Olivia Blake MP: speeches

Speeches

• 17 Jun 2025 · Under-18s Sunbed Ban · Hansard source

  More

  11. Whether his Department has made an assessment of the effectiveness of the ban on the use of sunbeds by under-18s.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Under-18s Sunbed Ban · Hansard source

  More

  According to Cancer Research UK, 86% of melanoma skin cancer cases are preventable. My constituent Charlotte, who has stage 4 melanoma, is leading a campaign alongside Melanoma Focus to get better enforcement for the ban on sunbeds for under-18s and to stop the use of harmful melanotan II products such as tanning nasal sprays and injections. For under-35s, just one session on the sunbed is enough UV exposure to increase the risk of melanoma to 59%. Prevention is better than cure. Will the Minister meet us to discuss the effectiveness of the ban and preventive measures such as access to free sunscreen at events?

• 11 Jun 2025 · Child Poverty and No Recourse to Public Funds · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. That statistic makes a stark point. He also makes a strong point about why the Government should consider these issues in the upcoming child poverty strategy. We know that growing up in poverty has terrible short-term and long-term consequences, and there is mounting evidence to show the wide-reaching impact of poverty, particularly on migrant children. Children in affected households experience food insecurity, overcrowded housing, barriers to education, and serious mental and physical health risks. Poverty can also impact children’s opportunities to develop their social skills and build meaningful relationships during critical formative years. Therefore, I question the line of argument that says that these restrictions are in place to promote integration. In their joint inquiry on the impact of immigration policy on poverty, the APPG on migration, of which I am a co-chair, and the APPG on poverty and inequality found that the no recourse to public funds policy is a huge contributor to deep poverty, child poverty, isolation and vulnerability. I am grateful for the ministerial response to our letter about the inquiry, but I urge Ministers to look at some of the findings in the report. Perhaps they could follow up on that point in writing. The findings are unsurprising, given that the widening of the policy was introduced by the former Government, as part of the hostile environment, with the very intention to make life more difficult for migrants in the UK. However, destitution by design policies are not just inhumane, but ineffective and very costly, with local authorities often having to foot the bill. Councils provide essential safety net support to safeguard the welfare of families who have no recourse to public funds and are at risk of homelessness or destitution. That often leads to local authorities providing long-term support for households, with the average period of support lasting more than 600 days for families with children, and longer for adults with care needs. That places enormous pressure on already stretched local authorities, which receive no compensation or direct funding to support families with NRPF. The NRPF Network found that, from within the 78 local authorities that supplied information for 2023-24, 1,563 households were being supported by the end of March 2024, at an average annual cost of £21,700 per household and a total annual cost of £33.9 million. In 2023-24, Sheffield city council spent at least £1.2 million supporting people with no recourse to public funds, and it did not get any compensation for that. COMPAS estimates that the number of families receiving local authority support in England and Wales has risen by over 150% since 2012-13, with local authority costs rising by almost £230%. Despite statutory obligations under section 17 of the Children Act 1989, support for migrant families from local authorities remains very inconsistent. Many families remain locked out of local authority support as the threshold for accessing it is highly conditional, and there can be robust gatekeeping from local authorities—as they try to protect their budgets, I am sure. There is therefore an urgent need to standardise section 17, and to clarify guidelines on financial and housing assistance to ensure consistent support across local authorities.

• 11 Jun 2025 · Child Poverty and No Recourse to Public Funds · Hansard source

  More

  The acting actual Minister. I congratulate him on his first time at the Dispatch Box. I was really heartened by some of the things he said, but once again, I want to make sure that all the measures in the child poverty strategy take into account the fact that these people are not eligible through means-tested criteria, so support based purely on those will not benefit these children. I think the Minister has heard that point and the many others that have been made today. I thank him for taking that back to the Minister responsible, and I look forward to reading more on this issue as the months draw closer to the child poverty strategy being developed. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered child poverty and no recourse to public funds.

