Munira Wilson MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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?

• 16 Dec 2024 · Israel and Palestine · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Gentleman agree that now is the time to provide hope to Palestinians? If we are to have any hope of a political solution, this country must follow our allies in recognising the state of Palestine—not least when extremists such as Smotrich in the Israeli Government are looking to annex the west bank.

• 16 Dec 2024 · Parental Leave: Pay and Allowances · Hansard source

  More

  At less than half the rate of a full-time national minimum wage, maternity and paternity pay is so low that most parents simply cannot live on it, and they are often forced into debt, or forced back to work sooner than they would like. A poll of fathers found that two-thirds of them would take more leave if paternity pay were higher. If we want to give families choice in how they care for their children in those precious early months, will the Minister discuss with colleagues in the Treasury and the Department for Business and Trade how we can boost rates of maternity and paternity pay?

• 16 Dec 2024 · Parental Leave: Pay and Allowances · Hansard source

  More

  10. What discussions she has had with Cabinet colleagues on the adequacy of levels of maternity and paternity pay and allowances.

• 12 Dec 2024 · Paid Employment Leave: Kinship Carers · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure the Minister will agree that kinship carers are unsung heroes, who often step up at a moment’s notice to look after a child whose parents cannot, but four in 10 are forced to give up work to do so, which means they often struggle to pay the bills or put food on the table. Will the Minister look to right that wrong through the Employment Rights Bill, and introduce a right to paid employment leave for kinship carers, given the savings to the public purse and the better outcomes for children that arise from kinship care?

• 12 Dec 2024 · Paid Employment Leave: Kinship Carers · Hansard source

  More

  4. If he will make an assessment with the Secretary of State for Education of the potential merits of introducing a right to paid employment leave for kinship carers.

• 12 Dec 2024 · Qualifications Reform Review · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement. In the years since the Conservatives’ first botched moves towards prematurely scrapping a range of vocational qualifications, the Liberal Democrats have repeatedly warned of the consequences of that ill thought-through, counterproductive policy, so it is to be welcomed that the Government have heard our and the sector’s concerns. The announcement is a welcome step forward to protect student choice and local decision making, and it is a more pragmatic, rather than ideological, approach. It was clear that the decision to defund was premature. T-levels, while a welcome innovation, had not had enough time to bed in to allow an informed decision, and that risked too many young people being left without appropriate options. Now the Government are providing clarity up to 2027, will the Minister lay out the processes for monitoring and reviewing the impact of those changes until then? Will she lay out the timeline for the longer-term curriculum and assessment review in greater detail? I have one particular area of concern in the statement, and that is around early years education. Research last year showed that rather than embracing the T-level in education and early years, students overwhelmingly opted for the overlapping qualifications earmarked for defunding. Now we hear the Government will go ahead and proceed with that defunding. Given that reality, how does the announcement square with the Government’s focus and rhetoric around prioritising early years? How will the Government improve recruitment and training in that sector if it is not meeting students’ needs where they are? The point is reflective of a broader question on the announcement, which is: what are the Government’s overarching guiding principles as to which courses will be funded and which will not? The rationale laid out by the Minister suggests they are working on a case-by-case basis, but in the interests of long-term stability and clarity, should the Government not be laying out their principles for how they will approach those decisions more strategically? Finally, as students face a welcome range of post-16 options—as we have heard, it is a confusing landscape—it is essential that they have excellent support in making those important decisions. How will the Government ensure that all students have access to high-quality careers guidance?

