Mr Will Forster
MP for Woking · Liberal Democrat · United Kingdom
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
The complete record
Every one of 576 lines we hold for Mr Will Forster, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 11 of 12.
“The Government’s allocation of funding for social care is simply not enough, and their refusal to commit to long-term reform, and particularly to have a long-term inquiry, will make the problem worse, not better. On top of that, local authorities are saddled with extra costs from the Government’s policies. The increases in national insurance contributions will push up payroll costs for councils across the country, yet the Government’s package of support is lacking. Councils will be short of hundreds of millions of pounds just from NI contributions, and once again they will be pushed to increase council tax or cut services. The Liberal Democrats are concerned that rural councils will suffer as a result of the Government’s decision to remove the rural services delivery grant in favour of the new recovery grant.”
“The Minister has talked about the past 14 years; I am more worried about the 14 days until my local authority, which is protecting vulnerable elderly people and children, will run out of money. Social care is another area where the previous Government failed miserably, and I worry that Labour is set to repeat the same mistakes. Councils that provide social care are supposed to be better off under this settlement, but the reality is that demand for care is rising, costs are soaring, and local authorities are still struggling to meet their legal needs—I am sure all Members know that from their casework, and we see it time and again in tribunals.”
“I thank the Minister for admitting that the 0.3% rise in DCN funding is happening. I do not think he can say that the Liberal Democrats and I are looking both ways on unitarisation, based on the statement earlier and the questions that took this debate later than Members might have wanted. We have concerns about unitarisation, particularly about the way that the Government are doing it. Fundamentally, we welcome reform of local government, but it cannot be imposed on councils and local areas, and we are concerned that that is happening. My county council, Surrey county council, has 14 days of reserves left—that is how bad of a state its finances are in.”
“The Liberal Democrats and I are immensely grateful for the councillors and council staff who give up their time and their lives to shape their communities. We cannot let them down in this House, and they need to be fully funded going forward.”
“It means that the homelessness strategy that we are promised in July genuinely solves the problem, genuinely tackles prevention, and is fully funded. We also need to tackle special educational needs on a long-term, cross-party basis, not kick the can down the road, which is the fear for those issues. I was pleased that the Minister agreed—almost conceded—to have a cross-party review into the council tax system. The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) highlighted that his constituents in a band H property are charged £3,000 more than for a band H property in London, which is unacceptable. It is well known that Buckingham Palace pays the same level of council tax as an average three-bedroom semi-detached in Blackpool. That is not reasonable. We must fundamentally tackle those issues.”
“The Liberal Democrats believe in properly funding local government so that we can care for the people we need to care for, house the people we need to house, and protect vulnerable residents. I thank the Minister and his officials for putting the funding settlement together. It is a step in the right direction and an improvement on what we have seen, but as I think the Minister will concede, it couldn’t not be—it was always going to be better. This is a step in the right direction, but the challenges we face as a society and a country are huge, and the Liberal Democrats and I need to hold the Government to account to make sure that this is the last one-year single financial settlement. We need to make sure that social care is properly funded. That does not mean kicking the can down the road in three years’ time.”
“I thank the hon. Gentleman for his helpful contribution. We should not have councils competing against each other, but although we have to recognise deprivation, and local government funding should be linked to that, we also have to recognise the cost of delivering services. Our fear is that removing the rural services delivery grant will not do that. Last year the rural services delivery grant provided £110 million to rural councils to compensate for the vast rural areas that they serve, but this means that they will now face higher costs. We are concerned about, and it will leave rural communities and residents struggling, with fewer services and higher taxes. The Liberal Democrats urge the Government to provide rural councils with the funding settlement they need.”
“I know that the Justice Secretary is aware of the tragic case of my constituent Sara Sharif. Will she consider reforming family courts and ending the presumption in favour of parental contact despite the fact that there were safeguarding concerns?”
“As the MP for Sara Sharif, I am very thankful that the hon. Lady has raised her case. As she knows, I called for an immediate safeguarding review, to understand the reasoning. However, it appears that the perverse incentive for parental contact, with Sara’s father being given custody, contributed to her death. Does the hon. Lady agree that family courts and that perverse incentive need to be changed?”
“They disproportionately affect women, people in lower paid but essential jobs, and those living outside London and the south-east, where wages are often lower.”
