Heathrow Airport Expansion

Munira Wilson Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the chair today, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) for securing this important debate and for so clearly laying out the case against Heathrow expansion. I begin by declaring my interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on airport communities.

Hon. Members who support a third runway would likely say it is appalling that we have been debating this issue for 20 years, or 40 years in the case of the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who started his campaign as I turned five. Those Members are right; it is appalling that we have been discussing it for so many years. Every time a new Government raise the prospect of a third runway, communities in west and south-west London feel this is an albatross around their necks that they cannot get rid of.

It is time to put this issue to bed once and for all. The evidence is clearer than ever that Heathrow expansion is a white elephant that would have devastating consequences for our environment, as well as our local communities. The economic case simply does not stand up. I apologise to right hon. and hon. Members for repetition in my speech of what has already been said, but it is important that the Minister hears, across parties and across London, the strength of feeling against this project.

When I last spoke on this issue in the Chamber, I pointed out that the Government had provided little evidence to support their claims of the benefits of a third runway. Since then, the Government have published the Heathrow expansion national policy statement—HENPS as we like to call it. Rather than provide evidence, if anything it has made even clearer that the case for expansion is simply not credible.

In the space of 21 months, since the former Chancellor announced Government support for expansion, the promise of GDP growth has been downgraded from 0.43% to just 0.05% by 2056. That is a decrease of 90% since an announcement was made in a speech about growth—just to send a signal to the City, as the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington laid out so clearly.

The same can be said about jobs. The former Chancellor promised 100,000 jobs, but 61,000 are promised in the HENPS, and the Department for Transport explicitly acknowledges that this is likely to mean the redistribution of labour, not new jobs. That is supported by research conducted by the New Economics Foundation, which suggests that two thirds of jobs will be displaced from other parts of the UK.

As our new Prime Minister said, Heathrow expansion traps investment in London and the south-east, and the regions of the UK will suffer for it. Given the Prime Minister’s commitment to growth in every postcode, perhaps the Government should bring forward a national aviation strategy, rather than continuing to pursue Heathrow, to allow aviation policy with that regional growth mission.

I and many others have warned since the beginning that the affordability of the scheme is questionable at best. A third runway is a huge infrastructure investment that would require the relocation of London’s busiest motorway, the M25, with all the ensuing congestion, chaos and pollution. Will the Minister tell us in his closing remarks what work his Department is doing with National Highways to assess those impacts? With a price tag of £49 billion and rising, it is our duty as Members of Parliament to raise questions about where that money will come from, especially as the figure does not include surface access improvements, particularly for public transport.

I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Forster) that I strongly support the southern rail link, and the case has already been made to build and invest in it. As he said, his constituents cannot get to the airport from Woking. Believe it or not, I am only a few miles from it in Whitton, near Twickenham, and there is not a direct link for me and my constituents to get there either, so there is already a case for public transport investment. However, there is no mention of that in the HENPS and no costing for it, so I hope the Minister will elaborate on the Government’s expectations for surface access improvements and how they will be funded. As the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) said, no one wants to see another HS2, with spiralling costs and delays.

That is why last week it was so galling, after months of questioning Ministers and being told that they had full confidence in the expansion being solely privately funded, to see reports in the press that the Government were hiring bankers to advise on:

“The financeability and financial deliverability of Heathrow expansion”.

Minister, why are the Government doing this and why now? Given that they have commissioned these bankers to make the assessments, how exposed is the public purse? It is grossly irresponsible.

After the summer we have just had, it is clearer than ever that climate change is having a serious impact on the quality of life in this country—on our health, economy and public services. At the same time, the Government propose to expand the single largest polluter in the UK, to the tune of carbon emissions equal to the entirety of Birmingham. The Climate Change Committee made that clear in its advice to the Government, arguing that expansion is incompatible with our climate commitments. That same morning, the Minister for Local Energy and Jobs said on the radio that it was only advice and could be ignored. I hope the Minister will say whether he accepts the Climate Change Committee’s expert advice and what the Government actually intend to do with it.

