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 5 of 12.
“Our roads are well used, but that is not properly taken account of in the funding formula. Like my colleagues, I am aware of the investment that has taken place in the M25/A3 junction, which is finally, eventually, coming to a conclusion. I recently visited Woking scouts at Birchmere scout camp, which is on the edge of the M25/A3 junction. They have had to put up with disruption for years, and now their quiet, secluded scout camp is surrounded by unreasonable and potentially unsafe noise. I have urged National Highways colleagues to support them to recover from what they have gone through, and to compensate them for that. I hope that the Minister agrees, and that she agrees to look into it.”
“We have not had an election since 2021, because the Government postponed their elections this year. Since 2021, under the Conservatives’ watch, the number of complaints about potholes has gone up by 106%. The council now has to pay out almost £250,000 a year in compensation because it does not fix things, and it is endangering lives. Thankfully, we are moving to a new local authority, which will give my constituents a chance to vote out the Conservatives, who have mismanaged my local highway network so badly. I hope that the Minister will meet the new West Surrey council to understand its concerns. I am very concerned that highway spending from central Government does not take fully into account how well used our roads are—whether that is by high-usage vehicles or others. Surrey and the south-east have a significant footprint.”
“In Old Woking, a new development was built, which was great. The developer agreed, following planning conditions, to invest in bus stops and infrastructure to support the development and its transport implications. In particular, it tried to decarbonise the development. It built bus stops, but since then, not a single bus has used them. We need joined-up thinking if we are to grow our economy, provide the housing we need and improve our transport network. I hope that the Minister ensures that buses finally use those bus stops, and that that never happens again in the south-east. I will move on to the subject of our highway network. Unfortunately, my constituents have to cope with Surrey county council’s incompetence in managing our highway network.”
“I urge the Government to introduce tap-in and tap-out at Woking to stop hundreds of people a year being fined and caught out by tapping in at London Waterloo but being unable to tap out at Woking. That injustice is not acceptable any longer. Regarding other parts of our public transport network, I have heard calls from many colleagues to reintroduce the £2 bus fare cap, to get people back on to buses that have struggled so much since covid. As the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, I fully endorse them. The £2 bus fare cap was vital, and it should never have been increased so significantly by this Government. My hon. Friends the Members for Horsham (John Milne) and for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) said that their areas have seen significant housing growth, yet bus routes have not kept up with demand. In my area, that is also true.”
“I am worried that I will see the poor-quality infrastructure faced by commuters, which is why our trains into London Waterloo are constantly cancelled and delayed. The infrastructure and signalling equipment at Woking date from when I was born. It has not had any major updates since then, which is appalling. If we are to grow our economy and decarbonise our transport network, we need reliable public transport. I hope the Minister will agree investment for Woking’s signal box and its signal network—it is a regional hub for our railways. Woking was founded on the railways, and it is a key commuter town into London. We are under 30 minutes from London Waterloo. Despite other Surrey towns having a contactless tap-in and tap-out system, Woking does not, and we deserve to be in the 21st century.”
“I hope the Minister will comment on the fact that we want better transport connections, not worse, as we nationalise our railway companies. And better transport connections are not what my constituents in Woking and the wider south-east are receiving. I am pleased that South Western Railway’s managing director and others have appeared before MPs to answer our questions, and particularly to listen to our constituents’ concerns. Their engagement has been positive, and I hope we can move forward together. However, an APPG should not be one of the only meaningful routes for parliamentary scrutiny of a nationalised operator. I hope the Minister will take action to ensure that MPs can hold our new public sector railway companies to account. Moving on to the wider railway network, I will be visiting Woking’s signal box on Friday.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) for securing and leading this debate. She and I, with my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin), got a train together 18 months ago to arrive in Parliament for the first time. From that day on, I knew my hon. Friend would be a strong advocate for Chichester, and for tackling her constituency’s transport problems in particular. She has certainly done that this afternoon. I chair the APPG on South Western Railway, and I have spent a significant amount of time tackling issues on the South Western Railway network that affect the south-east so seriously. I have been particularly concerned about the network’s deterioration since nationalisation.”
