Munira Wilson MP: speeches

Speeches

• 28 Apr 2025 · School Students: Mental Health and Wellbeing · Hansard source

  More

  Addictive algorithms that serve up harmful content are fuelling the children’s mental health crisis, as well as worrying behaviour both inside and outside the classroom. With almost two thirds of children having a social media account by the end of year 7, will Ministers commit to working with their counterparts in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology to support the Liberal Democrats’ amendment to the Data (Use and Access) Bill, which would stop tech companies trading on our children’s attention by raising the digital age of data consent from 13 to 16, so that they cannot process children’s data to feed toxic algorithms without parental consent?

• 24 Apr 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Just over three weeks ago, the Minister for children and families had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to the Dispatch Box to be forced into extending the adoption and special guardianship support fund, which had expired the previous day, leaving thousands of vulnerable children and their adoptive parents and kinship carers in limbo. Not once during that 45 minute urgent question did she say, when she triumphantly announced £50 million extra to continue the fund, that the individual support grants were about to be cut by 40%. That information was snuck out in a private letter last week, during recess, to local authorities and charities. Will the Leader of the House demand that the Education Secretary comes to the House, makes a statement, and takes questions from hon. Members who feel that they were, I am sure inadvertently, misled by the children’s Minister that day, so that we can understand the impact on some of the most vulnerable children in our society?

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

  More

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

• 7 Apr 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  In the London borough of Richmond we desperately need more social homes, but we are really short of sites we can build on. I have long run a campaign for the disused Teddington police station to be turned into a GP surgery and social homes, but understandably the Met wants top dollar to fund its services. Will the Secretary of State look at ways to incentivise public bodies to sell assets below market value for community benefit?

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

  More

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

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

  More

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

• 3 Apr 2025 · UK-US Trade and Tariffs · Hansard source

  More

  The Business Secretary said in his statement, “True strength comes in making the right choices at the right time.” Will he assure parents, carers and young people up and down this country that he will show true strength with Donald Trump and his sidekick Elon Musk, and make the right choice by refusing point blank to trade away our children’s safety online in watering down—in any way, shape or form—the implementation of the Online Safety Act 2023?

• 2 Apr 2025 · School-based Nursery Capital Grants · Hansard source

  More

  Access to flexible, high-quality early years provision gives children the start they deserve and parents the choice they need to live their lives, and it is one of the best possible investments we can make in the future of our country. For those families living in childcare deserts left by the previous Conservative Government, today’s announcement will be welcome news. I welcome the sorely needed uplift in the early years pupil premium, but school-based nurseries can only ever be part of the puzzle. We will never fix the crisis in early years without fixing the deep problems facing private and charitable providers. They deliver the vast bulk of the Government’s free entitlement, yet they face some of the toughest challenges in making ends meet. The Government’s national insurance hike, the failure to ensure that rates actually cover delivery costs and damaging guidance to local authorities on funding agreements, which came into effect this week, mean that many are struggling to stay afloat. We have already heard that the Early Years Alliance survey found that four in 10 said they would reduce their number of funded places for three-year-olds and four-year-olds in the next year. Some 94% said they would be forced to raise their fees for parents for non-funded hours, and almost a third said they were likely to permanently close. Can the Secretary of State tell me how that is extending choice for parents? Building Blocks nursery in Teddington in my constituency is now operating at a loss and faces some incredibly painful decisions that will hurt parents, children and staff. While I welcome today’s announcement, will the Secretary of State commit to an urgent review of the rates paid for free entitlements to ensure that they cover delivery costs? Will she finally take this opportunity to recognise the deep damage that the national insurance hike is doing and ensure that early years providers are exempted? Finally, will she look again at the damaging guidance issued by her Department on charging and funding agreements?