• 11 Dec 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 11 Dec 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman says that I am describing a failed system, and I am; I set that out. The SEND system is failing many children across this country, but I say to him gently—I made this point to the Minister in a similar debate a few weeks ago—that I do not think the level of investment that this measure will make in our state SEND system will fix that system. That will take many years and many billions of pounds, which I suspect that the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not have, and I do not think the answer to that is to penalise those who have scrimped and saved to be able to offer their children opportunity. If I may, I will give the hon. Gentleman an example of another constituent who emailed me. She remortgaged her home, cashed in her pension plan and is struggling to be able to send her children to a local independent school after the local state school could not meet her children’s special needs. She said something that I think partly echoes what he is saying: “Is this fair when other children with the same difficulties as mine are not able to access the same level of help? No. Definitely not. Believe me, I would never have chosen this route but I have been left with no choice. Is it fair to punish us further financially for the failings of the state education system? No!” So I think the hon. Gentleman and I are in agreement, but I do not think the state SEND system is going to be fixed quickly or adequately enough, and I do not think the answer to that is to level down everybody’s opportunities. We need to level up opportunities for all and not penalise the parents who have made the often very difficult choice to ensure that their child has the opportunity that they wish to give them.

• 11 Dec 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak in support of new clause 9, tabled in my name. It would require the Government to produce an impact assessment of the effect of the imposition of VAT on school fees on pupils who have special educational needs, but who are without an education, health and care plan. The Liberal Democrats have been absolutely crystal clear: we are opposed to this tax on education, and we call on the Government to rethink their decision. It is an unnecessary, unfair and counterproductive policy. In our manifesto for the general election, we laid out our ambitious plan for education, from putting a dedicated mental health professional in every primary and secondary school to expanding free school meals to all children in poverty and tripling the early years pupil premium. At the heart of that vision was the principle that education is the single best investment we can make. All our children deserve the opportunity to reach their potential, yet too many children are not being supported to achieve that potential. In our manifesto, we set out a whole host of fair tax rises to pay for our ambitious plan, which did not penalise parents for choosing to invest in their children’s education. I gently point out to Conservative colleagues—who have rightly pointed out that this is the first time we are seeing a tax on education, which is quite wrong in principle—that the only reason why the Labour Government are able to do this is Brexit. The Conservatives supported the Brexit deal, so I gently point out to them that this is something that they supported in principle.

• 11 Dec 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I remind the right hon. Gentleman that it was his Government who negotiated the Brexit deal. I want to put that on the record. Colleagues from across the House have spoken frequently in recent months about the crisis facing SEND provision in this country, and we have heard so many stories of struggling families fighting within a failing system to get their children the education they deserve. After years of Conservative neglect, the system is on its knees. Just this week, we have heard from the Institute for Fiscal Studies about the scale of the problem. Once again, its report laid out clearly the huge costs that have left local councils on the brink, while failing to deliver better outcomes for children. Two out of every three special schools are oversubscribed. Just half of education, health and care plans are granted within the statutory 20-week limit, and 98% of those rejected are granted on appeal when parents go to tribunal. It is clear that the system is failing families and our vulnerable young people, so is it any wonder that parents who feel that their children’s needs cannot be met in the state system are turning to the independent sector if they can just about manage it? Small schools of less than 100 pupils make up some 40% of the independent sector. In so many cases, those are the schools that struggle and strive each day to provide desperately needed support for SEND pupils—support that, sadly, is all too often unavailable in their local state school. Those are the schools that will be punished under this measure, and the families who will need to bear the load. The Government have said that pupils who have been placed by a local authority in an independent school to fulfil the terms of their EHCP will be exempt from the VAT hike. Taken in isolation, that is a welcome mitigation to this damaging policy, but there are a whopping 100,000 SEND pupils in the independent sector who do not have an EHCP, and their families will be saddled with this VAT hike. One such family came to see me in my surgery a few weeks ago. The parents were in tears in front of me. Their son has autism and various other needs. When he was in an excellent local state primary school, he was at risk of exclusion because of the behaviours that were manifesting as a result of his additional needs, which could not be supported in that state primary school. Those parents made the difficult decision to remove him and put him in a local private school, where he is thriving. He is coping well and his conditions are being well managed. His parents are not just paying the basic school fees; they are paying an extra £18,000 a year on top of the school fees for the additional support their child needs. All of that will be subject to VAT, which is why they were in my office in tears. They do not know how they are going to meet those costs to keep their child, who was at threat of being excluded from a state school, thriving. That is the individual human reality of this policy, which the Minister just waves away with numbers, as if these statistics do not have human stories and faces behind them.

