Will Forster MP: speeches

Speeches

• 1 Jul 2025 · Refugee Citizenship Rights · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler. I start by complimenting the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) not only on securing the debate but on how he introduced it; his speech was excellent. I am proud to represent Woking for many reasons, and one is our long history as a constituency of supporting and welcoming refugees. Ockenden International, originally Ockenden Venture, one of the first refugee organisations set up after the second world war, started in Woking. I used to live on the road where it once existed. We have since welcomed Afghans, Syrians and Ukrainians. One of the former MPs for Woking, a Conservative, set up the immigration advice service that a lot of my constituents, and I imagine others, have used. Where has that moderate, compassionate conservatism gone? I fear that the Labour party is going the same way. The Liberal Democrats are strongly critical of the Government’s move to permanently bar refugees who have arrived here by irregular routes from ever obtaining British citizenship. Giving a hard, bureaucratic “no” to people in such situations, which are incredibly varied and complex, is wrong. It means, in effect, that refugees who have fled persecution and sought sanctuary are condemned to live as second-class citizens for the rest of their lives—never truly able to belong, assimilate or become British. Earlier this year, the Liberal Democrats tabled a new clause to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill that would have required the Home Secretary to change the Home Office guidance. That guidance currently states that anyone who entered the UK illegally, no matter how long ago or what the circumstances, will normally be refused citizenship if they apply after 10 February 2025. Our amendment would have ensured that illegal entry was disregarded as a factor when assessing whether someone meets the so-called good character requirement for naturalisation. We believe that to be fair and reasonable: human beings should be judged on their merit, not their status. Refugees are not criminals because of the way they arrive. They are often in desperate situations, fleeing torture, conflict or persecution. Many are fleeing death. We have heard that this new Government wish to preserve the rule of international law in making policy decisions. That is why, they say, they made the Chagos Islands decision: to uphold such claims. Let us acknowledge that international law is fundamental to refugees. Those seeking asylum who have no choice but to enter a country irregularly should not be punished: that is what the 1951 refugee convention says. We are at risk of falling foul of that international law. Many refugees who have been granted citizenship describe it as one of the proudest moments of their lives—a hugely amazing moment that they share with their friends and family. Yet we risk depriving them of that opportunity. If we strip away that possibility, we risk deepening divisions in our society, effectively telling thousands of our newest residents and constituents that they do not and will never fully belong. That is not the Britain that I know and love or the one I want to represent in Parliament. Instead, we should have a fair and effective asylum system that upholds our obligations and treats people with dignity. Banning refugees from citizenship is not one of those things. The Liberal Democrats urge the Government to think again, change their approach and show that Britain is still great at standing up for the values of compassion, fairness and the rule of law.

• 24 Jun 2025 · Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government · Hansard source

  More

  When the Chancellor gave her spending review statement, I was very disappointed that she did not use the words “local authority” or “council” once. Worse still, she granted the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government a tiny increase that we all know does not meet the challenge. It is an unfair deal to those who need housing and those who rely on council services. I know that as the MP for Woking. Sadly, I am the MP for the most indebted bankrupt council in the country. I fear that more councils will follow suit; 25 have said that they may soon issue a section 114 notice, which effectively means bankruptcy. Local government needs investment, so that we can shape our local places and our constituencies to ensure that vulnerable people are protected. I do not want more councils to follow Woking borough council’s route. The Local Government Association says that there will be an £8 billion funding gap by the end of this Parliament as a result of that financial settlement. That is unacceptable. The Government’s answer to that is to put up council tax by 5% every year for this Parliament. That is unreasonable. We know that council tax is not fair. It is an out-of-date system for funding our local authorities. The fact that it is based on early 1990s property values is not acceptable. Buckingham Palace has a smaller council tax bill than the average three-bedroom semi-detached in Blackpool. I will ask the Minister three questions. Will he commit to reforming the council tax system to ensure that local government is properly funded, and to ensure that funding is not based on that unfair system? Local government is struggling because of social care. Will he agree to lobby the Government to bring forward their social care review, so that it does not report in three years’ time? It urgently needs to report much sooner, so that we can tackle the social care crisis, which is causing a problem for our NHS, and particularly for local government. Finally, on special educational needs, we MPs hear from so many families that the system is not working. We hear from councils that it is putting them on the brink of insolvency. Does the Minister agree that the Government White Paper and the reforms in the autumn should come with a proper funding solution that supports our vulnerable children and ensures that councils will be financially solvent?

