Munira Wilson MP: speeches

Speeches

• 1 Jul 2025 · Ten-year Infrastructure Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  The infrastructure plan reiterated the Government’s support for a third runway at Heathrow, a project that the Chancellor has repeatedly stated will be privately funded. However, given the vast amount of rail and road infrastructure that will be needed to support a bigger Heathrow, as well as the huge risk a private company would take on, which it would want underwritten by Government, could the Chief Secretary to the Treasury outline to the House how much taxpayer cash has been earmarked as needed to enable a bigger Heathrow?

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

  More

  It is an honour to speak in this important debate. I will address three amendments that stand in my name: amendments 88 and 89, which go together and relate to hope value, and new clause 107, which relates to the disposal of public land. Amendments 88 and 89 are linked and represent a simple yet important change to the Bill. They would extend the circumstances in which hope value may be disregarded in the event of a compulsory purchase order to include playing fields and recreational facilities. I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues warmly welcome the important changes in the Bill. Ministers have brought forward measures to reform the CPO process for the purpose of building more affordable homes, so that hope value no longer over-inflates land prices for acquiring authorities. However, I believe that a prime opportunity has been missed. As such, my amendments seek to include recreational facilities such as playing fields in these provisions when an acquiring authority—for instance, a local authority—is using a compulsory purchase order to acquire land for use as a sports or recreational facility. They would ensure that hope value would not be applied, thus making the cost more affordable and helping to boost grassroots sports provision in communities up and down the country. We in Twickenham, Teddington, the Hamptons, St Margarets and Whitton are incredibly fortunate to have a thriving grassroots sports scene, from football to cricket, rugby, hockey, tennis and much more. Girls’ and women’s football is just one example of the continued growth in grassroots sports in my constituency; my own daughter plays with the growing number of girls’ teams at Whitton Wanderers, and Twickenham Cygnets now boasts over 300 girls and has 40 women—Twickenham Swans—on its books. However, they are at the point of turning more away because they simply cannot get the pitch space to train and play matches. This problem affects many clubs across the country, and certainly right across the London borough of Richmond upon Thames. At the same time, we have the absolute scandal of Udney Park playing fields in Teddington lying derelict for more than a decade, with successive developers paying over the odds for the site, only to be rightly prevented from developing it; that precious site has numerous protections attached to it. The brilliant Udney Park Community Fields Foundation —a community group in my constituency led by Jonathan Dunn, who has been a tireless campaigner for grassroots sports—has repeatedly bid for the site to bring the playing fields back into community use. The current owner has given notice that he wants to sell the playing fields, but has not engaged with the foundation at a realistic playing fields valuation. Trying to recoup a high purchase price for this precious and well-protected site does not look feasible. Extending the Bill’s provisions to playing fields to allow hope value to be disregarded for a compulsory purchase order could allow such sites to be acquired by the local authority or another public body. Richmond council, like many other local authorities, is hardly awash with cash, but simply having that provision in law would provide leverage for community groups when they have to negotiate with developers, as we have seen in the case of Udney Park. I am certain that Udney Park is not the only example where this is happening. I was therefore extremely disappointed by the Minister’s response to these amendments in Committee, which, with all due respect, was contradictory. He rejected them on the following basis: “Affordable housing, education and health are types of public sector-led development where the public benefits facilitated through the non-payment of hope value can be directly demonstrable to local communities. The Government have concerns that the provisions would be less compelling for sporting and recreational facilities.” –– [ Official Report, Planning and Infrastructure Public Bill Committee, 20 May 2025; c. 489.] I say that sport and physical activity are critical to physical and mental health, and he said that health is an important public benefit for the purposes of disregarding hope value. Just yesterday, Ministers in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport stated that the Government “are committed to supporting the growth of grassroots sports across the UK.” The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport made a brilliant speech last night at an event attended by many Members in this place to launch the inspirational Lionesses’ campaign to defend their European crown. She was passionate about the importance of grassroots sports and extending opportunity to every community. She has announced £100 million of investment in grassroots sports facilities, which is extremely welcome. The change proposed through my amendments would help Ministers to achieve the important objective of expanding sports and recreation grounds without costing them a penny. It would not encroach on the principle that the use of CPO powers must be proportionate and justified in the public interest, given that Ministers have so strongly and correctly championed the growth of grassroots sport across the UK as being in the public interest. The amendments would apply solely to land that is already sports field or recreational land, where there is local need for that sports and recreational facility and it is at risk of loss to speculative development. It is entirely proportionate and justified in the public interest that CPO powers and the removal of hope value should apply in such circumstances, so it defies all logic that Ministers