• 11 Dec 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for her important intervention. I am interested in how this money will flow back into the Scottish system, if at all. The point, raised not just by me but by a number of hon. Members in the various debates we have had on this issue, is that this will actually put a much greater strain on the state system, and particularly the SEND system. That is my real concern here. Faced with the coming price hike, many of the families I have described will be forced to choose between returning to the overstretched state sector, as my hon. Friend has just said, where their child’s needs may not be met, and trying to home-educate their child. This choice has wide-ranging implications not only for those individual families but for our economy and our society. My new clause 9 would force the Government to see through the implications of this damaging measure. I repeat that my party and I are opposed on principle to the imposition of VAT on school fees, but if the Government insist on pursuing this damaging and counterproductive measure, they should do so with their eyes open. They should be clear about the damage this measure will do, they should be clear about how it will affect parents, and they should be particularly clear about how it will affect children with special educational needs and disabilities. New clause 9 aims to ensure that by laying bare the impact of this measure on those families and children, who are already struggling with a broken SEND system. It would also require consideration of the additional children who will be coming forward to apply for an EHCP, so that their parents may be spared the fee hike the Government are imposing on them for trying, as any parent would, to do the very best for their child. I received an email from one parent who, when his child was in an excellent local state secondary school, was discouraged from applying for an EHCP because of the challenges involved. He made the decision to send his child quite far away to an independent school where his child is doing well. This gentleman emailed me to say: “Well, I am now thinking that we might try to get an EHCP because, over a seven-year period, it will save us an awful lot of money if our son is eligible for one.” We know the EHCP system is overloaded and in crisis, so how much more pressure is going to be put on that system? New clause 9 seeks to measure that. I urge colleagues on both sides of the Committee to support the new clause, and I urge the Minister once again to rethink this ill thought through policy.

• 9 Dec 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  A new report from the Institute for Public Policy Research shows that the most deprived areas have a third fewer childcare places than the most affluent. If the Government are serious about improving school readiness among our children, will the Secretary of State look at the Liberal Democrat proposal to triple the early years pupil premium so that we can tackle the disadvantage gap when it matters most?

• 9 Dec 2024 · SEN Provision: Funding · Hansard source

  More

  Last week’s announcement of capital funding to ensure that mainstream schools are more inclusive for children with special needs is, of course, welcome, but the Minister will know that, for many children with additional needs, even the most inclusive mainstream schools simply are not appropriate. With two in three special schools at or over capacity, can she provide a timeline for when the 67 planned special free schools will be delivered? Will she commit to looking favourably on local authority applications for such schools?

• 3 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Let me pick up on the point about local authorities and public services. I pressed the Minister on that this morning during Treasury questions, and I fear he did not give me a clear answer. Richmond council, my local authority, delivers children’s services through an arm’s length body called Achieving for Children. As a result of these measures, with all the employees who deliver services for vulnerable children in Richmond upon Thames, it faces a bill of £588,000 in employer’s national insurance. Will the Minister assure local authorities up and down the country that operate similar models for delivering services that these arm’s length bodies will be exempt from the national insurance rise? Otherwise he will be damaging the very public services that he claims to be investing in today.

• 3 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman keeps accusing those of us on the Liberal Democrat Benches of not supporting public sector investment. We have championed it, and we have said that the big multinationals—the big banks and the social media giants—should bear the brunt. Just yesterday, at the Small Business 100 reception here in Parliament, the owners of Shambles, a popular family-run restaurant in Teddington, told me that the impact of the Budget on them next year will cost £50,000 to £60,000. What are they doing? They are freezing all recruitment for the next few months. How will that deliver the growth that the Labour party is apparently desperate to achieve?

