Munira Wilson MP: speeches

Speeches

• 30 Jun 2026 · Culture, Media And Sport · Hansard source

  More

  Partnerships are valuable, of course, and I do not oppose the Government’s approach, but the overall funding envelope is declining and being spread across both primary and secondary schools. This is resulting in a real-terms cut in the sports that are, as we are hearing from both sides of the House, so important to our children’s wellbeing and health. Moving on to grassroots sports more broadly, with Sport England losing its function as a statutory planning consultee, it is hard to see how the Government’s aim of promoting healthy communities can be met when facility provision is declining due to closures, ageing infrastructure and uneven availability. Local authorities are trying their best, but they need help. The Udney Park playing fields in Teddington in my constituency have been lying dormant for over a decade, land banked by developers and out of reach for the local community, who are crying out for additional pitch space. This is not just limited to my constituency. London Sport told the Select Committee that it had had to look at running sports activities in car parks, empty shops and libraries because of the massive disinvestment in parks, leisure and community centres and youth services. As this debate also covers youth services, I want to briefly touch on that, if I may. Liberal Democrats have long campaigned for a fair, long-term funding settlement to support youth work, resources and infrastructure, so we very much welcome the Government’s national youth strategy, and particularly their promise to introduce multi-year funding settlements. However, we need them to deliver on that promise. Earlier this year, the YMCA reported that spending on youth services by local authorities in England and Wales fell by 10% in a single year, the largest annual reduction since 2016-17. We know that, as well as improving educational outcomes, youth services provide the relational infrastructure that prevents disengagement from becoming entrenched, protects our vulnerable young people and creates a sense of belonging. I have seen for myself what that investment can achieve at the WEST Youth Zone in London, where there are over 30 activities every evening serving a very disadvantaged community. I was told that if those young people did not have that space, they would be in their bedrooms on their phones all the time. In conclusion, as investment in youth services has fallen, spending on youth justice has risen. We need to focus on prevention, whether through youth services or sport, and we hope that the Government’s rhetoric will be matched by investment and a commitment to delivery.

• 9 Jun 2026 · Healthwatch · Hansard source

  More

  When Boots decided to close two pharmacies in Hampton, leaving a large number of elderly and vulnerable residents without local pharmacy provision, Healthwatch Richmond played a crucial role in ensuring that we got a new community pharmacy in the area. That locally led patient voice cannot be replaced by officials in Whitehall or our local ICB, which is about to suffer cuts of over 50% in its operating budget. If the Minister is really serious about championing patients, will she think again?

• 4 Jun 2026 · Home-to-School Transport · Hansard source

  More

  I 100% agree that they need to crack on as soon as possible. The challenge we had with the Government announcements before Christmas was that some local authorities were given the option to crack on with the special school or be given money instead. From talking to councillors on the ground who went for the money, I know that it is not going to be anywhere close to what they need to cover the provision that they were looking for, but they felt kind of forced to take that option. I am really worried about what these announcements will mean for the continued ferrying of children with special educational needs and disabilities very far away from home. Parents of children with SEND battle against the system enough as it is. It seems really unfair that they are now being made to choose between the right school for their child, but not being able to get them there without further sacrificing time and income, and getting their child to a school, but not one that can actually provide the right support. A number of hon. Members have today highlighted the cliff edge in transport provision for students over 16 both with and without SEND. Local authorities do not have a duty to provide a universal transport system after the age of 16. For young people with SEND, their access to education is at the discretion of their local authority. Given what we have heard about financial pressures, it is sadly no surprise that young people with SEND are around 80% more likely to not be in education, employment or training than the average student. The Public Accounts Committee has said: “the Department appears unconcerned about the clarity of offering for this age group or the impact that losing transport at 16 may have.” My hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden), who cannot be here today, told me that the cost of a Stagecoach South West termrider increased in September 2025 from £238 per term to £444 per term. Sixth-form students who are not entitled to free transport are being forced to pay more than £1,300 per academic year to access education. I want to be clear with the Minister that the increase was due to the rise in national insurance contributions, which meant that, over and above all the other inflationary cost pressures faced by the company, like many others, it needed to generate an additional £3,500 per year per vehicle to make ends meet. In the light of the Milburn report published last week and the shocking numbers of young people not in education, employment or training, it is deeply disappointing that the Government’s policy on national insurance has exacerbated the problem. Like me, the Minister is a London MP. We are very fortunate that our 16 to 18-year-olds have free transport to be able to get to college and education, so this is not an issue for our constituents, but it is shocking to read those numbers for residents in other parts of the country. I understand that local authorities are under immense financial pressure. As was rightly said by the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), who is no longer in his place, home-to-school transport is a problem for all political colours, right across the country. Sadly, the policy on national insurance has made the problem worse. I hope that the Minister will consider the exemption I called for, and I echo the request made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough for the Government to review and update national guidance on home-to-school transport. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) for the passion with which he has campaigned for his constituent in the terrible case of Lewis. I urge the Government to look at safeguarding standards for home-to-school transport.