have not embraced this change and that they continue to oppose it. I look forward to hearing an explanation from the Minister. I hope he will at least commit to engaging further on this issue as the Bill moves to the other place. Perhaps he will meet me to discuss it, rather than dismissing it completely. Let me turn to new clause 107, which is also in my name. There is cross-party consensus on the dire need for more housing across our country. The Liberal Democrats have a strong commitment to delivering desperately needed social housing, so it was disappointing to see Labour Members vote against our amendment 15 last night to write a social housing target into law. One important way to secure sites for social and affordable housing is when public bodies dispose of land and buildings. In constituencies such as mine, with its royal park, a river and other important protected parks and spaces, sites are few and far between, yet week in, week out I see cases in my inbox and at my constituency surgeries of families on the social housing waiting list for years, with little hope of getting out of desperately overcrowded and unsuitable accommodation. I am incredibly proud that Liberal Democrat-run Richmond council has consistently sought to repurpose, and sell below market value, sites that it owns but no longer needs to provide for more social homes from which families in my constituency can benefit. The council has done this despite the immense pressures on local government funding, but sadly other public bodies do not feel able to do the same, whether they are national Government Departments such as the Ministry of Defence, key public services such as the Metropolitan police, or arm’s length bodies such as NHS England. They all want to achieve as high a price as they can when selling assets that they no longer need in order to be able to invest in frontline public services. That is a laudable and important aim, but it prices social housing providers, and other public service providers, out of the market, while losing assets from the public sector balance sheet at the same time. New clause 107 would fill the gaps in the existing patchwork of legislation and regulation that is somewhat piecemeal in the public bodies included and is not properly used to allow all public sector bodies to sell assets below market value for public benefit, whether that is for social housing or for much-needed community infrastructure like health facilities or a community centre. Not only would it extend that provision to all public bodies; it would go further still by imposing a duty on all public bodies to at least consider disposing of assets for public good. This wide-ranging new clause builds on my successful campaign in the last Parliament, when I worked with a succession of Conservative Housing Ministers to secure a change in the then Bill, which became the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, that included police authorities under existing provisions to sell public assets below market value for public good. My campaign was born of frustration about the fact that the disused Teddington police station lies derelict in my constituency. A local housing association and the Park Road GP surgery are desperate to obtain the site to expand and provide state-of-the-art GP facilities on the ground floor, as well as much-needed social housing on the floors above. This Government think that all members of the public are blockers, but I can tell the Minister that the Teddington community are right behind my campaign, and we will fight tooth and nail to ensure that when the Met puts the site on the market we can obtain the GP surgery and housing that our community desperately need at a reasonable price, which will almost certainly not be as high as private developers can offer. I secured the legislative basis to achieve that ambition in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, but in many other cases the provision is not there or is not used. Furthermore, the amount below market value for which some public sector bodies can dispose of their assets has not been updated since 2003. New clause 107 seeks to address that anomaly, although I note that the Conservative Government made a commitment to consulting on and reviewing the amount—something that did not happen before they left office, and something that the present Government have not implemented since they took power last year. The Chancellor herself has previously said that surplus Government land is a “huge untapped resource that could create opportunities for the next generation of homeowners.” I warmly welcomed the news in March that Network Rail would set up a property company to use surplus land for house building. There is so much more than just Network Rail land, but we need both the legislative basis for public sector disposals below market value and the incentives to achieve those sales. I do not blame the Metropolitan Police Commissioner for wanting to get top dollar for Teddington police station, especially when I read about the cuts that he is having to make to frontline policing and the intransigence of the Treasury when it comes to proper funding for the community policing that the Government have promised. I say to Ministers that this is robbing Peter to pay Paul. We need a duty on all public bodies, and financial incentives from the Treasury for them to repurpose or sell their assets for community good. We can achieve the homes and public services that our country desperately needs, not by ripping up our green belt and precious open spaces but by thinking creatively about how we repurpose existing sites, including those already owned by the taxpayer. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

• 24 Mar 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My constituency neighbour is making a strong speech. I agree with her about building homes in areas that are accessible by public transport. Does she agree that the Government should be encouraged to ensure that where the public sector is selling off land and buildings—disused police stations, fire stations or other public sector buildings—it should be allowed to sell below market value, and should be encouraged to do so to enable more affordable housing and social housing in constituencies like mine and hers, where there just is not the land to build on?

