Will Forster MP: speeches

I have almost 180 families in Woking in temporary accommodation, and it is tragic for them. Some 20 of them are located outside the borough. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to ensure councils can locate people in temporary accommodation locally so that it does not devastate their lives as much as it does at the moment?

I am delighted to see the Minister in her place. I am sure she will remember that the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee recently scrutinised the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill. We found it wanting; it did not go far or fast enough. The solution to the problems outlined in this debate is to properly regulate property managing agents and especially those that run retirement homes for the vulnerable elderly. Does the Minister agree that the Bill needs to come back urgently with that regulation?

T6. As we saw during the world cup, football is fundamental to our national identity. Football fans are having to pay almost £700 to follow their club in this season’s premier league, so does the Secretary of State agree that we need to have more free-to-air sport, not less?

Four of my constituents—Ethan, Harrison, Jude and Lukas—who train at the Martial X Academy in Woking have been selected to represent their country in next month’s martial arts world championships. As well as wishing them well, I hope that the Minister will take steps to ensure that the costs that they are having to pay to compete—over £1,000 each—is reduced in future to enable young athletes to represent their country.

2. What steps she is taking to help make sports more accessible for poorer families.

These allegations are extremely serious. If it is true that NESO bosses instructed control room staff to conceal evidence of grid instability from public scrutiny, that is a shocking breach of trust from a taxpayer-owned body. The investigation must be genuinely independent and its full findings must be published openly, not quietly filed away. However, let us also be clear about the fact that this is not a verdict on renewables, much as science-denying climate change sceptics wish to push that idea. It is a warning sign that our grid is straining under record heat, that ageing gas plants are failing, and that there have been years of under-investment in storage and capacity. The Government must get very serious about grid resilience. Will the Minister guarantee protection for those who have come forward, commit himself fully to a genuinely arm’s length investigation, and guarantee full transparency in respect of the findings of that investigation?

Q10. We have all enjoyed watching England’s success in the world cup in the last few weeks. As his last act as Prime Minister before leaving office, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree to grant us a bank holiday so that we can celebrate England’s win?

Does my hon. Friend agree that we need Thames Water to go into special measures, so that it can invest in infrastructure? In my constituency, Thames Water has closed a road for three weeks in Horsell because it has not invested, and it dumped over 1,115 hours-worth of sewage last year into our River Wey. That lack of investment is why we need what he is calling for today.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. The Liberal Democrats believe in a fair and controlled approach to immigration and asylum and a system that treats people with fairness and compassion. My constituency of Woking has a proud and long history of supporting those fleeing persecution. It was home to the Ockenden Venture, a trailblazing charity founded in the 1950s that helped to resettle refugees from post-war Europe, Vietnam and beyond. Humfrey Malins, the former Conservative MP for Woking, even set up a national immigration service. More recently, Woking has seen how life-changing a functioning immigration system can be. Since 2015, my town has welcomed hundreds of refugees from Afghanistan, Syria and Ukraine. Those people arrived fleeing conflict and persecution. They have been welcomed by my town and added to our economy and cultural vitality. I am pleased that we have helped them to rebuild their lives in Surrey. In 2026, it is right that we uphold Britain’s humanitarian traditions while having control of our borders. That starts by bringing an end to asylum hotels, stopping unsafe channel crossings and ensuring that criminal gangs cannot profit and that they face justice. We need safe and legal routes for asylum seekers and refugees. Ukrainians did not cross the channel in dangerous small boats, because this Government provided a safe and legal route for them. We know that safe and legal routes work. We need more of them, not fewer, yet safe and legal routes are not in the Immigration and Asylum Bill that will be debated in the House later today. Arrivals via safe and legal routes are at their lowest level since 2023 as a result. Before the Brexit referendum, there were almost no recorded small boat crossings, but since we left the European Union, more than 190,000 people have come here in small boats. The fact that we are not in the EU has been a pull factor causing that crisis. People who have arrived on small boats have literally said the word “Dublin”. They are playing the system against us. Asylum seekers are coming to the UK, having failed the first time in Europe. By not being in the EU or working with neighbouring countries, we are creating more work at great expense to the British taxpayer. Following Brexit, the Conservatives implemented disastrous immigration policies that have led to a huge rise in net migration. Past Governments have introduced five immigration Acts since 2020. We need a watertight arrangement with the EU that would mean everyone arriving by small boat is at risk of being returned. That is how we ensure that the gangs do not have a viable business model, and that there is a proper deterrent to stop people making money in the first place. A key requirement for tackling this issue is ensuring that the Home Office improves. At the moment, it makes slow and bad decisions. We need to process claims quickly. We need to open Nightingale-style processing centres and double the number of asylum caseworkers to clear the backlog. The Refugee Council estimates that, because of bad decisions made by the Home Office, we are spending at least £974 million—maybe up to £1.2 billion—supporting people currently in the appeals backlog who will have their initial refusal overturned. Is the Minister looking into that in order to improve decision making? I believe that the people who signed the petition would welcome a swift and humane return for anyone with no right to be here, but would want us to welcome genuine refugees. The Liberal Democrats have consistently set out changes required to restore control and compassion to the immigration and asylum system. We did that during the passage of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 with the previous Ministers, we are doing it with the current Ministers, and we will continue to do it as the Government change next week.

T6. Last week, this House debated extended producer responsibility, and I was pleased to grill the Minister on the impact it is having on brewers, such as Asahi in Woking. Will the Minister explain why EPR costs so much more in this country than in Europe, and agree to publish the results of the Government’s pilot projects in councils such as Fife?

I completely agree. Britain has a long history in the region. I believe we can be a force for good—for a change—in that region, to bring about peace. I will talk about that later. Dictatorships, not democracies, trigger communications blackouts when they want to hide what is happening. I am afraid that is what is currently happening in Kashmir. The removal of access to the internet and phone networks is a tool of oppression. We have seen that in Iran; we do not want to see it in Kashmir. The communications blackout demonstrates just how dire the situation has become. I believe, given the reports, that 200 people have been killed in the last month but, because of the communications blackout, we just do not know. British Kashmiris, and UK residents with connections there, have been cut off from contacting their loved ones, including British citizens currently in the region. Although I want to focus on the immediate issues in Kashmir, it is fair to say that a long-term and stable resolution in Kashmir can be achieved only by putting human rights, democratic aspirations and the self-determination of the Kashmiri people at the centre of our foreign policy. We need a lasting peace, and we can achieve that only with the explicit consent of the Kashmiri people. For decades, British Governments have hidden behind the convenient diplomatic fiction that Kashmir is strictly a bilateral issue between India and Pakistan. The Liberal Democrats and I urge the Government to remember their historic and moral responsibilities as the co-author of United Nations Security Council resolution 47. The UK must champion the democratic mechanism of a free, fair and impartial referendum, as originally mandated under international law. The Liberal Democrats call on the Government to reject the unilateral changes to Kashmir’s status. We believe that any constitutional reform or future governance structure must be led by the democratic aspirations of Kashmiri people, and agreed by them, and that their human rights need to be front and centre. Let me come back to the matter at hand and the concerns about Kashmir right now. I have some questions for the Minister. How often have the British Government raised issues in Kashmir with the Pakistan Government and the high commission? When was the last time, and when are they going to do so again? When was the last time our Prime Minister spoke to the Government in Pakistan? Finally, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that British nationals in the region, and British citizens with families there, are able to access support and maintain contact with loved ones?

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) for securing the debate. It is clear where I stand on this issue, because I co-signed his letter late last month. Human rights abuses in Kashmir matter deeply to my constituents in Woking. More than half of my local Asian population have ancestry from and links with Kashmir. It is a fundamental issue that is raised with me regularly, and particularly over the last month. I am here to represent them, and to ensure that the British Government show some leadership and ensure that civil liberties are returned to normal in Kashmir. The Liberal Democrats and I condemn the reports of the excessive and unlawful use of force against the people in Kashmir. For the last two years, the Government there have arrested, banned and clashed with people protesting over flour and electricity costs. In the last month, things have got worse still. These actions have been condemned by human rights groups such as Amnesty International, which has argued that the state has been weaponising anti-terror laws as a legal excuse to crush peaceful protest. Peaceful protesters aspiring for equal rights should never be criminalised.

The Government have had the policy for 50 years, as the Minister has outlined, but it has not worked. Does she think it is time to change course?

I thank the noble Lords Blunkett and Herbert for the report, which is a welcome shining light on the challenges facing leadership in our police forces. I know at first hand from my constituency that police forces deal day in, day out with highly sensitive, dangerous and traumatic incidents. They keep us safe. It is deeply challenging work, and we are greatly indebted to them. That is why the findings of the report are so concerning. The report shows that officers are too often hampered by scarce resources, excessive bureaucracy and conduct processes, which leave them unable to focus on delivering for the public. The Liberal Democrats have long campaigned for a return to the proper community and neighbourhood policing that our constituents want. For that to happen, officers must be properly supported and equipped to tackle the many issues facing our communities. Will the Minister set out what plans the Government have to increase the numbers of bobbies on the beat? Even more concerning are the report’s findings on the inconsistent leadership standards across our police forces. The numerous instances of leaders falling short of the standards of integrity, honesty and professionalism expected of them—including in cases of cronyism, nepotism and abuses of power for sexual purpose—are appalling. It is clear that we need root-and-branch reform of the policing system, as the report calls for, to stamp out that bad behaviour, improve leadership and hold senior officers to the highest standard. Will the Minister confirm that that recommendation and others in the report will directly inform the forthcoming police reform Bill? Finally, the Police Federation has highlighted poor leadership in the police and an increase in officer suicides, but we do not have the data. Will the Minister commit to requiring police forces to gather that data?

My thoughts are with the victims and survivors, who have already suffered unbelievable harm and trauma. They have been failed at every stage, and they deserve better. It is completely unacceptable that someone who has been convicted of such vile offences, and who has rightly been stripped of his British citizenship, cannot be deported because of what I believe is a loophole in the law. It was not intended back in 1971 that the law should protect people like this, and the law must be rectified as a matter of urgency. Will the Minister tell the House when the Government will bring forward the necessary changes, and whether they have set a deadline for doing so? What progress has been made in discussions with Pakistan to ensure that this offender is deported?

The Liberal Democrats have supported the principle of the National Security (State Threats) Bill for some time. We know why it must pass, and why it must pass quickly. At present, our country is suffering from co-ordinated attacks from foreign states. Their actions subvert our democracy, intimidate the public and erode our values. The number of state threat investigations by MI5 has surged by a staggering 48% in the last year alone. Those figures are a stark reminder of the scale of the threat we face. That is not an isolated spike; it is the frontline of an expanding and evolving threat that the United Kingdom faces from both foreign Governments and hostile foreign actors. Chief among them is the increasingly emboldened Iranian regime, which is aggressively asserting itself to undermine our national security. Since the start of 2022, our security services have responded to 20 Iranian-backed plots, which present a direct and potentially lethal threat to British citizens and UK residents on our own soil. Let us be clear about who Iran is targeting: it is targeting dissidents, media organisations and journalists who have the bravery to report on that regime’s violent oppression. I have spoken to constituents who fled Iran and now live in Woking, and I know that they would support the Bill. Critically, Iran is also targeting the Jewish community who live in our country. We cannot allow that to happen.

I am pleased that, for once, we have cross-party consensus on an issue. However, it has been more than a year since Jonathan Hall KC first recommended the powers contained in the Bill to tackle state-backed and state-linked threats. The Government and this Parliament have been too slow to listen to his concerns. The Liberal Democrats welcome the fact that the legislation creates the power for state-backed entities to be designated under the National Security Act 2023. On Second Reading, my Liberal Democrat colleagues, including my hon. Friends the Members for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) and for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), raised strong concerns that the offences in the Bill might inadvertently capture the activities of humanitarian workers. Tackling state threats and protecting those who provide vital assistance and support to some of the planet’s most vulnerable people are not and should never be mutually exclusive. I therefore highly commend the amendments tabled by my noble Friend Baroness Northover, as well as by Lord Anderson, in the other place, which we are now considering. They will protect those who carry out humanitarian work, which, as colleagues have said, we never intended the Bill to capture. I am pleased and relieved that the Government are supporting the amendments.

I am pleased that my colleagues in the other place drafted the amendments and that the Government support them. Earlier today, we were talking about the Immigration Act 1971. Parliament never intended to protect someone who had been stripped of his British citizenship and committed heinous crimes, but there is a risk that because the legislation was badly drafted in 1971, we cannot do what we all want to do now and deport him. The intention of legislation is so important, and I am pleased that through the Lords amendments, we have managed to put some meat on the bones of the Government’s legislation to protect vital humanitarian workers. It is so important that we tackle state threats while also protecting those workers. I therefore highly commend the amendments tabled by my colleagues in the other place. I pay tribute in particular to Baroness Northover, whose work with the Government on these amendments deserves our praise. I also thank other colleagues in the other place for their work on the Bill. Humanitarian workers often work in extremely challenging and unstable areas, and they need to know that the law has their back when they are putting their lives at risk. To provide essential aid, they have to work with a wide variety of local groups. Without the new legal protections, they could easily be penalised simply for doing their jobs. Sometimes, that involves landmine clearance or paying a fee to access a particular zone. We must ensure that our laws do not criminalise aid workers. My noble Friend Baroness Northover’s amendments—Lords amendments 1, 2, 4 and 6—provide a defence for those carrying out humanitarian activities. The amendments ensure that humanitarian organisations will not face significant additional barriers to delivering their invaluable work. If the Bill passes today—and I hope it does—the Government need to work with urgency to introduce secondary legislation to finally designate the IRGC, as the Liberal Democrats and I have called for. As the summer recess looms, it is clear that such regulations must be made before the House rises on 16 July. Will Minister reassure me and the House that they will?

The largest employer in Woking is McLaren. It sells around half of its cars to the US, which, needless to say, has not been easy since Donald Trump took office. What are the Secretary of State and his Department doing to work with the US to lower trade barriers, so that we can continue to have high-quality advanced manufacturing jobs in Woking?

Last night this House debated the extended producer responsibility, which is seeing breweries, pubs and other businesses pay twice to recycle glass bottles. What meetings has the Department for Business and Trade had with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to raise the economically damaging nature of this tax? If it has not raised concerns, will it?

Leasehold is a con. We are one of the few countries that still has residential leasehold, and because of that, people are being sold a lie on home ownership. As Woking’s MP, I hear countless stories about it, and I will not use my time going through every single one, but I impress this point on the Government: we need to regulate these bureaucratic con artists. People have been scammed out of home ownership in place of leasehold. It is fleecehold. Dreams of home ownership have stayed dreams—far out of reach, and fast becoming nightmares. We hear far too often of leaseholders who have been distressed by poor service. These bad actors hide behind paperwork and avoid responsibility. Major firms such as FirstPort have, for far too long, been allowed to deliver an appalling service without consequences. The new leasehold reform Bill must put in place a regulator with the teeth to sanction these rogue agents with meaningful penalties. When that happens, MPs can end the wild west of property management agents. To see why leasehold reform is so urgent, we need only look at how managing agents such as FirstPort treat leaseholders. I had a situation involving a retirement development in Woking. It should be a lovely place to live that gives peace of mind to vulnerable, elderly residents, but when people fell over, the safety systems that FirstPort put in place did not work. Elderly residents were left lying on the floor, having called for help. FirstPort should have fixed that, and it did not. People were left in those distressing situations, but because of the lack of regulation, we cannot hold those responsible accountable. FirstPort also managed the Clock Tower building in Maybury. It has spent years causing misery to leaseholders, because of the failure to deliver minimum levels of service, and people are trapped. I have written to the Minister on numerous occasions about that case. Leaseholders have few rights, and cannot sell their homes or control who manages the development. The leaseholders of Bramwell Place, another development in Woking, know those problems all too well. They are trapped in their homes, due to frequent stalling and lack of communication. The developer completed the necessary fire safety investigation a year ago, but refused to release critical reports, burying them in an internal review. Lenders have denied the people in those homes mortgages, buyers are walking away, and innocent residents are left struggling. I am on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, and I have been proud to work on its report that pushes the Government to go further, faster. I thank the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) for her leadership, and our Committee Clerks for their excellent support. I hope the Government listen to our cross-party calls today. We recommended significant changes to the commonhold and leasehold reform Bill. The Bill is a step in the right direction, but does not deliver what we want. It is mind-boggling that the Bill does not deliver on the promises in the Labour manifesto. We recommended that the Bill deliver an independent regulator to end the wild west of property management agents. If we do that, FirstPort and others will not get away with the appalling treatment that my constituents and others face. It is heartbreaking that so many people in Woking and across the country have worked hard to get on the property ladder, but have seen their home ownership dream turn into a nightmare. Successive Governments have failed to tackle ground rents and leasehold reform. We want to put homeowners in control of the management of their buildings. I urge the Minister to implement the Select Committee report in full. Let us leave a lasting legacy on leasehold reform.

I thank the hon. Lady for being so generous with her time. I remember her making the same points in her Westminster Hall debate on the EPR back in May 2025. I made similar points in my Westminster Hall debate on beer tax—draught duty—in which we also talked about the EPR. Does the hon. Lady agree that it is really disappointing that a year on, the Government, and DEFRA in particular, have not listened to our concerns?

I wanted to give the hon. Lady a chance to get back into the swing of things before intervening, but as she is talking about a valuable business in her constituency, let me say that the pub and brewery sector in Woking represents £100 million and 1,800 jobs to our local economy; those numbers used to be higher but, sadly our small brewery, Thurstons, had to close. The EPR was one of several factors that hit that brewery. Does she agree that we need a change from the Government on the EPR, as well as wider support for the sector?

I might have been distracted in the last eight minutes—I do not know why. I remember hearing that the Minister said she has held a roundtable. I do remember that it was last year, and I am keen for her to meet the stakeholders again before this wider consultation and what happens next—hence my request.

I thank the Minister for being generous with her time. I am sure she can probably understand why I, Asahi, which is based in Woking, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and others are not satisfied with her answers today. I have heard nothing of the double taxation, which is what EPR is. Will she agree to meet me, the hon. Member, other MPs and, more importantly, the businesses impacted to fully understand the impact and to work out a way forward?

I regret that the Labour Government still have not set out a credible plan to restore fairness and control in our immigration and asylum system. This announcement is another sideways step that fails to address the root cause of the problem. Simply moving asylum seekers from one form of expensive and unsuitable accommodation to another is not good enough, particularly when the costs are going up. At the Crowborough MOD site, which is currently in operation, accommodation costs around £160 per asylum seeker per night. That is more than the cost of the average asylum hotel place. The Government are choosing a more expensive option, adding an estimated £60,000 every night to the bill faced by taxpayers. How does the Minister justify that? Will he confirm whether this decision is driven by a desire to be seen to be closing asylum hotels, rather than securing the best value for taxpayers? The Government should instead be focusing on reducing the asylum backlog and ending the limbo that many asylum seekers are in. The overall asylum caseload is now higher than when Labour took office, while the appeals backlog has reached record levels. Will the Minister set out what he and his Department are doing to reduce that backlog and ensure that the Home Office gets more decisions right first time, avoiding unnecessary appeals? Finally, if we are to deliver the controlled and compassionate immigration and asylum system that my constituents in Woking and the whole of the British public want, it is essential that we tackle dangerous channel crossings. Will the Minister work with our European partners to establish a genuinely effective returns agreement that ensures that we can have controlled, legal routes and that those who arrive in small boats can be returned swiftly?