• 4 Jun 2026 · Children’s Social Care: Enduring Relationships Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  I have no doubt that it is a moment of immense pride for the Minister to be able to announce as Government policy many things that he recommended in his own independent review, and we welcome them. Every child deserves to have deep, trusting, lifelong relationships, yet, as we have heard, too many children in care are torn away from those whom they are able to trust, unable to keep in touch with them for the stability they need to enter adulthood. We know from the Milburn report, published last week, that care-experienced children are five times more likely not to be in education, employment or training at the age of 17 than the general population. As Milburn says, the care system produces an intense concentration of changes “at precisely the ages when continuity matters most.” The Liberal Democrats therefore welcome today’s announcement—the strategy, the accompanying investment, and the marked shift away from harmful short-term thinking and a transactional system towards a holistic approach that puts the child front and centre of decision making, alongside long-term relationships. The Minister will know that my noble Friend in the other place, Baroness Tyler, campaigned hard to close the loophole that prevented children in care from being able to contact siblings not in care, and we hope that today’s announcement will build on her brilliant campaigning. As the Minister alluded to, the number of children in care living more than 20 miles away from home has increased by 41% over the past decade, and that has a damaging long-term impact on those children’s relationships. When will we see a reduction in the number of children in care living far from their families and friends? What are the current accountability measures when children are moved to the other side of the country although that is not in their best interests, and how can that accountability be improved through the regional care co-operatives? The Minister also referenced the new financial allowance pilot for kinship carers. He knows that my party and I have long campaigned on that issue, and I very much hope that he will move at pace, working with the Treasury, to scale those pilots up quickly nationwide. He knows how beneficial it is to put kinship carers’ allowances on a par with foster carers’ allowances. I also urge him to work with Ministers in the Department for Business and Trade to ensure that statutory leave for kinship carers is part of the parental leave review. Finally, the adoption and special guardianship support fund has been mentioned. I note that the Minister has increased the fund overall, but the cuts to the individual grants persist. He knows that those cuts are damaging to the families affected, so will he please consider reinstating those grants?

• 10 Mar 2026 · English Rugby · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend on this important debate. I am of course the Member of Parliament who represents the home of English rugby; I also have the premiership team Harlequins in my constituency. But we also have grassroots clubs such as Thamesians, which is struggling for pitch space, particularly for its women’s team, who are doing a brilliant job. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that we should be doing everything we can, given what he has just said, to improve access to playing-field space, and therefore will he join me in imploring the Minister to talk to his colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government about its plans to remove Sport England as a statutory consultee on planning applications, which could reduce the number of pitches?

• 12 Feb 2026 · Healthy Relationships · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I think it is the first time I have spoken in a debate that you have chaired and it is wonderful to see you there. I congratulate and thank the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Maya Ellis) for securing this important debate today. Before I get going, I just want to say what an honour it is to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). We often joke in this place that he is at every debate, speaking on everything; today it is truly an honour to see the emotion and passion with which he spoke about being a grandfather. I sadly never got to know either of my grandfathers, and I would have been delighted to have had someone like the hon. Member for Strangford as my granddad. I thank him for that. To be honest, when preparing for today, I thought, as the education team were asked to cover the debate, that we would largely be talking about relationships and sex education. I see that the Conservative Front Bench thought that too, and maybe even the Minister, so there we go. I will go a little bit off script, because the hon. Member for Ribble Valley was much broader in her speech, talking about family policy and how we support and champion families. I am the education, children and family spokesperson for the Lib Dems. That is very deliberate, because as a party we believe that we should look at children and families much more holistically and not just through the prism of education. We are very keen on championing family policy, not just as a party but cross-party. As several hon. Members have pointed out today, healthy relationships are difficult to build when we are living in such challenging times. There is a cost of living crisis; there are parents who are working full-time jobs and sometimes juggling two or three jobs, while trying to put food on the table and looking after children, and all the pressures that brings. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley and my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo) both talked about parental rights. I recognise the fiscal situation that this Government find themselves in, but we need to find the money to spend on parental rights and parental leave. All the evidence tells us that, in those early weeks and months after a baby is born, and in the early years, parental involvement at home can make a massive difference. That is not making a judgment on those who want to go out to work—I say this as a working parent myself. I was very clear with my husband from the get-go—“I am not staying at home even part time, once I finish my maternity leave. I want to be back in the workplace.” He actually wanted to take the decision to go part time with our first child and was largely full time, apart from being a local councillor, with our son.