• 11 Jun 2025 · Spending Review 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  As the MP for Woking, I represent the most bankrupt and indebted local authority in the country. I was very disappointed, therefore, that it appeared that the Chancellor did not mention councils or local government once in her statement. I am more disappointed, having listened to the detail of the statement, that the Government are investing only an extra 1.1% in local government next year and the year after. What does the Chancellor say to councils across the country and to my constituents in Woking to justify that lack of investment?

• 9 Jun 2025 · Chinese Embassy Development · Hansard source

  More

  My constituency is home to a growing number of people from Hong Kong who have been forced to flee their homeland as a result of actions by China. I appreciate what the Minister says about this being a quasi-legal matter, and the fact that a Foreign Office Minister is sat next to him speaks volumes about how this is not just a planning issue. Does he agree that this country owes a debt to Hongkongers, whom we need to protect from the Chinese interference that they consider this super-embassy would enable?

• 9 Jun 2025 · Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome this Government’s U-turn. Countless pensioners in Woking suffered last winter, so I am pleased that that will not continue. The Minister stated that £36,000 is the threshold that he and the Government have chosen because it is the average earnings. Will the Government commit to increasing that threshold going forward when average earnings rise?

• 3 Jun 2025 · Thames Water · Hansard source

  More

  With a third of customers’ bills going to service Thames Water’s debt, my constituents are fed up of paying higher bills for Thames Water’s mistakes. Will the Government agree to put Thames Water into special measures to save my constituents and bill payers money? It is only a matter of time for Thames Water; will the Secretary of State act now and save people money?

• 21 May 2025 · Ukraine: Forcibly Deported Children · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. First, I want to thank—genuinely, from the bottom of my heart—the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) for her leadership on this deeply distressing issue. Her introductory speech was emotional, powerful and passionate; there were not many dry eyes in this Chamber when she was speaking. I was on the Ukraine trip with her and other colleagues for the three-year anniversary, and it was very moving to see for myself what has happened and is happening in Ukraine. The thing that stuck out for her and for me was the appalling actions of the Russian Government in removing a generation of children from Ukraine, which is what this debate is about. Each story of a child being removed from their Ukrainian family, where they belong, to be taken to Russia, is moving and appalling, but let me give an example to illustrate the scale of what is happening. There are around 20,000 children in my Woking constituency; imagine if every child in my constituency, or in most of the constituencies of other Members present, was taken overnight. Imagine if they vanished—they just went. That is the scale of what we are dealing with. It is the theft of a generation, and standing up to that will define us. According to research by Queen Mary University of London, it is estimated that clinically significant psychological trauma is present among 35% of adolescents in Ukraine. Research in the same report shows high levels of post-traumatic stress disorder among displaced children, with trauma linked not only to conflict exposure but to family separation, loss, property damage, economic hardship and disrupted education. The findings emphasise the psychological toll that the war is taking. It extends beyond the battlefield and will be particularly profound for the children abducted by the Russian state. For them, the risk of PTSD will rise significantly. Back in March, I tabled a written question asking the Foreign Secretary what steps the UK Government were taking to provide funding to track and return the kidnapped children, particularly following the appalling decision of President Donald Trump to withdraw funding from the Yale Humanitarian Research Lab. In response, the Government said: “The UK has supported ‘Save Ukraine’…and ‘Bring Kids Back UA’ through The Partnership Fund for a Resilient Ukraine.” They noted the return of children through Qatari mediation last September and expressed gratitude to Qatar for that. But let us be honest. Our Government’s support was lacking in detail, lacking in scale and particularly lacking in urgency. It made no mention of the United States or a broader international agreement and broader international pressure to bring these children home. It is clear that the current UK efforts just have not been enough. They have not met the significant challenge. We need to support the work of the Bring Kids Back initiative and the Yale Humanitarian Research Lab, but we also need to go beyond that. Applying more pressure on the United States, via our special relationship, is key. It is time for the UK to take a stronger line. Our Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary should not be afraid to challenge President Donald Trump, to ensure the release of the thousands of children stolen from Ukraine. Trump’s appalling bromance with Putin is disgusting, but if we have that special relationship with the United States, we should be asking and demanding that the US do something. Will the Minister confirm whether either the Prime Minister or the Foreign Office has raised this issue with the United States, how many times they have done so and what the United States has said in return?