“The decision to raise the minimum income threshold for a sponsoring partner to £29,000 a year and to propose further increases to nearly £39,000 a year has rightly caused widespread fear and anxiety for families. We ought to feel concerned for them and the countless people who have been left feeling uncertain about their futures or forced to make impossible decisions about their lives. More than 10 hon. Members have spoken in this debate. I have heard that the policy is a tax on love and that it rips families apart, but I have not heard anyone speak in favour of it—I am pleased to say—which shows that the system is broken and needs changing. We must acknowledge the humanity of the situation: those arbitrary thresholds fail to take into account the many families who simply cannot meet them through no fault of their own.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I start by acknowledging the more than 100,000 people who have signed this petition nationally, including almost 200 people in my constituency, and I particularly thank Shannon for starting it. They have come together to call for a fairer and more compassionate approach to family visas. This issue deeply affects families across our country and we must address it with care and urgency. The Liberal Democrats believe that the immigration system should work for everyone. We want to make sure that it works for our country and for our economy while treating everyone with dignity and respect. That means that the current system must change because, sadly, the previous Conservative Government’s changes to the income requirements for family visas fell far short of that goal.”
“Do we follow hard data or do we follow the love that our constituents feel for each other? The Liberal Democrats are committed to reversing the unfair increases in income thresholds for family visas. Families should not have to live in fear of being separated. They deserve stability and the opportunity to build their lives together in the UK. I urge the Government to act swiftly, to halt any further increases and to ensure that family visa requirements are fair and proportionate. Families matter. No one should have to choose between their loved ones and their home.”
“Roughly half of UK employees earn less than £29,000 a year, so I am disappointed and surprised that the Conservatives, who often say that they are the party of traditional family values, trashed our family values in this country by introducing this policy and breaking up families. The Government’s own Migration Advisory Committee is now reviewing those financial requirements. Although we welcome the pause on further rises, families need certainty, and they need it now. We need to know that they will not be torn apart by policies that prioritise the system over compassion; we need to protect them. We must ask ourselves what kind of country we want to live in—one that values the bonds of family or one that tears those bonds apart based on arbitrary numbers and a statistical threshold picked out of thin air.”
“I completely agree with my hon. Friend, who highlights that the policy has an impact on disabled and vulnerable veterans. The Government must acknowledge that and take it into account as they change the system to ensure that they support those people. He makes a valid point in support of his constituents. Given that no one has said that they support the current policy, why did the Conservative Government make that move to cause so much disparity and hurt? Putting the threshold so artificially high prevents British citizens on lower incomes sponsoring their foreign spouse or partner moving to the UK. It does not save money—it hurts our financial system and our economy—but it is there to make them look tough on immigration. Everyone can see through it.”
“As the Minister knows, the former administration at Woking borough council racked up debts of £2.1 billion. That money will never be fully repaid to the Government, but surrounding local authorities are anxious that as part of reorganisation they might have to share that debt. Will the Minister confirm how the Government will handle debt in Woking, Surrey and elsewhere as part of the reorganisation? Also, will he agree to write off Woking’s unsustainable debts to ensure that reorganisation happens sensibly?”
“It is fair to say that the culture of a country should be reflected in the laws that govern it, and most of us have pets, so let us ensure that we are allowed to keep them. I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) pursue my party’s amendments, and I was pleased to hear from the Chair of my Select Committee, the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi). There has been much cross-party support for the Bill, while we push the Government to go further still. As supportive as I am of the Bill, it could be better and help reduce our casework of heart-wrenching stories of vulnerable tenants pushed out and treated badly by landlords. The Bill will help us, but, through the amendments tabled and others that I know will be proposed in the other place, it could be better.”
“The cat reduced her son’s anxiety levels and helped him with his day-to-day functioning—it had a huge impact. Housing officers noted that they could have considered the family for a place in some new flats that the council had built, but the housing provider did not accept pets. Sadly, that case, which is not unique, perfectly illustrates the emotional toll that the rules can have on families, particularly those with additional needs. Pet ownership might seem like a small issue in the face of homelessness, eviction and the heart-wrenching issues that we have heard about, but it is clear that sometimes, because there are no protections for families with pets, people are forced into a horrible situation.”
“According to research conducted by Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, only 8% of private landlords list their properties as pet-friendly. I do not just want to talk about statistics, as the numbers have real-life consequences for families and animals. In my constituency of Woking, a woman along with her family were evicted after 16 years of a tenancy because the landlord decided to sell the property. The council tried to find alternative housing for the family but repeatedly came up against obstacles, including a no pets policy, which would have forced her and her family to give up their three cats, including one that her autistic son is emotionally bonded to—his emotional support pet. A letter from the GP stated how important the cat was to her child’s wellbeing, but it did not help.”