• 12 Feb 2026 · Healthy Relationships · Hansard source

  More

  I could not agree more. Youth services are critical and youth workers are amazing, whether they are employed by local authorities, our churches or voluntary groups up and down the country. I am the parent of an 11-year-old who is at the age where, in the holidays, she absolutely does not want to go to holiday clubs. I am trying to persuade her to go to some of the youth venues in the area. We are lucky that we still have two or three of those facilities, but I recognise that in some areas of the country there is not very much. I welcome that the Government have made announcements in this area—the Culture Secretary has made some very positive announcements on this issue. I would like to see a longer-term strategy to support those announcements, particularly in relation to the workforce. In the classroom, relationships and sex education is so important for tackling and preventing violence against women and girls. I see amazing examples in my constituency, where schools are working hard on this issue. I am proud that our local authority, Richmond council, is White Ribbon-accredited and does lots of work with schools and lots of awareness-raising work in the area. However, age-appropriate relationships and sex education at school has a crucial role to play, alongside the role of parents and carers, in giving children the knowledge and information they need to keep them safe by teaching them about consent, healthy relationships and online risks such as pornography and sexting. That is essential for safeguarding. Yet, according to a report by Internet Matters, many children say that they have “received no specific education in relation to sexual image sharing or only very superficial coverage” in relationships and sex education lessons, and that they do not feel able to get the information they want in whole-class groups. Many children felt that they were not offered enough information when the issue was discussed and that, when information was delivered by teachers who were not subject specialists, those teachers “often sped through the topic because they found it ‘awkward’”. [ Interruption. ] Was that a cough to say that I need to wind up, Ms Jardine?

• 10 Feb 2026 · Inner-London Local Authorities: Funding · Hansard source

  More

  I apologise, Dr Murrison. The debate moved more quickly than I had anticipated. I thank the Minister for giving way despite my late arrival. I have a lot of sympathy with the Government’s aims; we all want to tackle deprivation and poverty. In my borough, the London borough of Richmond, we are going to see £29 million of cuts over the next three years, which will stretch to £46 million by year 4. That means a huge cliff edge, and at the moment the Government are refusing to provide any transitional protection. I recognise that Richmond is largely a wealthy borough, but we have significant pockets of deprivation and very needy residents, particularly young and older vulnerable residents. Despite a maximum council tax hike and efficiency savings, we will see cuts to the most vulnerable. Will the Minister finally agree to meet with me, my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and the leader of our council to talk about how we can put transitional provisions in place? She has refused to do that so far. [ Interruption. ] She seems perplexed, but her latest letter refused a meeting with us, so I am asking her again, in the spirit of cross-party working, if she will meet us to discuss this.

• 28 Jan 2026 · Local Authority Children’s Services · Hansard source

  More

  It is a familiar story, and I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I am getting an indication from the Chair that I am already overrunning, so I will try to cut my last points short. The Minister is aware that I have long campaigned on kinship care. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill takes welcome steps forward, but there is much further to go. As he knows, putting a child with a family member in the short term is not just better for their long-term outcomes; it would save local authorities around 50% of the cost of putting them in care, even if they gave kinship carers allowances on a par with foster carers. That has to be an urgent cost-saving intervention. The Minister must also restore the adoption and special guardianship support fund grants, as we heard so clearly from my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello), who talked about the long-term impact. I will conclude by quoting the Minister’s own words at him. In his review, he stated: “How we care for our children is nothing short of a reflection of our values as a country.” We have heard today that we are falling short on that. We stand ready to work across parties to ensure that his vision becomes reality.