• 14 May 2025 · Glass Packaging: Extended Producer Responsibility · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I start by thanking the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for securing this really important debate so that we can collectively put pressure on the Government. Times are hard. Things cost more and people are genuinely unhappy. What we do not want is to take away their beer or make it more expensive. The beer or pub sector in my constituency of Woking supports more than 1,800 jobs and contributes £100 million to Woking’s local economy. That is probably not surprising, as we are home to Asahi UK, a huge brand that covers Fuller’s, Peroni and Cornish Orchards, to name a few. Pubs are generally much more than just a business. They are hubs in our high streets and at the centre of our community life—places we go to watch a football match or take our grandparent on a Sunday afternoon to make sure they get out of the house. They are a fun place to drink pints with a few of your friends. Who here has been to the pub after a funeral, sharing stories about loved ones? I know I have, at The Cricketers in Horsell in my constituency. The core of what we are speaking about today is that pubs are really important places for people, and I am worried that the Government’s rules will undermine that. In grief or in happiness, the British pub is an integral institution and always there for us—or so we hope; but the future of the pub is under threat. The Government’s poorly designed EPR scheme is a production tax in all but name, placing more than £100 million of new annual costs on brewers for glass packaging alone. The Liberal Democrats support the goal of making packaging and manufacturing more sustainable. We have long advocated improved recycling and a well-designed deposit return scheme, but the current approach to EPR risks doing more harm than good. It heaps unpredictable and escalating costs on to producers great and small—whether that is Asahi or the small brewery in my constituency, Thurstons —without offering clarity or stability that businesses need to plan for the future. For local brewers or publicans already battling inflation and higher taxes, these additional costs affect jobs and investment. Disastrously, this cost is also passed on to people going down the pub or buying a bottle of what they fancy from a shop. In Woking, it means a direct hit to ordinary people already struggling with the cost of living crisis. This issue extends beyond my constituency. What is worse, this scheme is supposed to apply only to household waste, but the way it is currently designed means that pubs are charged double. Despite already paying for commercial waste collection, they now face an additional £60 million burden across the sector, with some larger venues expected to pay up to £2,000 extra each year. Even the Government have acknowledged that that is a flaw, yet this will not be fixed until year three of the scheme. That delay is not acceptable. Why should a struggling local pub in Woking, or any other constituency for that matter, be forced to bear unnecessary costs for the next two years while the Government dither? It gets worse. The Office for Budget Responsibility has rightly classified EPR as a tax, yet businesses still lack the basic clarity around the final fees, the reporting rules or even whether they will be liable. Such uncertainty is paralysing for businesses already hurt by international or local events. How can small brewers or pubs make investment decisions when they do not know the rules of the game they will be playing or what the liabilities will be? The impact of EPR extends beyond hospitality. Let us talk about glass, as the hon. Member for Rotherham did. More than 60% of glass packaging in the UK is produced domestically, but the EPR scheme risks pushing manufacturers to abandon glass altogether in favour of cheaper, less sustainable materials, such as our old friend plastic. We have seen similar schemes in the United States drive glass manufacturers out altogether. In the UK, more than 6,000 people work in the glass sector, and penalising them is the wrong thing to do. I therefore ask, urge and implore the Minister to commit to reviewing EPR in order to support the food and drink sector, especially in my Woking constituency. The Liberal Democrats and I support environmental initiatives, but not at the cost of local jobs, economic growth or the viability of businesses that hold our communities together. The Government must rethink this scheme.