“One road in Surrey has a sinkhole that has closed that road for over a year now; it has cost the county council more than £2 million and has still not re-opened. We need emergency funding to step in in those rare, exceptional situations, and I hope the Minister will take that point away. Whether it is for my constituents in Woking who deserve safer roads without potholes or my commuting constituents who deserve a reliable bus service and trains that get them there on time, I hope the Minister will listen to my pleas, and those of my colleagues, for investment in the south-east so that we can have our fair share of transport spending and grow our economy together.”
“I did not realise that the Liberal Democrats dominated the south-east as much as we do! We have had no Conservative Members speak at all; they clearly do not care about tackling our potholes or trying to make our roads safer and trains more reliable. I am pleased with, and proud of, the team around me who have pressed their constituencies’ issues this afternoon. In the south-east, spending on public transport is roughly a third of that in the north-west. That is not acceptable. That unfair funding formula is why we are raising these issues, and I hope the Minister will agree to tackle that in the future. In particular, we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden), whose A road fell into the sea this morning and who found that there is no national emergency funding.”
“I agree with my hon. Friend. National Highways is far too slow at tackling issues. Only this morning, I had to report a chunk of debris fly-tipped on National Highways land, which has been there for ages. It is far too slow to tackle simple things such as that, to invest in our highway network, which is so strategically important in the south-east, above all other areas. The M25 runs through my constituency, and residents of Byfleet and West Byfleet have to cope with unbearable noise from the concrete surface of the M25 in that area. I have pressed National Highways to take action to reduce that noise, and I hope that the Minister will agree that it is about time it did so. Liberal Democrat colleagues have spoken this afternoon about their transport issues in the south-east.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. The Liberal Democrats and I are completely opposed to these sudden and retrospective changes to entitlement to indefinite leave to remain. Families who have worked hard, paid taxes and integrated into British society should not face more years of insecurity and additional costs.”
“The Government’s consultation document states that from April 2026, anyone who does not have ILR status—even if their application is going through the process—will be affected. That is subject to the final outcome of the consultation, which invites views on whether there should be transitional arrangements to exempt some people already in the UK. The Government press release suggests that such arrangements might be considered for “borderline cases”. Will the Minister expand on that, and perhaps explain, without the use of euphemism or vague language, what it means in practice for our constituents? We owe it to the people of Hong Kong, Ukraine and other war-torn parts of the world who have sought refuge in Britain to respect their wish to take part in our society and allow them peace of mind to plan for the long term.”
“I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting that issue. She is a strong advocate for children and families, and she is right to highlight how the Government have not thought this policy through. It has a disproportionate impact, particularly when childcare costs are so significant. I will come on to talk about the unacceptable changes to the income thresholds. As I said, the Liberal Democrats and I oppose the changes, which move the goalposts and change the rules of the game after we have kicked off. They go against the fundamental British value of fairness. I thank the organisers of the two petitions and all those who signed them, including and especially the 218 and 444 of my constituents in Woking.”
“I urge the Minister to announce today that the changes will not be retrospective, so that immigrant constituents of mine, his and everyone else in the room who have served our communities and fled conflict can sleep soundly at night without worrying about their future. That is what the Minister can do this evening. I urge him to do it.”
“Does he agree that retrospectively extending indefinite leave to remain, without the provision of any specific transitional arrangements, will hurt the many hard-working members of our society who have played by the rules and contributed greatly to our economy and culture? Since taking office, this Government have performed many U-turns on high-profile issues, whether because they are financially foolish, morally wrong, or impossible to deliver because of a political rebellion. Unfairly and unreasonably changing the ILR rules retrospectively would meet all three of those reasons.”
“The Government want to change ILR requirements to look tough on immigration because they are running scared of Reform. I urge the Minister and the Government to speak up for our immigrant communities, highlight the benefits of immigration and agree that our constituents are much more likely to be seen by an immigrant in the NHS than to be behind one in the queue. What assessment has the Minister made of the economic costs and the social costs of these changes? Does he think they will make Britain a more competitive place when it comes to securing the workforce on which our NHS and social care system are so dependent? Has he considered how they may damage community cohesion and integration?”