• 28 Jan 2026 · Local Authority Children’s Services · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Forster) for securing this important debate and for his tireless dedication to ensuring that what happened to Sara Sharif never, ever happens to another child again. We have heard a range of contributions today, and I want to start by saying that children’s services in local authorities across the country play a vital, statutory role in ensuring that all children, including the most vulnerable, receive the support and education that every child deserves and needs. Like the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer) and my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord), I pay tribute to those working on the frontline, who are often overworked, underpaid and under-thanked. They deserve our thanks, notwithstanding the systemic and structural failures. As many hon. Members said, many local authorities face deep funding challenges. For some local authorities, that is exacerbated by what has been called the fair funding review. I fear we will see short-term decisions that ultimately cost the taxpayer more in the long run. The Liberal Democrats have always argued that we should see spending on supporting our children as an investment in our future—our society’s future and our economy’s future. I will return to funding, but I now turn to where my hon. Friend the Member for Woking started. I listened to his powerful words about Sara’s story with tears in my eyes, and I was reminded that I felt similarly in May 2022, when the then Education Secretary—one Nadhim Zahawi—gave a statement in the main Chamber following the brutal deaths of Star Hobson and Arthur Labinjo-Hughes. As is always the case after such horrendous stories, we said, “Never again,” and he promised that lessons would be learned. When the Children’s Commissioner gave evidence to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill Committee last year, she said: “Every time a child dies, we give exactly the same set of recommendations, including better multi-agency working and better join-up, yet time and again”— including after Victoria Climbié, Arthur Labinjo-Hughes and Sara Sharif— “we find ourselves saying the same things.” — [ Official Report, Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 44, Q94.] The Government must take action, and I welcome the fact that they are taking a number of steps in the right direction—I am very happy to acknowledge that. Last year, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) and I met Professor Alexis Jay to discuss the findings of her review into child sexual abuse. She impressed upon me two points: the importance of a child protection authority and the importance of data sharing. I am grateful that the Minister has now announced a child protection authority, and I hope he will set out a bit more on the timelines and implementation. On data sharing, which was so critical in Sara’s case, I welcome some of the measures in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, not least the introduction of a single unique identifier. The Liberal Democrats strongly support that because we believe that proper data sharing between services will improve child safeguarding. I hope the Government will continue to address some of the concerns that have been raised about privacy and data sharing, given the Government’s record at times of data loss and being hacked. I raised with the Home Secretary a few weeks ago my fear that there are people outside this place who are scaremongering and suggesting that this is digital ID for children, when actually it is about how we safeguard children, provide better services, and commission better services and research to support them. Another measure in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which is currently in the other place, is the children not in school register. As my hon. Friend the Member for Woking said, the Liberal Democrats have long supported such a register, so that vulnerable children do not disappear from the system. However, during the passage of the Bill we have repeatedly set out our concerns about the amount of information that has to be collected for that register. This is not just about the impact and intrusion on families; even the Association of Directors of Children’s Services, in oral evidence to the Public Bill Committee, was circumspect about the amount of detailed information that home-educating parents will be expected to supply. I have talked to councillors and local government officials, and they are worried about the huge burden this will put on local authorities in meeting their new duties. If the Government are going to put these duties on local authorities, funding needs to follow, so that they are properly resourced to collect the data and implement the register. That brings me back to funding. As we have heard, underfunding is a consistent theme in children’s services. I talked about children being an investment. Unfortunately, politics is such that Governments think in electoral cycles. The return on an investment in a young child is often not seen for 15 or 20 years, so it is very hard to make the case for that investment to the Treasury. The Minister has my sympathy and support in that. In his independent review of children’s social care, the Minister said: “What we have currently is a system increasingly skewed to crisis intervention, with outcomes for children that continue to be unacceptably poor and costs that continue to rise.” I recognise that the Government announced a children’s social care prevention grant last year, but I am afraid that money pales into insignificance when we hear so starkly today from my hon. Friends, many of whom represent rural constituencies that are seeing deep funding cuts through the reallocation of local government funding following the fair funding review, that the most vulnerable will lose out. It is not just rural areas, but London constituencies, too. Government Members often say to me, “You represent an affluent area.” Yes, on the whole I do, but that does not mean that deprivation, need and vulnerable children do not exist. My local authority in Richmond is one of the worst hit in the country—it will lose about £47 million of Government funding over the next four years—and it is those vulnerable children who will miss out. The pots of funding the Government are making available for children’s services are welcome, but when we offset that against the losses, we are going to see children suffer. It is a real shame that we are seeing this money taken away in London, because between 2010 and 2023, London boroughs saw an 11% reduction in the number of looked-after children, while England as a whole experienced a 30% increase. The changes to the children and young people’s services formula in London risk undoing the very good work we have seen London boroughs do to give our children the best start in life. Obviously, I will always argue for more money to be spent on children’s services, but I recognise that there is not a magic money tree, and we face a difficult fiscal situation, not least as a result of the previous Conservative Government. There are ways that savings can be made. Early intervention is one of them, and I know the Minister is very supportive of that approach. There are a number of great measures in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, such as family group decision making. I ask the Minister to look at the amendments tabled in the other place by my noble Friend Baroness Tyler, who wants to ensure that local authorities have a duty to support parents after a child is taken away from them, so that they not only overcome the trauma and grief but make a lasting change. The data shows that half of newborns in care proceedings are born to mothers who have already been through proceedings with another child. We need to take action early to prevent the same thing from happening again. A number of Labour and Liberal Democrat Members have talked about the eye-watering cost of private social care providers and fostering agencies, which are bleeding local authorities dry. I welcome the backstop power in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill for the Government to put a profit cap on children’s social care providers. I urge the Minister, as I have again and again: please extend the profit cap to private special schools, which are also bleeding our local authorities dry. When one school charges more than £100,000 a year in fees plus transport, while state-maintained alternatives do it for £25,000 for the same cohort, that is an obvious place that the Government can save money. The answer is capital investment in state-run specialist provision, in the same way that it is in state-run children’s care homes. I know the Government have already started on that, but they need to go further.

• 26 Jan 2026 · Police Reform White Paper · Hansard source

  More

  The White Paper states, on page 24: “To build trust and increase accessibility, officers will also maintain a visible presence in local hubs, schools and community spaces”. May I ask the Home Secretary how that vision marries with the fact that in London, under the Met’s “tough choices” programme, we are about to see the closure of the Twickenham police station front counter? We have already lost our specialist schools team and we have lost our specialist parks police, including those in Bushy Park in my constituency. Does this not show that the Home Secretary can make as many reforms to structures as she likes, but if they are not resourced properly, our constituents will not see the community policing that she is promising?

• 12 Jan 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T2. The Secretary of State will be aware that the so-called fair funding settlement will leave my council of Richmond upon Thames some £29 million worse off over the next three years. It will leave our most vulnerable residents, including children with complex needs and elderly people, facing cuts in critical services, even if the council raises council tax by 5%. Will he extend the transitional period?