• 13 May 2025 · Kashmir · Hansard source

  More

  My constituents in Woking, particularly those of Indian and Pakistani descent, welcome the ceasefire. Will the Foreign Secretary urge both countries to accept that the solution to the Kashmir question is self-determination, not further violence?

• 12 May 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My constituency 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 to help resettle refugees from post-war Europe, Vietnam and beyond. Humfrey Malins, the former Conservative MP for Woking even set up a national immigration service. That legacy reminds us of the best of British values. It is important, especially today, that we reflect on that and on what makes Britain great. However, this Bill falls far short of those values—it is not very great at all. I sat on the Public Bill Committee, where I tabled 15 amendments. Although I support the parts of the Bill that seek to tackle the cruel trade of people smuggling, I am deeply concerned that once again this Government are prioritising punitive-sounding headlines over practical solutions. The Bill completely fails to lift the ban on asylum seekers working while they await a decision. That is why I support new clause 21. People spend years in limbo waiting for their application to be processed, with no right to contribute, no right to earn and no hope of building their lives. We heard in Committee that, as a result of the Conservative Government’s mishandling of the situation, 19 people have waited 10 years or more for their claim to be settled. They are capable adults who should have been contributing to the economy. Letting people work is the right thing to do. That is why Australia lets people work straightaway, why Canada allows refugees to apply for a work permit while their applications are being processed, and why the United States allows people seeking asylum to work after six months. Human beings are amazing creatures, capable of so much. It is waste for people essentially to be kept away from society. We want to support them; that is what new clause 21 would do, by giving people the right to work after three months. I urge colleagues to support it. I will briefly address safe and legal routes. Ukraine has shown us that providing safe and legal routes takes away the people smuggling and illegal immigration. That is why I support Liberal Democrat new clauses 22 and 36, and SNP new clause 3. Those vital measures would tackle the root causes of dangerous crossings, and I hope that Members will support them. Critically, we talked in Committee about Interpol. We are turning our backs; we are not asking Europe to help us with this problem—the Government refuse to do so. Instead of isolating ourselves, we should be leading the efforts to tackle people-smuggling gangs. We cannot solve the global crisis without resolving those main issues, but we can do better. Britain has a proud history, and this Bill should be a lot better.

• 7 May 2025 · India-Pakistan: Escalation · Hansard source

  More

  My heart goes out to the families of the 26 tourists who were killed last month, but my heart also goes out to the 26 civilians and children who were killed in Pakistan last night. I urge the Government to do all they can to de-escalate the situation. Will the Minister confirm when our Prime Minister will speak to the Indian and Pakistani Governments, in particular Prime Minister Modi?

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

  More

  4. What steps her Department is taking to support the mental health and wellbeing of school students.

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

  More

  In my constituency I am in touch with a family of a child who has complex needs and severe mental health issues, who has not been able to go to school for a whole year. The child’s deteriorating mental health needs are not being met, because they have not been given a school that fits their child and adolescent mental health services assessment. Has the Minister made an assessment of how the Department might best avoid situations such as that, which leave children without the services they need?

• 24 Apr 2025 · Public Service Reform · Hansard source

  More

  With 2,100 jobs set to go at the Cabinet Office by 2028, please can the Minister confirm what impact those cuts will have on his Department? What responsibilities might be transferred out of it?