“Many of us are described as either a dog person or a cat person. I have had my dog for over five years now, and as a result I definitely feel like a dog person. Joking aside, it is quite clear that we as a country are in love with our pets; so many of us are defined by them. The laws that govern us should reflect how we live and how we choose to live, but our lack of respect for people’s ability to bring a pet into their home is shocking. That is why I am pleased with the Bill. Sadly, there are gaps for pet owners in the rental market in particular, which not only creates an uneven playing field for people choosing new homes but fills animal shelters with much-loved pets that should be in their stable homes. Many pets are in animal shelters because of landlords’ unfair rules introduced over the years.”
“I thank my hon. Friend and all others in the House who have mentioned my constituent, Sara Sharif, today. Does he agree that the provisions in the Bill that would not just encourage but force local authorities to share that data could have saved Sara from Woking and could save vulnerable children going forward?”
“Does the hon. Member agree that the case of Sara Sharif showed that her father and stepmother used this home-schooling loophole to withdraw her from school because signs were being noticed, and that this new legislation could have protected her and should protect others?”
“As my hon. Friend asks the Minister a question, let me highlight something. I hope this Government will have a better record on seizing assets than the previous one. The former Deputy Prime Minister Dominic Raab suggested that Sutton Place in my Woking constituency should be sold to benefit Ukraine or to house Ukrainian refugees; it is sitting idle despite the fact that it has been sanctioned as it is owned by Usmanov. Does my hon. Friend agree that the new Government need to do much better and sell assets like Sutton Place to benefit Ukraine?”
“They hit potholes then, and I hope they celebrate on the streets of Woking again—I have called for them to do so—though I fear they will once more hit a pothole. That is why we are proud of them in Woking. I again congratulate Lando Norris, Oscar Piastri and the entire McLaren team on their remarkable achievement, and I hope to do the same next year. Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish you and everyone on the parliamentary estate a merry Christmas and a happy new year.”
“If we attract more businesses like McLaren and give them the opportunities to establish and then thrive, we could ensure that high-quality manufacturing in Britain is here to stay. I want to see Woking continue as a hub for cutting-edge technology and world-class manufacturing. We can create that right environment by encouraging investment and attracting businesses that share McLaren’s ambition. That means supporting apprenticeships and the skills training that is needed, investing in infrastructure and funding more in research and development. McLaren won the championship in 1998. As a small child growing up in Woking, I remember when they drove their cars around the town, led by Mika Häkkinen.”
“In Woking, we are immensely proud to be the home of a team that has not just won Formula 1, but stands at the cutting edge of technology, engineering and high-quality manufacturing. McLaren is a major employer in Woking, offering high- quality jobs and training opportunities. It embodies the kind of forward-thinking enterprise that we need more of in Woking, in Surrey and across the UK. British manufacturing is world-leading and McLaren’s success shines a light on that and shows what British firms can achieve on a global stage. High-quality manufacturing creates the high-quality jobs that we as a country need if we are going to get people out of the cost of living crisis and help them increase their and their children’s life chances.”
“People up and down the country are big fans of Formula 1, so I am honoured to congratulate McLaren, based in my constituency of Woking, on the extraordinary achievement of winning the constructors’ championship, the first time it has done so since 1998. That monumental success is an indication of the hard work and innovation of the team at McLaren. I have submitted an early-day motion congratulating McLaren on championing the UK’s leading role in Formula 1. McLaren’s victory represents far more than a sporting win. It shows British high-quality manufacturing at its best—that is what we, as a country, do so well—and although I am focusing on McLaren and Formula 1, our high-quality manufacturing is excellent in other areas too.”
“I know that the Prime Minister is aware of the case of my constituent Sara Sharif, who was brutally tortured and appallingly murdered by her father and stepmother. I want Sara’s legacy to be one in which she is the last vulnerable child to be killed by people who should have looked after her. Will the Prime Minister ensure that an independent inquest and review of Sara’s death is held at the start of the new year, so that we can learn why public authorities failed and ensure that it never happens again?”
“In the wake of this destruction, the ICC’s chief prosecutor has stated that there are reasonable grounds to believe that Prime Minister Netanyahu bears criminal responsibility for war crimes and crimes against humanity.”
“The human cost of war is always staggering, and the last 14 months show that to be true. Tens of thousands of people in Palestine and Israel have lost their lives. The horrific numbers represent families torn apart and communities devastated. According to data from the United Nations and other organisations, Israeli Government attacks have damaged or destroyed more than half of Gaza’s homes, 80% of its commercial facilities, and 87% of its school buildings, and left healthcare systems barely functioning, with just 17 of 36 hospitals only partially operational. More than two thirds of Gaza’s road networks and cropland have been obliterated.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris, while we debate two important petitions that a number of my Woking constituents have signed. Liberal Democrat policy on this issue is clear: British-made arms must not be sold to countries that are breaching human rights law. This principle is not just a moral standard; it is a legal one. When it comes to Israel, the British Government have failed to demonstrate transparency. Despite repeated calls, Ministers have not released their own legal advice on whether arms exports to Israel align with international law. Given the ongoing cases at the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice, the British public have a right to know whether the Government are upholding their own arms export regime. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s confirmation on that.”