“Britain is already becoming a less competitive place for science and innovation. The five-year global talent visa now costs £6,000—around 20 times more than in our competitor countries. Cancer Research UK alone spends almost £1 million a year on visas. I know where I want its money being invested, and it is not in visas for the Home Office. Any changes aimed at control must go hand in hand with a serious plan to boost domestic skills and get more people into the jobs that our NHS, social care system and economy desperately need. Before I come to my asks for the Minister and a summary, I want to mention the elephant in the room—or not in the room. Where are the Reform Members? They are missing yet another debate on immigration.”
“Not only does that put them at a material disadvantage, but the pressures of securing housing or financial security under the current visa system put refugees through huge anxiety. Their country is already at war, and it is deeply unfair to put our allies through further stress. The Ukrainian scheme is the only humanitarian scheme that does not include a pathway for settlement. Ukrainians in this country should not be in that position at all. Yes, we need control, but we need to have a fair and robust system, and a frank discussion about who stays and how we support our friends and allies. The Liberal Democrats are particularly concerned that elements of Labour’s proposed changes to ILR risk adding unworkable red tape for businesses and for people who came here legally, undermining integration and damaging our economy.”
“Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) mentioned Ukraine. The Liberal Democrats urge the Government to take necessary steps to provide Ukrainian refugees in the UK with the stability and security they deserve by establishing a clear pathway to ILR. Later this month, it will be four years since the appalling and unwarranted invasion of Ukraine by Russia, and many Ukrainian families have built meaningful lives here, yet their futures remain precarious because of the temporary nature of their current settled status. Reports suggest that Ukrainians are missing out on job opportunities, loans, mortgages or lease renewals because they do not have a pathway to permanent settlement.”
“Any new sustained or measurable economic contribution test or minimum income rule risks permanently excluding those entirely legitimate residents, who are already fully integrated into our communities and contributing to British society. Tens of thousands of BNO visa holders will reach the five-year point and be eligible for settlement in 2026. It is appalling that that is the point that the Government have chosen for the rules to come in. A sudden increase in the language requirement to B2 level without adequate notice or transition arrangements will throw many of those vulnerable individuals off balance and deny permanent status to people who have lived, worked and put down roots here for a decade. That would be yet another betrayal of Hongkongers, after the Government’s recent approval of the Chinese mega-embassy. The hon.”
“I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I will talk a bit more about Ukraine in a minute. I thought I would be generous to him, compared with some of his colleagues, who were a bit less keen to hear from him this evening—a little more cross-party working is in order. I want particularly to talk about Hongkongers. Several elements of the earned settlement proposals are causing serious concern for the Hong Kong community in my constituency, in particular vulnerable BNO families and young Hong Kong pro-democracy activists who have been forced to seek asylum here. Many BNO arrivals are full-time students, retirees, stay-at-home parents—as my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) mentioned—or family carers who do not meet the conventional salary thresholds.”
“York spends £35 million and its children’s services are rated outstanding, but just down the road, Bradford—which, I admit, is slightly larger—spends £262 million and its children’s services are rated as inadequate.”
“She was placed on a child protection plan before her birth, yet was a victim of domestic abuse from that day onwards. Surrey social workers wanted to take her away from her father, but they changed their mind, and the consequences will haunt us all. After Sara’s murder, the senior officer responsible for children’s services at Surrey county council, Rachael Wardell, was offered and accepted a pay rise of £8,700. I do not know how that woman can sleep at night. It sends a message that failure carries no consequences; in fact, it is rewarded. The safeguarding review highlighted that there were national issues as well. Children’s services in one in five local authorities across the country are not good enough, according to Ofsted. There is a range of spending across local authorities.”
“This is supposed to be one of the most affluent areas of the country, and yet this is what our services—the services for my most vulnerable constituents—are like. The day before Sara was murdered, Surrey’s children’s services turned up at the wrong house due to an administrative error. In another case, the council failed to show up to a promised meeting about a child’s care. As a result, the child did not get the support they needed—there are real-life consequences for Surrey’s incompetence. In November 2025, the child safeguarding practice review that I called for into Sara’s murder was finally released, and it confirmed exactly what I feared: the state, and especially Surrey county council, failed Sara at every stage. All the warning signs were there, but they were not acted upon. The authorities were fully aware that Sara was at risk.”
