Nadia Whittome MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 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?

• 2 Dec 2025 · Criminal Court Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the £550 million investment in victims, but trial by a jury of your peers is a cornerstone of the criminal justice system in this country. Court backlogs are a serious problem—I know that first hand—but the evidence shows that this is because of issues such as a chronic lack of funding, rather than the use of juries. Surely the Secretary of State can see that it would be a grave error to erode a principle that has stood the test of hundreds of years and is widely regarded as producing the fairest outcomes, including by his own 2017 review, all for the sake of time-saving and cost-saving measures that might in practice save neither time nor cost.

• 17 Nov 2025 · Asylum Policy · Hansard source

  More

  Earlier the Home Secretary advised that I wait for the detail of the reforms before criticising them. Now the detail is out, and I am afraid it does not reassure me in the slightest. It is hard to know where to begin when so much of what has been announced flies in the face of decency and compassion, but I will focus on family reunion. Limiting access to family reunion for refugees will force children and spouses into the hands of the very people smugglers that the Home Secretary is seeking to smash. It will push them into unsafe dinghies, risking their lives. Would she be comfortable with this?

• 17 Nov 2025 · Asylum Policies: Danish Model · Hansard source

  More

  2. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of implementing asylum policies similar to Denmark on asylum seekers and refugees.

• 17 Nov 2025 · Asylum Policies: Danish Model · Hansard source

  More

  The Denmark-style policies briefed in the last couple of days are dystopian. It is shameful that a Labour Government are ripping up the rights and protections of people who have endured unimaginable trauma. Is this how we would want to be treated if we were fleeing for our lives? Of course not. How can we be adopting such obviously cruel policies? Is the Home Secretary proud that the Government have sunk to such depths that they are now being praised by Tommy Robinson?

• 28 Oct 2025 · Gaza Peace Plan · Hansard source

  More

  15. What steps she is taking to help secure a just and lasting peace in Gaza.

• 28 Oct 2025 · Gaza Peace Plan · Hansard source

  More

  Over two weeks into the ceasefire in Gaza, Israeli forces are still killing Palestinians. Many are being shot at as they attempt to return to their homes near a yellow line marked by Israel—a line that Israeli media are increasingly calling a new border. What will the Government do to ensure that this supposedly temporary yellow line does not become a permanent border and effectively cut Gaza in half?

• 21 Oct 2025 · Ending Homelessness · Hansard source

  More

  The UK’s homelessness crisis has been decades in the making. Thanks to Thatcher selling off social housing, a large proportion of our country is now at the mercy of private landlords—like those in my constituency who issued section 21 notices to three buildings on Mansfield Road, putting dozens at risk of homelessness. Low pay and low levels of benefits compared with soaring rents make it even harder for people to access the private rented sector at all, and we have the scandal of children growing up in hotels. I welcome the Renters’ Rights Bill to shift the balance of power towards tenants and away from landlords, and the Government’s commitment to build 1.5 million homes, but we cannot rely on private house builders to build the genuinely affordable homes that we need. The Government must implement a mass public house building programme of homes for social rent. When I was on the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee, I repeatedly questioned the previous Government on why they refused to set a target on new homes for social rent. Our Government must set a target of at least 90,000 homes a year and ensure that they are built. Right to buy must also be scrapped. The action to tackle no-fault evictions in the Renters’ Rights Bill is essential, but landlords can evict by the back door by putting up the rent instead. We should be looking seriously at rent controls to stop the scandal of ever-growing rents gobbling up a higher proportion of people’s wages and costing a fortune in housing benefit—which, of course, needs to rise with rents; that is something the Government must commit to. In the meantime, there are immediate steps that we can take to ease homelessness for those at the sharpest end while we tackle the structural issues. I was privileged to spend time with the street outreach team in Nottingham, who highlighted the need for more permanent shelters that are easier to access and that could support people with more complex needs. We also talked about the need for more housing like Grove House in Nottingham, which is made up of self-contained units for women with complex needs and provides wraparound support.

• 14 Oct 2025 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  I very much welcome the Prime Minister’s statement today. After two years of relentless genocide committed by Israel, killing many tens of thousands of innocent people, a ceasefire is an historic and hopeful moment, even though it took far too long to achieve. Watching released Palestinians and Israelis reunite with their families yesterday was deeply moving, but Palestinians are far from free. Their rights are still being denied, they are still living under occupation and they will continue to suffer. Does the Prime Minister agree that Palestinians must be able to exercise their right to self-determination and that Israel must face accountability for its crimes against them? What action will he take to make that a reality?