I am proud to have Walk The Walk—one of the country’s leading breast cancer charities, which has raised a huge amount of money and awareness—in my constituency. It is pushing for mammogram testing to be extended. Does the hon. Lady agree that extending it to the under-40s and the over-70s could have a notable effect on fighting this deadly cancer?

My final answer is to thank the hon. Gentleman for attending a Westminster Hall debate; it is lovely to see him here. He highlighted that there is a slight age difference between us—the hon. Gentleman built a home and moved in 27 years ago; I moved into the first home that I have owned three years ago.

It was 37 years ago—sorry, I lost 10 years for the hon. Gentleman. Our report focused on the affordability of home ownership where people genuinely own the full home. We have previously done inquiries on shared ownership, which I am happy to send to the hon. Gentleman. The key thing we want the Government to do is look at how they can lower the cost of building a home. Inflation has had a notable impact on the cost of home ownership. The costs of owning a home and building a new home are too unreasonable, and I hope that the Government look at this issue and tackles it. Backbench Business

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Sir Alec. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for this statement on the second report of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee. I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Committee in place of my colleague, the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi). Our report is on the affordability of home ownership in England, a topic that affects so many people across the country. Some have suggested that in the current market, affordability of home ownership is a contradiction in terms. Everyone who has tried to buy a home recently, or knows someone who has, knows how difficult and expensive it has become. Housing affordability has been getting worse for decades. The majority of British people still want to own their own home, but fewer of them can do so. Over 20 years, the rate of home ownership has dropped from 71% to 63%. It is even worse for young adults: the rate of home ownership for 27-year-olds fell from 43% to 25% over not 20 years, but 10. It is deeply unfair that someone’s chance of owning a home is more dependent on whether their parents own a home than their own earnings. That is unacceptable and needs to change. Of course, affordability is exceptionally complicated. House prices have risen while incomes have stagnated. Mortgages have been hard to obtain and there are systemic barriers that slow down the whole home buying process. Successive Governments have tried to tackle the problem, but have failed to measurably improve the situation. The current Government must not fail as well. What, then, are the Government to do? First, as we know, more homes are needed. The Government are right to address the historical undersupply of homes, and we support their target to provide 1.5 million new homes by the end of the Parliament. At the same time, we are concerned that they might not meet that target and, even if they do, that 1.5 million new homes may not be enough. The last time homes in this country were built at the pace required to hit that Government target was over 50 years ago. Back then, 40% of homes were built by councils, but those days are long gone. Now, 75% of home building is done by private developers, which are facing their own challenges. The costs of building are rising, and if private developers cannot make a profit, they will not build the homes in the first place. We are seeing that happen across the country, with developers such as the Berkeley Group scaling back operations because of the volatility caused by the conflict in the middle east. In my constituency of Woking, over 2,000 homes in and around the town centre alone have got permission, but none is even under construction. The Government are right to encourage councils to build again, including through their social and affordable homes programme, but private developers are vital to building the homes we need. We have asked the Ministry to write to us twice a year about its actions and progress on increasing home building rates by developers. The Government could do more, however, including using the hundreds of thousands of homes around the country that are lying empty. Those homes are an unused stockpile, representing a significant chunk of the 1.5 million new homes the Government want to build. Councils already have some powers to take control of vacant homes, but those powers carry risks and are rarely used. We concluded that the Government need to make existing powers easier to understand and use, and to provide new powers where necessary. The evidence we saw during our inquiry shows that high loan-to-value ratio mortgages are important for first-time buyers, so it is good news that such mortgages are becoming more available because of the prudential and financial regulations affecting the property market. But there is more to be done, and we need to encourage lenders to change their affordability assessments so they are fair and mortgages are accessible to those who need them most. For example, it should never be the case that a renter is turned down for a mortgage because they cannot afford the repayments, when those repayments are less than what they are already paying in rent. Other financial products besides mortgages can also be put towards the cost of a new home. Some products are even backed by the Government, such as the lifetime ISA. I will not go over all the problems with lifetime ISAs now; as part of our inquiry, we sat jointly with the Treasury Committee, which has published a separate report. Suffice it to say, the Government have promised to replace the lifetime ISA with a new product that is specifically designed for first-time buyers, and we support them in doing so. The new first-time buyer ISA will be introduced in 2028. The Government launched a consultation on its design just two days ago. We are glad that, in line with our recommendations, the design is geared specifically towards first-time buyers and does not have a withdrawal charge that could cost people their initial investment. However, we also recommended that the Government should avoid a static property price cap that could make the product useless in some parts of the country. The Government have not yet set out the details of their property price cap for the new ISA, so we are still waiting to see how they will ensure that the product remains useful over time and in every region of the country. As well as publishing our inquiry report, we also wrote to the Minister on 29 April to set out our concerns relating to the home buying and selling process. We found that it is a painful experience that reduces people’s motivation to move and slows down the housing market. Barriers and unnecessary costs should be eliminated to encourage more people to move, to increase the day-to-day supply of homes on the market and to reduce the number of transactions that fall through. In particular, we recommend that the Ministry should mandate that necessary property information is provided earlier in the process, that conditional contracts should be used to make transaction agreements binding at an earlier stage and that there should be stronger regulation of property agents. The Government promised to address the first two of these in their reform road map, which was published last week. Although the Government have stopped short of regulating property agents, they have promised to publish a code of practice for them by the end of the year. I hope that, with the political instability, that is not lost. Lastly, I turn to the stamp duty land tax. Stamp duty directly reduces the affordability of home ownership by increasing how much people need to pay to buy a home. More than that, it slows the property market, stops people relocating for work or downsizing, and ultimately damages the economy. I wish I could say that stamp duty was an isolated problem, but all property taxes in this country, including business rates and council tax, are a mess. Similarly to a previous report, which recommended that the Government should make changes to council tax, we recommend that stamp duty should be overhauled and replaced. It is fundamentally unfair and damages our economy. Those two taxes need to be changed, and I hope the new Government take that opportunity. Stamp duty provides £14 billion of Government revenue each year, so the Government cannot just get rid of it outright, but we have called on them to consult by the end of the year on alternative to the current form of stamp duty, including replacing it with a revenue-neutral alternative, such as an annual property tax; reducing rates to stimulate more transactions; tying tax bands more closely to local house prices; and updating reliefs to better meet Government goals. I know the new Prime Minister is keen on a land value tax, and I hope this is a priority for his new Government. It was on this day three years ago that I moved into the first home I have owned by myself, but for so many people, home ownership is beyond reach. In my constituency of Woking, more people are having to leave their home town to buy their first home, and some cannot buy a home at all. That is not acceptable. To address housing affordability and to ensure that our young constituents can get a foot on the housing ladder, we need the Government to go much further and much faster. We need them to use a range of approaches to improve the supply of homes and the effective demand for those homes. We welcome the steps that they are taking in some areas, but in others they must be bolder to enact the policies that we have set out in our report, which can lead to real and long-lasting improvement in the affordability of home ownership for first-time buyers in this country.

My hon. Friend thanks me for the Committee’s work. In return, I thank him for choosing housing as the topic of his private Member’s Bill. It will really improve things on the housing front, and I am thankful that he is putting the topic high on the agenda. The Committee and I will look to speak as much as we can in favour of his Bill, and I hope that the Minister will work constructively with him on its passing. Even if it does not pass, the Government may take its provisions into other legislation. In answer to my hon. Friend’s point about how the viability of developments can reduce the amount of affordable housing, I am concerned that we are seeing that across the country. In my Woking constituency, brownfield developments do not include any affordable housing contributions at all because they are classed as unviable—and they are still not being built. We need to ensure that developers make contributions on affordable housing, which is why the Government’s social and affordable homes programme is essential to cover that lack of viability. The Committee has also raised concerns with the Government about changing the requirements of the Public Works Loan Board. That would ensure that councils, via their housing revenue accounts, could invest in not only maintaining properties, but building new homes, which is exactly what we need.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s concerns. I want to thank him for his work on the APPG. In the report, we highlighted that the Government should review and update the definition of affordable housing. We are particularly concerned about those cross-cutting issues, and we have worked with the Treasury Committee, as mentioned in the report. This is not just an MHCLG issue, but a Treasury issue. The hon. Gentleman said nice words about the Minister, who I know will be appearing before the Committee soon. The Minister knows his subject and explains it in a plain-spoken way. It is important that we do not have another change of Housing Minister; we need that certainty. I am looking forward to holding the Minister to account while he—we—delivers the draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill and deliver the homes we need.

5. What assessment she has made of the adequacy of educational support provided to the children of military families.

Brookwood primary school in Woking educates a significant number of military children because Army Training Centre Pirbright is nearby. Those children have their education disrupted because of the nature of their parents’ vital work in the armed forces. In this Armed Forces Week, will the Government look at what further support they can give, including by increasing the service pupil premium, which has gone up by just £20 in two years?

At the weekend, I visited an excellent rural pub in my constituency—the Olive Tree in Sutton Green—and met the owner, Nigel, and his staff. They are doing a great job running a pub in very difficult times. Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the Government want to reset their relationship with rural pubs and help them, they should consider cutting beer duty or increasing the draught discount?

My local authority, Woking borough council, is doing exactly as the Minister asks: it is creating a local plan, which is where our democratically elected councillors decide where we will build the homes that local people need. Is there any point in local authorities pursuing local plans if planning reforms will render them toothless?

5. What steps he is taking to support local authorities in creating local plans.

Can the Minister assure me that when the diesel trains that operate on the South Western Railway network are replaced with electric trains to decarbonise the network, there will be no reduction in service for my commuting constituents in Woking?

The Royal Mail is failing my constituents. Letters are arriving late, and as a result hospital appointments are being missed. We have even had travel documents arriving on the day of departure. When I raised those concerns with Royal Mail directly, it took five months to send me a wholly inadequate reply, and it was not even lost in the post. Will the Government please ensure that a statement is made announcing real consequences for Royal Mail for it failing in its statutory duties?

T4. Delays and cancellations on the South Western Railway network are horrendous. Nationalisation has not gone to plan. Last week I asked the Leader of the House why that is the case, and he said that we do not need a debate on it because he expects things to improve. Please can the Secretary of State tell the House what key performance indicators the Government are using to measure success?

I completely endorse the hon. Lady’s calls. I have talked about how we need reform to the family courts. Will she support my calls for the Government to support family contact centres? In my constituency, the Woking Family Contact Centre has been run by volunteers for 25 years, which is an amazing achievement. We need to ensure that children are well supported after a traumatic incident. Does the hon. Lady agree that the Government need to do much more to support family contact centres?

We missed the hon. Gentleman at yesterday’s meeting. I agree; I fear that it will not save any money. The lack of evidence and a business case is a concern for me and the Liberal Democrats, and we expressed that at the Committee yesterday. I am sure he will be able to do the same next week when he joins us.

I can do, but obviously I am going to pass over to the Minister in a bit. If there are to be such monumental changes to the way we operate and run our society, we need to consult local people. Repeatedly, through this entire process, local views have been disregarded. Back in April, hundreds of people staged a protest against plans that would split the New Forest area into two mega-councils, as has already been referred to. More than 13,000 unhappy residents signed a petition calling for New Forest district council to take legal advice and pursue a judicial review. Local government reorganisation should be driven by councils and local areas, not dictated to by London. We are told that LGR is about efficiency and a fresh start, but the reality on the ground looks like absolute chaos. If anything, it is a setback. We need look no further than Woking. Surrey county council was planning to make Arnold Road and Eve Road in Maybury safer and nicer, but the scheme has been kicked into the long grass and the council will not engage with me or the local residents it consulted about the plans. It has been palmed off on West Surrey council, which is being created next year. That is shocking. The situation is a prime example of how local government plans are grinding to a halt. Essential infrastructure is on pause as Ministers and civil servants reshuffle the system. LGR is causing delays and frustrating the lives of local people, who should not have to watch their community services decline while councils try to guess the future. That is all happening with no leadership or direction from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. The issues are rife elsewhere too. Shropshire council spends 80% of its budget on social care. It is a prime example of the financial pressure facing local services. Alongside underfunding, it has also had its funding cut. Care for the elderly is such a huge burden, because 25% of its population is over 65, and the lack of transport and other local services makes the provision of social care even harder. The Government’s LGR is making it more difficult for areas to build homes, as councils are having to concentrate on LGR rather than the national housing crisis. My local authority, Wokingham borough council, has just started to draft a new local plan where local people get to decide where we build the homes we need. But next year it will be abolished. Labour’s manifesto pledged to build 1.5 million homes. Now it is making it more difficult for local areas to build and risk reneging on that manifesto promise. Alongside the local plan, since coming to power in Woking, the Liberal Democrats have been trying to fix the mess left by others. Last year I helped secure a £500 million debt write-off from Woking’s debt that we inherited from the Conservatives.

Half a billion pounds. We have had that debt write-off and we have also had exceptional financial support—known as EFS. The lack of understanding of that issue was apparent in yesterday’s Select Committee. The Minister says that they want to get through the fair funding review so that they have a better idea of what money local councils need, to fully enable local authorities to have multi-year funding settlements. I am fine with that, but it does not get rid of the need for cash and being aware of the lack of it. Referring to my earlier point that the Minister did not know how much money could be saved from reorganisation, it has already been mentioned by the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) that the Government do not have an assessment of how much this will save. That is not acceptable. Councils need money, but we cannot put the money we save from local government reform back into services if we do not know how much will be saved in the first place. Councils have not been properly supported for the transition and, try as they may, they are without leadership from London, mainly because, as the Minister says, Labour is not in full possession of the information that it needs to make a success of it. In Surrey we are the canary in the coalmine. The elderly, vulnerable and children are already suffering and Surrey county council is refusing requests under the guise of LGR. The whole system is breaking. The Minister and Government are making all this effort with these changes, yet are not actually addressing the problem. Ministers do not know how much to invest or what the savings will be. That is not solving a problem; it is creating new ones. I understand that they have their work cut out—it is a big job and it is never easy. However, in that discussion yesterday, there are critical questions that needed answers. Looking ahead, addressing those challenges will be essential for anyone hoping to secure a role under Andy Burnham. If the Mayor of Greater Manchester becomes Prime Minister, he will be looking for a Local Government Minister who can answer these questions. I was disappointed with the Minister’s answers yesterday, but we still do not have an answer on how much money local government reorganisation will save, or why the Government have bulldozed through local democracy. I wonder if the Minister will tell Parliament the answers to those questions right now.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) for securing this important debate. It is obvious that LGR is the Government running before they can walk. On so many issues, we Liberal Democrats push the Government to go further and faster—but not on this. Even McLaren, from my constituency, would think that the Government are going too fast and too furious. Local government reorganisation has charged ahead without listening to councils and while ignoring residents. A layer of our local democracy is being removed and silenced. It very much feels as if Labour is reorganising local government for the sake of it, without rhyme or reason. Severe funding pressures are pushing local services to the brink. Vulnerable children, the elderly and the safety of our roads are suffering because of years of Conservative mismanagement and neglect, but rebranding and changing the face of the problem does not affect the way that something works—or, more importantly, the way it does not work. The Liberal Democrats believe that we need to fix our public services first and involve local people before we even think about redrawing lines on the map. Of course, we still do not know why the Government have chosen to push ahead with LGR. Organisations, whether charities or businesses, always have a fully costed business case; they do not change the way they do things without one. I sit on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, and it was clear from yesterday’s meeting that the Labour Government simply have not outlined their business case. What we have here is an overly ambitious plan to reform all local government by 2028. There seem to be no reason other than creating “efficiencies”. In the meeting yesterday, when I asked the Minister how much money reorganisation would save, she said, “It is challenging to answer that question,” and, “Unitary councils tend to be more effective. I can’t give a direct answer.” I was surprised to hear that. That was the answer for a flagship Labour policy that would involve the largest change to local government for over half a century.

T6. Byfleet, in my constituency, lost its doctor’s surgery in 2005, leaving residents having to struggle via the A245 to access basic health facilities, which are set to get busier due to a likely housing development. Will the Minister agree to meet me to ensure that we can bring health facilities back to Byfleet?

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) for securing this debate and introducing it in the way he did. Earlier this week, the second largest settlement in my constituency, West Byfleet, lost its last bank. That is a stark, sad reminder that high streets are really struggling in Woking and across the country. They are under pressure because of business rates, energy bills, increases to national insurance contributions, the Ukraine war causing inflation costs and, quite frankly, customers not having so much money because of the cost of living crisis, so they cannot shop and visit as much. Heartbreakingly, my constituency also recently lost its last local brewery, Thurstons, whose demise is another example of the decreasing number of pubs—we lost more than 300 across the country last year. My constituent John, who used to run Thurstons but still runs a local pub, the Crown, said that this was “death by a thousand cuts”. It was not one thing that caused the brewery to close; it was the cumulative impact of many problems. One of my other Woking constituents, Jo Moulton, owns and runs a salon in Knaphill. Hairdressing is another sector that is really struggling. Several hairdressers have closed in my constituency recently. Jo’s salon, Sorella Hair Salon, is facing a 340% increase in its business rates over five years. That is unacceptable. No business can cope with that, and that is why so many are closing. Pubs, the hospitality sector and hairdressers are so important: they make our high streets thrive, and they are key employers of local young people. Given that we have increased the bill for businesses of employing people, we cannot be surprised that they are not employing young people any more or providing those vital training opportunities, but it is a real concern. Despite what feels like the Chancellor’s best efforts, there are actually thriving high street businesses in Woking—fortunately, my constituency is doing better than most. Ihlara restaurant in Woking town centre and the Drumming Snipe pub in Mayford have recently been nominated for awards. Many businesses have adapted to the changing world after the pandemic: with people working from home more, every village and high street in my constituency now has a café. A Cup of Peace in Kingfield is amazing. The owners regularly pick my brains on foreign policy, because they are from Iran and are really concerned about what is happening there. Businesses can adapt, but they need the Government to give them a break. That is why I urge the Minister to look at the Lib Dem proposals to cut VAT, including a 5% cut for pubs, the hospitality sector and, I hope, hairdressers. Property taxes—business rates, council tax and stamp duty—are some of the most controversial and despised taxes in the country. We should look at property tax reform and genuinely reform business rates. I am pleased that the Government have given support to some businesses, but the fact that they are tinkering around the edges shows that the whole system is broken. I urge the Minister to look at the effectiveness of the high street rental auctions scheme. At the last count, Woking town centre had 112 properties that have been empty for a year or more. Very few of them are being brought back into use, and I know that the same is true elsewhere. I do not think the rental auctions scheme is working as well as the Government had hoped, and I urge them to review it and work with local authorities to ensure they are empowered and have the resources to bring those properties back into use. If the Government do at least some of that, we can grow our economy, provide employment and training for young people, and ensure that our high streets thrive.

Many of my Woking constituents regularly commute to London by train, but they cannot rely on the service provided by South Western Railway. Delays are at the highest level since 2019, and there were 1,000 more cancellations in the second half of last year than there had ever been before. Do the Government admit that nationalisation has not gone to plan, and will the Leader of the House agree to have a debate in Government time to ensure that I can get the service that my constituents pay for?