“I completely agree with my hon. Friend. We must support the International Criminal Court investigations and uphold whatever it finds. The Prime Minister of Israel bears criminal responsibility, but it does not stop with him. The former Israeli Defence Minister, Gallant, is also under investigation. That brings me to the urgent need for targeted sanctions against those in Israel’s leadership who are directly fuelling the conflict and undermining the chance for peace. Israel’s current Finance Minister, Smotrich, is a prominent advocate of settlement expansion, opposes Palestinian statehood, and supports the full annexation of the west bank.”
“It is time for the Government to demonstrate leadership; halt arms sales where there is evidence of human rights abuses; impose sanctions on the people I have mentioned and on others pushing a conflict; and lead an international effort to stop the bloodbath and rebuild Gaza.”
“Because of time pressure, I will not give way again—sorry. Smotrich has even encouraged the forced transfer of Palestinians out of these territories. The current Minister of National Security, Ben-Gvir, has a troubling past. He has been charged more than 50 times and convicted in eight cases, including incitement to racism and support for a terrorist organisation. Those two individuals need to be sanctioned by the UK, and I look forward to the Minister’s response on that. This violence is at risk of escalating even further, and we cannot allow that. That is why the UK should stop selling arms to Israel.”
“It does not support people with the cost of living crisis, and it introduces a shocking tax on education. Woking deserves better, and this country deserves better.”
“At a time when people are facing the worst cost of living crisis in decades, this Finance Bill increases the tax burden on everyone. The Liberal Democrat manifesto and our reasoned amendment show that there is a fairer way. We have bold plans to properly fund the NHS, social care and other public services by asking big banks, oil and gas giants and big tech companies to pay their fair share. Our plan is ambitious, which is what this country needs; Labour’s Budget does not come close. The Finance Bill does not go far enough to protect people and the services that they rely on. The Government need to get their priorities right. The Liberal Democrats are against the Bill because it does not effectively tackle the crisis in social care, or reverse cuts to winter fuel support.”
“A resident from Knaphill told me: “The rise is concerning. With a £1 increase each way, it will put even more strain on pensioners like me.” It amounts to an extra £500 a year for someone who commutes by bus every day. That is a huge burden at a time when households and families in my constituency and elsewhere are already struggling. Buses are not just a convenience or a luxury; they are the backbone of local economies, connecting people to work, schools, colleges, shops and healthcare. If this Government are serious about economic growth, they should be investing in buses, not hitting passengers with what is effectively a bus tax on working people. In their election campaign, the Labour party promised not to increase taxes on workers, but this Budget and Finance Bill do just that.”
“This Finance Bill makes mistakes, but it could be even worse if it is built on flawed foundations. One way for my constituency to get out of the mess we have inherited is to grow the town, so that our economy grows and improves. However, I worry that this Budget and Finance Bill undermine that goal. The measures go after small businesses, which are the lifeblood of my high street and community. I am particularly concerned that the increase in alcohol duty will hit small breweries, such as Thurstons in my constituency. Like many of my constituents and neighbours, I use buses all the time. Buses are a lifeline for us. The £2 fare cap was helpful during the cost-of-living crisis and encouraged people back on to the buses after the covid pandemic. However, the Government are now scrapping it.”
“It is an eye-watering figure, and taxpayers should never be put in the position of footing such a bill, but they will have to shoulder it. As part of the Government intervention in Woking, the borough council will have to sell a lot of its assets to try to pay off the debt. However, at current values, those assets are worth £1 billion, which is a huge gap that puts the council in massive negative equity. The Government like to talk about a £22 billion black hole, but I fear the black hole is worse than they realise. To understand these issues, Ministers need to look at local government bad debt and off-balance-sheet debt. It is quite possible that my local authority alone will not repay £1 billion of debt that this Finance Bill assumes will be repaid. Woking is just one local authority in one constituency out of 650.”
“This Finance Bill is bad news for my Woking constituency. In the Budget, the Government announced an extra £1.3 billion for local authorities. That might sound good, but the reality is stark. Inflation, rising wages and increased demand for services mean that councils are facing a £6.2 billion funding gap over the next two years. By failing to provide adequate funding in this Budget and Finance Bill, the Government are pushing some councils to the brink of bankruptcy. The situation is even worse in Woking, as our local authority has already gone bankrupt. Woking borough council, a small authority in a two-tier structure, is carrying £2.1 billion-worth of debt. Members can guess which political party ran the council at the time: the Conservatives.”