• 13 Oct 2025 · Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  I do not know how many doors I have knocked on in my 12 years as a Labour member, but I do know that not a single person has ever told me that what they really need to improve their lives, their community and the country is mandatory digital ID. It will not tackle irregular working, it would undermine civil liberties, it is divisive among the public, and it will not make a difference to people’s lives. Why are we doing it? Why are we burning political capital and public money on that instead of focusing on the issues that really are impacting our constituents? I worry that this is yet another huge mistake.

• 13 Oct 2025 · Baby Loss · Hansard source

  More

  I start by thanking Members for bringing this important debate and thanking those who have spoken so bravely about their own experiences of loss and harm. No matter how a baby dies or a wanted pregnancy ends, it is always deeply painful and traumatic for bereaved families, but their suffering is particularly exacerbated when the loss of a baby could have been prevented. I have constituents who tragically know that only too well. Our city is at the centre of the largest maternity inquiry in NHS history and a corporate manslaughter investigation due to failings by Nottingham University Hospitals that have led to hundreds of baby deaths and injuries—hundreds of preventable tragedies. Many families are still waiting for answers. Many have faced contemptuous treatment, not just at the time of the loss or injury of their baby, but in the aftermath. These families have been institutionally gaslit, lied to and robbed of so much, and they are still having to fight for their children. Some have also faced abhorrent racism. I pay tribute to the Nottingham affected families group for their unwavering determination to secure accountability and change. It is because of their tenacity that the review is happening at all. It has been a privilege to work with them, and I have been deeply moved by their strength and selflessness in fighting not only for their own families, but for others, in the face of such appalling institutional failures and systematic neglect. I also thank Donna Ockenden for agreeing to lead the review and for all her work so far—I am so grateful that families in Nottingham have such a champion fighting their corner. Above all, there must be accountability for this scandal, and lessons must be learned so that no family has to go through such an avoidable tragedy again. While standards of care at NUH under new leadership have improved, they are still falling short, and further action must be taken to ensure that parents and babies receive the care that they deserve. I welcome the Government’s launch of a national maternity investigation to examine maternity and neonatal services across England. This rapid review will consolidate previous inquiries’ findings and recommendations, with the aim of improving the quality and safety of maternity care. However, I am concerned that families in Nottingham do not feel that they were included in the meaningful way they were promised, and the Government must not simply wait for the outcome of this investigation before taking action. I am certain that the Secretary of State will act on that, and I thank him for his ongoing genuine commitment to this. The Nottingham affected families group has been calling for the 22 national recommendations from the Shrewsbury and Telford Ockenden review to be implemented without delay. The families also want the role of oversight bodies, which are meant to hold trusts and healthcare professionals to account, to be scrutinised. The CQC must become a more visible organisation and it must be able to bring prosecutions more than three years after the offence occurred; the current limit is far too short, and it is denying people even a semblance of justice. There is so much more to say, but in the last few seconds I want to pay tribute to charities in Nottingham founded by bereaved parents, particularly Zephyr’s and Forever Stars. These organisations are already doing the work of supporting grieving families, but they are operating on shoestring budgets and generally do not receive statutory funding. We need to see that change. We need to see statutory funding increase and for those allocating it to recognise that these charities are best placed to provide those services, as they have already built relationships of trust within our communities.

• 9 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I wonder whether the shadow Minister realises that according to the DWP’s own statistics the PIP fraud rate is 0.2%. I do not want him to feel like a mug.