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship in this important debate, Mr Twigg. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) for securing this debate and for the way he introduced it and shared his constituents’ stories. Our constituencies are very different, but the stories I heard were very familiar. The thread running through them is that children who are reliant on home-to-school transport are often failed. For another 10 months, my Woking constituents will be served by Surrey county council, and that is a real challenge for them. I have called many times for the children’s services at that council to be investigated and put into special measures, and home-to-school transport is another area in which I think the council lets people down. Surrey has third biggest local authority spend—at the last count, it spent more than £65 million in one year—on home-to-school transport, and it regularly overspends. The vast majority of that money is spent on home-to-school transport for children with special educational needs. Last year, The Daily Telegraph said that “Workers in Surrey have been left unable to book a taxi first thing in the morning because firms are too busy ferrying pupils to…schools”. On top of that, I speak to many parents and carers in Woking who are struggling and fighting to get the home- to-school transport that their children need. No one is happy with the system; it is not working for anyone, be they parents, carers, taxpayers or the wider community. It is broken, particularly in Surrey, where the county council has not invested enough in SEND school places. That means that the school places available for SEND children in Woking are often far away, making home-to-school transport absolutely essential. If we had capital investment—an invest-to-save approach—to build more SEND school places, the bill for home-to-school transport could be reduced and the quality of life for my young constituents would improve. Surrey county council is not doing that, and I think that is disgusting. A young male constituent of mine, who is in a wheelchair because of cerebral palsy and suffers from epilepsy, was given an education place 25 miles away from his home. He had to leave my constituency and go through the next constituency, through the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Alex Brewer), and then into another. The county council did not think that that journey merited home-to-school transport; it said that the child was on their own. That decision was absolutely appalling, but thankfully it was reversed. My county council has also tried to suggest that children should travel on inappropriate routes so that it can avoid providing home-to-school transport. One young girl was told to walk down a narrow country lane, with no streetlights and no pavement, to ensure that she would not qualify for home-to-school transport. Yet again, we got the right decision via tribunal, following complaints from my office, but parents should not have to fight time and again to get what they are entitled to. I therefore echo the calls from my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, especially for a joined-up approach to school places and home-to-school transport. He talked a lot about the challenges for home-to-school transport in rural areas. I agree that the rural services delivery grant was important, and it is sad that it has gone. Surrey is the fifth most congested place in the country, so there are other challenges in my Woking constituency. Having a home-to-school transport system in a congested county is a real challenge. Another issue that I have raised before is safeguarding. I have led Westminster Hall debates about safeguarding, following the appalling abuse, torture and murder of my 10-year-old constituent, Sara Sharif. That case has huge implications for local authorities and children’s services—I will not repeat those now—but it also has a significant impact on home-to-school transport. Sara’s father and murderer was a licensed taxi driver. He was employed by the county council to support vulnerable children with home-to-school transport. Even though, from day one in her life, the council knew that Sara was at risk from her father, it did not give that information to the taxi licensing team or the home-to-school transport team. I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde). I was there when he raised this issue at Education questions and at Prime Minister’s questions. There are clearly safeguarding issues, and I urge the Minister to meet me so that we can improve the situation. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 made notable improvements on data sharing, but I do not believe it goes far enough to have stopped what happened in Surrey. I hope this debate forces the Government to review home-to-school transport and reassure constituents that services will not be taken away from them. I believe that we can deliver better value for money and the better service that young people deserve.

The Centre for Social Justice found that up to 57% of care leavers struggle to stay out of debt and struggle to manage their money. That is why I have got my two local authorities, Surrey county council and Woking borough council, to take young care leavers out of the council tax system altogether to help ensure that they can successfully transition to independent adulthood. Will the Minister agree to work with his colleagues in the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government to ensure that local authorities have the funding and guidance to extend that support across the country?

My constituency has one of the busiest rail aggregate goods yards in the country, with about 300 trains delivering construction material each year. That replaces 14,000 long-distance lorries, which is 2.5 million HGV miles. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to do much more to support the rail freight industry to improve our environment, to reduce congestion and, above all, to build the homes we need?

I completely agree, but I suggest that the hon. Member takes it up with his Government, who seem to be more focused on the hatred from the Reform party than on agreeing with our quite welcoming rhetoric. He should take that up with his Ministers rather than with me as the Liberal Democrat spokesperson—he might risk crossing the Floor, if he is not careful. The Ukrainian scheme is the only humanitarian visa scheme that does not have the pathway to permanent settlement. I hope that the Minister will start to correct that injustice. Everything about this country—apart from its weather—should be fair. But our visa system is not fair, and it is not working for this country and the people in it. My hon. Friends the Members for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins), for Horsham (John Milne), for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) and for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) have shown real-life examples of that unfairness and failure. I urge the Minister to start correcting it.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) for securing the debate and introducing it in the way he did. It will not surprise him to know that I do not agree with all of what he said, but he did raise valid concerns about the abuse of our visa system and the loopholes in it. The Liberal Democrats are willing to work cross-party with the Conservatives and the Labour Government to tackle those issues. The Liberal Democrats believe in a fair and controlled immigration system that works for our economy and our public services. It must function effectively, command public confidence and bring benefits to the United Kingdom and its people. We want a controlled immigration system, with a visa system that meets the demands of our economy and public services, but that must go hand in hand with a credible plan to boost domestic skills. However, this country’s visa rules can hurt our economy, damage families and fail to fully support refugees fleeing conflict, and that is what I will use my time today to talk about. The Lib Dems wholeheartedly oppose the Government’s plans to retrospectively change the rights to seek indefinite leave to remain, and I know that many Labour MPs do as well. Moving the goalposts in this way violates the fundamental British value of fairness. I am particularly concerned about the impact it will have on Hongkongers, who are fundamentally British. Many now reside in my constituency of Woking, and they are really concerned about the unreasonable financial and language requirements being put on them. I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on that, and particularly any reassurance he can give Hongkongers in my community and across the country. As well as being unfair to the individuals involved, visa requirements can damage our economy. Thousands already contributing to our society and economy have made an investment in this country, and their firms have made investments in this country and offered them jobs knowing what ILR means. The lack of certainty from moving those goalposts is massively damaging—I have heard that from businesses in Woking, the Law Society and many others. It is not right or fair to change those rules. The immigration system also damages our economy through the visa costs charged. The five-year global talent visa now costs £6,000— 20 times higher than in competitor countries. Cancer Research UK has said that several pieces of its research have been affected by soaring immigration costs, which have risen by 126% since 2019 and are up to 17 times higher than comparable countries such as Australia, France or the United States. The amount that the charity has had to pay the Government in visa fees or other immigration surcharges has nearly doubled since 2022-23, rising from less than £500,000 to almost £900,000 this year. That money could have been enough to train 40 PhD students, and I know where I would prefer the money to go. A report from Oxford University’s Migration Observatory has found that there is very little evidence to support the Government’s belief that employers will train or rely on domestic staff because of hiking charges. It just does not agree with the Government. That is why I urge the Government to rule out retrospective changes to ILR and agree transitional arrangements, and to review visa charges based on genuine benchmarking against other similar countries. Visa rules are not helping us grow our economy, and they are also undermining the right to family life. British citizens who wish to return to the UK with a foreign-born spouse encounter complex and costly application requirements. The application fee varies depending on whether someone applies in or out of the UK, but it can be more than £2,000. UK citizens should have the right to have their family come to the UK, provided that there are proper checks to verify their relationships. The Liberal Democrats think that minimum income and asset requirements for those with visas should be structured to ensure that there is no recourse to public funds, rather than being tied to arbitrary earning levels. Last year, British citizens were required for the first time to present British passports at the UK border or present a certificate of entitlement attached to a non-UK passport. Dual nationals were really hurt last year by this Government. The current fee for that certificate of entitlement is £589. At the time, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I called on the Government to implement a grace period to allow British dual nationals to travel home without being caught out. There were families with children, children trying to take exams and families with sick relatives who were caught out, not only by the Government’s rules but by their refusal to compromise and adapt based on a poor information campaign. The Home Office did not listen to us, and I hope that it starts to listen to us again. Finally, I worry that this country’s approach to visas can undermine our very humanity. We should welcome those fleeing war and support them when they are here. I am proud that my constituency of Woking has welcomed over 500 Ukrainians who have fled their homeland following Vladimir Putin’s appalling illegal invasion of Ukraine. I hear from Ukrainians that, as well as being anxious about their homeland and what is happening to their friends and family back in Ukraine, they are also anxious about their immigration status here in the UK. The Liberal Democrats think that the Government should automatically extend visas for Ukrainians who are already granted the right to be here to stay in the UK. It is vital that we remove the uncertainty that hangs over those families and children.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) for securing this vital debate. I know that, since his election almost two years ago, he has spent much of his parliamentary time raising the issue of cancer and getting investment into cancer services. Now he is speaking about domestic abuse; no one can accuse him of not having his heart in the right place. I thank him for leading the debate. As the MP for Woking, I have spent much of my time protecting vulnerable children, and I know that the Government do great work in tackling domestic violence and protecting families, women and children. Last week, I visited Surrey’s Steps to Change hub, which is based in my constituency of Woking and was established back in 2023, thanks to a £1 million grant from the Home Office. It brings together services, such as the local authority, the police and domestic abuse charities, such as Woking’s amazing Your Sanctuary women’s refuge, to ensure that they work together holistically. Tragically, the hub is one of only two in the country. It supports those who have experienced, or are experiencing, domestic abuse, and separately it supports children impacted by what their family has gone through. Vitally, the hub also works with those who have committed domestic abuse, or those likely to do so, to encourage them to change their behaviour to prevent future abuse. It was really eye-opening to spend time with the volunteers and, above all, with some of those who have received the support that this amazing organisation provides. I am pleased to welcome the new Safeguarding Minister to her place. Surrey and only one other county have one of these hubs; I ask the Minister to draw attention to us as an example of best practice, but we should not be the only ones. Will she ensure that such support is rolled out across the country? It is saving and improving lives in my constituency and my county of Surrey. That is fortunate for me and my constituents, but it is far too rare and it should be rolled out nationwide. I am concerned about the local government reorganisation in my area next year and that Surrey’s police and crime commissioner will be abolished in 2029 but not replaced by a directly elected Mayor, in which case the funding and convening power for the hub could go. I am pleased that the commissioner is going and that we will have new local authorities, but the risk of the transformation is that it could reduce the protection for families and children in my constituency. That would be unacceptable. Will the Minister meet me to ensure that the funding is maintained over this uncertain period? As I said, the Government centrally and the whole public sector have done so much good to help survivors of domestic abuse recover and to protect them, and to ensure that such abuse does not happen in the first place. But all too often that fails catastrophically, with unthinkable consequences for some of the most vulnerable people. My 10-year-old constituent, Sara Sharif, was abused, tortured and murdered by her father and stepmother. She was failed from the day she was born, including on the day before she was murdered. She was failed by Surrey county council children’s services and by the family court system. That is why I echo the calls of my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham for reform. When Sara was born and before she was even one year old, Surrey county council children’s services wanted to take her away from what they knew to be an abusive father. Tragically, they changed their mind and the family court did not say, “Surrey, are you sure? Surely you want to do that.” The day before Sara was murdered, Surrey county council children’s services tried to visit her home, because they were concerned, but they went to the wrong house and they did not try to go back. Previously, I have urged the Government to put Surrey county council children’s services into special measures, but thankfully they are being abolished next year. I would urge the Safeguarding Minister to ensure that that appalling culture at Surrey county council is not transferred to the new East Surrey and West Surrey councils. Sadly, other children’s services are failing in this country, and I know that other areas across the country are going to have local government reorganisation. Will she ensure that this Government see local government reorganisation as an opportunity to change such a culture and to put vulnerable people first, to change child protection? Sadly, Sara’s is not the only child protection case I have had in my constituency. Judith is another constituent. She and her children suffered years of domestic abuse from her former partner and she feared for her children’s safety. The family court eventually gave her full custody and no visitation rights for the dad. Surrey county council recently insisted that the father be reintroduced to the children, to see if it is safe for the family to court to give access. I hope that the Minister agrees that that is an appalling use of child protection rules and family court processes. I wholeheartedly welcome the ending of the presumption of parental contact, but that is a whole-system failure, and I hope that the Minister makes it a priority to tackle it in her new role. I echo the calls of my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham for domestic abuse experts to be embedded in the family court system. I am incredibly disappointed that reform of the family court system and investment in, and changes to, the child protection process were not in the King’s Speech. Does the Minister not find that shameful? Will she ensure that it becomes a priority in other legislation and that the Government look favourably on amendments proposed to the legislation that was in the King’s Speech?

That’s you!

Woking’s only brewery, Thurstons, is sadly closing down. The owner, John Mintram, said: “It’s all getting too expensive…People are feeling the squeeze—you can’t sell £8 or £9 pints.” Will the Government please apologise to the owners and customers of Thurstons for what they have done to the hospitality sector, and agree to a debate on ensuring that they properly support the brewing and pub sector in the future?

Week after week, British Jews are being attacked, intimidated and persecuted. We have seen what has happened at Heaton Park synagogue, Kenton United synagogue, Finchley Reform synagogue, and Jewish Futures in Hendon, and to the Hatzola ambulances, and more recently, there have been the Golders Green stabbings. The independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, Jonathan Hall, is right to call these appalling levels of antisemitism a “national security emergency”. He is also right to say that laws must be properly enforced, especially as the UK’s terror threat was raised to severe last month. Members of the Jewish faith in my constituency attend the North West Surrey synagogue, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer)—I call him my hon. Friend, despite the normal convention, because on this issue, in this House, I hope there is more that unites us than divides us. We must collectively fight antisemitism. I want a future in which Jewish congregations can gather free of fear and have a Government who support their safety. In this climate, it is absolutely right that the Government take urgent action, but I question whether broadening the scope of Prevent will be enough, given the modern threats that we face. In the Southport and Golders Green attacks, we saw the abject failure of Prevent. It is clear that a full overhaul of Prevent is needed; warning signs must not be missed again. Yesterday’s King’s Speech confirmed the Government’s intention to introduce national security legislation, but this must be a priority. Please can the Minister confirm that the legislation will include an overhaul of Prevent, and set out the timetable for the Bill’s introduction? Finally, the Liberal Democrats have long called for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to be proscribed. As Jonathan Hall has made clear, existing powers are already sufficient to proscribe the IRGC. That being the case, why have this Government dragged their feet and delayed action to proscribe the IRGC and keep British Jews safe?

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. The Liberal Democrats continue to be disappointed that the Government have not set out a credible plan to tackle the asylum backlog and end hotel use. The Minister said that the Government have a vision—yes, a vision, but not a plan—to genuinely tackle the problem. The current system costs taxpayers £6 million a day in hotel bills, and the most recent data shows that the appeals backlog now stands at 80,000. The Government’s plan to remove the duty to support asylum seekers risks creating knock-on effects for already stretched local services provided by councils and charities. That is especially true because it is not accompanied by giving asylum seekers the right to work. This time last year, during Committee debate on the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, I tabled several amendments to lift the ban. Liberal Democrats in the main Chamber tabled similar amendments but the Government did not listen. We need to lift the ban, to ensure that asylum seekers can contribute to our country. The Government say that asylum seekers should support themselves and contribute to society, but are not allowing them to do so. In what world can someone support themselves without the chance of getting the right to work? The Government are still banning asylum seekers from working, and that is wrong. It is about time the Government did a U-turn on that, as they have on many other things. People are instead forced to work in black market jobs and may become victims of modern slavery, prostitution or drug dealing. The Government make no bones about the fact that they are following the Danish model, yet Denmark allows asylum seekers to work after six months. We Liberal Democrats have long campaigned to lift the ban to ensure that asylum seekers work after three months, which would mean that they could support themselves financially and integrate. We have serious concerns that today’s regulations mean that the housing of homeless asylum seekers will fall to local councils when many are already at real risk of homelessness. Is the Minister not concerned about how a future Government would use their discretionary powers? If he has to hand the keys to his office to a Reform Government, how would our refugees and asylum seekers be supported? He might think that his Government will support refugees, but this is not just about his Government. Additionally, there is no clear definition of what constitutes “deliberate”. Will the Minister please ensure that the Home Office explains and defines that? I turn to the statutory instrument on the provision of accommodation. Will the Minister please assure me that that will not increase the burden on local councils following the withdrawal of support? My council, Woking borough council, went bankrupt under the Conservatives, and I would hate for more woes to be added to its problems. Finally, I assume that there will be an exemption for victims of human trafficking. If so, can the Minister outline how it will be defined? We do not want to remove support for them.

Will the right hon. Member give way?

Will the Minister give way?

I thank my fellow member of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee for giving way, and I agree with his criticism of the Labour Government. Does he agree that the Conservatives also have an appalling record on defending our green belt and environment? In my Woking constituency, the Conservative Government’s planning policy forced the release of green belt in West Hall in West Byfleet so that there was the urban sprawl that the hon. Member is now speaking so strongly against.

T3. Many of my constituents are really concerned that the world’s attention is on Trump’s illegal war in Iran, while Netanyahu is annexing land in Gaza, Lebanon and the west bank. Following Viktor Orbán’s defeat in Hungary, the EU is meant to be agreeing to take a tougher line on Israel. Will this country join it?

My concern about the impact of local government reorganisation is the lack of money for community-owned assets. Charities are entitled to a mandatory 80% business relief, with the 20% discretionary top-up from local councils. In areas that have gone bankrupt, like mine in Woking, community-owned assets and charities could be at the forefront of decisions. What steps is the Minister taking to support community-owned assets in council areas that are struggling financially, like Woking?

I regularly meet church leaders in my constituency of Woking, and they often raise the plight of Christians abroad. Please can the hon. Member assure me that one of the Church’s top priorities is to tackle extremism and the persecution of Christians abroad?

4. What steps the Church is taking to help protect Christian communities from extremism.

A wife of a civil servant in my constituency gave up work to look after her husband when he was diagnosed with motor neurone disease. She found herself in severe financial difficulties after significant delays in the processing of her husband’s civil service pension. He sadly died last year and she only started receiving support a couple of weeks ago. As this is not an isolated case, will the Leader of the House please guarantee a debate in Government time, so that MPs can scrutinise the mess that is civil service pensions?

I agree that we need to avoid extra charges and make train fares cheaper. The hon. Lady talked about neighbouring constituencies. Despite Woking being the busiest station in Surrey, we do not have tap in, tap out, which means that hundreds of people a year tap in at Waterloo and, unreasonably, are not able to tap out at Woking, resulting in extra charges. Does she agree that the Government should introduce tap in, tap out fairly to Woking and other areas of Surrey?

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Sir John. I will speak to the statutory instrument focused on Surrey, my constituency of Woking being foremost in my mind. That statutory instrument transfers certain adult education functions from the Secretary of State to Surrey county council as part of the Government’s devolution agenda. From the 2026-27 school year, Surrey county council would therefore take responsibility for delivery of those education and training functions for people aged 19 and above, including local learning priorities, managing tuition support and other such things. The Liberal Democrats have concerns about the lack of clarity around how the devolved powers will work in practice, and I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on that. Does Surrey county council have the necessary capacity, resources and structures to deliver effectively when, as we know, they have significant financial pressures? The council was mentioned during the debate we had yesterday on special educational needs and disabilities, and, as was highlighted, the Secretary of State for Education is concerned about its children’s services and its offer for young people with SEND. In particular, will the Minister explain why the Government are devolving the powers to Surrey county council in the financial year 2026-27, at the end of which the council will be abolished? That provides no certainty. He is the Minister for Transformation, but transformation happens year after year. Surely this decision can wait for at least one year until East Surrey council and West Surrey council are established and can take on new responsibilities.

