Munira Wilson MP: speeches

Speeches

• 3 Jun 2025 · Thames Water · Hansard source

  More

  Thames Water is teetering on the brink, investors are running for the hills and my constituents are paying the price for its mismanagement through soaring bills. All the while, it is spending hundreds of millions of pounds on a proposed sewage recycling project at Teddington lock on the River Thames in my constituency, which will at best be used every two years and which some cynics suggest is designed entirely to boost its balance sheet. This morning, the Secretary of State committed to my constituent Ian McNuff that he would come and visit the site to look at the impact of the proposed project. Will he reiterate that commitment today? My hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and I would be delighted to welcome him.

• 8 Apr 2025 · Tackling Child Sexual Abuse · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Minister’s statement. I share her disappointment that the Conservatives have sought to pick out one particular community. Day after day in this Chamber, they vilify Muslims. As somebody who has Muslim family and brown skin, I say that we feel increasingly uncomfortable in our own country, given the attacks that we hear, day after day, from the Conservatives on all Muslims. It is an absolute disgrace. I welcome the child protection authority. On the fact that the Conservatives did not introduce it when they were in government and able to do so, Professor Jay told me that they claimed that they did not have legislative time. We all know that they did. I press the Minister to give me her personal assurance that she will work with her colleagues in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology to ensure that we strengthen our online safety regulation and do not water it down in any way, because Professor Jay is very clear that online sexual exploitation and abuse are huge and growing.

• 3 Apr 2025 · Thames Water: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) on securing this important debate. It is being held only a short time after we found out that Thames Water pumped an incredible 298,081 hours-worth of sewage into our waterways in 2024, attacking our natural environment and undermining public trust. All this was at the same time as continuing to pay significant bonuses to its bosses and dividends to its shareholders, while demanding that taxpayers foot the bill. It beggars belief. The slew of scandals, the lack of trust and concerns about water quality, not to mention the parlous state of Thames Water finances that my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam so eloquently outlined, are exactly why I and local campaigners are fighting Thames Water’s controversial proposals to pump treated sewage into the river at Teddington in my constituency. The Government have the power to take that scheme off the table, as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), knows from when my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and I lobbied him before the last election. The new Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), also has the power to take the scheme off the table. I will outline why the scheme should not go ahead, which links to the subject of the state of Thames Water’s finances. The river is at the very heart of the community in my constituency, with paddle boarders, rowers and wild water swimmers from not only our local community but from further afield coming to use the river, and residents are extremely worried about the environmental impact of the proposals, including on human health, biodiversity, wildlife, and of course water quality.