This is an opportunity to press pause, look again at all the evidence and listen to the voice of local communities. Indeed, the Prime Minister has said that this should be a decision for Londoners. Londoners will suffer most in terms of the health and noise impacts. Expansion could mean that up to 3.4 million people will be exposed to harmful levels of aircraft noise, but, as others have said, we cannot even be sure who, as airspace modernisation is happening at the same time, which makes it impossible to consider the scale of the impact properly.

More evidence continues to come out. The aviation night noise effects and aviation noise attitude survey studies done by Professor Charlotte Clark on behalf of the Department for Transport have stated clearly that the harmful impacts of noise occur at a lower level than previously understood. That is not something, as proponents of Heathrow expansion like to say, that one can get used to. Furthermore, expansion means that 10,000 extra tonnes of nitrogen dioxide will be produced a year. the HENPS simply does not have adequate protection for that, and it is deathly silent on the issue of ultrafine particles that the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington spoke so knowledgably about.

It is crucial that any decision on a third runway is undertaken with evidence leading the way. I welcome the Prime Minister’s recent comments, and I hope he is not equivocating without thinking. I look forward to receiving a reply to my letter to him about the issue, which I sent on the day that he became Labour leader back in July. The evidence is clear. Millions of Londoners are clear. We do not want a third runway at Heathrow. While the Conservatives have made clear that they are very happy to ignore the evidence and the voice of local communities and railroad this scheme through, come what may, I hope that the Prime Minister will instead stand by his convictions, as he has promised to do time and again, and take a third runway off the table once and for all, for the sake of taxpayers, our planet and our local communities, whose health and wellbeing risk being blighted by this project.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

I will now call the Front-Bench spokesman for each party. I suggest that the Liberal Democrats and the Opposition speak for eight or nine minutes and the Minister speaks for 10 minutes or so, and then there will be time for Fleur Anderson to speak for a few minutes at the end, and for me to put the question.

Inner-London Local Authorities: Funding

Munira Wilson Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Alison McGovern]

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. Our challenge is to understand how we can best use our resources to support all our children. We could try to increase funding again and again, without any changes to the system, but we would not necessarily get better outcomes, and costs would keep going up, not least because councils have issues with how they are able to provide some of the support that children need. We need to get to a more stable financial position and take responsibility in this place to change the policy failures that caused the cost spikes that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

Compared with 2024-25, by 2028-29 London will see an increase in core spending power of more than £3 billion. The vast majority of councils in London will see a real-terms increase between 2024-25 and 2028-29 and a fairer system that addresses issues that matter in London—and across England—including recognising the additional strain that commuters and tourists can place on service provision, taking into account need in specific high-demand service areas such as temporary accommodation and crucially, using the most up-to-date data, including the 2025 indices of multiple deprivation. That has been the subject of some feedback to the Department. It is a statement of the obvious that we would use the most up-to-date data, and it so happens that that data can better account for the impact of housing costs on poverty. That was always the intention, and we would always have done that, whatever noise I have picked up on this topic.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

rose—

[Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)]

I will allow Munira Wilson to intervene—at a stretch, because she arrived late to the debate.

[Munira Wilson]

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.

[Alison McGovern]

The reason for my perplexed state is that during the period of consultation with Members of this House, I met 140 Members of Parliament on the settlement. I am sorry if the hon. Member has had the message that I will not meet her, because my office door has literally been open to Members over the recent period. We can discuss this at any point. The fact is that the London borough of Richmond is in the least deprived decile. While she rightly stands up for her borough, when I look at some parts of the country that have been forgotten for far too long, I feel that it is right that we have taken the decision through the settlement to reconnect funding with deprivation. But I can discuss that with her in detail in the future.