Many of my Woking constituents have concerns about the speed and volume of traffic on Old Woking High Street, particularly near St Peter’s church. Those concerns have been increased significantly after a car went through a property on that high street. No one was seriously hurt, but a young family with a new baby received medical treatment, and had to be moved out and placed in temporary housing. The petition states: “The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take immediate action to provide effective measures in place to slow vehicles or manage the flow of traffic in Old Woking.” Following is the full text of the petition: [The petition of residents of the constituency of Woking, Declares that there are serious concerns about the speed and volume of traffic on Old Woking High Street, particularly near St Peter's Church, with cars colliding into horses, and causing extensive damage; further declares that a woman who recently gave birth required medical attention due to the trauma of one such incident, and the family has now been moved into temporary accommodation - this incident has deeply affected the community; notes that there have been four other incidents in the past couple of years, all linked to speeding or loss of control on this same stretch of road; further notes that the combination of heavy traffic and excessive speed poses a persistent danger, yet there are currently no effective measures in place to slow vehicles or manage the flow of traffic. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take immediate action to provide effective measures in place to slow vehicles or manage the flow of traffic in Old Woking. And the petitioners remain, etc. ] [P003184]

My hon. Friend and I, along with colleagues in Surrey, have campaigned hard to change Surrey county council’s appalling approach to children with special educational needs. Does he agree that local government reorganisation is a huge opportunity for us to change the culture? Will he urge the Minister to ensure that all newly established local authorities put children first?

Housing, including damp and mould, is a top issue in my inbox as MP for Woking. One of the key problems is the Conservatives’ unlawful removal of more than £4 million from the housing revenue account, which has resulted in a huge backlog of issues. What steps are this Government and this Minister taking to ensure that that does not happen again to add further woes to our social housing stock?

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. At the start of this year, I held a debate similar to this one, also in Westminster Hall, on local authority children’s services. I did so following the appalling abuse, torture and murder of a 10-year-old Woking constituent, Sara Sharif. What happened to Sara was heartbreaking for my whole community. I think that many people back home in Woking thought that what happened was so extreme and so awful that it was a one-off case. Today I have heard that it was not. This happens far too often. The circumstances of these deaths have a common theme: time and again, the state is systematically missing warning signs, and avoiding implementing formal recommendations or suggestions from petitioners that could reduce those risks. That must change. I thank the hon. Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist) for dedicating much of her parliamentary career to improving child safeguarding; we all owe her a huge debt of thanks. I also thank the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) for the excellent way in which he introduced this e-petition debate. It is a very emotional debate, and he introduced it in a calm manner. There has been a huge outpouring of support for the campaign to fix child safeguarding issues, and the fact that the petition was signed by more than 110,000 people speaks volumes. The signatories are disproportionately from the north-east of England, and Labour Members present can be proud of their home region. Finally, I thank Gemma and Rachael for leading on the petition and ensuring not just that this petition is being debated in Parliament today but that this issue has been debated before. They are taking something that is hugely personally difficult for them and are trying to ensure that Maya has an amazing legacy. The Liberal Democrats and I think the new disclosure and safeguarding mechanisms for at-risk children should be implemented. I am pleased to hear that we have cross-party consensus on this issue, but we need action. There is definitely a way that the state can share information better when a child is at risk, whether from a parent, a caregiver or someone else. It might be that the threshold to trigger full action is not met, but it is key to ensure that information is shared fully. A significant lack of information sharing was one of the reasons listed in the safeguarding report into Sara’s brutal murder. It was clearly an issue in Maya’s case, and it was also an issue in the Southport inquiry, which reported only today. It is a systemic issue. I know I am meant to turn to my asks of the Minister towards the end of my speech, but I have to lead with this one. Some Ministers are responsible for cross-portfolio issues—the Security Minister for one. Does the Minister before us think that sharing information should be a cross-portfolio issue? Do the Government take it so seriously that they would task unblocking the issue to one Minister who could knock heads together across Departments? I highlighted the case of Sara Sharif, which was a stark example of information sharing going horribly wrong. The day before she was murdered, social services went to visit her house. They went to visit the wrong house. They could have saved her. In court, the family talked about the concerns they had in Sara’s case. In Maya’s case, the family raised concerns about seeing suspicious bruises on Maya in the weeks before her death. She was a two-year-old girl. Several different relatives saw bruises on Maya, but when they flagged them with her mother, they were told that Maya caused them herself. Maya attended two days of nursery but was then pulled out. The judge said it seemed clear that her mother feared staff would notice the bruises and report them. In the case of Sara Sharif, I have said that a parent or guardian should lose the right to home educate if there are concerns about safeguarding. That is absolutely key. Should parents lose the right to pull their child out of nursery if there are concerns about safeguarding? I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on that. How can we ensure that legislation is put in place to better protect our vulnerable children? The bruises were brushed off by the person who should have protected Maya. In Sara’s case, the judge stated that “despicable treatment” took place in “plain sight”. I heard about the lack of professional curiosity mentioned in Maya’s and Sara’s cases, and that is tragic. A lot of Members have talked about the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill making notable progress, and I am looking forward to supporting it when it finally comes back to us after being amended. The Bill is progress, but progress is not good enough when we are talking about protecting vulnerable children. It should go further and be implemented faster. In my constituency, Ofsted reviewed Surrey county council’s children’s services just before Sara’s murder and rated it good. From what I know about child protection failings, I cannot see why it gave the council’s children’s services that rating. I have heard from special educational needs and disabilities parents who also cannot understand why the council was rated good. I am concerned about the quality of Ofsted’s investigations. As with Surrey, the Durham Safeguarding Children Partnership commissioned a report examining the circumstances leading to Maya’s death. The report highlighted missed opportunities where agencies were meant to protect her but could have offered more support and guidance. It listed failure and missed opportunity. Durham county council’s children’s services were rated good just four months before Maya’s death. There are 66 authorities in England that are rated good. Is Ofsted good enough to protect vulnerable children if it keeps missing the warning signs? The Minister and I have met many times to discuss child safeguarding issues. I appreciate his experience and thoughts on these issues, but we do not want to have another debate like this where other MPs raise deeply personal, traumatic things happening in their constituencies when the state saw warning signs but did not take them forward. I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on how we can ensure better data protection and how we can improve Ofsted. I think all of us support Clare’s and Sarah’s laws. Will the Minister confirm whether the Government are reviewing the success and impact of those laws? Once the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill is eventually implemented, will the Minister agree to monitor, as a matter of urgency, how the multi-agency assessments and the registry are working? If those measures are not good enough, will the Minister agree to introduce Maya’s law?

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) for securing the debate. He and I served together on the Committee that considered the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025, where we proposed amendments to lift the ban on refugees working, and to provide for humanitarian visas to introduce safe and legal routes. I am pleased to work in partnership with him again to support our vulnerable refugees. I want to start with what the Law Society says about the Government’s proposals: “The Home Secretary’s proposals to increase the time for migrants to be eligible for settlement from five to ten years lack clarity, risks unfairness and may undermine rule-of-law principles. The changes must not be applied retrospectively to those already in the UK in a way that would disadvantage them. To do so would run counter to the rule of law, undermine business planning and reduce flexibility and movement in the labour market. The proposed changes are impacting businesses now, with our member law firms reporting that international hires are declining job offers. This is due to the uncertainty over their plans to build a life in the UK for them and their family. Our members who practice immigration law are left unable to advise clients with any certainty. These changes risk the UK’s reputation as a centre for global talent and undermine business’s ability to recruit the best people for the job. In an increasingly competitive global services market, it is imperative that the UK can stay ahead and be an attractive destination for talent.” I would welcome the Minister’s response to the Law Society’s damning assessment of the Government’s immigration reforms. I will admit that this Government have inherited an absolute mess and a chaotic asylum and immigration system from the Conservatives, who deliberately did not process asylum applications in order to put people off coming to this country. That was a failure both for taxpayers and for putting immigrants off coming here. It means that we spend £6 million a day on asylum hotels. However, another party is responsible for this mess: Reform. Last week, when we debated immigration, Reform MPs were not here; today, when we are debating immigration, they are not here. Brexit boats now cross the channel, resulting in deaths. Reform’s pursuit of Brexit has resulted in that, yet its MPs are absent from the debate. They need to be held to account for what they have done. The Dublin regulation has already been mentioned: we used not to have these channel crossings, and we used to be able to solve this problem by working with European partners, and it is vital that we get back to that situation. There are huge benefits to immigration, which some colleagues have talked about, but some have tried to undermine this afternoon. Immigrants are statistically more likely to be employed in the health and social care, hospitality and agriculture sectors. Foreign-born individuals are more likely to be in work than UK-born citizens. Those remarks are not from a “woke” institution, but from the House of Commons Library. Immigrants make this country better financially and culturally, and we need to stand up for the benefits that immigration brings. I will highlight agriculture. My right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) warned that the Home Office’s decision to end visas for around 75 specialist overseas sheep shearers risks up to 1.5 million sheep going unshorn, creating both an animal welfare problem and a food shortage. The Home Office had no answer to that warning by my right hon. Friend, as Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. I hope the Minister will be able to respond to it this afternoon—or if not, take it away. It is a crisis of the Government’s own making, and it needs to be corrected. I will take in turn some of the particular issues that the Government are introducing. ILR should not be retrospective, and I would welcome the Minister’s views on what assessment the Government have made of the legal challenges if it were made retrospective. I am pleased that the Government have done yet another U-turn and agreed to lift the ban on asylum seekers and refugees working—but, despite the fact they are so in love with the rules of Denmark, they have made the rule one year rather than six months. Why have they not followed Denmark? I also want to talk about the Government’s proposal to review refugee status for every refugee, every two and a half years, for 20 years. The Government do not seem to be able to make a decision on applicants and then cope with the appeals, yet they are adding more work for themselves. Can the Minister give me a cast-iron guarantee that the Home Office can cope? I want to briefly mention student visas. In Afghanistan, women and girls have been persecuted just because of their gender. Last year, the Home Office closed safe and legal routes for Afghan women, and this month it closed them for women studying. What does the Minister, who I know has a heart and soul, say to that? Finally, I was last in this Chamber to talk about homeless people, and I want to mention homeless refugees, and particularly their families. The Government have changed the rules on move-on rights, and that has had a profound impact. There have been exemptions for pregnant women and disabled and elderly people; will the Minister agree to ensure that the move-on rate is changed to exempt families with children?

T2. The Justice Secretary will no doubt be aware of the tragic case of Sara Sharif from my constituency. Her father, who went on to murder her, was given custody of Sara by the family court, after her Polish mother was unable to give evidence because she did not have an interpreter and could not follow proceedings. Please will the Justice Secretary agree to implement the Sara Sharif safeguarding report in full, and ensure that everyone can take part fully in family court proceedings, to protect the vulnerable going forward?

I completely agree. We have privatised our housing welfare system, which has resulted in worse conditions and a higher cost to taxpayers. The Liberal Democrats have been campaigning on housing since before we were the Liberal Democrats. The great architect of the welfare state, the Liberal William Beveridge, characterised the squalor of poor housing and homelessness in the early 20th century as a giant that needed to be defeated, yet we still have not slain that giant. It is heartbreaking to hear these stories. Will the Minister ensure that sufficient financial resources are available to local authorities so that they can deliver the measures in the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 and provide accommodation for survivors of domestic abuse? Will the Government ringfence emergency funding for local councils to ensure that they can deliver permanent accommodation for rough sleepers? Will they exempt groups of homeless people, and those at risk of homelessness, from the shared accommodation rule? The Government have reduced the move-on period for refugees in accommodation from 56 to 28 days. When it was 56 days, rough sleeping notably reduced. It gave refugees a chance to set in motion plans for leaving state support, but 28 days isn’t working. The Government have made an exemption only for those who are pregnant, are over 65 or have a disability. Those are the only exemptions. I do not agree with changing the rule, but I will not ask the Minister to defend that. I ask her to raise it with the Home Office, to ensure that families with children are also exempt. The Government must address this awful system, which is failing vulnerable children and their families. We cannot have children sleeping rough. The work of organisations such as the York Road Project in my constituency of Woking shows what people can achieve when compassion and community are involved. It is now the Government’s responsibility to match that endeavour and ensure that children and families do not sleep rough.

I completely agree with my hon. Friend; he makes a really valid point. The debate has rightly focused on housing, but there are wider impacts, and the Department for Work and Pensions needs to change our benefits system to ensure that families are properly supported so that we do not have children sleeping rough. I have highlighted the particular case of Surrey county council evicting families with children in my constituency, and I really worry that some of them may sleep rough. Across England, almost 5,000 people slept rough on one single night last autumn—a 20% increase on the previous year. We know the causes: chronic housing shortages, poverty, relationship breakdowns, gaps in welfare support and, above all, a lack of social housing.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker) for securing this important debate. In my constituency of Woking, we are fortunate to host the extraordinary work of the York Road Project. For three decades that local charity has supported people experiencing homelessness. It began as a winter night shelter run by local volunteers who simply believe that no one should be left out in the cold. Yet today it is a significant local charity that provides specialist help for people that are experiencing homelessness. They keep people off the street at night in their night shelter, and support them to turn their lives around in their day centre. It is an unfortunate truth that rough sleeping and homelessness is growing. More people are in crisis, and increasingly that involves families with children. Local authorities are spending more than ever on temporary accommodation to do their best to keep people off the streets, particularly those with families and children. The net cost to councils has risen from £200 million in 2015 to more than £1.3 billion today. At the same time councils are facing a wider funding gap, estimated to be £4 billion. It is a postcode lottery, where some constituencies and councils are struggling hugely. As a result, the system is under huge strain. Temporary accommodation is becoming long-term accommodation—housing for families who are stuck in limbo. From our casework, we see the human impact of that every day. I highlight that the quality of that temporary accommodation is a huge issue. Although it is vital that we keep families with children off the street, with a roof over their head, the fact that the report by the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee into temporary accommodation’s impact on children made for such stark reading should shock us all. The report found that in the past five years, 74 children had died because of the quality of the temporary accommodation they had been in. Of those 74 children, 58 were under the age of one. That is not acceptable in 21st-century Britain. I highlight a deeply worrying case in my constituency of Woking. The Conservatives running Surrey county council have withdrawn funding for an initiative that supported single mothers with their children in temporary supported accommodation. That programme provided a safe space for vulnerable women to rebuild their lives, often after instances of domestic abuse or family breakdown. They were able to do that with their children. Without that support, families are now facing eviction. At the last minute, the county council is throwing many vulnerable constituents out of their accommodation and on to the borough council’s housing register when they know that that register is overwhelmed and oversubscribed. That is morally indefensible. Will the Minister condemn that decision by Surrey county council, and will she raise that decision with them to ensure that vulnerable families are not left without safe accommodation? More broadly, the reality is that sleeping rough and homelessness are symptoms of a deeper structural failure in this country. I have heard that from Members today. Our country is broken, but it can be fixed, and we need the Government to lead on that for us. Across—

I am happy to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset. I believe he will attend debates a bit earlier as a result of your comments, Dr Murrison.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I thank my constituency neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) for leading this debate and eloquently putting the case. I endorse his calls this afternoon. I will use my time to talk about why local government reorganisation in the south-east is happening, as well as its opportunities and risks. LGR, as it is known for short, is happening in Surrey first because of the dire financial state of local government there. I have raised it with the Minister before, in one-to-ones, Committee meetings and the Chamber, so I know that she, too, knows that that is why LGR is happening in Surrey. It is almost inevitable because of the appalling decisions that have been made by the Conservatives who run Surrey county council, and boroughs and districts across my county. Nowhere is it more true than in my constituency of Woking, where the former Conservative administration of Woking borough council borrowed more than £2 billion for risky commercial investments. It is a small borough council with the debts of a small country. My local authority borrowed and spent more than £700 million on a town centre regeneration scheme, which councillors originally signed off at £150 million. It borrowed money from the Government to loan to a private school, despite the fact, as I highlighted during Prime Minister’s questions last week, that a state school has a hole in its roof and a rotten floor. It then borrowed money to build, run and maintain a power plant in Milton Keynes. That raft of financial decisions will hurt my constituents and, I am afraid, those of my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath, and the whole country, for years to come. Where is the accountability in all this? Well, since those appalling decisions were made my constituents have voted out of office every single Conservative councillor on Woking borough council, and I am pleased they did. There is political accountability there, but where is the personal accountability? I have called for the former chief executive officer of Woking borough council, Ray Morgan, to lose his OBE. Investigations are under way into him and others; does the Minister agree that the former CEO should lose his honour straight away? I am concerned about the legacy of debt that will be passed on to the new west Surrey council. I am pleased that the Government agreed, among previous Ministers, an unprecedented and historic write-off of £500 million of Woking’s debt. My constituents and I are obviously very grateful for that, but the money could not possibly have been repaid. I am pleased that the Government recognised that, but more debt write-off and more support are going to be needed to ensure that the new council does not start off bankrupt on day one. The Minister recently wrote to me outlining further support for west Surrey, as well as what we have agreed for Woking; will she comment on what further support the Government can bring? Let me move on to an issue that is close to my heart. Members might think that being the MP for the most bankrupt and indebted council area in the country is about as bad as it could get. I am afraid I also represent the area where Sara Sharif was tortured, abused and murdered by her family. What makes that worse is that Surrey county council could have saved her on multiple occasions. From day one, the council wanted to take custody of her, away from her family, but did not. The day before she was murdered, the council tried to visit her to see whether she was safe but went to the wrong house. Surrey has shown systemic failure in looking after vulnerable constituents, and that was a tragic result. Thankfully, children’s services will be broken up and divided between east and west Surrey, but I am terrified that the culture of not looking after vulnerable children will be passed on to the new west Surrey council, and I know that colleagues representing the east Surrey council area feel similarly. Will the Minister please work with me and others to ensure that our new council has a good culture that includes looking after vulnerable children and responding to MPs’ emails? That would be a stark contrast to the reality I see from Surrey county council. Finally, I want to mention another risk of local Government reorganisation. Under the Conservatives, Surrey county council recently announced that it is going to end free school meal vouchers. The council is going to allow them to continue for Easter but, coincidentally, as soon as the elections are over, it is going to stop feeding vulnerable constituents over the holidays in my Woking constituency and across Surrey. That will mean no more free school vouchers in the May half-term or summer breaks. Will the Minister investigate that and ensure that Surrey is adequately funded so that our constituents are supported? Does she agree that it is shocking and deceitful that, under the cloud of local government reorganisation, the Conservative county council is trying to deprive children in my constituency of a healthy meal?

It is deeply disappointing that these changes were pushed through without an explanation in this Chamber. The same Home Secretary who emphasised the importance of scrutiny from MPs at the Institute for Public Policy Research has denied this House the chance to question her reforms. That is not good enough. Does the Minister think that reviewing each refugee’s status every two and a half years for 20 years will really fix the asylum system? That is estimated to cost £725 million over the next decade, so what plans do the Government have to fund this, and can they give a cast-iron guarantee that it will not cause the asylum backlog to further increase? Taxpayers are paying £6 million a day for asylum hotels—a legacy of the Conservative Government. Will the Minister back Liberal Democrat plans to end the processing through faster claims, such as Nightingale processing centres, or set out their own plan? Finally, will the Government confirm their plan for lifting the ban on asylum seekers working? Why have they chosen a year, not six months?