• 3 Apr 2025 · Thames Water: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. A lot of those environmental and social impacts have yet to be set out in detail. My hon. Friend and I are both eagerly awaiting, as are thousands of our constituents, the environmental impact assessments and the statutory consultation, which I believe will start later this year. Thames Water keeps telling us that water quality will not be compromised, yet it has failed to assure us that dangerous compounds and chemicals, including PFAS— perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or so-called “forever chemicals”—which I have talked at length to the Minister about, will be filtered out. Its environmental track record tells a different story and residents are understandably sceptical. Thames Water insists that the proposals represent the best value option, yet it has failed to show to the community and elected representatives its workings on how it has got to that best value definition. The company has a proven history of failing to invest in infrastructure and in the essentials, while pouring millions of pounds of bill payers’ money into short-term fixes that do nothing but produce new assets for the company to borrow against. Indeed, that is what many residents are suspicious the scheme is about: trying to load up its balance sheet to be able to leverage yet more debt. Just as Thames Water declares itself to be on the verge of collapse, the Government would approve a £300 million infrastructure project that, by the company’s own admission, will be used only once every two years and save only one tenth of the hundreds of millions of litres of water that Thames Water loses every day through leaks. This is after Thames Water spent some £250 million on the Beckton desalination plant back in 2012, which was meant to improve water resilience in London, but has barely been used. When I questioned Thames Water’s chief executive officer about it, he told me that it did not work as well as it was meant to—I kid you not. This leaves Thames Water customers in my constituency rightly asking why they should pay the price for its mismanagement. If the Teddington direct river abstraction does get the green light from Government, will it deliver the benefits that Thames Water claims it will to warrant the environmental impact, both on our river and indeed on its shores? It is the issue of trust that is so important to public confidence in our water companies and our water infrastructure. The public ought to have confidence that the companies responsible for our most basic human need, clean water, are acting in their best interests, not in the interests of shareholders and executives. Time and again Thames Water has eroded that trust and proven itself unworthy of the public’s confidence, and throughout it has been our constituents who have been asked to pay up for the failures and the mismanagement of the company. Over a quarter of bill payers’ money is spent simply on servicing water company debt. Worse still, while Thames Water pleads poverty, its executives slip out the back door with eye-watering bonuses. Where is the accountability? Where is the justice for those who suffer the consequences of their negligence? As my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam has set out, the Liberal Democrats have a strong record on this issue. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) and his attempts to hold Thames Water to account in the courts and challenge it for its horrendous behaviour. He has been absolutely outstanding. I thank him for everything he has done with his tremendous campaign. We must put an end to the cycle of environmental negligence and financial mismanagement. Thames Water is on the brink, and placing it into special administration is the only way to prevent a full-scale collapse. Meanwhile, Ofwat lacks the authority to hold failing water companies to account, and unless the Government take decisive action, they risk the same weakness. It is time, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam has already said, to replace Ofwat with a regulator that has real enforcement powers and the full backing of the Government behind it. The bottom line is that we need to crack down on failing water companies, not prop them up. With customers paying ever higher bills and our precious environment at risk, the Government must go much further, much faster, in reining in these companies.

• 17 Mar 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is always an honour to take an intervention from the hon. Gentleman, and it is great to hear about the pilot scheme in Northern Ireland. I have read that the Government in the Republic of Ireland have spent about €9 million on issuing those pouches to schools across the country. It would be useful and instructive for the UK Government to look at how that pilot goes, but I am not sure that we even need to wait for that. School leaders and parents are pressing us to go further now, and we must listen. Putting the guidance into law will ensure that schools have the necessary support when they are challenged on their policies, and the resources to implement a mobile-free environment. A headteacher in my constituency told me that it would cost his school budget £20,000 to install lockers or issue the pouches described by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). Children must be able to learn in an environment that is free from the distraction of phones and the threat of bullying. We have also seen a significant reduction in truancy in schools where restrictions have been robust.

• 6 Feb 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T4. The area around Heathrow has breached nitrogen dioxide legal limits for years now, so what assessment has the Environment Secretary made of the impact on air quality of both the additional flights and the additional vehicles travelling to and from Heathrow as a result of a third runway?

• 6 Feb 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Twelfth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Briefly, I very much support the ambition in this new clause. After all, it was the Liberal Democrats, in Government, who introduced universal infant free school meals; we have always had the long-term ambition of extending that to all primary school children. However, I recognise the cash-constrained environment that the Government are operating in. That is why, when we get to it, I will be speaking to new clause 31, which looks at increasing the eligibility for children to receive free school meals. However, I want to put on the record that we do support the intent of this provision in the long term, for all the reasons the hon. Lady has just laid out.

• 4 Feb 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I warmly welcome the provision in clause 47. The Liberal Democrats have long called for far greater co-operation between local authorities and schools on admissions and place planning. This is even more important now as we see falling school rolls, which is a particularly acute problem in London. It is the case in other parts of the country as well, but in my own local authority, eight reception classes were closed in primary schools in, I think, the last academic year. At the moment, we have high demand for our secondaries and falling demand for our primaries. Over the years, that will feed through into secondary schools, which is where most of our academies sit. We must ensure that academies or schools are working with the local authority on place planning. Having a massive surplus of places in such a cash-constrained environment is neither realistic or desirable. I would add just one caveat from talking to the Confederation of School Trusts and the evidence we heard from Sir John Coles. They all welcome this particular provision, but Sir John Coles said that schools and local authorities need clear guidance on how this will work in practice. I look forward to the Minister’s comments on what guidance will be issued.