• 24 Mar 2025 · Disruption at Heathrow · Hansard source

  More

  I again urge the Secretary of State not to divorce the question of expansion from what has happened here. Surely what this incident, crippling Europe’s busiest airport, shows us is that we need a better Heathrow, not a bigger Heathrow. We need to focus on the infrastructure in and around Heathrow, to improve resilience, security and the passenger experience. While a third runway may not increase the likelihood of such an incident, the impact of such an incident will be all the greater if she continues to put all our aviation eggs in one basket.

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

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. We all know across this House that the special educational needs system is in absolute crisis across the country. Ministers have recognised the need for reform on multiple occasions. We have been assured that Ministers are working on it, and I have no doubt that they are working incredibly hard. New clause 36 provides them with a first step on that road to reform. The new clause would establish a new dedicated national body for SEND, which would act as a champion for children with complex needs. It would also ensure that standards are being met across the country and that children are receiving the tailored support they need. We know that spending on high needs has trebled since 2015, but as the schools Ministers herself has pointed out on a number of occasions, educational outcomes for SEND pupils have remained stagnant, with only 8% meeting expected standards at the end of primary school. The proposed body in the new clause would have three functions: national standards for SEND provision, ensuring consistent and equitable support for children across all the regions; supporting the delivery of SEND support for children with very high needs, providing targeted assistance to those requiring intensive support; and advising on funding for local authorities, offering guidance based on current need— [ Interruption. ]

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

  More

  I am listening carefully to the right hon. Gentleman’s excellent speech. Amendment 48 does not seek to prevent faith schools from opening. It would simply apply the cap to any type of school—academy, maintained, voluntary aided or whatever. For me, the main driver for that safeguard is social cohesion and ethnic diversity. We have talked a lot about Church schools, but there are other faiths that seek to set up schools in certain areas of the country where, without the cap in place, they would not get much racial diversity. That is worrying for community cohesion. I say that as somebody who has a strong personal faith. I send both my children to a Church of England school—mainly because it is in front of my house, so they can leave the house 30 seconds before the gate shuts—but I feel uncomfortable with its level of faith selection. As we heard in oral evidence from Nigel Genders, it is important that state-funded schools be for the whole community and be open to everyone.

• 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?

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

  More

  Q Dr Homden, you have talked about the lack of provision for children with special educational needs. What do you make of the power in the Bill for local authorities to refuse parents the right to withdraw their children from a special school to home educate if they do not feel that the special school is meeting their children’s needs? Dr Homden: That is a really complex area to consider because of the circumstances of individual children such as my own child, who was not withdrawn from school but had no available provision for two years of his school life despite being fully known and documented. I sympathise with parents who feel that the risks facing their child in a setting, as well as out of a setting, might lead them to that position. I sympathise strongly with the driver within the Bill, but much more consideration needs to be given to that question because of the lack of provision. At Coram children’s legal centre, we are constantly representing parents where there is significant failure to fulfil the education, health and care plan, which is a child’s right and entitlement.

• 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.

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

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for giving way on that point and for securing this incredibly important debate. Like her constituents, the residents of Twickenham, Teddington, Whitton and the Hamptons are very concerned about the impact of aircraft noise above them. Does she agree that, given that the Civil Aviation Authority itself has acknowledged evidence that long-term aircraft noise has a harmful effect on children’s memory, sustained attention, reading comprehension and reading ability, for the sake of their health we need strict restrictions on night flights across our constituencies and all of west London? Frankly, at the moment these massive jet engines are flouting the rules overnight on a regular basis.

• 24 Oct 2024 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Right hon. and hon. Members across the House agree that it is right that the House consider the issue of assisted dying. However, many of us are deeply torn on the issue and want to look in depth at the practical, moral, ethical and legal considerations. We do not feel that a private Member’s Bill with only five hours of debate before we have to vote on Second Reading is the right vehicle. The Prime Minister committed to Government time on the issue, so I urge the Leader of the House to introduce legislation in due course, in Government time and with proper pre-legislative scrutiny and impact analysis, so that if we are to take such a grave decision, we will have all the resources for doing so at our disposal.

• 16 Oct 2024 · Access to Primary Healthcare · Hansard source

  More

  As well as needing more GPs, our GPs need decent premises from which to deliver high-quality care to patients. Park Road surgery in my constituency has been looking for new premises for more than a decade—it serves 13,000 patients out of an old Victorian house—but there simply is not the budget, and the processes are too complex. Will the Minister commit to both looking at the bureaucracy and pressing the Chancellor for more capital investment in primary care?