I thank the shadow Minister for raising the case of Sara Sharif from my constituency. The safeguarding review that she has referred to highlighted failings in Surrey county council and failings in the law. That review recommended three quite detailed things, which are not included in the Lords amendment—the amendment is separate. Would it not be better for Surrey to be put under special measures and for the Government to implement the safeguarding review in full, immediately?

On that point, will the Minister give way?

Q5. Last month I visited my old school, Woking high school. I saw classrooms built in the 1960s that were meant to last 20 years, but are still in use and are being held together by gaffer tape. I visited my old music classroom and I nearly fell through the floor: I saw a hole in the roof, and I can still remember the stench of mould; that classroom was condemned last year. Will the Prime Minister please agree to come to Woking high school with me to see how bad it really is and to ensure that my old school gets the urgent financial support it needs so that, in the 21st century, my constituents can be educated in a school they deserve?

I thank the Minister for giving way, and I particularly thank my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dorking and Horley (Chris Coghlan) for securing the debate and for the manner in which he introduced it. Since he has been in this place, he has been a strong advocate for SEND families, and I thank him for that. The Minister has heard me talk about Sara Sharif before, and my hon. Friend has talked about her during the debate. We are clearly very concerned about children’s services in Surrey county council and I hope that we have shown that intervention is needed. The Minister may disagree, but I beg her to take away that we want to ensure that the culture of children’s services at Surrey county council is not transferred to West Surrey council or East Surrey council in the future. If the Government agree with my assessment that intervention is needed now, they need to intervene to ensure that that culture is not transferred, so that we have the fresh start that vulnerable children in our constituencies so desperately need.

It is a pleasure to serve under your leadership, Mr Mundell. Thank you for chairing this debate. I also thank the almost 153,000 people across the country who signed the petition, including 186 in my constituency of Woking who I think signed it because they—we—unreasonably lost our right to vote in Surrey county council’s elections last year, which were unreasonably taken away by this Government. Did people lose their right to vote because of massive, significant events that meant that we just could not go and vote? Was it a world war? Elections in the first world war and the second war had to be postponed. Was it a foot and mouth crisis like 2001?

I thank the hon. Member for highlighting that matter, with which I have some sympathy, and which Liberal Democrat colleagues in Spelthorne have highlighted. We are going to have a new council called West Surrey, one sixth of which is in south Middlesex. The Government are considering the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion, and I hope they give it due consideration. One of the concerns is that only one sixth is in south Middlesex, so why should it be half the name? However, I am more concerned about the fact that the council will inherit over £4 billion of debt from the former Conservative administrations. That is more of a priority for me than the name, but I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman.

I quite agree. My memory does not stretch back as far as that, but the right hon. Gentleman is completely right. Elections have been postponed only during serious wartime, during the foot and mouth crisis of 2001 and, as we all—even I—remember, during the covid pandemic in 2020. But in Surrey and across a lot of the country, people lost their right to vote because of local government reorganisation, which is not exactly an existential threat to our way of life. People in Surrey are now stuck with county councillors who were last elected in 2021. The only reason why there are Conservatives representing my constituency is that since 2021 it has not been possible to vote them out of office. Every year since then, the Conservatives have put up candidates for Woking borough council. They have lost every single election. We are now creating a new council for my area, West Surrey council. It is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to give my area a fresh start. We have not had such an opportunity for 50 years, but in the meetings setting it in motion, there are people who have lost their mandate because it has expired. That is completely unreasonable, and it is because of the use of the Secretary of State’s powers that the petition opposes. After the past month, the Secretary of State probably wishes he had never had them in the first place. These are my questions to the Minister. Given that the Government have now reversed their decision to postpone the 2026 local elections following legal advice, can she confirm whether the same legal considerations applied to the nine local council elections that were postponed in 2025, including those for Surrey county council? Can she confirm to me and my Woking constituents, by outlining what legal advice the Government have had, that those elections were lawfully postponed? Finally, what material change in circumstances occurred between the decision to postpone the 2026 local elections and the subsequent decision to reverse that postponement? Because the Government have not been open and transparent about the legal advice that they received, my constituents of Woking and the 153,000 people who signed the petition have lost what little trust they had in government and politics. The Government can start to regain that trust by publishing their legal advice and ensuring that in future no one Minister can cancel local elections.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. Surrey is the first local authority to undergo local government reorganisation under this Government’s new plan because of the catastrophic failures of local Conservative councils: Woking borough council, Surrey county council and a raft of others have significant issues. The Minister has already highlighted that the Government have agreed to an unprecedented and historic write-off of £500 million for one local authority, Woking borough council. The Government have never written off debts for one local authority on its own before, yet they are now doing so on such a large scale. The Government have said that that is the first tranche of an unprecedented debt write-off. Moreover, the Minister has confirmed to me that the Government will provide interim financial support to the new West Surrey council, including capitalisation support and commercial support and advice to deal with the historical legacy of assets. Local authorities should keep the streets clean and maintain our parks, but they were acting like bank and property empires. Why are the Government happy for a new council, West Surrey council, to start off effectively bankrupt without the Government support that is so needed? Currently, Spelthorne borough council and Woking borough council are in intervention, with Government commissioners in post. Will those commissioners remain in situ after those councils have been abolished, or will they be transferred to West Surrey council? When will that decision be made, if the Minister cannot make it today? My next point concerns articles 46 and 48 of the draft order and the cancelling of elections, particularly last year, for Surrey county council. The Government have decided to reschedule the elections that were previously going to be cancelled, due to their potentially unlawful nature. Can the Minister tell us what advice she and the Government have had on whether cancelling Surrey county council’s elections last year was also unlawful, before we make a decision today on formalising these provisions? Finally, schedules 1 and 2 are about the new wards for East Surrey and West Surrey councils. I believe those wards were established for Surrey county council under the Local Government Boundary Commission for England but never implemented. Is that the case? The Minister said she assumes the Local Government Boundary Commission will review those wards before the next scheduled set of elections. Does she believe there is time for the new councils to establish themselves, to understand what council size is needed, then to undertake an 18-month review? Does she genuinely believe there is enough time for the Government to do that?

I congratulate and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella) for securing this urgent question. The Government’s lack of planning and haphazard communications over these changes are totally unacceptable. Countless dual British nationals have found themselves in heartbreaking circumstances, unable to visit family members or attend weddings or funerals, or having to stump up huge sums of money and face long waits just to get back home. Take Nick from my constituency. He found out about these regulations by chance. Had he not found out in good time, his two daughters—dual nationals—would have faced the real prospect of being stranded in France. That is a dangerous situation for someone’s children to be in. More urgently, his niece and nephew, aged just two and four, were born in Canada. They are British by descent. They do not currently have UK passports and have not yet registered with the UK passport system. These rules are literally tearing families apart. The Minister’s solution is a drop-in event a week after the fact—that is not good enough. Will the Minister explain why the Government continue to refuse a grace period for families like Nick’s? If the Minister refuses to take steps to introduce a transition or grace period, will he compensate those who are losing out?

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Mrs Hobhouse. The Liberal Democrats and I are broadly supportive of this statutory instrument. The plans to put the fees up are broadly in line with inflation and the cost of providing the service, so we have no major concerns about the principal part of the order. However, I am concerned about the entry requirements and fees charged to dual British nationals. Will the Minister look into this matter urgently, and agree to consider a grace or transition period for British nationals stuck abroad, and to hold a meeting with MPs to listen to our concerns and take things forward?

Given that the Government have now reversed their decision to postpone the 2026 local elections following legal advice, can the Secretary of State confirm whether the same legal considerations also applied to the elections to Surrey county council—which covers my constituency—that were postponed last year? If he states that the Government do not comment on legal advice, do you not agree, Madam Deputy Speaker, that my Woking constituents have been unlawfully robbed of voting out an incompetent Surrey county council last year?

The quality of social housing is a huge issue across my Woking constituency, and residents and constituents contact me about it daily, so I was pleased to help draft the cross-party report. I sincerely thank the hon. Member for her leadership on the issue. What response has she had from the Government since the publication of the report, particularly to our request for a new and modern decent homes programme?

Residents of West Byfleet are frustrated that a new pharmacy that wants to open in their area is not allowed to do so. Be it that unreasonable restriction, the increase in NICs or a lack of funding, this Government’s every action seems to undermine the pharmacy sector. Will the Minister explain why the Government are withholding funding from pharmacies that have signed up in good faith to Pharmacy First, and why they have not introduced a late-payment mechanism?

T5. Despite my constituency being just 30 minutes from London, my constituents cannot use tap-in, tap-out technology to commute. Will the Transport Secretary agree to back the Liberal Democrat amendment to the Railways Bill to roll out tap-in, tap-out infrastructure across the country, as well as introducing it for my constituents?

I agree with what the hon. Lady is saying. I am concerned that the Government’s support package for councils such as Woking borough council—which effectively went bankrupt several years ago following Conservative mismanagement—is allowing them to borrow more money to pay off their Government loans. Does she agree that the exceptional financial support process needs to change immediately?

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) for securing this important debate. Shelter is a basic human need. It is a human right. The Liberal Democrats and I believe that everyone has the right to a safe, secure and adequate home. This issue is close to my heart. When I served as the Mayor of Woking, I supported Woking’s local homeless shelter, the York Road Project, by raising money and awareness for it. I knew at the time that I was raising money for a good cause, but the covid pandemic hit as soon as we had finished raising that money, and it was invaluable in protecting vulnerable people at one of the most vulnerable times. That project is a high-quality provider of support. Woking’s women’s refuge, Your Sanctuary, is a high-quality provider of exempt accommodation, but I know that residents of exempt accommodation elsewhere are being let down badly, whether in Birmingham or elsewhere in the country. Those residents have effectively been denied the support they need. Meanwhile, millions of pounds of public money is wasted—or, more accurately, transferred to the bank accounts of landlords and providers who are taking advantage of the destitute. We need to sort that problem out right now. The system of exempt accommodation was described in the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee’s October 2022 report as a “complete mess”. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s supported housing review, published in 2024, estimated that there are over 634,000 units of supported housing in Great Britain, with 535,400 units located in England alone. The review estimated that by 2040 between almost 1 million and 1.3 million supported housing units will be needed, considering the current demand, predicted increase, demographic trends and unmet need. The situation is spiralling out of control, and the Government need to get a grip. There are many good providers—I have talked about some in my constituency, and I hope that all Members have similar examples—but there are awful and appalling instances where the system allows the exploitation of vulnerable people who should be receiving support, while unscrupulous providers make excessive profits by capitalising on loopholes. It is apparent that there is a gold rush, with money mainly being transferred from the taxpayer through housing benefit. That is a sorry state of affairs. It has now been three years since the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act, a private Member’s Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), was passed and received Royal Assent. Unsurprisingly, the wheels of Government have ground along at a snail’s pace. Three years have gone by, but the Act has still not been implemented due to difficulties in creating regulations. Last year, The Guardian reported: “People are dying…and communities are being irreversibly damaged due to delays to a…law to clamp down on unregulated supported housing”. Will the Government enable a situation in this Parliament in which we can create regulations, stem the flow of cash into what is essentially a black market, and halt those deaths? Right now, as we debate in Westminster Hall, vulnerable people in our society—the homeless, survivors of domestic abuse, those with mental health issues and those released from prison—are subject to dangerous housing conditions with little or no support. There is a general consensus across the major political parties that the regulation contained in the Act is needed, so surely it should be implemented as soon as possible. The Government should stop dragging their feet. The Act was meant to improve the situation when it was passed. It states that a panel should be set up and that after three years, the panel should come up with recommendations for changing planning law. That panel has not yet been convened. I have heard from constituents, local authorities and campaigners who are worried that it was forgotten about in the light of the general election. The extended timeline risks further escalation of these issues without immediate intervention. On behalf of people affected by this issue, I urge the Minister to consider, first, convening the panel now to enable action on this issue and, secondly, accelerating the panel’s timeline for giving its recommendations. Given that there has already been a delay of over a year in setting up the panel, having it make recommendations three years after it is set up will mean that these ongoing issues will continue to affect people for too long. I urge the Minister to act.

Yesterday, for World Cancer Day, I hosted here in Parliament Walk the Walk, a national charity that I am proud is based in my Woking constituency. It has raised over £146 million to fight cancer and to help people live healthy lives. I am sorry that the Secretary of State is no longer in his place, but will the Minister ask him to choose his favourite bra and join me on a Walk the Walk—with he in his favourite bra and me in mine—so that we can raise awareness for “mannogram” testing? Will she also ensure that mammogram testing is extended to the under-40s and the over-70s?

I agree with my hon. Friend. National Highways is far too slow at tackling issues. Only this morning, I had to report a chunk of debris fly-tipped on National Highways land, which has been there for ages. It is far too slow to tackle simple things such as that, to invest in our highway network, which is so strategically important in the south-east, above all other areas. The M25 runs through my constituency, and residents of Byfleet and West Byfleet have to cope with unbearable noise from the concrete surface of the M25 in that area. I have pressed National Highways to take action to reduce that noise, and I hope that the Minister will agree that it is about time it did so. Liberal Democrat colleagues have spoken this afternoon about their transport issues in the south-east. I did not realise that the Liberal Democrats dominated the south-east as much as we do! We have had no Conservative Members speak at all; they clearly do not care about tackling our potholes or trying to make our roads safer and trains more reliable. I am pleased with, and proud of, the team around me who have pressed their constituencies’ issues this afternoon. In the south-east, spending on public transport is roughly a third of that in the north-west. That is not acceptable. That unfair funding formula is why we are raising these issues, and I hope the Minister will agree to tackle that in the future. In particular, we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden), whose A road fell into the sea this morning and who found that there is no national emergency funding. One road in Surrey has a sinkhole that has closed that road for over a year now; it has cost the county council more than £2 million and has still not re-opened. We need emergency funding to step in in those rare, exceptional situations, and I hope the Minister will take that point away. Whether it is for my constituents in Woking who deserve safer roads without potholes or my commuting constituents who deserve a reliable bus service and trains that get them there on time, I hope the Minister will listen to my pleas, and those of my colleagues, for investment in the south-east so that we can have our fair share of transport spending and grow our economy together.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) for securing and leading this debate. She and I, with my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin), got a train together 18 months ago to arrive in Parliament for the first time. From that day on, I knew my hon. Friend would be a strong advocate for Chichester, and for tackling her constituency’s transport problems in particular. She has certainly done that this afternoon. I chair the APPG on South Western Railway, and I have spent a significant amount of time tackling issues on the South Western Railway network that affect the south-east so seriously. I have been particularly concerned about the network’s deterioration since nationalisation. I hope the Minister will comment on the fact that we want better transport connections, not worse, as we nationalise our railway companies. And better transport connections are not what my constituents in Woking and the wider south-east are receiving. I am pleased that South Western Railway’s managing director and others have appeared before MPs to answer our questions, and particularly to listen to our constituents’ concerns. Their engagement has been positive, and I hope we can move forward together. However, an APPG should not be one of the only meaningful routes for parliamentary scrutiny of a nationalised operator. I hope the Minister will take action to ensure that MPs can hold our new public sector railway companies to account. Moving on to the wider railway network, I will be visiting Woking’s signal box on Friday. I am worried that I will see the poor-quality infrastructure faced by commuters, which is why our trains into London Waterloo are constantly cancelled and delayed. The infrastructure and signalling equipment at Woking date from when I was born. It has not had any major updates since then, which is appalling. If we are to grow our economy and decarbonise our transport network, we need reliable public transport. I hope the Minister will agree investment for Woking’s signal box and its signal network—it is a regional hub for our railways. Woking was founded on the railways, and it is a key commuter town into London. We are under 30 minutes from London Waterloo. Despite other Surrey towns having a contactless tap-in and tap-out system, Woking does not, and we deserve to be in the 21st century. I urge the Government to introduce tap-in and tap-out at Woking to stop hundreds of people a year being fined and caught out by tapping in at London Waterloo but being unable to tap out at Woking. That injustice is not acceptable any longer. Regarding other parts of our public transport network, I have heard calls from many colleagues to reintroduce the £2 bus fare cap, to get people back on to buses that have struggled so much since covid. As the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, I fully endorse them. The £2 bus fare cap was vital, and it should never have been increased so significantly by this Government. My hon. Friends the Members for Horsham (John Milne) and for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) said that their areas have seen significant housing growth, yet bus routes have not kept up with demand. In my area, that is also true. In Old Woking, a new development was built, which was great. The developer agreed, following planning conditions, to invest in bus stops and infrastructure to support the development and its transport implications. In particular, it tried to decarbonise the development. It built bus stops, but since then, not a single bus has used them. We need joined-up thinking if we are to grow our economy, provide the housing we need and improve our transport network. I hope that the Minister ensures that buses finally use those bus stops, and that that never happens again in the south-east. I will move on to the subject of our highway network. Unfortunately, my constituents have to cope with Surrey county council’s incompetence in managing our highway network. We have not had an election since 2021, because the Government postponed their elections this year. Since 2021, under the Conservatives’ watch, the number of complaints about potholes has gone up by 106%. The council now has to pay out almost £250,000 a year in compensation because it does not fix things, and it is endangering lives. Thankfully, we are moving to a new local authority, which will give my constituents a chance to vote out the Conservatives, who have mismanaged my local highway network so badly. I hope that the Minister will meet the new West Surrey council to understand its concerns. I am very concerned that highway spending from central Government does not take fully into account how well used our roads are—whether that is by high-usage vehicles or others. Surrey and the south-east have a significant footprint. Our roads are well used, but that is not properly taken account of in the funding formula. Like my colleagues, I am aware of the investment that has taken place in the M25/A3 junction, which is finally, eventually, coming to a conclusion. I recently visited Woking scouts at Birchmere scout camp, which is on the edge of the M25/A3 junction. They have had to put up with disruption for years, and now their quiet, secluded scout camp is surrounded by unreasonable and potentially unsafe noise. I have urged National Highways colleagues to support them to recover from what they have gone through, and to compensate them for that. I hope that the Minister agrees, and that she agrees to look into it.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I will talk a bit more about Ukraine in a minute. I thought I would be generous to him, compared with some of his colleagues, who were a bit less keen to hear from him this evening—a little more cross-party working is in order. I want particularly to talk about Hongkongers. Several elements of the earned settlement proposals are causing serious concern for the Hong Kong community in my constituency, in particular vulnerable BNO families and young Hong Kong pro-democracy activists who have been forced to seek asylum here. Many BNO arrivals are full-time students, retirees, stay-at-home parents—as my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) mentioned—or family carers who do not meet the conventional salary thresholds. Any new sustained or measurable economic contribution test or minimum income rule risks permanently excluding those entirely legitimate residents, who are already fully integrated into our communities and contributing to British society. Tens of thousands of BNO visa holders will reach the five-year point and be eligible for settlement in 2026. It is appalling that that is the point that the Government have chosen for the rules to come in. A sudden increase in the language requirement to B2 level without adequate notice or transition arrangements will throw many of those vulnerable individuals off balance and deny permanent status to people who have lived, worked and put down roots here for a decade. That would be yet another betrayal of Hongkongers, after the Government’s recent approval of the Chinese mega-embassy. The hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) mentioned Ukraine. The Liberal Democrats urge the Government to take necessary steps to provide Ukrainian refugees in the UK with the stability and security they deserve by establishing a clear pathway to ILR. Later this month, it will be four years since the appalling and unwarranted invasion of Ukraine by Russia, and many Ukrainian families have built meaningful lives here, yet their futures remain precarious because of the temporary nature of their current settled status. Reports suggest that Ukrainians are missing out on job opportunities, loans, mortgages or lease renewals because they do not have a pathway to permanent settlement. Not only does that put them at a material disadvantage, but the pressures of securing housing or financial security under the current visa system put refugees through huge anxiety. Their country is already at war, and it is deeply unfair to put our allies through further stress. The Ukrainian scheme is the only humanitarian scheme that does not include a pathway for settlement. Ukrainians in this country should not be in that position at all. Yes, we need control, but we need to have a fair and robust system, and a frank discussion about who stays and how we support our friends and allies. The Liberal Democrats are particularly concerned that elements of Labour’s proposed changes to ILR risk adding unworkable red tape for businesses and for people who came here legally, undermining integration and damaging our economy. Britain is already becoming a less competitive place for science and innovation. The five-year global talent visa now costs £6,000—around 20 times more than in our competitor countries. Cancer Research UK alone spends almost £1 million a year on visas. I know where I want its money being invested, and it is not in visas for the Home Office. Any changes aimed at control must go hand in hand with a serious plan to boost domestic skills and get more people into the jobs that our NHS, social care system and economy desperately need. Before I come to my asks for the Minister and a summary, I want to mention the elephant in the room—or not in the room. Where are the Reform Members? They are missing yet another debate on immigration. The Government want to change ILR requirements to look tough on immigration because they are running scared of Reform. I urge the Minister and the Government to speak up for our immigrant communities, highlight the benefits of immigration and agree that our constituents are much more likely to be seen by an immigrant in the NHS than to be behind one in the queue. What assessment has the Minister made of the economic costs and the social costs of these changes? Does he think they will make Britain a more competitive place when it comes to securing the workforce on which our NHS and social care system are so dependent? Has he considered how they may damage community cohesion and integration? Does he agree that retrospectively extending indefinite leave to remain, without the provision of any specific transitional arrangements, will hurt the many hard-working members of our society who have played by the rules and contributed greatly to our economy and culture? Since taking office, this Government have performed many U-turns on high-profile issues, whether because they are financially foolish, morally wrong, or impossible to deliver because of a political rebellion. Unfairly and unreasonably changing the ILR rules retrospectively would meet all three of those reasons. I urge the Minister to announce today that the changes will not be retrospective, so that immigrant constituents of mine, his and everyone else in the room who have served our communities and fled conflict can sleep soundly at night without worrying about their future. That is what the Minister can do this evening. I urge him to do it.