• 1 Apr 2025 · Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for granting this urgent question; I thank you especially on behalf of the thousands of vulnerable children, their adoptive parents and kinship carers who rely on the adoption and special guardianship support fund. I declare an interest as vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on kinship care and co-chair of the APPG on children. I welcome the Minister’s announcement, which none of us were expecting, because many Members on all sides of the Chamber have spent the last few months asking question after question only to be being batted away time after time and told that answers would be forthcoming. This vital fund is there to help the most vulnerable children who have experienced the deepest trauma. Those who have been looking to renew applications for this coming financial year, like the constituent I mentioned in my question to the Prime Minister last week, have been left hanging in limbo. While I am grateful for today’s announcement, has the Minister considered what impact there has been on those families? In the case I mentioned of my constituent Sarah, she said that her daughter has started to regress in the period between finishing her last lot of therapy and being able to secure the next lot of therapy. Another woman contacted me to tell me that she is special guardian for a child who at the age of just two witnessed her mother being murdered by her father, and she has been unable to access the right level of support. The Minister mentioned the impact on providers. The Purple Elephant Project in my constituency of Twickenham is desperately fundraising to continue providing support, while others are taking their support elsewhere. Therefore, there are concerns about whether there will be sufficient provision. While I am grateful for the announcement, can the Minister confirm how long the £50 million will last, and whether Ministers are considering expanding the eligibility criteria for the support fund to include all kinship carers, not just special guardians? It is the least we can do for these most vulnerable children.

• 1 Apr 2025 · Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund · Hansard source

  More

  (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State to make a statement on whether the Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund will continue.

• 1 Apr 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

• 1 Apr 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Research published by UNICEF shows that last time the overseas aid budget was cut, support for children—for their education and nutrition—was cut the deepest. Will the Foreign Secretary give assurances to this House that this time, children will not bear the brunt of his cuts, and will he commit to protect child-focused development programmes?

• 1 Apr 2025 · Relationship Education in Schools · Hansard source

  More

  It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Sir Jeremy, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) on securing this incredibly important debate. As we have heard from hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber today, it is vital that all children and young people are equipped to develop safe, healthy and happy relationships, and it is vital that they recognise what is inappropriate, unacceptable and abusive behaviour. Parents and carers, and wider family and friend networks, as well as schools, have an important role to play in developing this knowledge and understanding. However, we cannot take this knowledge for granted. As we have heard with the proliferation of harmful online content served up to our children and young people, they are at increased risk of encountering extreme and harmful content that distorts their understanding of how we should be interacting with each other. According to Internet Matters, girls experience a disproportionate level of harm online, with three in four girls aged 13 to 16 reporting harmful online experiences. Sadly, this translates into inappropriate behaviour in real life. Despite some really excellent work that I have heard about from secondary schools in my constituency, worryingly, a survey by Kingston and Richmond Youth Council found that 40% of girls had been physically followed in a way that made them feel unsafe or uncomfortable and 50% had felt pressured into sending intimate pictures of themselves online, but 83% of those who experienced sexual harassment did not report it. The survey also found that over 20% of boys were not confident of knowing that exposure of body parts is a form of sexual harassment, and 69% were unsure whether they would intervene if they witnessed their friends sexually harassing someone. The National Police Chiefs’ Council warned last year that young boys were being radicalised by influencers such as Andrew Tate, and talked of epidemic levels of violence against women and girls, driven in part by extreme online misogyny. That is why I was so shocked to hear the Leader of the Opposition be so dismissive of the issue on LBC today, saying that there were bigger problems that we should be focused on. We need a culture change in all aspects of society, and we need to encourage the men in our lives—our brothers, fathers, friends, boyfriends, husbands and sons—to stand up against toxic masculinity, to demonstrate to the young men in their lives what it means to be compassionate and kind in all relationships, and that this is a strength, not a weakness. That culture change must come in part from the education that we provide in the classroom. Age-appropriate relationships and sex education at school has a crucial role to play alongside the role of parents and carers. The Liberal Democrats believe that an age-appropriate RSE curriculum should be led by a qualified teacher and delivered in a safe, non-judgmental setting, and should include teaching about sexual consent, LGBTQ+ relationships and issues surrounding explicit images, because all young people deserve access to high quality education that empowers them to make safe and informed choices. In addition, ensuring children learn about consent, healthy relationships, and online risks such as pornography and sexting is essential for safeguarding. Schools and teachers need proper funding, training and support as well as resources to deliver high quality RSHE. Therefore, we Liberal Democrats will continue to campaign for specialist RSE training to ensure that teachers feel confident in delivering sensitive topics effectively. I hope the Minister will confirm when she plans to publish the updated RSHE guidance. She responded to a written question from me today, but again it did not set out the timelines; I do not know if she can fill us in when she gets up to speak. Before I finish, I will touch on what we must press the social media giants to do; they need to be regulated much more toughly. Sir Jeremy, I know you were pretty active on the Online Safety Bill when it was going through Parliament, and have been active since. We must see it implemented vigorously. The Liberal Democrats want to see the digital age of consent raised, and will push for that change through the Data (Use and Access) Bill. Seriously tackling violence against women and girls has to start with prevention. We have got to tackle the online giants, but schools must also play a key role in education. We must support an education system in which every child is free to be themselves and reach their full potential, unencumbered by fear and abuse, and receiving the support they need to thrive.