• 1 Dec 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  David Laws was not in government for the last decade of Conservative Governments; he was there for the first five years and he did some excellent things, not least introducing the pupil premium. I would say, however, that Conservative Governments left us with crumbling schools that are unable to hire specialist teachers, a crisis in special educational needs provision, and a huge problem with persistent absence. Given those major issues in our education system, I am not quite sure why the Government have chosen to tinker with academies and governance arrangements as their priority for education policy, when there is limited evidence to suggest that a mixed economy of governance arrangements in our school system is posing a major problem. With the promised schools White Paper hopefully being revealed in the new year, although I think it has been delayed twice already, there is a question as to whether part 2 of the Bill was somewhat premature. I am increasingly wondering whether the Government feel the same way, given that the Bill keeps being delayed in the other place. By the time the Bill returns to the House of Commons, it will have been well over a year since it was first introduced. When the Bill Committee consulted education leaders in January, the one strong message that came through was about how the Government went about drafting part 2 of the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross set out, it was done with limited consultation and showed a lack of coherent vision for the school system; there was no White Paper and no consultation of those on the frontline or in leadership positions across the sector. That lack of coherent vision and joined-up thinking seems to be a recurring theme for this Labour Government. They introduced free breakfast clubs, but they are not funding them properly. They have capped the number of school uniform items to three, but that will actually risk further inflating prices for hard-pressed families. They have proposed broadening the curriculum, which is something we welcome, and the Bill will make that statutory for all academies, but they have failed to set out the funds or a plan to recruit the necessary teachers to deliver it. During the Bill’s passage, they voted against Liberal Democrat proposals to widen eligibility for free school meals, but they subsequently decided to copy the policy and announced that they will introduce it next year. Throughout the passage of the Bill, the Liberal Democrats have sought to engage constructively with the Government by tabling amendments and new clauses that aim to improve the Bill and to address some of the concerns raised by the petition that we are discussing today. Given that the Government have already copied at least one of our policies, I hope that the new Minister, who is here today, might listen to some other good ideas in my speech and in the other place. There is a real fear that this legislation, which is seeking to safeguard children who go missing from education, will over-police home educators, most of whom are doing a great job. I have been very clear at every stage of the Bill—I think there was cross-party support for this—that the Liberal Democrats strongly support having a register of children not in school to ensure that vulnerable children do not simply disappear from the system. We also strongly support the right of parents to choose to home educate, where that is the best option for their child. In oral evidence to the Bill Committee, however, even the Association of Directors of Children’s Services was circumspect about the vast amount of detailed information that the Bill will expect home educating parents to supply. That level of detail risks becoming intrusive and unnecessary. Many home educators choose to home educate their children not because they want to but because they feel forced to. There is a crisis in our special needs system, and so much special needs provision just does not meet the needs of those children, forcing many parents to give up work so that they can home educate their child. By virtue of their child’s need, parents tend to be much more flexible in how they home educate, but the very onerous reporting mechanisms will interfere with the flexibility that parents need to provide for their children. I tabled various amendments to try to pare back the burdensome nature of the register, as set out in the Bill. One amendment called for, at the very least, a review of the register’s impact on home educators to be carried out within six months, to ensure that only reporting requirements that are strictly necessary for safeguarding purposes are retained. We also tabled an amendment that would have removed the requirement for parents and carers of children in special schools to secure local authority consent to home educate. Furthermore, we proposed that home educated children should not be excluded from national examinations because of financial or capacity constraints. Sadly, the Government voted down all our amendments, but I encourage the new Minister to give serious consideration to relevant amendments tabled in the other place, because we must do more if we genuinely want to extend opportunity to every child. Our SEND system is letting down many children, and it is allowing a number of organisations with bad intentions to exploit the market failure in the system. I am talking about private-equity-run special school providers, which are making exorbitant profits, as they have with children’s homes. They are exploiting the lack of provision to hold local authorities and parents to ransom. The latest revelation in the Budget is that the Government will absorb the costs of SEND provision from local authorities, and the projected £6 billion black hole only strengthens the need to start capping the profits of private special schools. The Bill already makes provision to cap the profits of the same companies that are running children’s care homes and fostering agencies, so I again ask the Minister to consider introducing the measure so that no child is left waiting because of a lack of resource, given that local authorities are being bled dry. While I am talking about children being left waiting, I encourage the Minister to look at another Liberal Democrat proposal to automatically enrol every eligible child for free school meals, so that no one misses out on a hot, healthy meal. Durham county council, under its previous Liberal Democrat-led administration, auto-enrolled 2,500 children, whose schools benefited from an additional £3 million in pupil premium funding. It is not too late for the Minister to improve the Bill, which I do not believe needs to be withdrawn wholesale. Instead, with the help of the other place, it can be amended so that there is a strong foundation to improve safeguarding for our children and strengthen provision for them in our schools.