I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting that issue. She is a strong advocate for children and families, and she is right to highlight how the Government have not thought this policy through. It has a disproportionate impact, particularly when childcare costs are so significant. I will come on to talk about the unacceptable changes to the income thresholds. As I said, the Liberal Democrats and I oppose the changes, which move the goalposts and change the rules of the game after we have kicked off. They go against the fundamental British value of fairness. I thank the organisers of the two petitions and all those who signed them, including and especially the 218 and 444 of my constituents in Woking. The Government’s consultation document states that from April 2026, anyone who does not have ILR status—even if their application is going through the process—will be affected. That is subject to the final outcome of the consultation, which invites views on whether there should be transitional arrangements to exempt some people already in the UK. The Government press release suggests that such arrangements might be considered for “borderline cases”. Will the Minister expand on that, and perhaps explain, without the use of euphemism or vague language, what it means in practice for our constituents? We owe it to the people of Hong Kong, Ukraine and other war-torn parts of the world who have sought refuge in Britain to respect their wish to take part in our society and allow them peace of mind to plan for the long term.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. The Liberal Democrats and I are completely opposed to these sudden and retrospective changes to entitlement to indefinite leave to remain. Families who have worked hard, paid taxes and integrated into British society should not face more years of insecurity and additional costs.

It has been a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Western. I called this debate for several reasons: to highlight the failures of Surrey county council and call for its children’s services to be put into special measures, to push for national changes to keep children safe, and to give parliamentary colleagues the chance to raise their constituency stories about children’s services in local authorities. I believe I have done that. The Government are taking action. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill should make some progress on child safeguarding, but I urge the Government to go further and faster in taking action to protect vulnerable children. I am pleased by and want to thank everyone for their kind words—I think we have had 15 speakers today. There are 15 recommendations from the Sara Sharif safeguarding report. I will continue to campaign to ensure that Sara’s legacy is that she is the last person who was killed by people who should have loved and cared for her. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered children’s services in local authorities.

I beg to move, That this House has considered children’s services in local authorities. I applied for this debate because of a 10-year-old constituent who was abused, tortured and murdered by those who should have loved and protected her. Her name was Sara. Sara was found dead in the early hours of 10 August 2023. Her body was covered in bruises. She had a traumatic head injury, human bite marks and multiple broken bones, and she had been burned by a domestic iron. Next to Sara’s body, the police found plastic bags, packing tape and a cricket bat, all with Sara’s blood on them. The people who did that to Sara deserve a special place in hell. Sara’s death was not a one-off tragedy; it was the most extreme and horrific consequence of children’s services being hollowed out, fragmented and weakened over the years. Surrey county council is failing children left, right and centre. Another example is what happened to my constituent Julia. She and her husband pleaded with Surrey county council for help with their daughter, Eloise, who had special educational needs. Surrey ignored those pleas and refused to give Eloise special educational needs and disabilities support, and eventually it took the parents to court because it was concerned that they were a safeguarding risk to their daughter. The court saw through that and sided with the parents. It said that it was Surrey’s lack of support for special educational needs that was failing the child, not the parents. Appallingly, Surrey tried to cover up its problems with special educational needs provision and push it on to a safeguarding failure. Judith, another of my Woking constituents, was breaking up with her partner following many incidents of domestic and child abuse. She feared for her children’s safety if they continued to see their father. On the advice of Surrey county council, the family court gave the father visitation rights, and heartbreaking abuse followed. The court then took away the father’s right to see the children. That is why we need to end the presumption in favour of parental contact. Abusers should not care for their children. Surrey now insists that the father start seeing the children again. It says that it has a duty to explore whether contact would be safe by reintroducing the children to him. It looks like Surrey is rolling the dice and creating situations in which children can be harmed. This is supposed to be one of the most affluent areas of the country, and yet this is what our services—the services for my most vulnerable constituents—are like. The day before Sara was murdered, Surrey’s children’s services turned up at the wrong house due to an administrative error. In another case, the council failed to show up to a promised meeting about a child’s care. As a result, the child did not get the support they needed—there are real-life consequences for Surrey’s incompetence. In November 2025, the child safeguarding practice review that I called for into Sara’s murder was finally released, and it confirmed exactly what I feared: the state, and especially Surrey county council, failed Sara at every stage. All the warning signs were there, but they were not acted upon. The authorities were fully aware that Sara was at risk. She was placed on a child protection plan before her birth, yet was a victim of domestic abuse from that day onwards. Surrey social workers wanted to take her away from her father, but they changed their mind, and the consequences will haunt us all. After Sara’s murder, the senior officer responsible for children’s services at Surrey county council, Rachael Wardell, was offered and accepted a pay rise of £8,700. I do not know how that woman can sleep at night. It sends a message that failure carries no consequences; in fact, it is rewarded. The safeguarding review highlighted that there were national issues as well. Children’s services in one in five local authorities across the country are not good enough, according to Ofsted. There is a range of spending across local authorities. York spends £35 million and its children’s services are rated outstanding, but just down the road, Bradford—which, I admit, is slightly larger—spends £262 million and its children’s services are rated as inadequate.

I completely agree, and that is why I called for this debate. We are not spending enough on vulnerable children, and that funding cut in Westmorland is absolutely shocking. I highlighted the example of York and Bradford, which are two cities in the same region. We need to end the postcode lottery on the lives of children. Children should not be living with that abuse, neglect and fear, but in the awful situations where they are, we need local authority children’s services to have their back and step in to protect them. Nowhere is that failure more despicable than in Conservative-run Surrey county council. My county council’s children’s services were rated good by Ofsted in March 2025—a decision that many fellow MPs, constituents and people across Surrey find bonkers. This “good” rating is clearly a thin veneer that covers up the rot within. Sixty-six local authorities in England are rated good. Based on what I know and what I have just said about Surrey, if that is good, what on earth is happening in the rest of the country? The Children’s Commissioner has been clear about this: her research shows huge regional disparities in child in need plans. In some areas, children receive early intervention and regular check-ups. In others, we see pointless bureaucracy, long waits and a revolving door of social workers who are poorly trained and supported. Children’s services in local authorities cannot protect children because of significant loopholes in the home education system, as highlighted by Sara’s safeguarding review. It proved that Sara’s murderers used those loopholes to hide the abuse. When they could no longer hide the abuse from the school, Sara’s father and stepmother took her out of school, saying that they would homeschool her. The school could do nothing about that. The abuse continued—and there were tragic consequences. The Liberal Democrats have long campaigned for a homeschool register to ensure that we know where the hundreds of homeschooled children across the country are and that they are safe. Some of them have never attended school—not once. We need a register of children not in school. That is backed by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and by the Children’s Commissioner, who have said that it would be an important step and tool to keep children safe. Homeschooling can be hugely advantageous, and parents have a right to choose it, but we need a register and, above all, parents should lose the right to homeschool if there are safeguarding concerns. It is clear from Sara’s safeguarding review that repeated failures to share information are one of the key barriers to keeping children safe. The Liberal Democrats have been campaigning on this for years. We need to provide joined-up support to meet children’s needs. The mechanism is known as the single unique identifier, and it would help to ensure that there are no more appalling safeguarding cases like the ones I have highlighted. Every area in our country needs to have a multi-agency safeguarding hub, so that all organisations can work together, share vital information and, above all, protect children. A key example of the need for that is Sara’s father and murderer. He was a taxi driver who passed a Disclosure and Barring Service check. He got his licence through Woking borough council—the licensing authority in my area—yet Surrey county council’s children’s services knew that he was a child abuser. It was foreseeable that he would be driving around children with special educational needs or other vulnerable people, including for Surrey county council, as it uses taxi drivers for home-to-school transport. Why are we risking vulnerable children’s lives because the computer says no? We need to share that information. This Government’s recent spending review agreed a real-terms cut in the grant to local authorities for children’s services—that is appalling. We should not be cutting that funding; we should not be putting a price on a child’s life. I have a number of asks to the Minister. We need better joined-up public services where information is shared quickly and effectively to prevent children from being put at risk. We need to ensure that local authorities are well equipped to deal with the upcoming changes in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, so that no child falls through the cracks. Does the Minister agree that something is clearly wrong in Surrey? I urge him to put Surrey county council’s children services in special measures. I know that Surrey county council is to be abolished, and I am pleased that it is, but children’s lives are at risk now. We cannot wait for local government reorganisation. Surrey’s failures must have consequences for its leadership, not for my vulnerable constituents. From April of next year, my area will have a new local authority: West Surrey council. I do not want Surrey county council’s record of mismanagement and poor culture of serving the public to be transferred to the new local authority. That is why I urge the Minister to intervene to protect vulnerable children like Sara in Woking and across Surrey.

I do. Funding is an issue; I am concerned that we are not properly resourcing our children’s services departments. The Government’s recent decision to shift funding away from rural constituencies like my hon. Friend’s could have a dramatic impact, and the Government need to recognise that in different parts of the country, there are different funding challenges. Obviously, a suburban-urban seat like mine has challenges, but it will clearly be easier and cheaper to travel around than his.

I am pleased that the Government have finally published their plans to reform the leasehold system, and I look forward to scrutinising those plans on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee. In my constituency, we have a range of issues with property management companies, whether it be the mismanagement of the Clock Tower in Maybury or the proposed 30% increase in the service charge at Brookwood Farm, and all are unacceptable. Please will the Minister explain why he is not using the draft Bill to end the wild west of unregulated property companies?

The hon. Gentleman seems to have a focus on identity, whether geographical or party political, but my constituents in Woking are much more concerned about potholes and the appalling child safety issues under the county council. Does the hon. Gentlemen not think those issues should be the primary focus?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his leadership on this issue. I am pleased that he is standing up for his community, which has not been listened to. In Surrey, local government reorganisation is being imposed on us; despite the fact that nine out of 11 boroughs and districts wanted three local councils, the Government imposed two. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that was a mistake?

As I highlighted, Surrey is being reorganised, partly because of the debt of the former administration in Woking, which is completely unaffordable for my local area, and Surrey council is concerned that it is going to have to pay that tab. How would a referendum work in that situation, where Woking wants reorganisation but none of the surrounding areas do?

As well as putting in an early bid for my town of Woking—the home of H.G. Wells and the birthplace of science fiction—to be our new town of culture, I want to ask the Secretary of State a slightly more serious question. The previous Government’s towns fund was widely criticised for channelling money to their political priorities and heartlands. Will she ensure that the city of culture and town of culture awards are never made for political decisions?

The recommendation by West Midlands police to ban Maccabi Tel Aviv fans was clearly an incredibly serious mistake. That has been shown in evidence by Sir Andy Cooke’s damning report. Not just the decision but how it was made and the fact that misleading statements were covered up is damning. The latest examples of how artificial intelligence was used in coming to the decision, after multiple denials, beggar belief and risk seriously undermining public trust in the police, and not only in the west midlands but across the whole country. The chief constable of West Midlands police does not have the Home Secretary’s confidence. He does not have mine, and I assume that he does not have that of most of the House. He needs to consider his position and go now. I am pleased that the Home Secretary went to quite unprecedented levels to say that he should go, and I am pleased that she has spoken to the House first. Will she meet the police and crime commissioner later today to call for the chief constable to go? We need the Independent Office for Police Conduct to investigate what has gone on in West Midlands police. Will the Home Secretary ensure that takes place? We have already seen delays to the Hillsborough law and its duty of candour, including just this week. Does the Home Secretary agree that this incident shows the need to put the Hillsborough law on to the statute book as soon as possible? Finally, we need urgent transparency and clarity on the use of AI by police forces. Does the Home Secretary agree, and what plans does she have to ensure that guidance is given to police forces?

I have been contacted by a significant number of constituents, who are appalled that Grok and X are being used to create and then disseminate child sexual abuse. One issue that they have raised is the length of time it has taken us to act, as opposed to other countries. Malaysia and Indonesia have already banned these platforms. Is the Secretary of State not concerned about the fact that it took Ofcom a week to launch an investigation?

Road safety in Woking is regularly raised with me by my constituents, so I am pleased that the Government have announced ways to toughen up our drink-driving laws. However, police forces, including mine in Surrey, cannot adequately police the drink-driving laws as they are, and these changes will be less impactful if they are not able to do proper enforcement. With police forces increasingly deprioritising policing on our roads due to budgetary pressures, has the Minister conducted a review of current enforcement? If not, will she do so?

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. Every single death linked to drugs is a human tragedy, as we have heard from Members who have spoken already. It destroys families, shatters communities and places immense pressure on our health services and the emergency services. In my constituency, we had seven drug-related deaths in the last year for which figures were available. That is 5.4 deaths per 100,000 people. In Glasgow, there are 41.1 deaths per 100,000 people. That shows the scale of the problem in Scotland, but particularly in Glasgow. It means we need a different approach that meets the scale of the problem and the human tragedies that lie behind those numbers. I commend the work of the hon. Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) and the way she introduced the debate, and everyone on the Scottish Affairs Committee for their work to understand drug use in Scotland. The Liberal Democrats welcome the work in Scotland to treat drug deaths as a public health issue, notably through the pilot of Glasgow’s safer drug consumption facility, the Thistle. We recognise the complexities of the devolved responsibility and emphasise that matters specific to Glasgow and Scotland are for the Scottish Government to address. However, what happens in Scotland can still offer lessons to all of us across the United Kingdom. Nationally, we need to move towards treating drug misuse as a health matter. That means moving leadership on drugs policy from the Home Office to the Department of Health and Social Care, and investing sustainably in more addiction services and rehabilitation support so that help is available before people take the misstep that costs a life. This approach is reflected in some excellent state and local private provision across the country. I commend the Priory in my Woking constituency, which I visited last year, for its outstanding work on mental health and rehabilitation related to substance misuse. We must bring drug recovery infrastructure into the 21st century. That means more trained professionals, better community support, more housing for people in recovery, and pathways into employment to rebuild hope and dignity.

I am a member of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, and we have found the Housing First programme—with which there are some parallels in this debate—very important and useful. As the hon. Lady said, it is not just about tackling drug use; we need to tackle homelessness for housing problems and we need to tackle drug use for drug problems, and we should do so as part of a package of support measures. I hope we can treat both those problems equally and in a comprehensive manner. We need to lessen the taboos around drug consumption to allow us to tackle the issue in a far more humane way than we have previously as a country. The current system fails too many people. Far too many die when they are in contact with treatment services, and too many families are left grieving following an avoidable loss. Helping people to avoid that fate requires a fresh approach that prioritises health, harm reduction, social support and rehabilitation, as much as law enforcement. We must recognise that outdated drug laws are no longer protecting people, especially young people, from harm. The reform of cannabis legislation would take power away from criminal gangs, regulate quality and potency, and provide safer access for adults while protecting the young. This pragmatic, evidence-based approach should inform our decisions, and we should learn the lessons from what other countries have done. Drug-related deaths across our country remain unacceptably high, particularly in Scotland and Glasgow, where the situation requires urgent, radical thinking. We must invest more in treatment, rehabilitation, support labs and services to reduce harm, and promote public health leadership that brings us into the 21st century. Above all, we must honour the lives lost by making the change that prevents others from dying needlessly, by taking the evidence-based approach recommended by the Committee’s report.

One of my Woking constituents is a nurse at Great Ormond Street hospital. Due to her long hours and shift patterns, she is unable to use a return ticket to go to and from work, which means she has to spend more money to give vital care to children. Will the Transport Secretary agree to look into this to ensure that my constituent and other key NHS staff and workers are able to spend less money to support us by having a longer return journey ticket?

The top animal welfare issue raised with me by my constituents is the impact of fireworks—particularly ad hoc and unannounced displays—on pets and their owners. Please will the Secretary of State reassure me and others across the House, who I am sure are concerned about that issue as well, that the strategy will finally tackle it and provide much-needed relief to pets and their owners?