I want to make some points about cost. Local governments are still under pressure, and despite the increase of nearly 25% that I mentioned, that pressure will remain because of the costs that they are facing. That is why we are taking action now to support local authorities as we move towards a reformed special educational needs and disabilities system. The first phase of support will address historic deficits accrued, as was mentioned by the shadow Minister. All local authorities will receive a grant covering 90% of their high needs dedicated schools grant deficit, subject to the approval of a local change plan.

We are also fixing social care services, on which many people, including in London, rely. We are changing children’s social care in a generation by rolling out the Families First Partnership programme, backed by more than £2.4 billion of investment across this multi-year settlement. We are providing about £4.6 billion of additional funding, available for adult social care, by 2028-29, compared with ’25-26. When it comes to children’s care, the issue is not only that the costs are unsustainable, but that we are failing in our duty to so many children, and that is why we must change.

It is important to recognise that some places, including some inner-London boroughs, benefited disproportionately from the old system. However, we are supporting those places to plan for changes with transitional arrangements, including by protecting their income and providing additional flexibilities. For London, we are providing more than £550 million for income protection over the multi-year settlement.

Commonhold and Leasehold Reform

Munira Wilson Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend that the draft Bill will be life-changing for leaseholders across the country, freeing them from the unjust and discriminatory practices that so many of them face, and from the financial cost of high ground rent terms. I am more than happy to write to her on the specific issue she raises. It is these nuanced points that we want to work through, and that is why we have brought forward a draft Bill for enhanced scrutiny.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

I welcome many of the Government’s announcements today. Across Twickenham, I hear regularly from leaseholders who suffer when service charges are jacked up without any notice or transparency, often for spurious maintenance issues. I note that the Minister has said that he does not want to cap service charges and that help will be on the way at some point, but he has refused to put a timeline on that. Why does he not use this Bill as a golden opportunity to bring forward Lord Best’s recommendations on having a property regulator that can look at this area in a nuanced and sensible way?

[Matthew Pennycook]

We have given serious consideration to how we will take forward Lord Best’s recommendations from his 2019 report and, as I have made clear, we are taking some of them forward already. This Bill introduces reform in a number of specific areas and, as I have said in response to previous questions, it does not need to do everything. There are other pieces of legislation, not least the 2024 Act, that do lots of the work that hon. Members are calling for, but we want to ensure that the whole agenda is a comprehensive one that benefits leaseholders in the way that the hon. Lady and I both want.

Oral Answers to Questions

Munira Wilson Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

While I appreciate my hon. Friend’s concern, we have strengthened policies in the draft national planning policy framework, which is currently out for consultation, that will ensure that major residential schemes are built out in reasonable time. I am more than happy to have a conversation with her about how that may impact developments in her constituency.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

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?

[The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)]

I have heard what the hon. Member has said, and will take it as a contribution to the consultation that we are having. She mentions the needs of children; she will have heard me say to colleagues that we have to change the way that we work on this issue. I will happily work with her to ensure that we cut the costs and get better outcomes for our kids.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Munira Wilson Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Tuesday 25th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

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.

[Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)]

I would like to speak to new clause 34, tabled by the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford), who rightly raises the issue of councillor standards and whose new clause calls for regulations to establish a recall process for councillors who breach their codes of conduct. Although a poignant point, having served as a town councillor and deputy mayor myself before being elected to this House, I believe that we must go further.

I strongly support this Bill’s aim to standardise the structure of local government. In particular, I welcome the reform of our local audit system, as outlined in the provisions. I also commend the Government’s recent announcement regarding new powers to suspend councillors for up to six months for serious misconduct and the introduction of a mandatory code of conduct across all types of local authority in England. These are essential first steps that I wholeheartedly welcome and know from my experience are much needed.