• 3 Dec 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Achieving for Children is the arm’s length body of Richmond council that delivers its vital children’s services, yet because of the rise in employer’s national insurance, it now faces a staggering bill of £588,000 because the employees are not directly employed by Richmond council. When the Chancellor looks at her local government settlement, will she build in reimbursement for councils such as Richmond, or indeed exempt arm’s length bodies?

• 2 Dec 2024 · Children and Bereavement · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) for opening the debate so eloquently, and for representing the views of many people who are present in the Public Gallery. I thank Mark and John for allowing their experiences to be shared today and for their campaigning on this incredibly important issue. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) for speaking so bravely about their personal experiences. It is never easy to talk in this place about personal experience, in particular when talking about the death of a loved one, a parent or spouse. That is incredibly difficult and it was a privilege to hear their stories—I thank them. It is estimated that in the UK a child loses a parent every 20 minutes or so. In that moment, a child’s life is changed forever. The estimate does not include other losses, such as the loss of a sibling or a grandparent, which can be equally painful. I think back to the time of the covid pandemic, when talking to teachers and headteachers in schools in my constituency. They were dealing with an awful lot of grief, with children losing relatives they were close to, and they were having to cope with that grief in the school setting. Little data is collected on children’s suffering from such a loss, and I will come back to that in more detail. Losing a loved one is devastating, no matter what age you are. However, particularly when you are young, still growing and perhaps unable properly to understand the concept of death, grief can be especially difficult to manage. Bereavement can have an impact on every aspect of a child’s life, including their wellbeing, education and overall life outcomes. For this reason, it is critical that children get the practical and emotional support that they desperately need. Unfortunately, that is not currently the case for all children. There are no official statistics on the number of children who have been bereaved. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) said, we do not know how many children are in that situation or where they live. It is important that both local and national services are aware of the scale of the problem and can identify the children who need our support. Like those who signed today’s petition and the Members who have spoken in the debate, the Liberal Democrats would like to see the establishment of a national register for bereaved children. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West for her campaigning on this issue. So many children slip through the net, and only some schools provide the support that pupils need. As we have been talking, I was reminded that 30 years ago, almost to the month, a girl in my class at school was killed with her family in a car crash. I remember that we came back after the Christmas holidays—they were killed while on holiday—and our class teacher brought us all together to have a conversation about it. I think back on how important that was. The school continued to work wherever possible with the girls who were closest to the girl who lost her life. As we have heard from the stories that hon. Members have shared, that certainly is not universally the case. It is important that we recognise the schools that do this work, but so many do not. There is no national mandate from the Department for Education for schools to have a bereavement policy in place, nor is there any national policy to support schools with this. That needs to be rectified, and I hope that the schools Minister will take that away to her Department. A number of national and local charities are trying to fill the gaps and support children and their families through grief, but lots of children are not being matched up with organisations that could provide them with support, and families are left scrambling. It is a difficult time. Other family members and parents are trying to deal with the grief too, so it is a stressful period. That is why my hon. Friend’s campaign, through her private Member’s Bill, for a legal duty for children to be informed of the support available to them following a loss is so important. I hope that the Minister will take my hon. Friend up on the offer to get this sorted before she has to bring it to the House yet again. The changes would help to improve join-up and ensure that the correct support was available as soon as it was needed. Even though not every child might choose to take up the support or feel the need to do so, it would still provide a much-needed safety net. Although we do not have the data to know for certain, it is estimated that one in 29 children and young people have lost a parent or sibling. That is almost one child in every classroom. Every child will be affected differently, and we know that many will struggle with their mental health as a result of the loss. Grief is messy and complicated. It does not go away, and it can affect children at different stages of their life. Studies show that some children may have a seemingly mild reaction following a loss but will struggle in subsequent years as the reality sinks in. That is why it is so important that mental health support is available continuously for bereaved children, not just immediately following their loss. I agree with what the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) said about ensuring that specialist bereavement counselling is available for children, but one reason why the Liberal Democrats have campaigned for years for a dedicated mental health practitioner in every primary and secondary school is to ensure that all children, including those who have been bereaved, have access to mental health support. There should also be community hubs available for children and young people right up to the age of 25, meaning that they can access support as and when they need it, on their own terms. After a loss, not only do families face significant emotional challenges, but they may also face a financial one. Overnight, a household income can shrink by half, or potentially even more if the person who died was the main breadwinner in the family. Alongside grieving for their partner, many widowed people suddenly have to pay their household bills and childcare costs, or put food on the table, with a sudden loss of income. Bereavement support payments can be a lifeline for families during that time, providing a source of income that might not be found elsewhere. However, in 2017, the previous Government cut funding for those payments by around 50%. Especially in a cost of living crisis, those cuts have been devastating to many families who have suffered a loss. According to the Childhood Bereavement Network, more than 75% of families are worse off than they would have been under the previous arrangements, with some going into debt and poverty as a result. That is why for some time, the Liberal Democrats have campaigned to double the funding for bereavement support payments. We would use the extra funding not just to increase the size of the payments, but to extend the period of time for which families receive them, giving those suffering from loss much-needed stability. I am proud that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), who has talked very openly about his own loss—first he lost his father as a child, and then he nursed his mum as she died of cancer in his teenage years—has campaigned so vociferously on this issue. I am pleased that he worked with other hon. Members to pressure the previous Government to extend bereavement support payments to cohabiting couples.

