young people who are not trans; I do not see some of my colleagues who are so exercised when puberty blockers are given to young trans people expressing the same concerns for their cisgender peers. Even Dr Cass herself acknowledged that puberty blockers are effective for some young trans people and recommended against a blanket ban. While the trial is ongoing, can the Minister outline what steps the Department is taking to increase funding and capacity for children and young people’s gender services to address the unacceptably long waiting times, which continue to cause enormous harm?

• 16 Dec 2025 · Transgender People: Provision of Healthcare · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor) for securing this important debate and for all her work to champion trans rights in this place. First, I want to speak about the delivery of general medical care to trans people and the discrimination they experience. Constituents have told me how unrelated health problems have been attributed to them being trans. One person described this as “exhausting and frightening”, stating that it discourages them from seeking help. Meanwhile, 14% of respondents to a survey by TransActual reported that they had been refused GP care on account of being trans. One trans man told the Nottingham Pastel Project that he had been turned away for a cervical smear and treatment for a urinary tract infection. The second issue I want to raise is the difficulty of accessing gender-affirming care. Trans people will be the first to say that the delivery of gender-affirming care in this country is deeply flawed and in need of serious reform. Instead of taking their experiences as the starting point, discussions about trans healthcare have been rooted in transphobia, misinformation and moral panic. Meanwhile, waiting times for gender-affirming care stretch into years. One Nottingham resident said that they waited seven years for a diagnosis. Another has been waiting for an appointment with a gender identity clinic for five and a half years. Someone who joined the waiting list two years ago has been told to expect to wait a further four years. Faced with an eight-year wait for gender-affirming surgery on the NHS, one trans person in my city worked two full-time jobs, sold their car and held fundraising events to cobble together £20,000 so they could have that surgery abroad. They are emphatic that it saved their life, but they should never have been forced to go through that ordeal just to access healthcare. Reports of GPs denying gender-affirming care have increased dramatically. One constituent told me they had huge problems finding a private gender clinic with which their GP would do shared care, and that delayed their treatment by six months. Another Nottingham resident who was on testosterone for more than a decade has not received a single dose in 16 months because their GP has refused to prescribe it. I could go on and on with examples just from my city, and I have not even spoken about the appalling situation that trans people under 18 face. It is clear that the Government must act, from increasing funding for gender-affirming healthcare to improving training for GPs, modernising assessment and treatment pathways and ensuring co-production of services with trans patients, because this is an emergency. Inadequate healthcare is ruining trans people’s physical health, their mental health and their lives. It cannot be allowed to continue.

• 16 Dec 2025 · Transgender People: Provision of Healthcare · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?