• 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?

• 5 Sept 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  One Air is a small and growing cargo airline based in my constituency, which is having to deal with huge amounts of additional red tape and costs as a result of the Brexit deal and the end of reciprocal arrangements with the EU. Can the Secretary of State give an assurance that, when Ministers negotiate mutual recognition of professional qualifications, the aviation sector will be included?

• 5 Sept 2024 · SEND Provision · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for her intervention and I agree that, where possible, we need to be as inclusive as possible. Equally, there are children whose needs cannot be met in a mainstream setting and we need to have special provision for them—I will touch on that in a moment. The funding for special needs has fallen so far short of what is needed that local authorities across the country now have a cumulative high needs deficit of approximately £3.15 billion. Many local authorities’ financial viability is being put at risk by these growing deficits. Although the safety valve programme that my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) mentioned, of which my own borough of Richmond upon Thames was an early member, has provided some relief, it is a sticking-plaster solution, kicking the can down the road. Once the agreements run out, those local authorities are projected to start racking up big deficits again. As well as the cost of providing the support to which children are legally and morally entitled, councils are also seeing their SEND transport bills skyrocket. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) pointed out in the case from her constituency, we know that the number of children having to make long journeys has increased by almost a quarter over the past five years. Vulnerable children are having to travel ever further distances because specialist provision is not available locally for many. Two thirds of all special schools are full or over capacity. The last Government was incredibly slow in building the special schools that they promised, and they turned down many applications from councils to build and open their own SEND schools to make that provision available. Councils face a double whammy: not only are they paying transportation costs, but they are having to buy in private provision. Many independent SEND schools are brilliant not-for-profit charities, but there is also obscene profiteering from some special schools run by private equity firms, which are bleeding councils up and down the country dry. I hope the Labour Government will look at that because my calls to the Conservative Government fell on deaf ears. I want to pick up a point made by the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) about the many families whose children are not eligible for EHCPs or who cannot face the gauntlet of trying to secure one. They turn to mainstream, small independent schools to better support their child because larger mainstream schools cannot support that need, but those families will be penalised by the new Government’s plan to slap VAT on independent school fees from January. Those who will not be able to afford the additional cost will turn to the state sector, putting more pressure on, as we have heard, a system in crisis. Furthermore, the proposal to have a VAT exemption for those with EHCPs will incentivise even more parents to apply through the system. I have heard from a constituent just this week who will probably have to do that, which will put yet more pressure on a system that cannot cope with more. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about the 100,000 children who have SEND and are in the independent sector. All of us recognise that SEND provision is an enormous challenge that will not be resolved overnight despite what the Secretary of State hopes to be able to do. I stand ready to support her in any way I can to make sure that we tackle the issue. The recent Liberal Democrat manifesto set out several ideas that I hope the Minister will look at. First we propose that a new national body be established for SEND that would be responsible for funding the support of children with very high needs. The national body for SEND would pay for any costs above £25,000 for children with high needs. It would reduce risk for local authorities and help to tackle the postcode lottery that we have heard about.