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I thank the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) for securing this important debate and for the passionate way in which she introduced it; it is clear that this matter is close to her heart. Refugees are some of the most vulnerable people on the planet. They are often fleeing their home following a civil war or being targeted by an authoritarian regime. Refugees with protected characteristics, such as disabled people, those who are pregnant, children and women, are especially vulnerable. That is why the Liberal Democrats believe that people seeking protection must be treated with dignity and humanity, according to their individual situation. Many asylum applicants already face hostility in the process, and disbelief from decision makers can have serious consequences for their safety if they are returned to the countries where they face persecution. No one should ever be expected to hide elements of their identity, like their sexuality, in order to avoid violence or discrimination. There are far too many countries in the world that are openly hostile to some protected characteristics. This debate is calling for disabled people, those who are pregnant, women and children never to be detained or deported. Although I have a lot of sympathy with that, the entire detention system needs thorough reform. In previous debates, my Liberal Democrat colleagues and I have outlined what reforms we want in the system. Immigration detention should only be used as a last resort for anyone—absolutely anyone. It should be subject to clear time limits. We support a maximum of 28 days, with judicial oversight after 72 hours. We tabled amendments to the Conservatives’ Illegal Migration Bill to secure such reforms, including a ban on child detention and an end to indefinite detention. The Conservative Government rejected those amendments, but the Liberal Democrats remain committed to them. The detention of children is particularly controversial. In the summer of 2010, honouring the Liberal Democrats’ election manifesto, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg announced that the UK would end its practice of child detention after years of strong criticism from current and former detainees, the voluntary sector, medical professionals, politicians, academics and legal professionals. My party and I are very proud of that. There are particular risks for women and survivors of gender-based violence in the proposals that the Home Secretary announced recently. The plan to remove the legal duty to provide accommodation while asylum seekers remain banned from working risks pushing vulnerable people into destitution. Women fleeing persecution and domestic abuse are at heightened risk if support is unpredictable and, worse, if it is withdrawn entirely. The Liberal Democrats are committed to fully implementing the Istanbul convention, which Britain has signed, which contains a commitment to protect women and girls, regardless of their nationality or immigration status. Will the Minister tell us if and when the Government will sign up to the Istanbul convention? Women seeking asylum who have experienced gender-based violence need a system that understands the trauma that they have been through and responds according to that need. Any reforms that prioritise speed over safety will worsen the harm for those vulnerable people. The Government’s plans to overhaul modern slavery rules also create serious dangers. Forcing victims to disclose everything at the point at which they arrive risks playing directly into the hands of traffickers and organised criminal groups. Many victims remain under gang control when they first come forward. I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on that. Has he met domestic worker charities to understand the impact that the proposals could have on vulnerable hidden workers in our society? Recent announcements from the Home Secretary include temporary refugee status, more frequent reviews, restrictions on rights-based appeals and the removal of guarantees on housing, benefits and support. Those changes will fall hardest on those with protected characteristics and those already facing discrimination. People fleeing persecution due to race, religion or nationality may find themselves at increased risk before safety is secured. Disabled applicants and those with serious health conditions may struggle with the accelerated deadlines that the Government want to introduce. Women with children, and pregnant women in particular, may face hardship if safe accommodation is no longer guaranteed—yet again, it could be withdrawn entirely. The proposals also include controversial tools for age assessment and a reduction in access to legal aid. Those changes risk harming children and young people, and will make the system even harder for them to navigate as they cope with their mental health and the trauma issues that they bring with them. A shift to long-term permissions with no clear path to settlement will entrench insecurity for already vulnerable people and will completely undermine the Government’s integration plans. The Liberal Democrats believe that there is a better way forward. The previous Conservative Government allowed our asylum system to fall into ruins and permitted a backlog to grow. The answer to the crisis is competent decision making and efficient administration, not punitive actions against some of the most vulnerable people on the planet. The Government are clearly concerned about trying to persuade Reform voters back into their fold. The fact that there is not a representative of Reform here today suggests that they want to shout about immigration, but they have no solutions. There is an immigration problem in this country: the Conservatives wrecked the system and deliberately ran up an asylum backlog of 90,000 to put people off. That has cost taxpayers dearly and is hurting people, but the solution is not going after the vulnerable and chasing hateful rhetoric. I hope the Minister is sympathetic and understands that, and is a quiet voice in his Department trying to change his bosses’ minds. The Liberal Democrats have set out a practical plan to fix the system while protecting vulnerable people with protected characteristics. We would clear the backlog within six months by using Nightingale-style processing centres. We would allow asylum seekers to work after three months. We would maintain our commitment to the European convention on human rights, which protects dignity, fairness and the rule of law. Above all, we would focus on accurate and timely decisions so that people are not left in limbo for years. In this debate, we are discussing individuals with protected characteristics who are at real risk if the system fails them. These reforms must not weaken rights or increase harm; they must not create barriers for women, survivors of trauma, children, disabled applicants or victims of trafficking. I urge the Government to reconsider their approach. A safe and functioning, humane asylum system is achievable, and they must deliver it.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I thank the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) for securing the debate. The subject of cumulative development has reared its head in my constituency very recently. On Saturday, I hosted a public meeting about plans by Martin Grant Homes to build more than 200 homes on the area known as Saunders Lane—green-belt land between Hook Heath and Mayford in Woking. The venue for the meeting was Mayford village hall, and people were queueing out the door. There were hundreds of people—standing room only. The response was overwhelming, and the message from my community was clear: people are united in not wanting to lose these green-belt fields forever. The area is already poorly connected and struggling with weak infrastructure as it is—let alone with significant housing development. My residents are deeply concerned about the impact on the local environment, the transport system, wider public services and the character of the area. On top of the objections to the Saunders Lane plans, there are concerns about the cumulative impact. Only on the next road, Egley Road, 86 homes and a 62-bed care home are under construction, and there is a planning application for 74 new properties. In the very same village, about half a mile down the road, there is planning application for 200 retirement homes and a further care home on Sutton Green golf club. Because all the applications are speculative, the cumulative impact has not been considered. My local authority, Woking borough council, has started to draft a new local plan, in which locally elected councillors and local people can decide where we build the homes we need. The developers, including Martin Grant, are wrong to pre-empt that fair and democratic process and take away the right of my constituents to shape the future of our area. Because they are pre-empting it, we cannot assess the cumulative impact. I will be writing to the council and the developer to summarise what happened at Saturday’s meeting and urge everyone to put forward their views. It is blindingly clear that local people feel strongly about where they live. The community is very much alive and well in Mayford, and I am proud that I could respond to and lead the community in such a manner. Woking is keen to build homes. We have given planning permission for well over 2,000 properties, which are not being built. Planning permission is not the problem in Woking and many other constituencies; the problems are in the construction sector. Will the Minister reassure me and my constituents that we in Woking can be allowed to shape our area, agree which green fields the local plan will protect, and say where development should happen, without being overturned by decisions from Whitehall?

The Secretary of State is right to highlight the appalling case of a senior UK politician being convicted of bribery for taking money from Russia. I am also concerned about a UK political party getting a donation—the largest single donation from a living person—from money abroad, from cryptocurrency. Can he assure me that this independent review, which I welcome, will consider political donations and potentially recommend where we set a political donation cap?

I am pleased to hear from the Minister how the Government are supporting magistrates and that she visited a recently reopened magistrates court. The biggest single thing that the Government could do in my constituency in my county of Surrey is reopen Woking magistrates court, which was closed by the former Conservative Government. Will the Government consider reopening Woking magistrates court?

In my constituency there is planning permission for over 2,000 new homes in and around the town centre alone, yet developers are not building those much-needed homes. What steps are the Government taking to tackle developers that are land banking instead of building homes, and are they continuing to refuse to introduce tougher “use it or lose it” powers in these planning reforms?

Last year, over 50,000 women and girls in Surrey were affected by violence against women and girls, yet 49% of respondents to a recent survey about the issue in Surrey said they had never reported the issue to the police or other authorities. Will the Minister confirm how the Government’s new strategy will ensure that women and girls in my constituency are empowered to report these appalling violent crimes?

Following the appalling show trial of Jimmy Lai, I have already had correspondence from members of the strong and growing community of Hongkongers in Woking. They are terrified about the signal this will send to people from Hong Kong who now live in the UK. People are facing intimidation in the UK for standing up to Beijing on civil liberties issues. As well as continuing to demand the immediate release of Jimmy Lai, will the Foreign Secretary please consider the use of targeted sanctions against Chinese Communist party officials involved in that decision and in issuing bounties and other intimidation across the world?

Ashford and St Peter’s hospital, which serves my constituency, has an £80 million repair backlog. When will the Government allocate sufficient funding to fix our crumbling hospitals, including Ashford and St Peter’s?

I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement and the progress on this inquiry. My local authority, Surrey county council, has at best been slow to acknowledge its failures in child abuse and child safeguarding in the case of Sara Sharif from Woking. How will the Government ensure that both police forces and local authorities fully co-operate with this inquiry, particularly in areas with a history of under-reporting, cover-up and a lack of openness and transparency?

The hon. Gentleman says that this system will be free. I believe the OBR says that it will cost the taxpayer £1.8 billion; I do not believe that that is free.

I thank the Security Minister for speaking for the whole House when he gave our sincere condolences to Dawn Sturgess’s family, paid tribute to the emergency and security services, and conveyed his thoughts to those affected in the Novichok attack. Government’s primary role is to keep our country safe. The report into the tragic killing of Dawn Sturgess on the streets of the UK by Russian agents in their attempt to assassinate Sergei Skripal, is damning. The report found Vladimir Putin to be responsible for the death of an innocent British citizen on our shores. Basic protections were not in place. Sergei was a clear target for Russian state assassins. The inquiry states that he was resettled in the UK under his own name. Russia used that to track him down and MI5 failed to rename him. Can the Minister confirm to the House why the security services left him in an “alarmingly accessible” situation, despite clearly being an identified target of Russian state assassination, including residing in Salisbury in his own name? How have the security services justified to the Minister their apparent failure to implement even basic protective measures, such as CCTV, alarms or secure accommodation? Worryingly for UK security, Putin’s assassins had no trouble locating him. That failure put him at risk, but also exposed the wider public in Salisbury and across the country. That contributed to the death of Dawn, an entirely innocent member of the public. Last year, the Sturgess family’s legal team described the Skripals as sitting ducks due to failings that should have been foreseen by MI5. Given the preventable deaths and public risk, what accountability measures will the Government take to ensure MI5 protects both vulnerable individuals and the wider public? Considering the threat Russia poses to world security, especially security at home, will the Government finally seize the £30 billion in frozen Russian assets across the UK, including Sutton Place in my constituency? Finally, the Government need to see the report as a turning point for the threat Russia poses to the UK. Will they launch an investigation into Russian interference in British politics to ensure no more UK politicians, like the former leader of the Reform party in Wales, are bribed with Russian money?

Last month, the Secretary of State clearly said to the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee that elections, both local and mayoral, will go ahead. He did not equivocate. He did not say that there were ifs or buts; these elections were going ahead. Can the Minister confirm why the Secretary of State appeared to mislead MPs, and what steps will she take to ensure—

Inadvertently mislead. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that MPs can trust and believe what her Department says in future communications?

I have previously raised the case of my Woking constituent Dani, a victim of grooming and sexual abuse, who is having to wait more than six years for justice. Although I am concerned about these proposals from the Justice Secretary, I and others can probably be convinced if they do genuinely put the victims first without undermining our justice system. To persuade me, please will he agree to publish the impact assessment in full and let the Justice Committee fully scrutinise these proposals before a Bill is introduced?

I thank my hon. Friend for the way he is introducing this petition. I am sure he is aware of the case of my murdered constituent, Sara Sharif from Woking, who was abused, tortured and murdered. The safeguarding report that came out last month highlighted the failings in the home schooling system and the fact that a register is needed. Does he agree that parents should lose the right to home school in the event of child safeguarding concerns?

As the Minister will have heard, I am a bit more supportive of the Bill due to safeguarding concerns based on what happened with Sara Sharif in my constituency of Woking. However, I would also highlight the concerns about the way that Surrey county council failed to protect Sara. Although I am mindful of safeguarding concerns, does the Minister agree that the Government need to properly hold local authorities accountable and resource them to ensure that they can properly protect children? They are not doing that at the moment.

The hon. Member heard me talk earlier about safeguarding concerns. Although home education can have huge benefits to families, does he agree with the Children’s Commissioner, who has said that the proper oversight of children being educated at home is important, and that councils should be required to sign off on home education requests for the most vulnerable children?

Thank you, Ms Lewell; I will endeavour to keep to five minutes. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship. I thank the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for securing this timely debate so soon after the Budget. As the hon. Lady said, there is growing concern about the extended producer responsibility scheme. I call it the “glass bottle tax” if I am trying to explain it to a constituent I am having a drink with in one of Woking’s pubs, because they do not get EPR. They understand that it is a glass bottle tax, but they do not get the reasoning behind it. EPR is intended to reduce waste and increase recycling, which are aims that we all probably share. However, the scheme risks hurting our economy, and especially the hospitality sector, which has suffered so much during the covid pandemic and the cost of living crisis. That is especially true in my constituency. We are proud to have 34 pubs and one brewery—Thurstons in Horsell. We are also home to the brewing giant Asahi, which owns and operates Fuller’s brewery in the constituency of the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), which I have had the pleasure of visiting—in my opinion, it counts as a constituency visit. I am very glad to have Thurstons and Asahi, and I am very glad that Woking has a thriving hospitality community, but it is under threat. The hospitality industry supports over 2,000 jobs and contributes £131 million to our economy, yet the glass bottle tax will impose more than £150 million in new costs on brewers for glass packaging alone. At a time when businesses are struggling with inflation, energy prices and higher taxes, that additional burden will deter investment and put jobs at risk. Will the Minister commit to reviewing EPR fees in the light of decisions announced at yesterday’s Budget? The fact that beer duty is rising in line with inflation will have an impact, and will add yet another cost at a time when hospitality is already under pressure. Brewers and pubs tell me that they cannot absorb both. The continued effect of higher beer duty, which is way out of kilter with our European neighbours, and EPR charges will inevitably reduce investment and will add to the growing trend of pubs and hospitality venues being closed down. The Government cannot tax their way to growth. There are serious issues with double charging. Although EPR is meant to apply only to household waste, many pubs already pay for commercial waste collection. Despite that, the sector faces £60 million in costs, with some larger pubs paying as much as £2,000 more each year. DEFRA has accepted the flaw but does not have a plan to correct it until year three of the scheme. That is not acceptable, and pubs cannot afford to wait that long. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about what steps the Government will take now to prevent businesses from paying twice for the same waste. Will paying twice be backdated when the charges are introduced in year three? The Office for Budget Responsibility has classified EPR as a tax, which adds further uncertainty to brewers and pub owners. Without clear guidance on reporting and future fees, businesses cannot plan, invest and expand. At a time when our economy needs stability, that uncertainty threatens growth, which is one of the Government’s key drivers. The Liberal Democrats have proposed a 5 percentage point VAT cut on hospitality because we feel that we need to support the hospitality sector, particularly to compensate for EPR. Even if only half of that VAT cut were passed through, the average household would save £135 by April 2027. The remaining benefit would help businesses to stay open, protect jobs and support wages. We know that for a fact as we saw it with the 2008 VAT reduction, at least 52% of which was passed on to customers. Our goal should be support responsible environmental reform while protecting pubs, breweries and the hospitality sector. They hold our British communities together, and they are a big part of the British way of life. Like the hon. Member for Gower, I urge the Minister to listen to the industry. Will the Government address the risks of double charging in our economy? Can they provide clarification on fees? Will the Minister work with Cabinet colleagues to reduce the harm to the brewing and hospitality sector?

It is a pleasure to serve under your leadership, Ms Jardine. I sincerely thank the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) for securing the debate. I had thought that I might need to intervene on him to allow him to catch his breath, but he managed to share some deeply emotional stories very well. I am here to talk about Sara Sharif, a constituent of mine who was abused, tortured and murdered by those who should have loved her. The safeguarding report was published earlier this month. I will not read it all, but I want to highlight some particular issues to shape the debate, and I hope the Minister will respond to them. The safeguarding report had 15 recommendations, some national and some local. I would like the Minister to confirm that she and her team will read the safeguarding report and act on those recommendations with the urgency they deserve. We need to set a precedent that safeguarding reports with national implications are responded to by the Government as a matter of policy and urgency. That has not happened yet. I hope that the Minister will take away the lessons learned on the home-schooling rules that were highlighted in the safeguarding report. Home-schooling is hugely beneficial for some children, but Sara Sharif’s father used those loopholes to hide the abuse. I hope that the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill will ensure that we register all children and that any parent suspected of abusing their child loses their right to home-schooling. People should have a right, but not when there are safeguarding concerns. Lots of amendments have been tabled to the Bill, and I hope that that one is taken forward. Will the Minister comment on the inadequacies not only of Surrey county council’s children’s services, but of under-pressure children’s services across the country? Vulnerable children are being looked after by overworked social workers who need better training—the safeguarding report says so. We should train and support them better. They wanted to take Sara Sharif away from her family before she was born, but they were convinced otherwise. Can we learn those lessons and empower people to protect our future generation?

Surrey is further advanced than Sussex in local government reorganisation. Something I am experiencing in my constituency that I fear my hon. Friend will soon see in hers is that charities such as Woking’s Your Sanctuary women’s refuge are really nervous about LGR. We do not yet have multi-year settlements, and it is almost impossible to even get a one-year settlement out of an authority that does not yet exist or is about to wound up. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister needs to take that point away and ensure that LGR does not hurt the funding that supports women and girls?

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. The Liberal Democrats have long campaigned for safe and legal routes for refugees. That is how we, as a country, can stop the dangerous small boat crossings, which put lives at risk, and provide sanctuary for those who are fleeing their former homes for their lives. However, there is cross-party concern, ably led today by the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish), that the Government are seeking to limit and restrict the two successful humanitarian visa routes for those from Hong Kong and Ukraine. In my Woking constituency, we know how life-changing a functioning immigration system can be. Since 2015, we have welcomed more than 300 refugees from Afghanistan, Syria and especially Ukraine, and they have been resettled in our community. They arrived after fleeing conflict and persecution, and Woking has worked hard to rebuild their lives. Humanitarian visa routes must enable more stories like those in Woking, but that will not happen if the system becomes harder, slower or less certain for the people coming here. I join colleagues from all parties in urging the Minister to reassure Hongkongers and Ukranians who are worried about their future. Under this Government, we have seen the suspension of the refugee family reunion visa. That is not acceptable. It was a vital safe route that allowed close relatives to join loved ones who had already been granted asylum in the UK. It is due to reopen in spring 2026, but with more restrictive rules. It is also apparent that new skilled or student visa routes for displaced people will initially be capped in the low hundreds. Without more legal routes, such as work and student visas or family reunion, people who have nowhere safe to return to may be forced on to the irregular and often dangerous routes that put lives at risk, and that the Government say they want to stop. We do not want to force human beings who are desperate to avoid a life of slavery and crime into dangerous channel crossings. Britain has a proud history of responding to people fleeing war, oppression and unimaginable horror. Communities such as mine in Woking continue to show that compassion works when the Government match it with leadership and resources.

My hon. Friend is a passionate advocate not just for his West Dorest constituency but for the refugees who have made it home. The previous Conservative Government deliberately ran up a huge asylum backlog of 90,000 cases, which now results in £2 million a day being spent on asylum hotels. They did that because they wanted to put asylum seekers off. That failed, it has cost the taxpayer dear, and it is showing that the UK is not as welcoming as we should be. I worry that the new Government are making not the same mistakes but different mistakes in the same vein, by saying that refugees’ cases have to be reviewed every two and a half years or so. That will put unbelievable strain on the Home Office, and it worries my constituents who are refugees, as well as those who are compassionate and care about refugees. As a country, we should be building on our proud success of supporting refugees. We should not be placing new barriers in front of people who are already vulnerable. If I may conclude with a football analogy, the Government plan to move the goalposts and change the rules for those with humanitarian visas after the match has kicked off. That is fundamentally unfair and un-British, and Parliament must not allow the Government to do it.