• 26 Mar 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  The seven-year-old adopted daughter of my constituent Sarah suffered immense trauma in her early years. Thanks to support from the adoption and special guardianship support fund, she has been able to access much-needed therapy that has helped her to progress. However, she and thousands of others do not know whether they will be able to get more help, because in just five days that fund ends, and Ministers have repeatedly refused to confirm whether it will continue. Can the Prime Minister give a cast-iron guarantee to vulnerable children, adoptive parents and kinship carers that he will not cut that fund, so that Sarah—in her own words—can give her daughter “the absolute best second chance in life she deserves”?

• 25 Mar 2025 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill (changed to Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers) Bill) · Hansard source

  More

  Unless the hon. Gentleman wants to make a different point from his party’s manifesto, which was not voted for by many people, I will not give way, although I will pick up on another point he made earlier. Clause 5, which implements the removal of charitable rate relief for private schools, undermines the principle that I referred to: we should not be taxing education, and we should respect parents’ right to choose. The clause will undermine the ability of independent schools to undertake the brilliant partnership work that they do in our communities and with state schools. I have talked many times in this place of Lady Eleanor Holles and Hampton schools in my constituency, which have done amazing work with underprivileged communities in the Feltham area, such as with Reach academy, and helped to transform the life chances and outcomes for young people in that community. The measure will also limit those schools’ abilities to extend bursaries to children from more disadvantaged backgrounds.

• 25 Mar 2025 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill (changed to Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers) Bill) · Hansard source

  More

  I am very grateful for that intervention, because I gently remind the hon. Gentleman that his party won the election with less than 34% of the vote. I cannot remember what the turnout was, but—

• 25 Mar 2025 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill (changed to Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers) Bill) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Lady for her intervention. I am aware, from talking to colleagues, that there are real pressures on school places in different parts of the country. Clearly, that is where we will see a negative impact. In my own constituency and, indeed, across London, we are struggling with secondary school places, although rolls are falling in primary schools, which will feed into the secondary sector. These pressures of children leaving the private sector to go into the state sector are different in different parts of the country.

• 25 Mar 2025 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill (changed to Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers) Bill) · Hansard source

  More

  There we go—basically, not many voters voted for Labour’s manifesto. I will happily let the hon. Gentleman continue to plough that furrow, because I have had that argument made to me before—for instance, in the petitions debate on VAT on private school fees just last week.

• 25 Mar 2025 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill (changed to Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers) Bill) · Hansard source