However, I urge us to go further by introducing a dedicated local council standards Bill that addresses the full breadth of the accountability challenges that residents face with town and parish councils—known as very local councils. The Localism Act 2011 created a legislative vacuum by abolishing the standards boards for England and repealing powers to suspend councillors who breach standards. As very local councils are to play an increasingly larger role in the devolution of local services, it is essential that councils are held to the same high standards and that this critical issue receives the detailed parliamentary scrutiny it deserves.

As one of my constituents and a former parish councillor put it, councillors have “little incentive” and “no mandatory training requirements”. Having witnessed at first hand these challenges in local and very local councils, I believe that we must robustly tackle those who bring the reputations of councils into disrepute, undermining the already fragile trust in local politics and doing a profound disservice to the overwhelming majority of councillors who serve their communities with integrity and dedication.

The ongoing recruitment crisis for both town and parish clerks and potential councillors is directly linked to the lack of effective recourse against unacceptable behaviour. There are councils that have gained a local, in some cases national, reputation for dysfunction. The result is that some councils are resorting to offering wildly increased salaries, representing what amounts to danger money for staff for having to deal with toxic behaviours. Experienced, qualified clerks who serve as impartial legal advisers tasked with ensuring that councils operate lawfully are subjected to behaviour that would not be tolerated in any professional environment. The loss of those valuable professionals weakens governance and standards across the entire sector.

To that end, I propose that we should create a dedicated local standards Bill that establishes a comprehensive framework for local council accountability. It should include professional regulation for councillors, with robust oversight mechanisms beyond the mandatory code of conduct. It should establish a properly funded model for monitoring officers through professional regulation fees paid by councils, similar to the current mandatory external audit fees, ensuring that those vital guardians of standards have the capacity to perform their function effectively and consistently across all local authorities.

A compliance scoring system would provide the public with transparent indicators about whether their elected representatives are undertaking best practice and demonstrating financial competence with taxpayers’ money. National internal audit parameters, building on the audit reforms outlined in the Bill, would ensure transparency and consistency of Government standards across all very local councils, regardless of their size or location.

Additionally, the annual governance and accountability statement should include a proper officer declaration confirming where councils have chosen to ignore or disregard professional legal advice, particularly where that represents a breach of their legal obligations. Such accountability made visible and measurable would help to restore public confidence in local governance.

Although the announced reforms begin to address that issue, the complexity and importance of comprehensively rebuilding the standards infrastructure merits dedicated legislation. We cannot allow the minority who tarnish the sector’s reputation to continue creating disparities in community benefit or to drive experienced professionals from their roles.

I emphasise that many local councils across the country and in North Somerset are governed extremely well and genuinely enrich their communities, but as we move forward with devolution we must ensure that town and parish councils are functioning effectively, operating in line with legislation, delivering value for money for their residents and taking heed of legal advice given to them by their proper officers.

We have the opportunity to rebuild trust in local and very local politics, ensuring impeccable standards and levels of accountability. I would welcome the opportunity to work with the Government on developing such legislation so that the standards in our very local councils mean a better deal for residents.

Oral Answers to Questions

Munira Wilson Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern]

The homelessness strategy will be published soon, so the hon. Lady does not have long to wait. She characterises the situation well. We can fund sticking plasters and we can fund help, but in the end we have to get to the heart of the matter: No. 1—build homes; No. 2—make sure that families have enough money coming in to pay the rent. That will be at the heart of our strategy.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

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?

[Alison McGovern]

I refer the hon. Lady, who asks a very reasonable question, to the response I gave some moments ago. Collectively, we must leave no stone unturned when it comes to available land for housing, particularly in the capital, where we desperately need more social and affordable homes.

House Building: London

Munira Wilson Excerpts

Wednesday 5th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dame Meg Hillier]

That is a fair challenge, and I am sure that the Minister will pick that up. It is important that we all know where the goal posts are.