• 30 Jan 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I want to stress the concerns I expressed in my previous remarks about the quality and nutritional value of the food that will be offered. I recognise that school food standards are in place, but although the recent House of Lords report on obesity welcomed the introduction of school breakfast clubs, it strongly recommended that the Government review and update the school food standards, and one of the witnesses this Committee heard said that schools should be given clear direction on what is and is not acceptable. It is important that our children do not get high-fat, sugary or minimal nutrition provision from the breakfast clubs. When it evaluated the breakfast offer at 17 primary schools in Yorkshire, the Food Foundation found that fruit and water were not always offered at breakfast. Such things should be addressed. I hope that as the guidance is rolled out, more detail will be provided, but I urge the Government to consider the recommendation to review school food standards as they roll out breakfast clubs.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Airport Expansion · Hansard source

  More

  If, as we expect, the Chancellor announces her support tomorrow for a third runway at Heathrow, that will be a massive U-turn from the Prime Minister’s previous position, and it is patently clear that a third runway will fail all of Labour’s four tests—on growth across our regions, on climate, on air pollution, and on noise pollution. The economic and environmental cases are in tatters, and no airlines want to foot the bill for a third runway. Will the Minister concede that any such announcement would simply be virtue signalling by a Chancellor in search of growth where she will not achieve it, and would damage our environment and our communities at the same time?

• 28 Jan 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I will ask the Minister a couple of questions about clause 9 that I hope he will address when he responds. We support its intent, but I want to understand what safeguards or guidance will be put in place to ensure that children in care in areas where these regional co-operatives are active do not inadvertently end up far away from their families. We already know that about a fifth of children in care are placed over 20 miles away from their families and almost half are living outside their local authority area. In some cases, it is important that a child is moved reasonably far away for safeguarding reasons, but often that is not the case. I know from having spoken to care-experienced young people and to the Become Charity, which has done quite a lot of research into the impact of children being moved far away from home, that that can affect their mental health, that they can feel isolated and lonely having moved away from family and friends, and that it can cause stigma in the school or college environment. I want to understand how the Minister intends to ensure that young people are not moved further away than they need to be when these regional co-operatives are in place.

• 19 Dec 2024 · Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances · Hansard source

  More

  4. Whether he has made an assessment of the potential merits of putting the Drinking Water Inspectorate’s guidance on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances on a statutory footing.

• 19 Dec 2024 · Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances · Hansard source

  More

  Happy Christmas, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for her answer and for offering me a meeting on this topic earlier this week—I look forward to pursuing it with her. Given the wealth of authoritative evidence on the harmful impact on human health of PFAS in our drinking water, and that Scotland, the European Union and the United States have all put PFAS guidance on a statutory footing, why do this Government appear to have no plans to do the same for England and Wales? Will the Minister consider amending the Water (Special Measures) Bill to that end?

• 16 Dec 2024 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  As the Bill seeks to strengthen the regulation of our water companies, is this not an opportunity to finally regulate the existence of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances in our water? Those highly toxic chemicals can be linked to serious health conditions. Scotland, the European Union and United States have put guidance on a legal footing. Why is the Secretary of State not using this opportunity to regulate the presence of PFAS in our drinking water, and to protect our health and that of our children?

• 14 Nov 2024 · Aircraft Noise: Local Communities · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that there is no way that this Government can meet their net zero and climate commitments if they give the green light to a third runway at Heathrow, as has been widely reported? Indeed, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero has been on record in the past as having been very against a third runway at Heathrow. He should be fighting the corner of the environment and our planet, and the health and wellbeing of our constituents, by standing up to the Department for Transport’s giving any green light to a third runway at Heathrow.