• 25 Nov 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise primarily to speak to new clause 26 and amendment 82, tabled in my name, which are related to the changes the Government propose to the assets of community value system. Members across the House will know from their own communities that playing field space is at a premium, and my constituency is no different. We have fantastic local grassroots sports clubs run by dedicated local volunteers, including our local football clubs, the Cygnets—which has more than 300 girls on its books regularly playing football, and now adult women, too—the Twickenham Tigers and the Hearts of Teddlothians, as well as Thamesians rugby club, among others, all of which are desperate for pitch space. These groups are struggling to meet growing demand because they simply cannot find the space to train and play matches. At a time when we face the twin public health crises of obesity and poor mental health, we must do everything we can to promote and support young people, in particular, and adults to play sport for the immense physical and mental health benefits that it brings. Yet sitting in my constituency are the much-loved Udney Park playing fields—a 13-acre war memorial playing field—which have, scandalously, lain derelict for more than a decade. Sadly, I do not have the time to bore the House with the long and sorry tale of how we ended up with prime playing field space, which was donated in 1919 under a covenant for the playing of amateur sport, going to rack and ruin. However, since Imperial College decided to sell the site in 2015, successive developers have purchased it at overinflated prices and have, quite rightly, been unable to develop the site due to the various important protections afforded to it. The site has been designated an asset of community value, and despite huge efforts by the local community to buy the land whenever it has been put up for sale by its owners, the two successive owners have refused to agree a price and sell to the community, meaning that the precious playing fields and pavilion have degraded over time. I warmly welcome the new community right-to-buy provision in the Bill, but it does not go far enough in actually empowering communities to buy precious sites such as Udney Park. New clause 26 would further strengthen the proposed powers where dormant assets are concerned. While the Bill introduces a mechanism for independent valuation where a price cannot be agreed between the seller and a community group buyer, it remains silent on both how that valuation is achieved and what can be done if the seller repeatedly refuses to sell at what is determined to be market value. On the point of independent valuation, I would like to have seen written into the Bill an explicit clause that removed hope value where an existing playing field has been purchased by a community group to continue using it as playing field space; alas, I was told by the Clerks that this was firmly out of scope, and the Government refused to back a similar amendment that I tabled to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. New clause 26, however, provides a mechanism to enable a local authority to engage the compulsory purchase function in the event of an asset of community value lying dormant for five years or more and a market value offer—as determined through independent valuation as set out in proposed new section 86T to the Localism Act 2011—from a community group being rejected, and if the seller has been unable to agree a sale with an alternative buyer. Extending the right-to-buy power in this way would prevent developers from land banking in the hope of a change in legislation and prevent precious, desperately needed sites like Udney Park playing fields from lying derelict and unused when hundreds, if not thousands, of local residents, young and old, could benefit from them. It would focus minds and encourage the owner to sell when it gets a fair market value offer from a community group. Together with amendment 82, new clause 26 would help to boost access to more green spaces and grassroots sports facilities at a time when demand is growing, not least following the amazing successes of the Lionesses and the Red Roses this summer. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I have been concerned by the Government’s removal of Sport England’s role in national policy. Amendment 82 would support local authorities by ensuring that they have the funding necessary to assess land in their area for eligibility as a sporting asset of community value. As I said at the outset, sport is such an important tool in the fight against the mental and physical health crises facing our young people and adults, and amendment 82 would simply ensure that lack of funding will not be an obstacle to protecting what will be vital sporting assets of community value. I hope that Ministers will take these measures seriously, and I look forward to hearing their response. Finally, I will touch briefly on amendment 94 tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry), and consequential amendments to it, as well as amendment 4 tabled by the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds). They both seek to achieve the same objective. My council in the London borough of Richmond upon Thames is run through the committee system, and it has been run extremely effectively in this way since 2019, in line with its commitment to democracy and transparency. I completely refute the Minister’s earlier comments that a committee system means that a council will not be run efficiently or transparently. Not once in the last six years that we have had a Liberal Democrat council running on a committee system have I ever heard a member of the public say to me, “I don’t understand how decisions are made.” We are actually running so efficiently that the Government have decided to punish our council by cutting its core Government funding in a devastating way that will have a massive impact on services. So I completely refute her suggestion that a cabinet executive model is the way to go. All elected councillors in Richmond are involved in the decision-making process. Our council does not have the cabinet executive and back-bench structure that the Government feel is their prerogative to dictate out from Whitehall, overriding democratically elected councils. It is a blatant misuse of Ministers’ authority to do that. I hope that this Government will think again on this, if not today when the Bill goes to the other place, because it is absolutely outrageous to override local authorities in this way. They should be given the power and freedom necessary to shape and provide local services the way that they choose to. After all, that is what they were elected by our residents to do.

• 24 Nov 2025 · Families in Temporary Accommodation · Hansard source

  More

  With London councils now spending £5.5 million per day on temporary accommodation, it is clear that we need to build more social homes in London. Richmond council has been prioritising sites that it is selling for social housing. As the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) has just suggested, will the Minister look at incentives for other public bodies—whether it is the NHS or Government Departments—to prioritise for social homes land and buildings that they no longer need and are selling, as I have been campaigning for with respect to the former Teddington police station in my constituency?