• 11 Jun 2025 · Child Poverty and No Recourse to Public Funds · Hansard source

  More

  It has been really helpful to hear from other Members on a number of issues. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) spoke about the inconsistency in local authority support. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson) painted a vibrant picture of the community she represents and the deep poverty felt by the migrant communities within it. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for speaking so passionately about child poverty. He spoke about the use of food banks and the mental health impacts of poverty on children in particular, which I was very moved by. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Maureen Burke) made it clear that NRPF deepens the poverty that young people experience, and highlighted the opportunity that we have with the child poverty strategy. I thank the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine), for her focus on free school meals. That issue has been addressed but it points to a challenge: if the move to free school meals is based on receipt of universal credit, we need to ensure that young people with no recourse to public funds are not lost in that, because we won that battle in the last Parliament during covid to ensure that they could get access to free school meals. We just need to make sure that their eligibility does not slip through the cracks if there is a different way of coming up with the numbers of who is eligible and who is not. I thank the shadow Minister and congratulate him on his first outing—

• 11 Jun 2025 · Child Poverty and No Recourse to Public Funds · Hansard source

  More

  I am pleased that my hon. Friend has made that point, because London Councils itself has previously described this issue as a “direct cost shunt resulting from central government policy.” The Local Government Association continues to call for this ambiguity to be resolved so that councils can support families affected by NRPF, many of whom it says are at risk of extreme hardship. This is not the edge of poverty; this is deep poverty. That leads me on to another important point: legal aid. Certain visa holders can submit a change of conditions application to the Home Office to have NRPF conditions lifted, but the application process is complex and often requires legal advice to navigate and complete successfully. The process itself has been found to be unlawful in the High Court on numerous occasions, most recently because of lengthy delays in how decisions are being processed. There is an urgent need to address the long-term sustainability and accessibility of the legal aid system for immigration cases. In South Yorkshire, two out of five legal aid firms have stopped delivering legal aid immigration services entirely, and there was a gap between provision and need of nearly 9,000 cases across Yorkshire in 2023-24. This means that many migrants are being prevented from exercising their legal rights to apply for leave to remain, to change or renew their status, or to lift no recourse to public funds conditions. In that context, I am concerned about the proposal in the Government’s recent immigration White Paper to extend the qualifying period for British citizenship to 10 years. That will lock more families into prolonged no recourse to public funds status and will inevitably pile more pressure on local authorities to pick up the pieces. We know that high visa costs and constant uncertainty prevent parents from planning long term, and the requirement to reapply for visas also heightens the risk of falling out of legal status. The IPPR found that 82% of migrants who borrowed money for visa renewals were in significant debt. I am also concerned that this short-sighted move undermines integration and creates an ever-growing population of second-class residents. In a survey of its clients, Praxis found that three in four migrants feel that being on the 10-year route prevents them from feeling that they belong in the UK, despite most having lived here for over a decade. With a consultation on the immigration White Paper expected in the summer, will the Government consider the wide-reaching consequences that extending the qualifying period will have for migrant children, in particular? Has an assessment been made of the number of children and families who are likely to be pushed into poverty as a result of the White Paper’s proposed reforms? Finally, I will end on the child poverty strategy. I welcome the Minister’s recognition of the distinct challenges faced by migrant children living in poverty and the confirmation that the strategy will include all children across the UK, including migrant children. However, this commitment must be matched by the Home Office’s meaningful involvement in the strategy’s development. The delay in publishing the strategy presents a valuable opportunity, as we now have the chance to turn the page on the hostile environment policy and work towards a strategy that genuinely encompasses all children. The strategy will fall short if it excludes this significant cohort. Targeted action will be necessary for this group of children, as many levers that might help to lift other children out of poverty will have no impact on them. Given that, can the Minister say more about the cross-departmental work to provide solutions that specifically address this cohort? The lack of systemic data and official figures on the numbers affected by NRPF makes this particularly challenging. How can we deal with the distinct challenges faced by migrant children without knowing how many are affected? I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us when the Government will provide accurate and up-to-date information on how many families and children are directly restricted by NRPF and how many British-born children are affected by this policy. The Child Poverty Action Group, the UK’s leading child poverty charity, has called for NRPF to be abolished for families with children, and the Work and Pensions Committee recommended in its 2022 inquiry that no family with children should be subject to NRPF conditions for more than five years.