“Judith, another of my Woking constituents, was breaking up with her partner following many incidents of domestic and child abuse. She feared for her children’s safety if they continued to see their father. On the advice of Surrey county council, the family court gave the father visitation rights, and heartbreaking abuse followed. The court then took away the father’s right to see the children. That is why we need to end the presumption in favour of parental contact. Abusers should not care for their children. Surrey now insists that the father start seeing the children again. It says that it has a duty to explore whether contact would be safe by reintroducing the children to him. It looks like Surrey is rolling the dice and creating situations in which children can be harmed.”
“Surrey county council is failing children left, right and centre. Another example is what happened to my constituent Julia. She and her husband pleaded with Surrey county council for help with their daughter, Eloise, who had special educational needs. Surrey ignored those pleas and refused to give Eloise special educational needs and disabilities support, and eventually it took the parents to court because it was concerned that they were a safeguarding risk to their daughter. The court saw through that and sided with the parents. It said that it was Surrey’s lack of support for special educational needs that was failing the child, not the parents. Appallingly, Surrey tried to cover up its problems with special educational needs provision and push it on to a safeguarding failure.”
“I beg to move, That this House has considered children’s services in local authorities. I applied for this debate because of a 10-year-old constituent who was abused, tortured and murdered by those who should have loved and protected her. Her name was Sara. Sara was found dead in the early hours of 10 August 2023. Her body was covered in bruises. She had a traumatic head injury, human bite marks and multiple broken bones, and she had been burned by a domestic iron. Next to Sara’s body, the police found plastic bags, packing tape and a cricket bat, all with Sara’s blood on them. The people who did that to Sara deserve a special place in hell. Sara’s death was not a one-off tragedy; it was the most extreme and horrific consequence of children’s services being hollowed out, fragmented and weakened over the years.”
“I do. Funding is an issue; I am concerned that we are not properly resourcing our children’s services departments. The Government’s recent decision to shift funding away from rural constituencies like my hon. Friend’s could have a dramatic impact, and the Government need to recognise that in different parts of the country, there are different funding challenges. Obviously, a suburban-urban seat like mine has challenges, but it will clearly be easier and cheaper to travel around than his.”
“Surrey’s failures must have consequences for its leadership, not for my vulnerable constituents. From April of next year, my area will have a new local authority: West Surrey council. I do not want Surrey county council’s record of mismanagement and poor culture of serving the public to be transferred to the new local authority. That is why I urge the Minister to intervene to protect vulnerable children like Sara in Woking and across Surrey.”
“We should not be cutting that funding; we should not be putting a price on a child’s life. I have a number of asks to the Minister. We need better joined-up public services where information is shared quickly and effectively to prevent children from being put at risk. We need to ensure that local authorities are well equipped to deal with the upcoming changes in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, so that no child falls through the cracks. Does the Minister agree that something is clearly wrong in Surrey? I urge him to put Surrey county council’s children services in special measures. I know that Surrey county council is to be abolished, and I am pleased that it is, but children’s lives are at risk now. We cannot wait for local government reorganisation.”
“A key example of the need for that is Sara’s father and murderer. He was a taxi driver who passed a Disclosure and Barring Service check. He got his licence through Woking borough council—the licensing authority in my area—yet Surrey county council’s children’s services knew that he was a child abuser. It was foreseeable that he would be driving around children with special educational needs or other vulnerable people, including for Surrey county council, as it uses taxi drivers for home-to-school transport. Why are we risking vulnerable children’s lives because the computer says no? We need to share that information. This Government’s recent spending review agreed a real-terms cut in the grant to local authorities for children’s services—that is appalling.”
