Will Forster MP: speeches

Speeches

• 4 Sept 2025 · Court Backlog · Hansard source

  More

  6. What steps she is taking with the Crown Prosecution Service to help reduce the backlog of court cases.

• 4 Sept 2025 · Court Backlog · Hansard source

  More

  The Solicitor General confirms the horrendous backlog in the Crown court to us all. In one case in my constituency, one victim, Dani, will have to wait more than six years to get justice. Dani is just 21 and has been a victim of grooming and sexual abuse. Does the Solicitor General agree that for Dani and many others, justice delayed is justice denied? What further urgent steps will the Government take to tackle the backlog?

• 3 Sept 2025 · Violence against Women and Girls · Hansard source

  More

  3. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to help tackle violence against women and girls in the home.

• 3 Sept 2025 · Violence against Women and Girls · Hansard source

  More

  The murder of 10-year-old Sara Sharif in my constituency was a harrowing example of violence against women and girls in the home. Social services play a vital role in protecting vulnerable girls, yet we often hear that they are overwhelmed and under-resourced. Will the Minister please confirm what steps this Government are taking to ensure that local authority social services are able to protect vulnerable children and stop tragedies such as Sara’s ever happening again?

• 22 Jul 2025 · Accident and Emergency Waiting Times · Hansard source

  More

  In June, just 66% of patients admitted to Woking’s local A&E at St Peter’s hospital were seen within four hours. That is way below both the national target and the national average of 76%. Will the Secretary of State agree to investigate that to find out why my constituents of Woking are facing such lengthy and unreasonable waiting times?

• 16 Jul 2025 · Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I rise in support of the Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill, which stands to bring our legal framework into the 21st century and better equip it to meet the challenges and opportunities of the digital age. This Bill is firmly rooted in the rigorous work of the Law Commission, which was followed by careful scrutiny in the other place. I thank peers for their work on the Bill, particularly Lord Tim Clement-Jones for scrutinising it on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. This Bill confronts the long-standing legal ambiguity about how our common law system treats digital assets. As the Minister explained, and as I vaguely remember from my days at law school, the law as it stands recognises two primary forms of personal property—things in possession and things in action. However, we live in an ever-changing digital world, in which everything is much more based on digital than that common-law approach allows for. Digital assets, which cannot be physically possessed and often do not constitute a claim against another person, do not fall into the two traditional categories. Without clarity about the law, we risk undermining individual rights and weakening legal solutions in cases involving crypto assets, non-fungible tokens and other digital holdings. That is why this Bill matters; it ensures that digital things are not denied property status simply because they do not fall into the two normal categories. That is why the Liberal Democrats welcome the Government’s decision to accept the Law Commission’s recommendations. This Bill is appropriate at this time, when we are seeing a growing use of digital assets across a variety of sectors. They are being used as investments, stores for value and tokens of identity and ownership by more and more people than ever before—recent figures from the Financial Conduct Authority indicate that nearly 12% of UK adults now hold crypto assets, a figure that has more than doubled since 2021. However, victims of fraud, those seeking restitution in cases of insolvency, or simply those wishing to assert ownership over what they rightfully hold have been operating in a murky legal landscape. This Bill leaves room for common law to develop in that sphere of property. That will help the law to reflect the ever-evolving nature of technology, but it must be monitored over time to ensure that regulation ultimately aligns with the need to protect individuals’ rights and support the economy. We know that digital assets mean potential risks—whether fraud, abuse, or volatility—but ignoring them or failing to regulate them effectively will not make those risks disappear. A legal vacuum only increases the risk of criminality and injustice, while a clear, modern legal framework empowers the honest majority, boosts confidence and supports innovation. This Bill is measured, cautious and essential. It provides legal clarity, upholds property rights, and ensures that our laws remain relevant in the digital world. It is supported by the Law Society, by legal practitioners, and by the Liberal Democrats. I hope everyone in this Chamber supports it, too.

• 16 Jul 2025 · Giving Every Child the Best Start in Life · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister mentioned family hubs, which I welcome, but he stated that they will be delivered by local authority area. In my area of Surrey, we are going through local government reorganisation. How will the roll-out be impacted by that reorganisation? Does he expect to roll out a plan over the next couple of years, and then to reorganise it after a new council has been created?