• 11 Jun 2025 · Child Poverty and No Recourse to Public Funds · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for his contribution, but I want to push back a bit on his comments about what I was implying. There is a net contribution from migrants—we know that to be true—and it is not all about costs. If some of the things I outlined in my speech happened, there would be a benefit of £800 million to the economy. We have to consider it in the round.

• 11 Jun 2025 · Child Poverty and No Recourse to Public Funds · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, I agree. My hon. Friend makes an important point that we have choices. This is not inevitable, and the upcoming strategy is an opportunity that will hopefully allow us to turn the corner for many families. The all-party parliamentary group on poverty and inequality and the all-party parliamentary group on migration concluded in their report that the Government should limit the NRPF condition, especially for those on routes to settlement, to a maximum of five years. At a minimum, the Government should consider extending child benefit to migrant families with NRPF and expand funded childcare entitlement for working migrant parents. However, we also have to be honest that the most effective way to lift children out of poverty is to abolish NRPF entirely and to allow families to meet the thresholds for support via the existing means-tested welfare system. I know that this will not be the Government’s position, given their previous stance on this issue, but I ask that as many mitigations as possible are considered for this vulnerable group of children. According to COMPAS, removing the NRPF restriction for families with children under the age of 18 would lift significant numbers of children out of poverty, and the NRPF Network has found that lifting NRPF restrictions for families with children would result in a positive net value of £872 million over 10 years. Around two thirds of adults in the UK think that migrants should be able to claim the same welfare benefits as British citizens within three years, according to the National Centre for Social Research, which shows that the public are on the side of migrant children. In our joint statement in the inquiry report, which I have referenced quite a few times and which I hope the Minister has an opportunity to read, the co-chairs and the members of the APPGs remarked: “It is hard to avoid the conclusion that policy is sometimes designed to push people into poverty in the hope that it will deter others from moving to the UK, even though there is little evidence that this would indeed be a deterrent.” While reducing poverty should be a policy objective shared by the whole of government, sadly the evidence and research that I have presented today shows that, unfortunately, poverty and migration continue to be treated as completely separate issues. Given the large number of children who are impacted, that is completely wrong, and there should be moves to address that across government. We can all agree that child poverty has no place in one of the richest countries in the world in the 21st century. I agree with the Prime Minister when he said that action on child poverty will be “a measure of what this Government does”. Let us take the opportunity to take the necessary steps to alleviate poverty for all children in the UK, not just those with British passports.

• 11 Jun 2025 · Child Poverty and No Recourse to Public Funds · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, I agree completely that there is huge pressure on young people in migrant families to provide such services. There is also pressure on young carers who are migrants as well, which is another concern. My hon. Friend makes a very valid point. Young people should not experience such situations, but sadly they often do. IPPR and Praxis found that a significant proportion of migrant parents are held back from working because they face barriers to accessing childcare; currently, 40% of migrant parents do not use childcare, as they or their partner are unable to secure employment. I know that the Government believe that these things are privileges that need to be earned and that migrants coming to the UK should be able to support themselves financially. However, we should not view basic necessities as some kind of reward. They are lifelines that help people to keep a roof over their heads, food on the table and their homes warm, nor should we ignore the fact that migrants already pay into the system through tax contributions. We also need to view NRPF in the context of wider systemic barriers in our immigration system, such as prolonged routes to settlement, high visa fees and the immigration health surcharge. Together, it all creates a perfect storm whereby families face never-ending cycles of destitution, homelessness and uncertainty. Children should not pay the price for that. We know that growing up in poverty has terrible short-term and long-term consequences.