• 2 Dec 2024 · Children and Bereavement · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention; she put across her points far more powerfully than I could, and I urge the Minister to listen. I hope that she and her fellow Ministers in other Departments will look at increasing the funding for bereavement support. At the very least, I hope they uprate it, because it has depreciated hugely in recent years. They should also increase the time period over which it is paid, because we have heard how important that is. I know that finances are stretched, but we are talking about a small number of children who have experienced the most horrendous loss. The implications of a loss can be especially complicated for certain families, especially single-parent families where the caring parent dies. The loss of a parent or guardian can often leave children with no one to look after them, and as a result, family members may step up overnight to take care of them. Such a situation accounts for almost one in 10 children living in kinship care. That was the case for my constituent, April—I call her that to anonymise her. She suddenly became a kinship carer for her nephew, who had no one else to look after him after his mum passed away from cancer. His stepfather had left the family shortly after his mum’s diagnosis. At the council’s request, April stepped up at very short notice to provide a caring and loving home to her nephew, but that came at great personal cost to her and her family. The Minister will be aware that I have long campaigned to ensure that kinship carers have the right support. Kinship carers such as April do their utmost to look after the children in their care, but they often need additional support because of sudden changes in their living arrangements, and because of the traumatic circumstances. Too many children in such situations simply cannot access the support they need, so we should provide better access to therapeutic support. We should also extend pupil premium plus funding to kinship children so that they are on a par with looked-after children and can access the support and wraparound care that they desperately need, inside and outside school. Unfortunately, too many kinship carers are desperately trying to get their children support, but to no avail. These problems affect not just the children but the carers. Talking about her family’s experience, kinship carer Levette said: “When my daughter passed away all I could focus on was keeping the children emotionally stable. Losing their mother was a traumatic experience for them and I wanted to make sure they were able to grieve. I wasn’t able to find time to grieve myself”. No one should have to feel that way after the loss of a loved one. Although we cannot take away a child’s pain and grief, as a society we owe it to them to do all we can to provide emotional, practical and financial support. That starts with having a register, ensuring that schools have policies for teaching about grief and bereavement in an age-appropriate and sensitive way within the curriculum, and addressing the lack of financial support. It is crucial that we give children in difficult circumstances the best possible chance to overcome their challenges and thrive, so I hope the Government will implement the changes that I and many others have outlined today.