I would like to ask the Minister about the release of public land. This is something that I have looked at over the years. Whether it is the Ministry of Defence, Transport for London or the Department of Health and Social Care, the Treasury has, over many Governments, insisted that that money goes back to the Department. On one level, that is completely logical, but looking at hospitals or schools, if that land could be used for housing, it would help teachers, nurses or doctors to live locally.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

I have long campaigned on that issue. I have a disused police station in my constituency, in Teddington, and we want to turn it into a GP surgery and social housing. I tabled an amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill to ensure that public sector sites are redeveloped for public good. Unfortunately, I have had no response from the Minister. Does the hon. Lady agree that that would be a good amendment to make?

[Dame Meg Hillier]

I hear what the hon. Lady says, but I also recognise that there are financial challenges with the Treasury signing a fairly blank cheque to say that all public land could become housing. We need to be creative about this, and that is where we need a mixture of local knowledge and some flexibility from the Treasury. For example, the change of use of school sites was quite gummed up in the Department for Education under the previous Government. We need to make sure that any change of use can be dealt with relatively quickly. It will be better for health and education outcomes if we use that land for other things.

We need a national mission on housing, and I applaud the Minister for leading on that. Does he have any plans to limit further overseas purchasers buying these properties? It is great for developers, because they get that cash in, but we need to prioritise local people, and tax does not seem to be doing it. Does he have any thoughts about restricting Airbnb? I know well the blocks that my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury was talking about, because during covid, people paid rent to go to those places to isolate, but they were not proper homes. That is having a devastating effect on school numbers across London. Could the Minister look at the costs of building? The long-term costs of not doing it will be enormous, and we need to support those families who desperately need social rented housing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

Thank you, Mr Mundell. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship. I thank the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) for securing this debate. It is extremely timely, because it is less than a fortnight since I was last in this Chamber debating housing policy—it seems that I am the Liberal Democrats’ housing spokesperson for London. Contrary to what some in the Government seem to think, there is no inherent tension between the three most important tasks facing us: to build safe homes, to build green homes and to build affordable homes. The limitations or structural problems with the market are self-imposed by our lack of ambition and our worrying proclivity to shun innovation.

During the debate two weeks ago, the Housing Secretary and the Mayor of London were announcing the raft of measures that triggered this subsequent debate. The measures were announced not at the Dispatch Box, or even in this Chamber in front of what would have been a captive audience, but to the press, giving us no opportunity to scrutinise them and rendering that Westminster Hall debate moot. I invite the Minister to confirm that no subsequent major changes with such a profound impact on the local authorities that everyone in this room works with on a daily basis and on our constituents will be made outside of this place.

Frankly, those measures are not small fry; they hand developers a get-out while Londoners on waiting lists across our city continue to suffer, and they are a threat to the financial stability and forward-planning ability of local authorities across London. The Liberal Democrats are clear: the plans will not solve the housing crisis in London, but make things worse.

[Munira Wilson]

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.

[Luke Taylor]

I thank my hon. Friend for providing that example of the impact on a specific project, which shows how difficult this will be for our councils.

The announced measures will quietly reduce the requirement for affordable homes from 35% to 20%, forcibly slash the community infrastructure levy money, and barely scratch the surface of the bigger and more profound structural barriers to getting green, affordable and safe housing built. The Government have triggered great uncertainty and more financial instability for local authorities while achieving very little in the shake-up, seemingly because they think that big, decisive action with very little prep work and no consultation is the way to get things done. The Housing Secretary is clearly taking more than just headwear inspiration from a certain world leader—which would make sense if it were not his own zone that he is flooding with a substance that the courtesies of this House do not allow me to name.

In all seriousness, the housing crisis in London deserves more than a knee-jerk reaction. There are 330,000 households stuck on social housing waiting lists—more than the total number of households in our two largest boroughs, Barnet and Croydon, combined. As we have heard, London boroughs are spending £5 million a day on temporary accommodation, although I have heard that figure for about a year, so it must be considerably more by now. According to London Councils, there is a £700 million shortfall in the housing revenue accounts that fund new house building.