• 11 Jun 2025 · Child Poverty and No Recourse to Public Funds · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered child poverty and no recourse to public funds. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I refer the House to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, on the help I receive from the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy Project and as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on migration. I would like to start by paying tribute to the organisations in my constituency and across Yorkshire that work tirelessly to help migrant families, including South Yorkshire Refugee Law and Justice and City of Sanctuary Sheffield, and the organisations that provided me with valuable evidence and research ahead of this debate, including the no recourse to public funds partnership, Praxis, COMPAS—the University of Oxford’s Centre on Migration, Policy and Society—and the Institute for Public Policy Research. Given the spending review today, the recent announcement on the immigration White Paper and the pending child poverty strategy, this debate could not be more timely. According to recent research by the IPPR, there are an estimated 1.5 million children in the UK living in poverty in families with migrant parents, accounting for more than a third of all children in poverty. Children in families with migrant parents are also more likely to be in very deep poverty, amounting to 21% of migrant children, compared with 8% of other children. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation found that since 2019, there has been a 92% increase in the number of migrant households experiencing destitution. Despite those shocking statistics, the no recourse to public funds policy—which amounts to a blanket ban on access to the social safety net for the majority of migrants in the UK—remains largely absent from conversations about poverty and inequality. No recourse to public funds is a condition tied to various immigration pathways: those without status, those seeking asylum, those with “British citizen: children” status, and children in families who have not secured EU settled status. It prohibits millions of people from receiving benefits, including universal credit, child benefit and personal independence payment, and from accessing social housing. The policy disproportionately impacts women, people of colour, low-income households with dependent children where family relationships have broken down, including victims of domestic abuse, and those with disabilities and long-term health conditions. Research by the Women’s Budget Group found that the risk of living in poverty for migrant women with dependent children is particularly high, as they are more likely to be dependent on their partner both for their right to be in the UK and financially, as their ability to work is often restricted by labour market barriers, access to childcare and NRPF conditions. A study by Citizens Advice found that more than 80% of its clients who sought advice on no recourse to public funds and non-EU migrants’ access to benefits were from ethnic minority backgrounds. Part of the reason that this policy remains absent from the wider conversations about poverty is the information gap. The Home Office does not collect data on how many children are currently impacted by NRPF in the UK, although I hope the upcoming transition to Atlas will allow the relevant data to be released soon. Estimates suggest that at the end of 2024, there were approximately 3.6 million people with no recourse to public funds conditions.

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

  More

  I thank the Minister for his strong statement today and the sanctions he has outlined. I have listened carefully to his words, and he has spoken about the risk of empty slogans on the path to a two-state solution. I agree, but I fear we will be the last generation of diplomats and politicians for whom the option of recognising the state of Palestine is on the table. Will he reflect on that before next week’s meeting?

• 9 Jun 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak in support of amendments 137 and 138 in my name. I declare an interest as the co-chair of the local nature recovery all-party parliamentary group and a proud species champion for the hen harrier. I am deeply committed to the protection and restoration of our natural world, and I have tabled the amendments to ensure there is adequate protection for protected species. I recognise the need to take the housing crisis extremely seriously. I support numerous amendments on affordable homes and social housing, including new clause 32, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), which would mandate that national and local housing plans incorporate and justify specific targets for both affordable and social housing. It is clear that we need to build more housing, but we must ensure that that includes enough social homes, because a just society must care for both people and planet. In defence of nature we must remember that nature is not a luxury; it is essential. It sustains our health, our economy, our climate and the rich web of wildlife that makes our planet thrive. From the air we breathe to the food we eat and the water we drink, nature underpins every aspect of our survival, yet we are, as has been said, living in one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world and the consequences are becoming impossible to ignore. Our peatlands, woodlands, wetlands and seas, once vibrant with life, are deteriorating. These ecosystems are not just carbon stores; they are vital habitats for countless species. As they degrade, they not only release more carbon than they absorb, but drive wildlife into decline. Iconic species are vanishing, pollinators are disappearing, and once common birds and mammals are becoming rarer, pushing many species closer to extinction. Without urgent action to restore these ecosystems, we cannot hope to meet our climate goals, or halt the alarming loss of biodiversity. Every species lost weakens the resilience of nature and our ability to adapt to a changing climate. Protecting nature is not just an environmental imperative; it is an economic, social and moral one. The loss of pollinators threatens our food supply. The destruction of our coastal habitats increases our vulnerability to storms and flooding, and the collapse of ecosystems puts both human and animal lives at risk. My amendments require that if a protected species is identified as an environmental feature, the environmental delivery plan must include a clear strategy for conservation measures to address the impact of the development on that species within local recovery strategy areas. If Natural England determines that that is not possible, or there is an overriding public interest not to do that, it must aim to conserve the same species at a different site. Recognising the realistic risk of local extinctions and the threats facing specific species, this approach reflects a fundamental truth: protecting nature is not optional; it is essential. Our ecosystems are interconnected, and the loss of even a single species can have cascading effects on biodiversity, climate resilience and human wellbeing. By embedding strong, enforceable protections for species into development planning, we are not only safeguarding wildlife but reinforcing the natural systems that sustain our economy, our health and, importantly, our future.