  More

  I, too, begin by putting on record my thanks to the noble Lords in the other place for all their work on the Bill, in particular those on the Liberal Democrat Benches: Baroness Pinnock, Lord Shipley and Lord Fox. Business rates reform is long overdue and, while we welcome the proposal to permanently reduce business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure, in the meantime many businesses across my constituency, and indeed the country, are reeling as they see the impact of the reduction in rates relief in bills landing on their doormats. I have heard from a number of businesses just in the past few days. I am really concerned about pubs, restaurants and cafés in my constituency who are wondering how, with the national insurance rise and the reduction in rates relief, they will continue. The Liberal Democrats would like to see a fundamental overhaul of the business rates system, not just the sticking-plaster solutions proposed in the Bill that tinker around the edges. As I said, lower business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure are a step in the right direction, but there are countless small businesses outside those sectors that need their tax burden reduced too, for example manufacturing businesses. We tabled amendments on Report to improve the Bill and to ensure it gave consideration to whether there should be provision for manufacturing facilities, which can be big and built on expensive land but sometimes produce relatively low-value goods. Lords amendment 4 sought to do the same, whereby manufacturing premises would also pay new lower business rates under the Bill. Without that, light engineering and printers, among other businesses in our town centres’ mixed economies, could be priced out. A recent report by Barclays bank concluded that the words “made in Britain” were worth an additional £3.5 billion to UK exporters, so it is important that something is done to support the manufacturing sector. We have learnt the hard way in recent years, with the pandemic and wars, that we need to be much more self-sufficient as a country, yet there has been a big drop in confidence in the sector since autumn, with an increase in manufacturers’ costs and orders in general reported to be smaller in size. That comes on top of the additional Brexit red tape that those businesses have to contend with to export. Therefore, we support retaining this amendment in the Bill. As I have said, we want fundamental reform of business rates so we can boost small businesses and our high streets. We tabled an amendment on Report to require a review of the impact of the Bill on businesses, high streets and economic growth, so we support retaining Lords amendment 13, which would require the Secretary of State to review the impact of the Bill on businesses whose rateable value is close to £500,000 and so will be caught by the new higher business rates. Turning to our NHS, yet again we see the Government giving with one hand and taking with the other. As with national insurance contributions, so with the business rates changes: there are unintended but significant consequences for our health service. Lords amendment 1 sought to exclude hospitals and other healthcare settings from paying new higher business rates for properties with a rateable of £500,000 or more. Without the amendment, 290 local hospitals will be caught by the rates, an unacceptable new burden when the NHS is already struggling. As my noble Friend Baroness Pinnock pointed out in the other place, without the amendment the likes of Great Ormond Street hospital for children will have an additional burden of £600,000 per year on business rates alone, the John Radcliffe hospital in Oxford has a potential business rates increase from £3.4 million to £4.1 million, and the Hull Royal Infirmary could see its bill rising from £1.8 million to £2.1 million. Those are typical figures for hospitals across the country. I do not believe it is the Government’s intention to reduce hospitals’ abilities to drive down their waiting lists, yet that is exactly what the impact of these changes and the consequent higher charges will be, so we support the amendment. The Bill also levies a tax on education by removing the business rates exemption for private schools that are charities, a measure that will be compounded by the Government’s move to levy VAT on private school fees and the increase to employers’ national insurance contributions. As I have said many times since the general election—and indeed before—the Liberal Democrats are opposed, in principle, to the taxation of education, as it is a public good. We strongly support and champion parents’ right to choose, on which both those tax measures are an assault.

• 25 Mar 2025 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill (changed to Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers) Bill) · Hansard source

  More

  I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was simply seeking to address the hon. Member’s point. I am coming in to land now. Time and again we see Government policy at odds with their stated objectives. They want to tackle NHS waiting lists but then slap business rates on to large hospitals and put national insurance rises on to our GPs, hospices and social care providers. They claim to drive growth but then slap business rates on to much-needed manufacturing and put a cliff edge on small businesses in our town centres. They want to extend opportunity to all but then go after charitable independent schools that are serving their wider communities—not to mention punishing parents who dare to make that choice for their children. Amid some good intentions, the Government have lost their way in parts of the Bill. I implore Ministers to genuinely consider the amendments before them in order to support our hospitals and allow businesses up and down our country to grow and flourish. Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

• 25 Mar 2025 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill (changed to Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers) Bill) · Hansard source

  More

  I respectfully say to the hon. Gentleman that a rise in employers’ national insurance contributions was not in his party’s manifesto, nor was a cut to the winter fuel allowance, nor was the farmers tax, yet these are all things Labour is implementing.

• 25 Mar 2025 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill (changed to Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers) Bill) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. Where we can make common cause is over the absolute mess in which the Conservatives left both our public services and our economy. I have no quibble in agreeing with him on that point. We Liberal Democrats set out a whole series of tax measures—actually we were the only party that was not afraid to put forward revenue-raising measures—but his Government are choosing not to accept any of them. They included taxing our big tech giants that are ruining the mental health of our children and young people— [Interruption.] Yes, in fact, they are planning to slash that tax altogether. We also suggested reversing the tax cuts that the Conservatives gave to the big banks, so that we can continue putting free school meals on the table for children, which, again, his Government are thinking of cutting. Then we suggested reforming capital gains tax—

• 25 Mar 2025 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill (changed to Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers) Bill) · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend tells me it was 60%. I cannot do the maths quickly enough—clearly, I need to do maths to 18—

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

  More

  I warmly welcome the changes to hope value in order to build more affordable homes, but will the Secretary of State clarify whether that will also apply to wider projects for community benefit such as playing fields? Udney Park in Teddington in my constituency has lain derelict for over a decade as successive owners have wanted to develop it but cannot do so. There is a huge demand for community playing fields and the community wants to be able to access that land. Will she assure me that the hope value changes will apply much more broadly than just to affordable housing?

• 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?