• 5 Nov 2024 · Poly and Perfluorinated Alkyl Substances (Guidance) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Chief Inspector of Drinking Water to issue guidance to water companies on poly and perfluorinated alkyl substances in drinking water; and for connected purposes. Decreased fertility, thyroid disease, miscarriage, reduced sperm quality, cancer. What do all those conditions have in common? They have all been linked to the pervasive presence of PFAS—perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, better known as “forever chemicals”. PFAS are used to make materials heat, water, flame, or stain resistant. They are found in thousands of everyday products, from Teflon frying plans to raincoats to our toiletries. Their bond is one of the strongest in nature, able to stay intact for decades. In fact, those chemicals are so long-lasting that scientists have not yet been able reliably to identify how long it might take to break them down. Because they are so difficult to break down, once they get into our environment and our drinking water, PFAS can easily build up in our bodies. They can enter our bloodstream, and even be passed on to our children through breast milk. That has severe implications for intergenerational health. Studies have found that children exposed to PFAS build up are at increased risk of lower birth weight, weaker bones, and immune resistance to vaccinations. PFAS chemicals are forever, and they are everywhere. These chemicals are in the water we drink, the clothes we wear, the food we eat and even in the rain that falls from our skies. PFAS affect every single one of us, young and old. PFAS are all-pervasive, which makes the scale of the challenge incredibly daunting, but we must start somewhere, and that is why I am calling for the Government to start with our drinking water. Despite all the alarming health risks I have just outlined, there is currently no statutory regulation of PFAS chemicals in England and Wales and no legal limit on the amount of PFAS present in our drinking water. There is only guidance that water is “wholesome” and a limit of 0.1 micrograms for only 47 out of the thousands of existing PFAS chemicals. It is fair to say that the presence of carcinogenic, non-degradable forever chemicals makes our water far from wholesome, and instead akin to a chemical cocktail that desperately needs regulation. I should stress that these chemicals are synthetic, not natural. Before their manufacture started in the late 1940s, no PFAS were present in our environment. It is an injustice to future generations that they should have to suffer the consequences of exposure to these chemicals before they are even born. People may ask, “Are PFAS a threat to us here in the UK?” Yes, they are, and I have only to look at my constituency to see it. The River Thames is at the beating heart of our community, where kayakers, paddle boarders and swimmers enjoy the river every day, yet the busy stretch of the River Thames in Teddington in my constituency had the sixth greatest concentration of PFAS in the UK between 2019 and 2022. It was 11 times above the safe level set out by the EU, whose standards I will come to later. The Thames is a notoriously polluted river, but concerns about our local water quality increased following proposals by Thames Water to construct the Teddington direct river abstraction scheme, which would pump treated effluent into our precious waterway. It has been promised that the treated effluent would be the same quality as the river itself, yet there has been no assurance that compounds and chemicals such as PFAS would be filtered out. When it comes to raw sewage spills, the Marine Conservation Society notes that there is no legal requirement for water companies to monitor for PFAS in sewer overflows. A study conducted by the University of Portsmouth found that following sewage discharges in Langstone harbour, the amount of one particular PFAS— perfluorobutanoic acid, or PFBA—in seaweed was more than 6,000 times higher than in the surrounding water. Can we therefore rely on mere guidance to make water companies take steps to filter out these dangerous PFAS chemicals from our water? Sadly, I do not think so. Trust in water companies is at an all-time low, thanks to eye-watering bills, the billions of litres of water lost through leaks, sky-high bonuses and illegal sewage dumping. Against that backdrop, it is no surprise that people do not trust water companies to safeguard our water quality. It is my belief that these water companies will only take steps if we make them do so, with binding limits set in law. Existing guidance has failed to restrict the presence of PFAS. According to the Wildlife and Countryside Link, not a single English river is in good chemical health. Analysis by the Royal Society of Chemistry has revealed that more than a third of watercourses in England