• 16 Jul 2025 · Oxford to Cambridge Rail Line · Hansard source

  More

  5. What discussions she has had with Cabinet colleagues on the potential impact of the classification of the Oxford to Cambridge rail line as an England and Wales transport project on Wales.

• 16 Jul 2025 · Oxford to Cambridge Rail Line · Hansard source

  More

  The Government have claimed that listing the Oxford to Cambridge rail line as “England-only” on past documents was just an accounting error by the Conservative Government and that the project has not been reclassified to deprive Wales of funding, but four separate Government documents list it as “England-only”, and over £1 million in Barnett consequentials were already paid to Wales on that basis. Does the Secretary of State honestly stand by her claim that it has just been reclassified and that this is not intended to deprive Wales of fair funding?

• 15 Jul 2025 · Beer Duty · Hansard source

  More

  I agree. There is an economic argument for a small reduction in beer duty per pint, but, as she highlights, there are wider public community benefits as well. I have talked about trying to grow the economy and the fact that less tax per pint has better economic benefits. One of Labour’s key economic election promises was to grow the economy, so why are the Government ignoring calls from the industry to help deliver one of their key missions?

• 15 Jul 2025 · Beer Duty · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree with my hon. Friend. We were in this Chamber talking about EPR several months back; she is a fine advocate for her whole constituency, and particularly the Somerset cider industry. I talked about our need to reduce beer duty. The Chancellor announced a 1.7% reduction in alcohol duty on draught beer and cider in the previous Budget—I will give the Government that. However, the standard rate of duty on non-draught products is set to rise by 3.6%. When combined with the cost of EPR, that will seriously threaten the brewing and bottle industry in terms of growth and investment. The Government are finding catchy headlines to say at the Dispatch Box, but the economic picture painted is this: the Labour Government are giving with one hand and taking with the other. This debate, at its heart, is a political response to that bad economics. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs seems determined to push ahead with EPR, despite legitimate concerns raised in the Department. Meanwhile, the campaign to reduce beer duty, which has long been led by the Campaign for Real Ale and others, enjoys wide support across the industry.

• 15 Jul 2025 · Beer Duty · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is completely right. If the Government reviewed and cut beer duty, as I am requesting, the hospitality sector would see increased growth. Consumers would enjoy cheaper beer, and the industry would have more capital to invest, growing our economy when we need that most. Most critically, there would likely be an uptick in sales due to lower prices. All of that could lead to overall higher tax receipts, counteracting the flawed economics of the EPR policy. Beyond the industry numbers, this is about people, communities and our British way of life. As my hon. Friends have highlighted, pubs are vital cultural and social centres. They bring people together, help combat loneliness and support the mental health of the nation. Many of us have personal stories that connect us to our local pubs. They are woven into the fabric of our lives, yet pubs continue to face immense pressures. The British Beer and Pub Association estimates that 378 pubs will close in 2025 alone, risking over 5,600 jobs. That is more than one pub a day.

• 15 Jul 2025 · Beer Duty · Hansard source

  More

  I thank all hon. Members for contributing to the debate. I welcome the cross-party support for the change to and a review of beer duty. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) and for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean), the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), my hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke), the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash), my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Ian Roome), the hon. Members for North West Norfolk (James Wild) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and my hon. Friends the Members for West Dorset (Edward Morello) and for Wokingham (Clive Jones) for their contributions. Overall, the debate was relatively good-spirited and cross-party, with the occasional breakout of political disagreement. From hearing colleagues’ contributions, it is clear that communities across the country would benefit from a review of, and hopefully a cut in, beer duty. There is appetite—quite frankly, thirst—for the Government to look at this. Growth in the economy is vital, and we are offering a solution to try to grow the economy and support local communities. I hope the Minister asks his officials in the Treasury to redouble their efforts to work with the industry, improve EPR, and ensure that we have a thriving hospitality sector. I do have some sympathy for the Minister, who was wheeled out to outline the winter fuel allowance U-turn and now again to try to defend taxing pubs more than we should. He talks about the financial impact, but when he goes back to a pub in Swansea, I hope he considers the benefits of a review. I know he has not committed to a review today, but were the Government to review beer duty in advance of the next Budget, it could have both financial and community benefits that I hope he will ponder over his next pint. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered beer duty.