• 9 Jun 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady makes an interesting point and I am sure the Minister is listening. In a time of ecological crisis, every action must contribute to halting and reversing nature loss, because nature is not just part of the solution; it is the solution. I hope the Minister will sit down with me to discuss these points further, as the Bill enters the other House.

• 5 Jun 2025 · Governing the Marine Environment · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for his statement. It has been a privilege to be involved in the Committee’s work on this report. Does he agree that next week’s UN ocean conference offers the Government a unique opportunity to take a global lead on banning destructive practices such as bottom trawling in marine protected areas, as our report recommends?

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

  More

  Colleagues from right across the House have expressed their frustration with the contradictory things that the Minister has said in response to our questions. We have heard that there will be a change when there is a change, and that there will be new steps when new steps are available, yet in the same statement he has outlined how Israel’s newly introduced measures for aid delivery are inhumane, foster desperation and endanger civilians. Surely, this week has shown that there has been yet another change, and that now is the time for action and for changing our response.

• 3 Jun 2025 · Animal Welfare in Farming · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John, and I thank the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) for securing this debate. Around one third of my constituency is agricultural land, so it is no surprise that animal welfare in farming is a big issue for many of my constituents, as it is for me. As the Minister and the Shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson), no doubt remember, we had long debates in Committee in the previous Parliament on the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill. Although that Bill had its faults, it would have been a step in the right direction. Sadly, it was unceremoniously dropped by the last Government after the Committee stage, which stalled progress on these issues. I know that the Minister has picked up on these issues since being re-elected, and I was proud to stand on a Labour manifesto that made clear commitments to improve animal welfare. These are not fringe concerns; they reflect the values of people across the country who want to see animals treated with decency and respect. Animal welfare must be at the heart of farming, not just because it is the right thing to do, but because people deserve to know where their food is produced and that it is produced to standards that they can trust. We have photographs on cigarette packets that show the harms of smoking. If we had similar images that showed the harms caused to animals by the ways in which they are kept, I imagine that the sales of the products we are discussing today would fall through the floor. The reality is that many animals are still kept in conditions that fall far short of the general public’s expectations. Hens are confined to cages that, as we have heard, are barely larger than an A4 piece of paper, and pigs are kept in farrowing crates and are unable even to turn around. These are not isolated cases; they are widespread practices that cause real suffering. Animals kept in such systems experience chronic stress, frustration and pain. That is not just outdated; it is indefensible. The science is clear and the public are clear that we must legislate to ban cages in farming, and without delay if possible. We also need to support farmers through that transition. Many farmers are already doing the right thing, often at financial cost. They deserve a system that rewards higher welfare standards, not one that pits them against cheaper, lower standard imports. I know the Minister will agree with that. This issue is not about choosing between farming and welfare; it is about recognising that the two must go hand in hand. A fair and sustainable food system depends on both.

• 20 May 2025 · Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories · Hansard source

  More

  Starvation is a horrific and entirely preventable way to die. Some 14,000 babies’ lives are at risk in the next 48 hours. To put that in perspective, 15,000 babies are born each and every year in South Yorkshire—nearly all of them would be wiped out in two days if that was the situation here. Will the Secretary of State outline what steps he will take to make sure that that does not happen? What more can be done to ensure that there is access to urgently needed aid to prevent it?