• 9 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to support my new clause 10, as well as a number of other amendments tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends, including new clause 8, new clause 11 and amendment 38. I welcome the concessions that the Government have made to the Bill, which I will be supporting. I pay tribute to the disabled and chronically ill people whose tireless campaigning led to those concessions—I have been proud to stand with them. However, the changes do not alleviate all my concerns about the Bill. One in three disabled people are already in poverty. The Bill, even after the Government’s amendments, would take around £3,000 a year from the disabled people of the future, at a time when the extra cost of being disabled is set to rise by 12% in the next five years. The Government’s analysis states that the measures in the Bill will lift 50,000 people out of poverty. However, analysis from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the New Economics Foundation shows that they would actually push 50,000 disabled people into poverty. We know that benefit cuts and loss of payments help to trap women experiencing domestic abuse, make children grow up in poverty and even cost lives, like that of my constituent Philippa Day, who died from a deliberate overdose after her benefits were wrongly cut. This is particularly pertinent to those with fluctuating conditions, who risk losing LCWRA status during periods of temporary improvement. That is why amendment 38 is so vital, as it would ensure that they are protected. Even with the Government’s concessions, not a single disabled people’s organisation supports this Bill. It is at the request of the disabled people’s organisations forum in England that I have tabled new clause 10, which would require the Government to publish a human rights memorandum before the Bill can be enacted. No analysis of the impact of the Bill on the human rights of disabled people has been published so far. Last year, the UN found that there had been further regression in the “grave and systemic violations” of disabled people’s rights in the UK, which it reported on in 2016. Last night, the UN wrote to the Government to say that it had “received credible information” indicating that the Bill will “deepen” that regression. We should not proceed with the Bill as it stands. Disabled people’s organisations remain sceptical about the Timms review into PIP. I am hopeful that the Government will support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball), which would make provision for commitments around co-production and oversight. They must also support new clause 8, which would ensure that changes from the Timms review are introduced as primary legislation. That is essential in ensuring democratic scrutiny—otherwise, MPs will not be able to amend or vote on the legislation. It would also prevent a reduction in eligibility for PIP, which we know would be disastrous and which motivated so many of us on the Government Benches to call on the Government to think again. I joined the Labour party because of what I experienced and witnessed growing up as a child and a teenager under the Conservatives. As a disabled MP, I have first-hand experience of the disability benefits system. We have all met constituents who are already not getting the support they need. The question today is this: do we let their number grow? If the answer is no, I urge Members to support the amendments that would strengthen protections for disabled people and, ultimately, to vote down this Bill.

• 2 Jul 2025 · Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism · Hansard source

  More

  I want to make it clear to Members that the order we are voting on is not about whether we support Palestine Action’s political positions or protest methods. To vote against this motion, Members do not have to agree with the group at all; they can still support holding it criminally liable for its actions. The question is whether it should be proscribed as a terrorist group, placed alongside the likes of al-Qaeda, Islamic State and National Action. It is fitting that this debate takes place on the 97th anniversary of women winning the vote on equal terms with men, thanks in no small part to the suffragettes. The suffragettes carried out direct action far more extreme than anything those in Palestine Action have done, but today their role in changing history for the better is commemorated. Whatever we think of its actions, Palestine Action is part of a similar tradition, with the target this time being to stop the genocide in Gaza. It is unprecedented for a Government to ban a civil disobedience protest group in the way that they are attempting to today, but what is not unprecedented is protesters breaking into military bases. That has never before resulted in proscription. Proscribing Palestine Action would be a draconian overreach. It would threaten the fundamental right to peaceful protest. It would set a dangerous precedent that could be used in future to further silence dissent, while diminishing what the Terrorism Act is meant to prevent.

• 2 Jul 2025 · Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism · Hansard source

  More

  I agree entirely with the hon. Member. UN experts urge us not to do this. They state that they are “concerned at the unjustified labelling of a political protest movement as ‘terrorist’”. Hundreds of lawyers have written to the Home Secretary, warning that proscribing Palestine Action would conflate protest and terrorism. Amnesty International and Liberty have both expressed deep concerns. A senior civil servant has briefed that there is disquiet among Home Office staff about the decision, and has called it “absurd”. It is important to remember that this proscription would affect not just members of Palestine Action, but anyone who supports them. Donating to a fundraiser or posting positively about the group on social media would be committing a crime. We risk criminalising huge numbers of our constituents. I regret our being denied the opportunity to vote separately on the proscription of Palestine Action. The other two bodies are neo-Nazi organisations whose proscription I wholeheartedly support. This grouping together of organisations that so clearly do not belong in the same category demonstrates again why we cannot allow this proscription to go ahead. I have no choice but to vote against the order.