• 26 Jul 2024 · Pharmacy Provision: Hampton · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I congratulate him on his excellent maiden speech. I completely agree with him. We want doctors to use community pharmacy more to alleviate the pressure on other parts of the health service, but frankly, if the pharmacies are not there, the remaining ones will be overwhelmed. I talked to local GPs in the Hampton area following these closures, and they were desperate to see more provision. They thought about trying to set up their own community pharmacy provision, but they just could not make the numbers add up because of the funding shortfall. The Company Chemists’ Association estimates an average funding shortfall of £67,000 per pharmacy. That is based on an analysis of data published by the Department of Health and Social Care in a written parliamentary answer at the beginning of last year. Many pharmacists are left out of pocket, as they are reimbursed less for a number of medications than the price they pay, and there are stories of some using credit cards and overdrafts to purchase medication. These funding pressures are coupled with major workforce challenges. When I met Boots following the news that it is closing two branches in Hampton, it cited a lack of pharmacists as a major reason for closing some 300 pharmacies across the UK, although commercial pressures were clearly the main driver. Layered on top of these issues are regular medicine supply shortages, which add more work and create more stress for already overstretched pharmacists. Community Pharmacy England reported last year that 92% of pharmacies were having to manage supply issues daily. It is a perfect storm for community pharmacy at a time when we need preventive healthcare and self-care more than ever. The potential of community pharmacies to improve patient health and reduce the pressure on NHS hospitals and GPs is immense, yet they are closing in their hundreds every year. We should be relying on pharmacies even more to keep the nation healthy. The previous Conservative Government’s announcement of the Pharmacy First initiative was very welcome in its ambition, but if pharmacies are not even funded for the basics right now, with big gaps in provision opening up all over the country, it is hard to see how Pharmacy First’s ambitions will be achieved. The Liberal Democrats would like to see the Government building on the Pharmacy First principle and giving pharmacists more prescribing rights and public health responsibilities. As in so many areas of public health, the “invest to save” argument is compelling, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments on what the new Labour Government will do on funding to enable community pharmacy to not just survive, but thrive and grow as an essential part of our primary care infrastructure. Having addressed the causes of these closures, I will spend some time exploring the processes involved in local communities being informed of pharmacy closures, and their input, or lack thereof, in them, as well as discussing the complete lack of transparency or accountability in relation to applications for new pharmacy licences. For starters, only those organisations designated as “interested parties” in the regulations are informed of new applications, and only their feedback has to be taken into account. Anyone else who is interested, such as me as a local MP, needs to make a freedom of information request, unless someone in the local health community passes on the information. My views, and the views of other people in the community, can be ignored. To describe the bureaucratic process that sits around new applications as byzantine would be generous. I hope the Minister, Madam Deputy Speaker and other hon. Members will bear with me while I try to explain what happened in Hampton. We are part of the South West London Integrated Care Board, but NHS England has delegated the pharmacy market entry function for the whole of London to the North East London ICB, which is on completely the opposite side of the city. Officials have no local knowledge of our area, no understanding of local transport links and no relationships with the local health system. Let me start with the closures. The Minister will be aware of the statutory three-month notice period for pharmacy closures; last August, Boots would have had to give NHS England three months’ notice of its intentions in Hampton. That information was not passed by NHSE to the Richmond health and wellbeing board. I find that utterly staggering. The first that local councillors, the local health community in the area and I as the MP knew about the planned closures was when Boots placed signs in its windows to inform customers, and concerned constituents started to contact me about the likely impact of the closures. At the end of August 2023, while this was going on and we were all in the dark, the local health and wellbeing board published a pharmaceutical needs assessment, but it was inaccurate and failed to identify an imminent future gap in need in the Hampton North area because it had not been notified of the closures. The Tangley Park Boots subsequently closed in late October. The Priory Road Boots, which was directly opposite a busy GP surgery, closed in early November. In November, an application was received for a new independent pharmacy licence on the Tangley Park Boots site. Once again, the local health and wellbeing board was not notified of the application—this time, for two whole months. During this period of complete silence, the health and wellbeing board issued a supplementary statement to the local pharmaceutical needs assessment, which identified the gap in Hampton. However, because the application for a new pharmacy was made in November, and it referred to the original needs assessment that was made before the supplementary statement was published, it was rejected, even though the application itself identified the gap, which was officially made clear in the supplementary statement subsequently published in December. Not only that, but it took the North East London ICB a full eight months to issue the rejection; tht happened earlier this month, even though the decision used evidence received in December to justify the rejection. Madam Deputy Speaker, if you and other hon. Members are still managing to follow this sorry story, I hope you will agree that this decision is utterly perverse. It is also utterly unreasonable that timely applications to open pharmacies in response to multiple closures should be inherently prevented in this way. The delays in sharing information with the local health and wellbeing board and the delays in decision making are unforgivable. During the lengthy delay, the local authority received a planning application to change the Tangley Park pharmacy site into a fast food outlet. Thankfully, that was rejected earlier this month after representations from the public health team and councillors, but I am sure the public health Minister will agree that it would be unfortunate, to put it mildly, if a pharmacy were replaced with a fast food outlet. One local official told me yesterday that the systems architecture is too complicated, and that there is a need for clearer responsibilities and accountability. Amen to that, I say. Healthwatch Richmond has demanded answers from the North East London ICB, but it has received a frankly woeful response that does not address the substantive question of why the application was so badly handled. The response passes the buck and blames regulations. To be clear, Healthwatch and I are not qualified to comment on the merits of an application; what we are doing is challenging the unfathomable process. I say to the Minister that the huge funding challenges facing community pharmacy are pressing. I appreciate that they may be extremely difficult for him to address, given that the Chancellor has an iron fist as far as any additional public spending is concerned, but the Minister must wage a campaign to improve the funding situation. It makes financial sense. We will not grow the economy without improving the nation’s health. In that campaign, he will have cross-party support from Members on the Opposition Benches. Revisiting the regulations and how NHS England is implementing them will cost next to nothing. There should be proper consultation with and involvement from the local community on closure notices, and changes in the process for new licences could ensure that we can quickly plug pharmacy gaps when they open up in areas such as Hampton. Crucially, those powers need to be delegated to the local ICB, with full involvement from the local health and wellbeing board. They know their communities and their geography best—trust them. Finally, if the Minister could step in on the specific issues in my constituency—the application that has been rejected and is going NHS Resolution on appeal—simply to ensure a common-sense approach, the residents of Hampton North and I would be very grateful. We desperately need a new pharmacy for our community. I look forward to his response.