• 19 May 2025 · Gender Self-identification · Hansard source

  More

  I have been here talking about migrants and other communities who have been victimised and used as scapegoats repeatedly over the past 15 years. It has been sad to see; unfortunately we are seeing it across the globe, but we should all be standing up against it. We should be dealing with people’s daily concerns, rather than using rhetoric, as we do far too often. As we have heard from colleagues today, trans people will not feel protected right now. They are navigating rising levels of hate, extending delays to healthcare and increasing uncertainty about how existing laws apply to their lives. They are being told that their identity—their sense of self—is something that we can debate, question and deny. I think that is wrong and I urge all people outside the House who are looking at the interim guidance not to have knee-jerk reactions to that but to fully take part in the consultation. That consultation should be 12 weeks long, as previous consultations have been. For something that will mean such a big change for individuals, the EHRC has got the consultation period wrong and needs to extend it even further. I just think this is quite sad. It is right that people have a way to self-identify their legal gender. That matters for many reasons. I think a lot of politicians, sadly and wrongly, think, “Isn’t it a shame that trans people are trans people?” How completely wrong is that? Too many people live in fear, with false statistics, about the risk that people pose to women—

• 19 May 2025 · Gender Self-identification · Hansard source

  More

  I think it is very problematic if we go down that track for all services. I think that the equality right and how it was interpreted previously were correct, and that people should be excluded where there is a need for that. It should be on the basis of a balance, and I think that is true for all protected characteristics and when they come into conflict.

• 19 May 2025 · Gender Self-identification · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister agree that six weeks is a very short time for that consultation to run? Initially it was two weeks. Would not 12 weeks, as has been the case for various pieces of consultation undertaken by the organisation, fit better with the big issue that we are talking about today?

• 19 May 2025 · Gender Self-identification · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for opening the debate incredibly well, on a subject that often gets heated. Today, we have shown that we can discuss these issues without that heat. I also thank the more than 120,000 people who signed the petition, especially the 250 people who did so from my constituency. ILGA-Europe’s recent report saw the UK fall to 22nd place in the rainbow map of Europe. That should really concern us all; it is not just a warning about LGBT rights, but a signal of a broader erosion of democratic protections across Europe. At the heart of the decline is a failure to uphold the dignity and autonomy of trans people, particularly when it comes to something as fundamental as legal gender recognition. I am exceedingly embarrassed about this—to fall so far, when just 10 years ago we were No. 1, is unforgiveable. We must all look at ourselves hard in the mirror for allowing that to happen. In recent debates, we have heard Ministers affirm that LGBT rights in the UK remain protected, and that we are firmly committed to equality. I welcome that, as it is something we all want to see upheld both in spirit and in practice. However, I have heard fears from countless people, including many of my constituents and parents of trans children. Some have actually spoken to me about leaving the UK. How embarrassing that we have fallen so far that people would rather not live here because they feel their lives are so unliveable in the society that we are creating.