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

  More

  The former chief executive of Woking borough council, Ray Morgan OBE, has been identified in a public interest report as the chief architect in bankrupting my council, leaving it with debts of £2 billion. Does the Leader of the House agree that the very least the Government could do is remove his OBE for services to local government, and will she agree to hold a debate in this House so that we can discuss Government policy on removing honours when wrongdoing has been committed?

• 22 Apr 2025 · Private Law Proceedings: Child Safety · Hansard source

  More

  The previous Government’s harm panel report stated that there is a crisis in family courts and that they are too pro-parental contact, despite there being concerns about the child’s safety. As with many things under the previous Government, the Conservatives did nothing about the report. Will this Government and the Minister commit to reversing the parental presumption where there are concerns about child abuse?

• 22 Apr 2025 · Private Law Proceedings: Child Safety · Hansard source

  More

  13. What steps her Department is taking to ensure child safety during private law proceedings.

• 22 Apr 2025 · Ukraine Update · Hansard source

  More

  The Defence Secretary has acknowledged MPs from across the House who have visited Ukraine. I wanted to briefly share my experience. When I visited a Ukrainian hospital, I met a man who was suffering from a chemical weapons attack, and doctors were struggling to treat him because they did not know what chemical weapons had been used. Can the Secretary of State please confirm what monitoring the MOD does of chemical weapons and other war crimes in Ukraine, and how is the UK raising that with international partners?

• 7 Apr 2025 · Zero Emission Vehicle Mandate · Hansard source

  More

  The car industry will be hardest hit by Trump’s tariffs, as my constituency knows better than most; our single largest employer, McLaren, sells 42% of its product to the US. Will the Minister consider retaliatory tariffs, particularly against Tesla, to protect British jobs and show that tariffs have consequences?

• 7 Apr 2025 · Israel: Refusal of Entry for UK Parliamentarians · Hansard source

  More

  I was on one of those delegations that the Minister has just spoken about, and unlike my friends on the Government Benches, we were able to visit the area without a problem from the Israeli Government. However, we did have an incident with Israeli settlers. Is the Minister concerned, and what will he do about this sliding from what is supposed to be a democratic country, undermining the rule of law and stopping British politicians from seeing what is happening in the occupied territories?

• 2 Apr 2025 · Gaza: Israeli Military Operations · Hansard source

  More

  Some 400 aid workers have been killed in Gaza over the past 500 days, and we are now a year and a day on from the awful attack on the World Central Kitchen. How many British aid workers are in Gaza, and what tangible action will the Government ask Israel to take to guarantee their safety?

• 1 Apr 2025 · Israeli Settlements: West Bank · Hansard source

  More

  Earlier this year, I visited the west bank with colleagues in the Chamber as part of a parliamentary delegation, where I saw the awful Israeli illegal violence in Hebron and Susya. We ran into two Israeli settlers who clearly wanted us off the area that they had burned down. Will the Foreign Secretary go further than he has in condemning that violence by agreeing to full sanctions and an embargo on all Israeli illegal settlements? Owing to the position of the City of London, that could have a profound impact and stop the violence.

• 20 Mar 2025 · Fly-tipping · Hansard source

  More

  Fly-tipping is a real concern in my constituency of Woking, but I understand that the previous Government introduced new powers that enabled Woking borough council and other local authorities to strengthen their actions against people who fly-tip. What impact have those measures had?

• 20 Mar 2025 · Fly-tipping · Hansard source

  More

  16. What steps he is taking to tackle fly-tipping.

• 20 Mar 2025 · Violence against Women and Girls: Prosecution Rates · Hansard source

  More

  In Surrey alone there are 1,500 cases waiting to be heard in our Crown court, including 166 sexual offences against women and girls. Prosecutors have been telling victims that they have between two and five years to wait to get their day in court. That is appalling. Will the Solicitor General talk to the Ministry of Justice to reopen Woking’s court complex, which was closed by the Conservative Government, to provide greater legal capacity in Surrey?