• 25 Nov 2024 · Online Safety: Children · Hansard source

  More

  My constituent lost his son to suicide following exposure to an online suicide forum. He is sadly one of 88 known Britons, the youngest of whom was just 17, whose deaths have been linked to this one site. Under the Online Safety Act, the Technology Secretary has the powers to include such small but very dangerous sites under category 1—the most heavily regulated category—but Ofcom has advised him against doing so. Will the Minister press her colleagues in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology to include these exceptionally dangerous sites in category 1?

• 25 Nov 2024 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister recognise that many independent schools, such as Lady Eleanor Holles school and Hampton school in my constituency, are involved in a huge amount of partnership work with schools in disadvantaged areas, like Feltham’s Reach academy, to help disadvantaged children to have opportunities that they would not otherwise get? Does he recognise that both the measures in this Bill and the introduction of VAT on private school fees will lessen that partnership work, which will have a detrimental impact on many state schools?

• 20 Nov 2024 · Police Reform · Hansard source

  More

  Week in, week out, police officers from my constituency are extracted to go and police protests and events in central London. My constituents and I are proud to live in our great capital city and in a democracy where the right to protest is cherished. However, under the Conservatives, since 2015, the capital city grant has been cut by 17% in real terms. That is the money that should be used to police such protests, not community policing resources, which is what the Metropolitan Police Commissioner is having to draw on. Will the Minister review the capital city grant, so that my constituents can see a bobby on the beat again?

• 18 Nov 2024 · Children’s Social Care · Hansard source

  More

  The review of children’s social care carried out by the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister) in 2022 found that, without reform, there could be almost 100,000 children in care by 2032, costing an extra £5 billion a year, so it is essential that we recognise the scale and urgency of this crisis and move quickly, unlike the previous Conservative Government. Today’s announcements are therefore a welcome step forward. Tackling profiteering will help not only to address the financial crisis facing councils, but to deliver better outcomes for our most vulnerable children and young people. These are children for whom we in this place all bear a huge responsibility, and it is simply unacceptable that they have become a cash cow for private equity companies raking in profits of 28% or more, so could the Secretary of State spell out when we will see these reforms implemented, and when she anticipates the backstop taking effect? Cracking down on profiteering is only one side of the bargain. To put provision on a stable and sustainable footing, we must also ensure that councils can provide these services themselves, where necessary, so will the Government work to support local authorities in running children’s homes, where they want to do so and where there is need? Many of these private equity firms are also profiteering from special schools, and we are starting to see them in the early years sector, too. Is the Secretary of State looking at those areas, and will she apply some of today’s announcements to them? A new focus on family care is very welcome, as early support for families can keep children out of care who do not need to be there. Kinship carers are unsung heroes who often step up at a moment’s notice to look after family members. Will the Secretary of State please commit to moving beyond the very limited pilots that have been proposed, to a universal allowance for kinship carers, on a par with that received by foster carers? Will she also take the opportunity offered by the Employment Rights Bill, which is currently before the House, to legislate for paid employment leave for kinship carers? All the evidence points to that leading to better outcomes—and it would achieve cost savings immediately, not just in the long term.

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

  More

  I heard the Minister from a sedentary position call my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) a luddite when she made her point about airspace modernisation.

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

  More

  Yes, I am afraid so. The Minister is making the point that we need modernisation. I say to him respectfully that I, my hon. Friend and our constituents recognise the need for innovation and to move with technology as it changes. Of course we want to reduce carbon emissions, and we support a better Heathrow—not a bigger Heathrow—as we understand its importance to the economy, but on airspace modernisation we could still achieve some of the benefits by adopting a “do minimum” approach, gaining benefits from modernisation while not coming up with lots of new flight paths and really intensifying noise over certain areas that might not be overflown at the moment. We have seen how in other countries airspace modernisation has led to noise sewers. Will he offer reassurance to the residents of Teddington, Twickenham, the Hamptons and St Margarets that those places will not end up becoming noise sewers? Will he please commit to a “do minimum” approach and transparency on the process?