• 17 Nov 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State will be aware that the Met police recently proposed closing, or scaling back the hours of operation for, a number of police front counters across London. Those plans were scaled back, apparently in response to public feedback, but the Twickenham police station’s front counter is still earmarked for closure, and only 15 people were invited to an online meeting at which to give that feedback. Does the Secretary of State agree that the Mayor of London and the Met police have a duty to do a full public consultation on these plans?

• 5 Nov 2025 · House Building: London · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that the measures announced by the Mayor of London and the new Housing Secretary actually reward developers and do not incentivise them? Not only will the mayor be funding half of developers’ affordable housing if they meet the new target, but our local authorities will have their community infrastructure levy money slashed. In Richmond, we could lose £21.5 million of CIL money from the Stag brewery site. That comes on top of the Labour Government cutting our core Government funding under their so-called fair funding formula. Our communities are going to be left without the infrastructure they need and deserve alongside new housing developments.

• 5 Nov 2025 · House Building: London · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister accept that sometimes the mayor’s intervening slows down development? Earlier, I cited the example of Stag brewery in Mortlake. That development of 1,000 units would have started years ago, but thanks to the mayor calling it in, it was slowed down and it has still not been built.

• 28 Oct 2025 · World Stroke Day · Hansard source

  More

  I thank all hon. Members who have taken part in the debate, particularly the hon. Members for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran), for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy), for sharing their personal stories. I also thank everyone for their good wishes for my mum, which I will pass on when I speak to her next. I am grateful for the Minister’s response. I am encouraged by what he said about data, prevention, the digital tools that will come into play, and the fact that we are trying to make thrombectomies universal during that acute phase when somebody is blue lighted somewhere. However, I come back to one of my key asks, which was to widen the target for stroke and cardiovascular disease to prevent disability, not just to save lives. Of course, saving lives is crucial. Thanks to those interventions, many lives are saved, but the disability that goes with that is incredible. Yes, we can use robots and all sorts of other new technology, but, ultimately, physios, occupational therapists and speech and language therapists are desperately needed. Frankly, community-based rehab is withering on the vine, and I have been personally quite shocked by how patchy it is. My plea is for the Minister to take the need to build up those services to the public health Minister, and I hope that she will be willing to meet me, as well as patient groups and patients. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered World Stroke Day 2025.

• 28 Oct 2025 · World Stroke Day · Hansard source

  More

  I 100% agree. The post-stroke support is critical, and I will share some stories about people who have felt abandoned and isolated in exactly the way that my hon. Friend describes. Despite guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy says that 20% of people do not receive the minimum specialist rehabilitation required in the first five days following a stroke, and 68% do not have an assessment for rehabilitation, which is required after discharge. The reality is that those who want to regain a level of independence need to be able to fund support privately. I pay tribute to Richard Sealy, who runs the Neuro Rehab Practice in Hampton, which is in my constituency. He and his whole team are doing brilliant work in trying to fill that gap. Over the summer, I had the privilege of visiting the practice and speaking to stroke survivors and their carers about their experiences. What runs through so many of their stories—I am sure Members will have heard similar—is the cliff edge that people fall off when they leave hospital, and the devastating knock-on impact that can have. I would like to share some of their testimonies. One stroke survivor said: “I felt lost, like I had been thrown out of the boat, not knowing what to do or where to find help”. Another survivor’s family member said: “Although the NHS took care of her while she was in hospital, we felt that after the six weeks had finished, it was very much goodbye. You’re now on your own”. Another, when asked what happened when the NHS rehab ended and whether they were given any further options, simply replied, “Nothing.” Those survivor stories are far from unique, and that is unacceptable. According to the Stroke Association, only 17% of community-based rehab services have appropriate access to each core therapy—physiotherapy, speech and language therapy and occupational therapy. The Right to Rehab campaign argues for the simple idea that rehabilitation should be accessible to everyone who needs it, for as long as they need it. We know that stroke survivors continue to make incremental improvements over many months, even years, so I welcome the Government’s ambition to rebuild our NHS through transitioning care from hospital to the community, and to improve integration of rehabilitation. While the Government target to reduce stroke and heart attack deaths by a quarter in the next 10 years is also welcome, given the devastating impact that stroke can have and the struggle to recover faced by many, the scope of that target must be widened to also reducing disability. Take Miriam, a resident of Twickenham, who at just 21 years old suffered a stroke only three months after graduating with a BA in music. After spending four days in hospital without diagnosis or treatment, where she suffered two more strokes, she was unable to play an instrument or even grasp a pencil. She suffered significant challenges, including depression and isolation, but through therapy and determination, she was able to rebuild her life. Miriam is now a neurological music therapist, working with children and adults with learning disabilities, and I believe she is here, watching today’s debate. Chris Stirling, who suffered a stroke in his 60s, was told by doctors after six months in hospital that he should go into a care home. He left hospital in a wheelchair, unable to shower. Thanks to privately funded neuro physiotherapy and the support of his family, he is now able to play golf, one-handed. Not everyone is as lucky as Chris to have both the means and the family support. Miriam and Chris’s stories, and the testimonies I shared earlier in my speech, show just how important it is to get both stroke diagnosis and rehabilitation right.