• 15 Jul 2025 · Beer Duty · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is right to promote his amazing community hub and pub in Barnstaple. I pass on my best wishes to Beer Matters for its award. A lot of us have concerns about the EPR rules. Under the current EPR rules, glass packaging used in pubs is wrongly classified as household waste, even though it is collected and recycled via private commercial contractors. EPR is meant to fund the cost of removing packaging from household waste streams—not from businesses that already pay for their recycling. This means that brewers and pubs face duplicate charges for the same glass, despite it never entering the household. DEFRA has acknowledged that the policy is wrong and that it was never intended to be implemented in this way. It has committed to the industry to find a solution, but no fix has yet been delivered, and it has pressed on with the scheme regardless. Reducing beer duty would mean less tax per pint in principle, but, in practice, it would bring a great benefit.

• 15 Jul 2025 · Beer Duty · Hansard source

  More

  It will be interesting to see what the Government make of my persuasive speech, but I thank the hon. Member for his kind words. I am sure he will not be told off for saying that from his side of the Chamber. I am happy to look into what he said about changing the pub code. One of the things I am highlighting is that we want a thriving independent sector that supports small businesses, and reviewing the code could help. I am really concerned that, effectively, one pub has closed every day in this country this year. Nationally, hospitality employs 3.5 million people. That is 10% of all UK jobs, and the concentration is even higher in coastal areas, such as those represented by some colleagues who have spoken today. The beer and pub sector contributes £34.3 billion to the UK economy and generates £18 billion in tax. It supports around 1 million jobs from grain to glass. The UK has the second-highest beer duty in the whole of Europe. The highest is Finland, where alcohol can be bought only in state-owned shops or licensed bars and restaurants. It is one of the two European countries that effectively has an alcohol monopoly. On a European level, Finland’s alcohol prices are considered extreme compared with other countries, but even now, the Finnish Government are aiming to reform their policies to bring them more into line with others in Europe. Bizarrely, we are more like Finland in regard to our alcohol laws, when we should be more in line with countries such as France and Germany, which have similar drinking traditions to us. So I ask the Minister: when will the UK take the same approach? Higher beer duty has wider consequences, such as increasing prices for consumers, reducing investment, fewer choices on the shelf and making the UK less attractive for international brewers. Even with some recent reforms, the burden remains far too high and continues to threaten the viability of local pubs and breweries. Reducing beer duty is an economic argument, yet it is also about protecting British culture, supporting local jobs, encouraging investment in communities and helping people with the cost of living. I hope that the Minister will recognise that, as some of his colleagues have, and agree to review beer duty to ensure that the level that is set grows our economy and protects jobs. Let us act before the damage to the British way of life becomes irreversible.

• 15 Jul 2025 · Beer Duty · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered beer duty. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. We are here this afternoon to discuss beer. I love beer, and so does Great Britain. I secured this debate to acknowledge calls from constituents, brewers and the pub sector to call on the Government to reduce beer duty by 50p. That call makes economic sense and is backed up by the industry. My Woking constituency is home to a great little brewery called Thurstons in Horsell and Asahi’s UK headquarters—a huge brand that covers Fuller’s, Peroni and Cornish Orchards, to name just a few. The beer and pub sector in Woking supports over 1,800 jobs and contributes £100 million to our local economy, yet customers and the industry across the whole country are struggling. Pubs are much more than just businesses; they are hubs in our high streets and the centres of community life. Why 50p? The answer lies with the new extended producer responsibility scheme. In May, MPs were talking at great length in this Chamber about how brewers currently make around 5% on the average bottle of beer. Under EPR, brewers will lose around 3p a bottle, unless they raise prices or the Government step in. The economics simply do not add up. Without action, brewers will barely make a profit on bottled beer. By reducing beer duty by 50p, the Government would offset the cost of EPR for not just producers, but the entire supply chain, and, ultimately, consumers. All the people—from farmers in their fields to brewers in their brew houses, to the people drinking in pubs—are our constituents. It is our duty to reduce beer duty.