The Home Secretary announced a consultation on a five-year pathway to settlement for those who work in the public sector to recognise the particularly valuable role they play in society. Will she please put that to the vote, so that MPs can ensure that those who work in organisations that are fundamental to the public sector—such as those who work in hospices, like the amazing Woking & Sam Beare hospice in my constituency—are always included in the five-year pathway?

What a sorry state of affairs. This case highlights the consequences of a prison system, which includes separation centres, that was overstretched and under-resourced by the last Conservative Government, of which the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) was a prominent member—he has now forgotten that. Please will the Minister confirm what assessment the Ministry of Justice has made of the decade of Tory underfunding and overcrowding, which left prisons unable to safely manage violent extremists such as those we have been talking about? Will she also outline how Abu’s ideology and violent behaviour escalated the need for extreme segregation measures? Finally, violent attacks on prison staff are on the rise. We have seen high-profile cases of prisoners, including one from my constituency of Woking, being accidentally released. What assurances will the Minister give us, as MPs, that public safety and the protection of prison staff will be prioritised in the under-resourced prison system that the Government inherited from the Conservatives?

Police officers, firefighters, paramedics and members of other emergency services and public services face real risks every day to keep people safe. When those risks lead to life-changing injury, it can bring a sudden and permanent end to a career built on service. We need to show our support and appreciation for them, whether they be emergency service workers, our NHS heroes or others. Recognising the amazing work that they do for us every day is the least that we can do. They put themselves in harm’s way and they prioritise our lives over their own, regardless of the circumstances, to keep us safe. They protect us, rescue us and put us back together when we are sick or injured. We need to be forever grateful for their sacrifice, dedication and commitment, and we must not take that service for granted. As we have heard, at the moment, this country does just that and we do not reward their effort as we should. People have given everything in service, and yet they feel overlooked. I wholeheartedly commend the initiative of retired Sussex police officer Tom Curry, who has led the campaign for the recognition of police officers injured on duty. His work, alongside that of the National Association of Retired Police Officers and others, has shown the strength of feeling on this issue. I also support the Fire and Rescue Services Association in calling for a medal for emergency workers who are severely injured and then have to retire for medical reasons. Debbie Adlam, the mother of the late PC Andrew Harper, has warned that many injured emergency workers feel brushed aside. She has spoken powerfully about colleagues of her son who suffered both mentally and physically through their bravery, yet have had no official recognition.

My hon. Friend is completely right. Being injured in the line of duty needs to be about physical and mental health, and we have heard many examples of that so far. Debbie reminded us that what might be five minutes on the news becomes a story that affects an individual for the rest of their life. Let me go back to Tom Curry. He left Sussex police in 1989 because of the serious injuries he received while on the job. He has talked about being only a few weeks away from receiving his long-service medal before he was injured, and now he has nothing to show. The example I have from my constituency in my area of Surrey is that of PC Geoff Newham, from Surrey police. He was named as the winner of an award from the Police Federation back in 2020. He was an outstanding police officer and a member of the Surrey roads policing unit, but he was involved in a collision during a pursuit in 2018 that left him with serious back injuries that prevented him from being able to do his previous job. Despite that injury, Geoff’s tenacity and positive attitude saw him utilise his first-class criminal intelligence skills and experience to support colleagues, allowing them to target and disrupt a number of high-level organised crime units in Surrey, go after a number of county lines gangs and help to lock up numerous offenders. I do not know about you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but that deserves to be rewarded. I have been moved by stories from colleagues across the Chamber. Over several years, whether it be in 2018 or 2022, Parliament has increased sentences for criminals who have targeted our emergency services. If we are increasing their sentences, we should be able to reward and recognise emergency workers at the same time. For all those reasons and more, I support the creation of an official injury on duty award scheme, which would provide the recognition and dignity that those people deserve. I applaud my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) for bringing this debate to the House and for his work on this issue. I am sure that Jane Notley, with her distinctive pink walking sticks, would be really proud to have him as her MP. The Home Office has said that it is considering proposals to recognise emergency service personnel injured in the line of duty. It is time for this House to make those proposals reality. I hope the Minister will confirm that today.

One of the most important things the UK can do to support Ukraine is to push President Trump on a comprehensive G7 plan to seize the estimated £300 billion of Russian assets across those seven nations and funnel them to Ukraine. Please can the Minister confirm what steps the Government have taken to push President Trump to build international co-ordination on seizing Russian assets, including Sutton Place in my constituency?

It is a pleasure to speak once again in this Chamber on the Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill, which creates a modern legal framework that will allow Britain to take every opportunity we can while protecting ourselves in an ever-changing digital age. The Liberal Democrats support clause 1. It states that a “thing”—including a digital or electronic thing—will not be deprived of legal status as an object of personal property rights merely by reason of the fact that it is neither a thing in action nor a thing in possession. The clause responds to the development of new types of assets such as crypto-tokens, which challenge the traditional categories of property. I am grateful to the other place for scrutinising this legal framework incredibly well. As a result, we have a fine piece of legislation to discuss. The digital world is often mired in legal ambiguity about how common-law systems treats digital assets. At present, the law recognises two primary forms of personal property: things in possession and things in action. However, digital assets, which cannot be physically possessed and often do no count for a claim against another person, do not really fit easily into either category. The need for clarity is imperative. We risk undermining individual rights and weakening legal solutions in cases involving cryptoassets, non-fungible tokens and other digital holdings. The Bill goes far in ensuring that digital things are not denied property status simply because they do not fall into the normal categories. Consequently, we also support clause 2, as it requires the Secretary of State to publish codes of practice on the attributes of digital things that confer personal property rights. The clause aims to provide guidance to the courts on how to assess whether a digital asset is the object of personal property rights. The Liberal Democrats welcome the Government’s decision to accept the Law Commission’s recommendations. Financial Conduct Authority figures indicate that nearly 12% of UK adults now hold cryptoassets—I know because constituency cases are raised with me when things go wrong—and that figure has more than doubled since 2021. However, victims of fraud, people seeking restitution in insolvency, or simply those wishing to assert ownership over what they rightfully hold, have been operating in a murky legal landscape. The Bill leaves room for the common law to develop in that sphere of property. That will help the law to reflect the evolving nature of technology, but it must be monitored over time to ensure that regulation ultimately aligns with the need to protect individual rights and support our economy. We know that digital assets can also present risks, particularly fraud, volatility and abuse, but we cannot ignore them; we must face them head on. We need a modern legal framework that bolsters confidence in our economy and in the use of digital assets, and supports the rule of law. The Bill is clear, well written and makes doubly sure that UK law remains relevant in the digital world. It is supported by the Law Society, by legal practitioners and by the Liberal Democrats. I urge colleagues on all sides of the Committee to support its passage.

I thank colleagues from across the House. It is a good example of cross-party working, delivering a Bill that has been well-scrutinised and is fit for purpose. In that spirit, I hope that the Minister can take that away and encourage her colleagues to do the same with other legislation. Question put and agreed to. Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

The hon. Gentleman and I, and others, worked really hard in Committee, proposing humanitarian visa amendments, and trying to lift the ban on asylum seekers working—both measures that would have made things better for taxpayers and for vulnerable refugees. Sadly, we were not listened to, but I hope that we will be listened to if we have the pleasure, or the unfortunate duty, of serving on the Bill Committee for the next Bill.

The Liberal Democrats and I want to stop dangerous small boat crossings. We want to stop the smuggling gangs and bring them to justice. The former Conservative Government failed to do either. My constituents in Woking and people across the country need this Government to deliver a compassionate, effective and fair immigration and asylum system. If this Government thought that this Bill and the amendments were enough to do that, the Home Secretary would not have come to the House on Monday to announce another raft of immigration measures.

I am pleased that the Home Secretary and the Government are finally listening to what I and others have been saying for years: that safe and legal routes are important. However, the “one in, one out” deal with France is not delivering what the Government wanted. The humanitarian visas and the safe routes that we proposed would have done so. We have not seen a flood of Ukrainians crossing the channel, because we have a genuine safe route for them, and we need to expand such initiatives to others. Let me make some progress. The Liberal Democrats—and others, I assume—welcome parts of this Bill, but the glaring reality is that it falls far short of what is needed to keep our borders and people safe. The Government say that the Bill gives authorities stronger tools, and some of that is true. For example, clauses 19 to 26, which were added in Committee, give the Border Force and the police further powers to seize electronic devices, and I think that is broadly sensible. A Government amendment on Report on tightening offences linked to the supply of equipment used in organised crime was also a reasonable step. The Liberal Democrats and I also welcome changes that our peers pressed for in the other place, including the exemption for hygiene products, which came from a recommendation by the Joint Committee on Human Rights—I know the Minister mentioned that. I am grateful to the Government for listening in this instance to the suggestions of my colleagues. The Government were defeated in the other place on an amendment that required the collection of data about overseas students who had visas revoked due to criminal offences. That Conservative Lords amendment would not help to tackle organised crime, or to improve border security, and I do not believe that it strengthens this Bill, so Liberal Democrat MPs will not support it today. The Government pushed Lords amendments on data sharing, the EU settlement scheme and conditions on leave or bail, many of which tidy things up, or respond to the Liberal Democrats’ human rights concerns. Those are fine as far as they go, but they do not change the overall picture. In summary, if the Government truly want to stop small boat crossings, they must work more closely with our European partners. Tough talk at home will not achieve what co-operation abroad can, and this Bill and the tabled Lords amendments will not tackle the huge asylum backlog, or reduce the hotel bills that this Government inherited from the Conservatives. Unless the Government support what we are calling for, this Bill will not deliver the safe borders and fairer system that the public expect, and they will remember that at the ballot box.

A constituent of mine wants to replace his gas boiler with renewable energy, which will cost him around £400. I am concerned by the prohibitive costs, which massively undermine our net zero ambitions. Can the Minister confirm what he and his Government are doing to remove those prohibitive costs?

Today has seen the publication of the safeguarding review into the murder of my 10-year-old constituent Sara Sharif. The findings of that inquiry are what I feared—that the state, especially Surrey county council, could have protected her and saved her life, but did not. Will the Solicitor General please meet me to ensure we can urgently implement the 15 recommendations of that report in order to protect children and girls in future?

After years of mismanagement by the Conservatives, our immigration system is a mess. Public trust has been shattered, and it is up to this Government to restore that confidence and rebuild our broken immigration and asylum system. It is right for the Government to increase the immigration skills charge in line with the rate of inflation, and it is right that it was introduced in the first place to ensure that we invest in our domestic workforce. However, the Liberal Democrats believe that increasing this charge for those in the health and social care sector is a mistake. It makes zero sense to penalise hospitals and care homes that are trying to hire the staff they desperately need. It transfers money from the NHS to the Home Office at a time when our GPs, hospitals and hospices desperately need money, so please will the Minister consider putting the health and social care sector on the reduced rate?

Will the Government agree to study the impact on the health and social care sector of increasing this charge?

About an hour ago, the Prime Minister did not answer my request for a cast-iron guarantee, so I wonder whether the Secretary of State can do a bit better. My constituency is 16 minutes from Heathrow, yet it has no rail link to our country’s busiest airport. Can she give me a cast-iron guarantee that, if this airport is expanded, Woking will finally get the rail link it needs?

Q4. The Times has reported that local elections across the country will be delayed for a second year in a row. The leader of my local authority, Surrey county council, has had to go on the record to say that he has not called for elections to be cancelled, but other Conservatives clearly have. Can the Prime Minister give me a cast-iron guarantee that my constituents in Woking and others across the country will not lose their democratic right to vote?

It is clear from both the petitions that people across the country are angry and frustrated about the state of our asylum system. The Liberal Democrats understand why people have signed the petitions. The situation has been badly mishandled for years, and in my opinion the petitioners are right to call it out. We should not have 30,000 people in asylum hotels, nor should we have a backlog of 90,000 asylum cases. We certainly should not be spending £6 million every day on asylum accommodation. Despite the chaos in the asylum system, we know that immigration brings huge benefits to this country. Contrary to what we have heard from some Conservative and Reform Members today, people are more likely to be treated by an immigrant in the NHS than they are to be behind one in the queue for treatment. We should recognise the value that refugees have given to our country. In Woking, more than 500 refugees have settled locally in the last 10 years, whether that be from Afghanistan, Syria or Ukraine. Among those refugees was the Shafaee family, who resettled in Woking in 2021 after the Taliban took control of Afghanistan. The father now works as a BBC journalist, translating world news for regional audiences. That former asylum seeker is playing his part in expanding this country’s soft power, and countering fake news and misinformation from our rivals in Russia, China and other countries. Their children are doing amazingly well and excelling in education. The oldest daughter, Asma, secured a two-year scholarship to study in a sixth form that many in this Chamber would not have been bright enough to get into. Their youngest daughter, Marwa, is such an amazing art student that she has had her paintings displayed at Woking railway station. That family alone highlights the value of refugees and of us supporting them. That support has helped that family, my constituency and our country. I am proud of the role that refugees are playing in Woking, but the system is still a mess. Why did it get like that? Because the Conservatives lost control of our borders. They deliberately slowed the claims process, saying that that would act as a deterrent. That failed. After Brexit, both channel crossings and immigration went up, not down. The Conservatives’ failure has cost taxpayers billions of pounds and increased community tensions. They spent more than £700 million on Rwanda, and that policy sent only a few refugees to the country. In the last financial year, the Home Office spent around £4 billion on asylum support, including more than £2 billion on hotel accommodation. According to the National Audit Office, hotels accounted for more than three quarters of the total cost of asylum accommodation while housing only a third of asylum seekers. Hotel use has been appalling value for money. Under the Conservative Government, the private sector started to make a fortune out of contracts to protect our border, while clearly not delivering. Other hon. Members have talked about hotel profits, so I will move on. According to the Refugee Council, at its height in 2022 the trade in people smuggling was worth around £230 million to the smugglers themselves, yet just one contract for border security, which lasted two years, was worth £1 billion. As a country, we have spent an inordinate amount of money compared with what the smugglers are making—even the 10th most expensive contract was worth more than £65 million. This industry is leeching off our country, and some people are going after asylum seekers and refugees while not criticising those businesses. We have effectively privatised protecting our borders, but those companies are making a shedload while not solving the problem. It is actually in their best interest not to solve the problem and still to take taxpayers’ money. It is not just the Conservatives who are responsible for this dire crisis. To the hon. Members for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) and for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin), and above all to the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), I say that their politics is causing this problem. After Brexit, we no longer have the European Union’s Dublin rules, so we can no longer automatically send people back to Europe. The Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford has called that the Brexit effect: asylum seekers are trying to reach the UK because they know they cannot be returned. As a result, small boat crossings have gone up significantly since the post-Brexit deal. While Reform causes problems and blames everyone else, we Liberal Democrats actually have an antidote to the problem, and we will happily vaccinate the country against the populism that Reform is spouting. Turning to Labour, the Government need to go further and faster to reduce channel crossings and cut the cost of asylum hotels. Earlier this year, they had an opportunity to reduce the bill. We tabled an amendment to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill to lift the ban on asylum seekers working. If we talked to many of our constituents, they would be frustrated that we are spending so much money on asylum hotels, yet banning asylum seekers from working. We must be honest about the right to work. Allowing asylum seekers to work after three months would reduce the burden on taxpayers and help them to build a stake in their new society. Instead of being trapped in limbo and relying on Government support, they could be contributing to our local economies. It is common sense to let people build their own lives, not rely on a state—let alone a new state—to offer accommodation and measly benefits. If Labour, the Conservatives and Reform had voted for the amendment, we would have lowered the burden on the taxpayer. Reform says it wants to solve the problem, but it threw in its lot with the political establishment by voting against that proposal. In Australia, most asylum seekers have the right to work straightaway, although it is temporary. In Canada, they can apply for a work permit while their asylum application is processed. The US allows asylum seekers to work after six months. From June next year, the EU will require member states to let asylum seekers work after nine months, while some go further: Sweden allows them to work straightaway. Our one-year restriction is out of kilter with the rest of the world. The Minister was not in his position when we debated the border Bill, but will he reconsider the ban now that he is in post, or at least reduce its length so it is more comparable with those in other countries? This problem can be tackled, and the Liberal Democrats have set out a clear five-point plan to fix the broken system. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), for Horsham (John Milne), for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord), for Wokingham (Clive Jones) and for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) for speaking today and highlighting some of that plan. First, we would lead global action to stop the smuggling and trafficking gangs that profit from human misery. This is an international problem and needs international co-operation, and Britain should be leading that effort once again. Secondly, we would process applications swiftly and deport those with no right to stay. The best deterrent to dangerous crossings is an efficient and fair system that makes quick decisions and enforces them properly. Thirdly, we would crack down on modern slavery here in the UK. Trafficking gangs bring people here to exploit them with forced labour. We must get the Fair Work Agency up and running and bring those responsible for that exploitation to justice. Fourthly, we would invest to support refugees closer to their home countries. Most people fleeing conflict want to stay near their home, but our aid budget, which would help people to do that, has been cut by both the Conservatives and Labour, who are then surprised that we have small boat crossings in such record numbers. Restoring that support—that international aid—would help to save lives and reduce those dangerous crossings across Europe, in the Mediterranean, and closer to home in the English channel. Finally, we would allow asylum seekers to apply from outside the United Kingdom, whether at our embassies or consulates or through other initiatives, so that people can travel safely if they are granted protection, rather than risking their lives at sea. How successful has the Ukrainian visa scheme been, given we have had almost no Ukrainians make an illegal crossing? We need to have safe, legal routes. That is what a fair deal on the asylum and immigration system would look like. It would save taxpayer money, restore public confidence and uphold Britain’s proud tradition of offering sanctuary to those fleeing persecution. Reform, like many of the private sector companies that I have already highlighted, has a perverse incentive to keep the migration crisis going. It wants all attempts to stop the boats to fail so it can continue to profit politically from the crisis. It wants migrants to come across so that the country stays cross. The remedies it is selling would make the quacks of old blush—these snake oil salesmen are not to be trusted. To the people of my Woking constituency and to others across the country who signed these petitions, I say this: I am sorry that Conservative mismanagement has broken our system, that Reform’s Brexit tore up the Dublin rules that stopped the channel crossings in the first place, and that Labour’s border Bill does not solve the problem. That is why we have come up with a plan. The Liberal Democrats have an antidote to this crisis.

As well as congratulating McLaren, which is based in my constituency of Woking, for winning the Formula 1 constructors’ title for the second season in a row, will the Minister also agree to ask the Chancellor to change the tax on sustainable fuel, so that this country can continue to have a leading place in the motoring industry?

4. What steps she is taking to support the motorsport industry.

One of the many brands of Woking-based Asahi is Cornish Orchards, which has recently decarbonised and cut its emissions by 94% by investing in renewable energy. Does the Minister agree that that is exactly the sort of innovation we need? What further steps will his Department take to ensure that the brewing industry can decarbonise and use renewable electricity a lot more than it does currently?

14. What steps his Department is taking to support breweries to reduce carbon emissions.