“Homeschooling can be hugely advantageous, and parents have a right to choose it, but we need a register and, above all, parents should lose the right to homeschool if there are safeguarding concerns. It is clear from Sara’s safeguarding review that repeated failures to share information are one of the key barriers to keeping children safe. The Liberal Democrats have been campaigning on this for years. We need to provide joined-up support to meet children’s needs. The mechanism is known as the single unique identifier, and it would help to ensure that there are no more appalling safeguarding cases like the ones I have highlighted. Every area in our country needs to have a multi-agency safeguarding hub, so that all organisations can work together, share vital information and, above all, protect children.”
“When they could no longer hide the abuse from the school, Sara’s father and stepmother took her out of school, saying that they would homeschool her. The school could do nothing about that. The abuse continued—and there were tragic consequences. The Liberal Democrats have long campaigned for a homeschool register to ensure that we know where the hundreds of homeschooled children across the country are and that they are safe. Some of them have never attended school—not once. We need a register of children not in school. That is backed by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and by the Children’s Commissioner, who have said that it would be an important step and tool to keep children safe.”
“This “good” rating is clearly a thin veneer that covers up the rot within. Sixty-six local authorities in England are rated good. Based on what I know and what I have just said about Surrey, if that is good, what on earth is happening in the rest of the country? The Children’s Commissioner has been clear about this: her research shows huge regional disparities in child in need plans. In some areas, children receive early intervention and regular check-ups. In others, we see pointless bureaucracy, long waits and a revolving door of social workers who are poorly trained and supported. Children’s services in local authorities cannot protect children because of significant loopholes in the home education system, as highlighted by Sara’s safeguarding review. It proved that Sara’s murderers used those loopholes to hide the abuse.”
“I completely agree, and that is why I called for this debate. We are not spending enough on vulnerable children, and that funding cut in Westmorland is absolutely shocking. I highlighted the example of York and Bradford, which are two cities in the same region. We need to end the postcode lottery on the lives of children. Children should not be living with that abuse, neglect and fear, but in the awful situations where they are, we need local authority children’s services to have their back and step in to protect them. Nowhere is that failure more despicable than in Conservative-run Surrey county council. My county council’s children’s services were rated good by Ofsted in March 2025—a decision that many fellow MPs, constituents and people across Surrey find bonkers.”
“I will continue to campaign to ensure that Sara’s legacy is that she is the last person who was killed by people who should have loved and cared for her. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered children’s services in local authorities.”
“It has been a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Western. I called this debate for several reasons: to highlight the failures of Surrey county council and call for its children’s services to be put into special measures, to push for national changes to keep children safe, and to give parliamentary colleagues the chance to raise their constituency stories about children’s services in local authorities. I believe I have done that. The Government are taking action. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill should make some progress on child safeguarding, but I urge the Government to go further and faster in taking action to protect vulnerable children. I am pleased by and want to thank everyone for their kind words—I think we have had 15 speakers today. There are 15 recommendations from the Sara Sharif safeguarding report.”
“I am pleased that the Government have finally published their plans to reform the leasehold system, and I look forward to scrutinising those plans on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee. In my constituency, we have a range of issues with property management companies, whether it be the mismanagement of the Clock Tower in Maybury or the proposed 30% increase in the service charge at Brookwood Farm, and all are unacceptable. Please will the Minister explain why he is not using the draft Bill to end the wild west of unregulated property companies?”
“I thank the hon. Gentleman for his leadership on this issue. I am pleased that he is standing up for his community, which has not been listened to. In Surrey, local government reorganisation is being imposed on us; despite the fact that nine out of 11 boroughs and districts wanted three local councils, the Government imposed two. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that was a mistake?”
“As I highlighted, Surrey is being reorganised, partly because of the debt of the former administration in Woking, which is completely unaffordable for my local area, and Surrey council is concerned that it is going to have to pay that tab. How would a referendum work in that situation, where Woking wants reorganisation but none of the surrounding areas do?”
“The hon. Gentleman seems to have a focus on identity, whether geographical or party political, but my constituents in Woking are much more concerned about potholes and the appalling child safety issues under the county council. Does the hon. Gentlemen not think those issues should be the primary focus?”
“As well as putting in an early bid for my town of Woking—the home of H.G. Wells and the birthplace of science fiction—to be our new town of culture, I want to ask the Secretary of State a slightly more serious question. The previous Government’s towns fund was widely criticised for channelling money to their political priorities and heartlands. Will she ensure that the city of culture and town of culture awards are never made for political decisions?”
