Nadia Whittome MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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.