The proposed measures will simply make that worse, for two main reasons. First, the Government will facilitate the right kind of house building not by dropping the regulations that developers face, but by amending them and fixing the structural issues within the Building Safety Regulator. Secondly, the measures actively—and inexcusably—disrupt the already stretched financial picture for local authorities. I will take them in turn.

First, granting the right to reduce the level of affordable housing per project fails to recognise that the proliferation of a particular kind of luxury, unaffordable housing in London means that it is unlikely that new building accelerated under the scheme will ease upward pressures on house prices in the capital. Giving the mayor new powers to call in decisions and accelerate them almost on a whim does nothing to address the concerns that local authorities and local residents will have about their ability to object to new housing that will not contribute to solving the crisis. The measures seem to be imposed in an imagined battle against the nimbys, when most in London have lived experience of housing instability—either their own or that of younger family members, co-workers or friends—and, as such, are in favour of the kind of house building that actually addresses the crisis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I recognise my right hon. Friend’s point. I cannot comment on specific applications, but it is important that I emphasise that applicants will be expected in the first instance to seek grant to maintain or increase the level of affordable housing in existing section 106 agreements. Only where that has been fully explored with the GLA, and has been demonstrated not to be possible, can schemes be renegotiated via a deed of variation with the aim of delivering at least the relevant level of affordable housing established in the new planning route, and on the same terms.

We are providing the mayor with new planning powers that expand his ability to intervene directly in applications of potential strategic importance in order to support housing delivery and maximise densities. Those powers are set out the policy statement that we published on 23 October. In response to the concerns raised around those specific powers, I think Londoners would expect, with the scale and severity of the housing crisis we have in our capital, the mayor to do everything he possibly can to ensure homes are not being ruled out without good reason on sites, and to ensure that sites are coming forward with appropriate density.

[Munira Wilson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will give way briefly, but it will be the final intervention that I accept.

[Munira Wilson]

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.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am not going to comment on the use of the mayor’s planning powers in specific instances. We think these additional expanded powers are a sensible response to the crisis in house building that London faces.

Finally, we are providing £322 million of funding to establish a City Hall developer investment fund. Building on the success of the mayor’s land fund, which has already delivered 8,000 homes five years ahead of schedule, this new fund will allow the mayor to take a direct, interventionist role in unlocking thousands of homes, driving regeneration and creating thriving communities.

It is also worth noting that alongside the implementation of this package of support, the Government intend to clarify the use of section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 so that an application under the section to vary a condition of a planning permission should no longer be used as an alternative means of reconsidering fundamental questions of scheme viability or planning obligations.

In the time available to me I am not going to be able to respond to all the points that have been raised. There have been a number of very good points. I could speak, for example, about what more can be done on TfL land. I think it is worth noting that Places for London is on site, constructing nearly 5,000 homes, 56% of which are affordable. It has already delivered 1,600, but there is definitely more we can do on TfL land around train stations. There is more that the Government are doing on the release of public sector land. I am happy to write to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) about that in particular. I can assure hon. Members that our new social and affordable housing fund will leave a role for acquisitions to be funded.

We know that there is no single simple solution to the development crisis that London is facing. Action to address the acute viability challenges facing residential development in the capital is a necessary intervention, but it is not sufficient. We know that a revival of house building in the capital is dependent on other factors, including increased demand for private for-sale homes, but taken alongside the reforms we are making to the Building Safety Regulator and the significant grant funding we are allocating to London for land, infrastructure and affordable housing, this time-limited package will give house building in London a shot in the arm, and the Government look forward to working with the mayor and the GLA to implement the package and kick-start house building in our capital.

Pride in Place

Munira Wilson Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

My hon. Friend is completely right, and she put it incredibly eloquently. We can change the country by bringing our communities together and giving them the tools and agency to change their place so they have pride. Labour Members are on the side of unity, and of bringing communities together to drive renewal. I note that there are no Reform MPs here, but they are on the side of dividing, and of simple slogans and simple answers that—to be candid—will not change the lives of people in our communities.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

The Minister said in her statement:

“Our job is to give our constituents the investment and powers that they need”.