“Several key roads in my constituency are either closed or partially closed for roadworks, which are being done by utility companies who are increasingly getting around road permits by declaring an emergency. Will the Minister look into that to ensure that utility companies use emergency powers only when absolutely necessary?”
“They are using the correct wording, but good rhetoric needs to be followed up with good announcements. The Government say that they are going for growth, but their actions do not support that. They are ignoring Brexit, they are ignoring social care, which undermines our local authorities, and they are undermining small businesses. The Budget is better than the Budgets of the previous Government, but that is nothing to shout about. It should be a lot better for my constituents in Woking, and for constituents of Members across the House.”
“We need to invest in social care, so I hope that the Government will agree to a cross-party social care agreement that tackles those issues. I want to touch on the cost of living. The Government have to turn around an awful record from the previous Government. They have introduced some good measures and have suggested that they would increase the tax threshold—something for which we have long campaigned —but I am concerned about the national insurance rises, which will hit small businesses hard. I met many small businesses this morning in Woking, and they are really concerned about the impact of those rises. I like the rhetoric from the Prime Minister and the Government about this being a Government of service, and a Government who want to promote growth.”
“I am concerned about the elephant in the room: social care. Local authorities and our health system are really struggling, but social care helps to fix things. It is a more efficient use of our money to invest in social care and prevention than spend on primary care in hospitals. The Government are rightly investing in the NHS, but they have failed to invest in our social care system. Surrey county council is under huge pressure, and Woking borough council has effectively gone bankrupt. It is reported that without further support, almost 50% of local authorities could go under. If the Government do not invest in social care, I fear that they will make the mistakes that the Conservatives made, which we do not want.”
“I am surprised to be called so quickly, so thank you, Madam Chair. I was really pleased by the statement that the Secretary of State is looking at how to compensate those in the health and social care sector for national insurance rises. I have in my constituency Central Surrey Health, a not-for-profit, employee-owned group. It serves much of Surrey, and it stands to lose £500,000 as a result of the proposed changes. It delivers community services across Woking and Surrey, including most of the services in my constituency. It would be awful if we lost services as a result of measures introduced by the Government in a Budget that is supposed to invest in the NHS. I welcome the Government’s investment in the NHS, but they must not make the mistake of increasing national insurance on social care firms, health partners and GPs.”
“I urge the Government, and particularly the Minister, to work with us to reverse this distressing trend and deliver the strategy that we desperately need.”
“The causes are clear, and so are the consequences. Each delay not only impacts the outcome for patients, but places strain on the healthcare system and the wider employment system. What we need now is a long-term, well-resourced cancer strategy, exactly as outlined earlier, that prioritises investment in early diagnosis, improves treatment infrastructure and supports the research needed to make real progress in combating cancer. Patients in Woking and across the whole country deserve nothing less. A national cancer strategy would help to reduce the postcode lottery for cancer care, ensure prompt treatment and provide patients with the security of knowing that our health system is equipped to meet their needs.”
“This year, 2024, is projected to be the worst year on record for cancer care since the NHS last met its 62-day target in 2015. Already, more than 72,000 patients across the country have not been treated within the NHS’s 62-day window from referral to treatment. If those trends continue, we could see more than 107,000 patients treated outside the standard by the year’s end. That is simply not acceptable. To put that into perspective, the number of patients who did not start treatment within the 62-day timeframe in 2015 was just under 27,000. By the end of 2023, that figure had risen to more than 100,000, and it continues to climb this year. That near four-fold increase is staggering. Each of those statistics represents real people—our constituents—facing unnecessary delays at the most critical time for them and their families.”
“I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) for securing this debate on the urgent need for a comprehensive cancer strategy, and particularly for his moving personal story, which I think touched us all. In Woking, my constituency, and Surrey, my county, the situation is increasingly concerning, in a similar way to the situation he presented. Woking does not have a dedicated cancer centre, meaning my constituents have to travel outside of the area to receive specialist care. This adds to the burden of those already facing the weight of a life-changing diagnosis. My constituency, like the rest of England, really wants a strategy that actively meets the needs of our patients and improves access to timely, high-quality cancer treatment.”
“Given that many constituents of mine in Woking and across the country live in fuel poverty and are fearful of losing their winter fuel allowance, does the Minister or the Chancellor agree that targeted support for low-income families and households should be included in tomorrow’s Budget or in the warm home plan, so that no one has to decide between eating and heating this winter?”