• 19 May 2025 · Gender Self-identification · Hansard source

  More

  No, I will make some progress if my hon. Friend does not mind, because I have only a little time. The idea that it is a shame or somehow sad that people are trans is completely and utterly wrong. As has been said, trans joy exists. The many trans people and non-binary people I know live joyful lives. We should celebrate those lives, rather than suggesting that it is a mental health condition even though the WHO has said it is not. Creating a protracted, medicalised route just to get a piece of paper that says that one’s correct gender is really problematic and something that we should continue to question. This is why the right to self-identify one’s legal gender really matters. It is about the basic freedom to live as oneself. That means being able to go to the local supermarket or local café and not be fearful of being challenged when going to the bathroom. It is about being able to live without intrusive medical gatekeeping that means that it takes years and years for people just to get to that point. We know that we are out of step internationally here. We know that the health advice has moved on, just as the thinking about hysteria moved on from the time when women got categorised as having that. Many groups of people have been wrongly categorised as mentally ill just for being themselves. We need to get away from the gatekeeping, outdated bureaucracy and humiliation that we have heard about again and again in consultations about the process as it stands. The EHRC’s recent guidance on sex and gender in single-sex services has created further concern among my constituents, as well as charities, schools and employers who want to act properly but now feel unclear about their responsibilities. We need clarity that reinforces inclusion, not ambiguity that creates fear. I am pleased that Labour committed in our manifesto to making the GRC process simpler, but the recent judgment is very concerning. It risks undermining the existence of these certificates in themselves if we are not careful and if the guidance goes the wrong way. Trans healthcare, too, is an area where we need action urgently. Current NHS waiting times and the indefinite ban on puberty blockers are leaving people in limbo for years. This is not just a policy challenge. It is a public health issue and one that requires compassion, evidence and leadership. I hope that the puberty blockers trial is as wide as possible and as scientific as it can be. Thank you, Mr Mundell, for allowing me to speak for this long. Rights are not a zero-sum game. We cannot protect one group without protecting another; we need to strengthen the whole. I urge Ministers to continue listening to trans people, to ground decisions in evidence, and to act with the courage that true equality demands and make sure that instead of us just standing up here, we have proper consultation, which has the voice of trans, non-binary, intersex and all people represented in the evidence that it hears, and that that is taken on board. We do not want a situation where we are trying to police people going into toilets, which could be problematic to those who do not fit or conform to gender stereotypes, as we have heard. This is not just about toilets; it is about dignity—dignity in death, as we have heard, and dignity in having privacy and the ability to have that joyful life that we all want everyone to have.

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

  More

  I refer the House to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests about the help that I receive from the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy Project. I am also the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on migration. I welcome the Government’s action in the Bill to repeal parts of the previous Government’s repeated gimmicks and nonsense legislation in the last Parliament. I will speak to new clauses 1, 2 and 37, all of which I have sponsored. New clause 1 was tabled by my right hon. Friend—apologies, I should have said my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome); she is not right honourable, but she should be. The new clause would require the Home Office to publish quarterly statistics and information on deaths in the asylum system and small boat channel crossings. Under the last Government, a horrifying number of refugees and people seeking asylum died trying to cross the channel and in Home Office accommodation. In 2024, that number reached a record high. Despite daily and weekly reports on the number of people stopped or deported, we still do not have regular, clear and transparent reporting on those who have lost their lives in the system. That is incredibly important, not just morally but in order to address the evidence gap, so that we get policy right. New clause 2 would require reports on the right to work. I heard what the Minister said about this being a discussion about time, but mental health and working rights are not separate issues. The majority of asylum seekers in the UK are unable to work and use their skills to support themselves and their families or even to save enough to rent a home. Instead, they are trapped, isolated, inactive and dependent on state support. There are countless compelling reasons why asylum seekers should be allowed to work like the rest of the population. Given the huge amount of support that idea has from the public and businesses, we should at least have the opportunity to scrutinise why the ban remains and the impact that it is having. Finally, new clause 37, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), seeks to ensure that children born in the UK who have grown up here and know no other home are not priced out of citizenship simply because of their parents’ immigration status at the time of their birth. Such young people are part of our communities, schools and the fabric of our future. They should not be denied their rights or go on to face barriers in education, housing, healthcare and across society. They are not “strangers”; they are our friends and neighbours. Some have stoked racist divisions against migrants—a drum that the far right have continually banged since—and the whole House must oppose that rhetoric. Amid rising anti-refugee sentiment, including last year’s shocking riots, it could not be more urgent or valuable to enable people to feel secure and contribute to their communities. I am aghast at some of the amendments tabled by Opposition parties, particularly new clause 41. I wonder how many ruined lives those Members will consider too many. It is shameful to see the victimisation of people who have come here to find safety.

• 12 May 2025 · Immigration System · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Secretary of State agree that far from being strangers, migrants are our neighbours, friends and family and an integral part of our community, and that moves to cast them as strangers are divisive and hostile and risk legitimising the same far-right violence that we saw in last year’s summer riots? Have we learnt nothing?

• 6 May 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  As someone with ADHD, it is disappointing to hear from many of my constituents about difficulties in accessing diagnosis, medication and other therapeutic inputs for ADHD, and the impact on their lives and livelihoods as a result. Whether for children or adults, waits of two, five or seven years are becoming the norm. What steps are the Government taking to make sure that individuals can exercise their right to choose?