• 30 Jun 2025 · Welfare Reform · Hansard source

  More

  Disabled people’s organisations have been clear that even with these concessions, they oppose this Bill. The Government talk of co-production of the PIP review, but it is not co-production if the starting point is delivering cuts, and if the Government are asking disabled people where they would prefer those cuts to be, rather than how we can create a system that truly supports disabled people. Does the Secretary of State not accept that, after months of the Government ignoring disabled people, the only way that meaningful co-production can take place is if the Bill is pulled and they go back to the drawing board?

• 30 Jun 2025 · Welfare Reform · Hansard source

  More

  It’s because you were in power for 14 years.

• 18 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Why should we implement this model for sex work when the evidence from the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland shows that it has increased violence towards sex workers?

• 9 Jun 2025 · Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the fact that the Government are responding to the huge public pressure and are expanding eligibility for winter fuel payments. I am concerned that we are about to make a similar mistake, which, once again, we will come to regret, in cutting disability benefits. Will the Treasury drop those cuts before they cause harm to our constituents, instead of reversing them after the fact? I have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend has said. To be clear, I am not asking him to keep the status quo, or to not support people into work; I am simply asking him not to cut disabled people’s benefits.

• 4 Jun 2025 · Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories · Hansard source

  More

  Men, women and children in Gaza do not care that our Government have a profound disagreement with the Israeli Government. The Israeli Government do not care either, because they are continuing to act with impunity. It is quite simple: there is a genocide in Gaza being committed by the Israeli Government. We are complicit in that genocide. We have the power to act and we are not acting. What are we waiting for? Why have we not sanctioned Israel for its war crimes? Why have we not implemented a full arms embargo, including on F-35 fighter jet parts? Why have we not recognised the state of Palestine? We can do it, because rightly we did it for Ukraine. Why are we not treating Palestinian lives as equal?

• 12 May 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Vulnerable people are dying in the channel and in our asylum system in record, horrifying numbers. Today, yet another person tragically died trying to reach our shores. The exact figures are murky, but from what we know, last year was the deadliest year ever for people seeking asylum in the UK. The UN estimates that 82 people, including at least 14 children, lost their lives in the channel, but French frontline charities believe the fatality rate to be significantly higher. Meanwhile, freedom of information requests reveal that 51 people died in asylum accommodation, and among them were a 15-year-old boy and two babies. People are drowning while trying to reach safety. Once they arrive, they are dying by suicide, from infectious diseases and from unknown causes in poverty, in low-quality accommodation or on the streets, like the teenage victim of modern slavery who took his own life while terrified of deportation, the father of one who died of diphtheria after being held in a Government processing centre, or the seven-year-old girl who was crushed to death on an overcrowded boat. In several cases of deaths in asylum accommodation, there have been alleged lapses of safeguarding codes. These deaths are utterly unacceptable and often preventable, yet the Home Office keeps no official record. As such, we do not know how many lives are being lost. The Government rightly want to reduce deaths in the channel, and the starting point must be to know the numbers. My new clause 1, which is supported by 24 MPs, is a call for truth and transparency. It would mandate that the Home Office records and reports statistics and information on the deaths of people in our asylum system who are meant to be in its care and people at our borders. It would provide opportunities for scrutiny and accountability, because no matter where they come from or how they got here, people deserve dignity. We must not allow them to die in silence, ignored and uncared for, so I urge the Government to act. We need a new approach to refugees and asylum. We need to stand up to Conservative Members scapegoating desperate people for the problems that our communities are experiencing after 14 years of Conservative austerity, instead of parroting them.

• 12 May 2025 · Immigration System · Hansard source

  More

  Migrants are being scapegoated for problems they did not cause. To be truthful, these arbitrary measures will not fix those problems, but they will harm migrants, people who need social care, our economy and anyone who fears racial abuse, which the rhetoric surrounding this issue emboldens. Why are we trying to ape Reform, when that will do nothing to improve our constituents’ lives and will just stoke more division?

• 7 May 2025 · Personal Independence Payment: Disabled People · Hansard source

  More

  Has the Minister seen the latest analysis from the New Economics Foundation, which estimates that fewer than 50% of disabled people are claiming these benefits, and that the acceptance rate has remained static? It is not actually the case that people are claiming who should not be claiming: people are claiming benefits to which they are entitled.

• 7 May 2025 · Personal Independence Payment: Disabled People · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?