• 26 Jul 2024 · Pharmacy Provision: Hampton · Hansard source

  More

  May I start by congratulating you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on your election? It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair. I also congratulate the Minister on his appointment. We have worked closely together in recent years in the all-party parliamentary group on kinship care, so I have no doubt that he will do an excellent job. I suspect that young Lyle is very proud of his granddad right now. I am delighted to have secured this Adjournment debate. You might be surprised to learn, Madam Deputy Speaker, that this is the first I have managed to secure since my election in 2019, so I want to use this exciting opportunity to bring to the Minister’s attention the impact of pharmacy closures on the local community in the Hampton area of my constituency, as well as the immense financial challenges facing community pharmacy right across England. I will also raise concerns about the impenetrable bureaucratic processes, which need overhauling, in new pharmacy licence applications and pharmacy closures. Let me set the scene. Last autumn, two Boots pharmacies in the Hampton area were closed. One of those pharmacies was in the Hampton North ward, one of three wards of relative deprivation in the London borough of Richmond upon Thames. The west of the ward is within the 20% most deprived areas of the country; it is densely populated with a significant amount of social housing. As a result of that closure in Tangley Park, the entire ward is now without a community pharmacy. Hampton North is poorly served by public transport: there is no station, and the two bus routes serving the area are notoriously unreliable. The nearest pharmacy is now a mile away on foot, a distance that is difficult to cover for the elderly and those with mobility issues. It is certainly more than a 20-minute walk away, which is the measure that previous Ministers liked to use to highlight pharmacy accessibility. Predictably, those closures have put a lot of pressure on the nearest remaining pharmacies, which face queues and stock issues. Again, that is not exactly convenient or practical for elderly and vulnerable patients. At this point, I pay tribute to Mike Derry and Healthwatch Richmond for their brilliant work championing local patients and giving them a voice. Healthwatch undertook a survey of some 700 residents in the Hampton area at the start of the year to demonstrate the impact of the closures. One person said: “I have gone without medication as I can’t stand very long. There are queues—I have waited over half an hour.” Healthwatch England highlighted the plight of 87-year-old Gill. She used to just about be able to get across the road from her house to the Tangley Park pharmacy. Now the nearest pharmacy is over a mile away, and Gill, who does not drive, cannot access that service because of the distance that she would have to walk to get there. She even paid the nearest pharmacy to deliver her medicines to her home each month, but in the eight months since she purchased the delivery service, it has shown up only twice. Her carer has to travel to collect the medication in person for her. Hampton is not unusual in losing pharmacy provision. I am sure that the Minister is aware of the crisis facing the community pharmacy sector. Data from the Community Chemists’ Association shows that there has been a net loss of over 1,200 pharmacies—1402 closures and only 179 openings—since 2015. More than a third of those losses have been in the most deprived areas of the country. The National Pharmacy Association reports that the number of pharmacies that have closed so far this calendar year—the equivalent of 10 pharmacies a week—is nearly 50% higher compared with the same point in 2023. As well as independent pharmacies, big chains such as Lloyds Pharmacy and Boots have significantly accelerated closure numbers over the past 18 months. A big driver of these closures is a significant real-terms reduction in funding for pharmacy; that funding has dropped by around 30% since 2015.

• 26 Jul 2024 · Pharmacy Provision: Hampton · Hansard source

  More

  On the point about the 20-minute walk and the four in five statistic, does the Minister recognise that a 20-minute walk for me or him is actually much longer for an elderly person or somebody with multiple health conditions or mobility issues? We have to work out what measure we are using. Yes, the Twickenham constituency may have many pharmacies, but we must look at that highly localised level. That is why we need the local authority and local health boards to be involved, because actually in Hampton, as a community, the transport links are terrible.