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 3 of 12.
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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 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?”
“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.”
“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 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”
“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.”
“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?”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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]”
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”
“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?”
“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?”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”