“I am pleased that the Home Secretary went to quite unprecedented levels to say that he should go, and I am pleased that she has spoken to the House first. Will she meet the police and crime commissioner later today to call for the chief constable to go? We need the Independent Office for Police Conduct to investigate what has gone on in West Midlands police. Will the Home Secretary ensure that takes place? We have already seen delays to the Hillsborough law and its duty of candour, including just this week. Does the Home Secretary agree that this incident shows the need to put the Hillsborough law on to the statute book as soon as possible? Finally, we need urgent transparency and clarity on the use of AI by police forces. Does the Home Secretary agree, and what plans does she have to ensure that guidance is given to police forces?”
“The recommendation by West Midlands police to ban Maccabi Tel Aviv fans was clearly an incredibly serious mistake. That has been shown in evidence by Sir Andy Cooke’s damning report. Not just the decision but how it was made and the fact that misleading statements were covered up is damning. The latest examples of how artificial intelligence was used in coming to the decision, after multiple denials, beggar belief and risk seriously undermining public trust in the police, and not only in the west midlands but across the whole country. The chief constable of West Midlands police does not have the Home Secretary’s confidence. He does not have mine, and I assume that he does not have that of most of the House. He needs to consider his position and go now.”
“I have been contacted by a significant number of constituents, who are appalled that Grok and X are being used to create and then disseminate child sexual abuse. One issue that they have raised is the length of time it has taken us to act, as opposed to other countries. Malaysia and Indonesia have already banned these platforms. Is the Secretary of State not concerned about the fact that it took Ofcom a week to launch an investigation?”
“That means moving leadership on drugs policy from the Home Office to the Department of Health and Social Care, and investing sustainably in more addiction services and rehabilitation support so that help is available before people take the misstep that costs a life. This approach is reflected in some excellent state and local private provision across the country. I commend the Priory in my Woking constituency, which I visited last year, for its outstanding work on mental health and rehabilitation related to substance misuse. We must bring drug recovery infrastructure into the 21st century. That means more trained professionals, better community support, more housing for people in recovery, and pathways into employment to rebuild hope and dignity.”
“Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) and the way she introduced the debate, and everyone on the Scottish Affairs Committee for their work to understand drug use in Scotland. The Liberal Democrats welcome the work in Scotland to treat drug deaths as a public health issue, notably through the pilot of Glasgow’s safer drug consumption facility, the Thistle. We recognise the complexities of the devolved responsibility and emphasise that matters specific to Glasgow and Scotland are for the Scottish Government to address. However, what happens in Scotland can still offer lessons to all of us across the United Kingdom. Nationally, we need to move towards treating drug misuse as a health matter.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. Every single death linked to drugs is a human tragedy, as we have heard from Members who have spoken already. It destroys families, shatters communities and places immense pressure on our health services and the emergency services. In my constituency, we had seven drug-related deaths in the last year for which figures were available. That is 5.4 deaths per 100,000 people. In Glasgow, there are 41.1 deaths per 100,000 people. That shows the scale of the problem in Scotland, but particularly in Glasgow. It means we need a different approach that meets the scale of the problem and the human tragedies that lie behind those numbers. I commend the work of the hon.”
“We must invest more in treatment, rehabilitation, support labs and services to reduce harm, and promote public health leadership that brings us into the 21st century. Above all, we must honour the lives lost by making the change that prevents others from dying needlessly, by taking the evidence-based approach recommended by the Committee’s report.”
“Helping people to avoid that fate requires a fresh approach that prioritises health, harm reduction, social support and rehabilitation, as much as law enforcement. We must recognise that outdated drug laws are no longer protecting people, especially young people, from harm. The reform of cannabis legislation would take power away from criminal gangs, regulate quality and potency, and provide safer access for adults while protecting the young. This pragmatic, evidence-based approach should inform our decisions, and we should learn the lessons from what other countries have done. Drug-related deaths across our country remain unacceptably high, particularly in Scotland and Glasgow, where the situation requires urgent, radical thinking.”