• 28 Oct 2025 · World Stroke Day · Hansard source

  More

  Of course I am very happy to congratulate the staff in the hon. Gentleman’s local hospital. Through my personal experience with my mother, I have seen how amazing hospital staff are, and where community services are available, I am sure those staff are brilliant, but the crux of my speech is about how poor the rehab services are in some parts of the country and how we really need to staff and boost them if we want to help people to have a good quality of life. I have heard time and again from those who have lived experience that support for community rehabilitation is simply not good enough and often collapses six weeks post discharge from hospital. In some cases, support even six weeks post discharge is not available, depending on which integrated care board or local authority is responsible.

• 21 Oct 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is making a very powerful speech with some shocking figures. Just last Friday in my constituency surgery, Sarah Imi came to talk to me about her husband Jason. Seven years ago, he and his colleague were killed after a work dinner by a 17-year-old driving well above the speed limit and high on cannabis. He was given a £120 fine and a few hours of community service. He has subsequently reoffended 27 times, including committing a dangerous driving offence. Sarah had three teenage children at the time. Does the hon. Member agree that the family deserve justice and that this man should never be able to drive again?

• 15 Sept 2025 · Children with SEND: Assessments and Support · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with my hon. Friend. I have heard about that hub-and-spoke model and would like to go and see it; I think it could be a good model to scale up. I also implore Ministers to look at the bureaucratic hurdles that local authorities face in putting specialist units in mainstream schools. I think it was the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) who mentioned that London and other areas have falling school rolls. There is space opening up in our school estate for specialist units. My own local authority managed to take advantage of that in Nelson school, which is a primary school but, as of last week, has a specialist unit for secondary pupils with SEMH needs. That could provide a rapid expansion of specialist provision for children to be educated closer to home and among their friends and peers. Fourthly, we need support for local government. We have heard today that local authorities are racking up billions of pounds of deficits. Some of those costs are driven by the eye-watering fees charged by private equity-run special schools, some of which have a profit margin upwards of 20%. That is just wrong and immoral, and it is bleeding our councils dry. Local authorities are also spending £2.26 billion on SEND transport. In the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, the Government have proposed a potential profit cap on private social care providers. I was disappointed that every Labour MP voted down Liberal Democrat proposals earlier this year to cap the profits of private special schools; I hope that, with the new Minister in her place, they will think again on their stance on that amendment while the Bill is in the other place. Liberal Democrats are also calling for a new national SEND body to oversee and fund some of the most complex cases, where needs exceed a particular cost, to put an end to the postcode lottery of support, so that no child is left waiting and no council is left with unmanageable costs. Finally, we need a fair funding arrangement. We need to get rid of the perverse incentives enshrined in the £6,000 notional budget that schools are given for SEND support. The performance and accountability regime should not penalise schools for accepting SEND pupils. Mainstream inclusion is vital, but it is not a silver bullet; for inclusion to work, it must be properly resourced. Teachers need training, classrooms need resources and schools need the capacity to meet needs, but we know that budgets are already stretched to the max. I hear in my own constituency that teaching assistants are among the first to go, yet they are the ones supporting the children with special needs. Reform must be rooted in improving children’s lives, not simply managing down costs or limiting access to support. As we have heard today, some of the local authority funding reforms will significantly penalise local authorities—particularly my own, but also authorities across London and other parts of the country. In conclusion, it is abundantly clear that the SEND system in its current form is too slow, too inconsistent and too adversarial. We need and want a system in which children get the right support at the right time, regardless of where they live. Change is urgently needed for families across the country. They cannot afford to wait. I sincerely hope that the Government reshuffle will not cause further delay to the White Paper. We Liberal Democrats have offered to work constructively with Ministers on getting this issue right, with our five principles for reform. The Government cannot afford to sleepwalk into another Treasury-led disaster. They have to get this right, because every child, no matter their background or their needs, deserves every opportunity to thrive.

• 15 Sept 2025 · Police Stations · Hansard source

  More

  1. What discussions she has had with the Mayor of London on the closure of front counters at police stations.

• 15 Sept 2025 · Police Stations · Hansard source

  More

  May I, as a London Member, begin by paying tribute to the brave police officers from the Met and many other forces who were policing protests on Saturday, a number of whom were injured in the line of duty as a result of abhorrent attacks? I am sure that the thoughts and prayers of all Members, in all parts of the House, are with them. Last week we discovered that Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, had admitted that he had known as long ago as November that the Met planned to close a number of police front counters across London, having promised just six months earlier in his election manifesto that not a single borough would be left without a police front counter. The decision to close Twickenham’s counter means that Richmond upon Thames will be left without one. Does the Minister agree that, given the importance of police counters in maintaining trust in and accessibility to our police, this decision needs to be reversed? Does she also agree that the Mayor of London has broken his promises, and that the Metropolitan police should be funded properly?