Of course, we all agree with that, and today’s announcement is welcome. However, as a fellow London MP, she will be aware that the so-called fairer funding review will actually decimate the funding of many London local authorities. My own borough of Richmond is set to lose a staggering amount—over 90% of its core Government funding—and our most vulnerable and disadvantaged residents will suffer. [Interruption.] If you will indulge me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am being heckled by Labour Members—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. There isn’t time—get to the point!

[Munira Wilson]

Will the Minister at the very least commit to an impact assessment of the fair funding review changes for local authorities such as Richmond, and will she grant transitional funding?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

We have been consulting. We have closed the consultation, and we are looking through the responses at the moment. We have had representations from authorities across the country, including London. This Labour Government are very clear that we will continue to invest in our local areas and our communities. There is a need to rebalance, but we will do that in a fair way that does not negatively impact deprived communities.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Munira Wilson Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Vikki Slade]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point.

There is the opportunity to use more effectively our town and parish council system to drive community empowerment. Instead, the creation of neighbourhood committees feels like a top-down solution. Without statutory powers or budgets, they risk becoming symbolic rather than effective. While it is welcome that existing town and parish councils can participate, the Bill does not provide a framework for communities wanting to establish new councils or the funding to do so.

District councils have long underpinned the civic identity of towns and driven the activities that reflect their origins. With their loss in ancient towns and cities such as Colchester and Winchester, and without the funding to support smaller community-led councils, there is a real risk that our distinct history, culture and civic pride in our communities could be eroded. We cannot allow that to happen.

The Liberal Democrats welcome the replacement of the community right to bid with a right to buy with first refusal. I have seen some fantastic examples of the right to bid working, such as the Anchor Inn in Shapwick in my constituency, but these successes are few and far between.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

Communities such as Teddington in my constituency will very much welcome the new community right to buy. At Udney Park, playing fields have lain derelict for more than a decade. However, although the Bill makes provision for what happens when there is a disagreement over price, it is silent on what happens when a community bid is refused by a buyer even at market valuation. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government must look to go further on that point?

[Vikki Slade]

I agree that there is opportunity to do much more as the Bill moves into Committee. Communities’ long struggles to save such assets is not because of a lack of passion or volunteers, but because the system feels stacked against them. “The Museum of Broken Dreams”, a display on the parliamentary estate, shows some good examples of where community groups have lost out to commercial developers who have demolished buildings and walked away, or where the groups cannot get support.

We are pleased to see sporting assets included in the right to buy and we welcome their indefinite inclusion on the register, but we want environmental assets to be included as well, so that we can protect our land for restoration and nature management. We also want restoration of the funding for neighbourhood plans, so that smaller authorities, which will now struggle to make such plans for their tiny communities, can do so without onerous costs to their residents.

Oral Answers to Questions

Munira Wilson Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon]

I thank the former Minister for those representations. On the point about fair funding and unpicking where money is needed, there is a lot of commonality on this issue in the Chamber. We absolutely accept that in rural areas the cost of service delivery is higher in some cases, such as for refuse collection and adult social care. It is common sense that if people have to travel further to pick up bins or make a home care visit, it will cost more money as a result.

However, that is not the only thing we need to take into account. We must take into account deprivation and the ability of a council to raise money at a local level. Daytime visitor numbers are also a factor, where a council is not getting a tax take from those visitors but there is a public service take on the other side. Importantly, we must consider the ability of a local authority to raise tax at a local level to meet the demand. It is the Government’s job to act as an equaliser in the system.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

It is absolutely right that funding follows need, but may I gently urge the Minister to look at how the proposed new funding formula for local authorities affects boroughs across London, given that it does not consider housing costs, which we know are the biggest driver of poverty and deprivation in London?