and Wales contain medium or high-risk levels of PFAS, and just more than a third also contain two highly toxic PFAS that have been banned internationally. However, official monitoring data covers only a handful of PFAS chemicals and not all rivers are tested, so actual pollution levels could be even worse. Although I welcome the new Government’s move to ban PFAS chemicals present in firefighting foams, which are a significant source of PFAS, further action is needed. The previous Government sat on their hands and ignored this emerging health threat, but as we discover more and more health risks from PFAS chemicals every day, it is clear that they must be regulated more tightly as a chemical group, not as and when the threat is slowly identified. We all deserve access to clean water that does not put our health at risk. This is not radical action, as both the EU and US have taken significant strides to tackle PFAS pollution in recognition of the multitude of health concerns linked to the chemicals. The US has introduced a limit of 4 nanograms per litre for perfluorooctane sulfonic acid, or PFOS, and perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA, while from January 2026, EU member states will have to ensure that the sum of all PFAS in drinking water does not go above a limit of 0.5 micrograms per litre. Sadly, Brexit has meant that in the three and a half years since the UK left the EU Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals regulation—the EU system of regulating chemicals—our response to the growing threat of PFAS has moved at a snail’s pace and we have fallen behind. Other than one internationally banned substance, not a single restriction on a harmful substance has been adopted since the UK left EU REACH in 2021. That is in part due to the UK no longer having access to the world’s most comprehensive chemical registration database held by the European Chemicals Agency; we must now go through duplicate processes for regulatory decision making. There is a clear need for European alignment, and I sincerely hope that the Government will keep their manifesto promise to see that through. It is also worth noting that Scotland adheres to EU guidelines, so it will be English and Welsh citizens who are left without the protections our neighbours enjoy, which is a bizarre misalignment. If we do not regulate PFAS as a chemical group, we risk equally toxic new pollutants replacing the ones we regulate. We risk becoming a dumping ground for products with banned PFAS. We risk becoming the dirty man of Europe. In 2023, the Health and Safety Executive identified PFAS chemicals as a risk for consumer exposure and recommended legislation to limit the presence of these chemicals in our drinking water. Sadly, the previous Government did nothing, but my cross-party Bill provides a golden opportunity for the new Government to act to stem the untold harm being unleashed on our land, water and people, and to answer the call of the hundreds of groups and hundreds of thousands of citizens who are demanding action. Only last month, 59 of the world’s leading scientists wrote to the Government urging them to adopt a more ambitious approach to the regulation of PFAS by regulating it as a group. Surely it is time to listen. Finally, I want to thank the organisations who have supported me with this Bill and have long championed the cause well before I became aware of it, including the Royal Society of Chemistry, UK CHEM Trust, Wildlife and Countryside Link and the Marine Conservation Society. They and many others are dedicated to ensuring that we have a country where we can safely enjoy nature and preserve people’s health for generations to come. Ultimately, this is not only about us, but about our children and our children’s children. There is no better legacy we can pass on to them than to safeguard their health as best we can. This Bill would be a significant step towards achieving that. Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That Munira Wilson, Tim Farron, Alex Sobel, James MacCleary, Alberto Costa, Edward Morello, Ellie Chowns, Sarah Olney, Ruth Cadbury, David Chadwick, Cameron Thomas and Mr Joshua Reynolds present the Bill. Munira Wilson accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 January 2025, and to be printed (Bill 120).

• 8 Oct 2024 · Climate Change: International Work · Hansard source

  More

  The Climate Change Committee has said that there should be no more than a 25% increase in airport capacity, compared with 2018 levels, if we are to achieve net zero by 2050, yet current planned and recently approved airport expansions will allow for a 50% to 70% increase in demand. Can the Secretary of State explain why Ministers in the Department for Transport are considering giving a green light to a third runway at Heathrow? How on earth will that allow the country to meet its net zero targets?