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 8 of 12.
“The Solicitor General confirms the horrendous backlog in the Crown court to us all. In one case in my constituency, one victim, Dani, will have to wait more than six years to get justice. Dani is just 21 and has been a victim of grooming and sexual abuse. Does the Solicitor General agree that for Dani and many others, justice delayed is justice denied? What further urgent steps will the Government take to tackle the backlog?”
“The murder of 10-year-old Sara Sharif in my constituency was a harrowing example of violence against women and girls in the home. Social services play a vital role in protecting vulnerable girls, yet we often hear that they are overwhelmed and under-resourced. Will the Minister please confirm what steps this Government are taking to ensure that local authority social services are able to protect vulnerable children and stop tragedies such as Sara’s ever happening again?”
“In June, just 66% of patients admitted to Woking’s local A&E at St Peter’s hospital were seen within four hours. That is way below both the national target and the national average of 76%. Will the Secretary of State agree to investigate that to find out why my constituents of Woking are facing such lengthy and unreasonable waiting times?”
“5. What discussions she has had with Cabinet colleagues on the potential impact of the classification of the Oxford to Cambridge rail line as an England and Wales transport project on Wales.”
“The Government have claimed that listing the Oxford to Cambridge rail line as “England-only” on past documents was just an accounting error by the Conservative Government and that the project has not been reclassified to deprive Wales of funding, but four separate Government documents list it as “England-only”, and over £1 million in Barnett consequentials were already paid to Wales on that basis. Does the Secretary of State honestly stand by her claim that it has just been reclassified and that this is not intended to deprive Wales of fair funding?”
“That will help the law to reflect the ever-evolving nature of technology, but it must be monitored over time to ensure that regulation ultimately aligns with the need to protect individuals’ rights and support the economy. We know that digital assets mean potential risks—whether fraud, abuse, or volatility—but ignoring them or failing to regulate them effectively will not make those risks disappear. A legal vacuum only increases the risk of criminality and injustice, while a clear, modern legal framework empowers the honest majority, boosts confidence and supports innovation. This Bill is measured, cautious and essential. It provides legal clarity, upholds property rights, and ensures that our laws remain relevant in the digital world. It is supported by the Law Society, by legal practitioners, and by the Liberal Democrats.”
“This Bill is appropriate at this time, when we are seeing a growing use of digital assets across a variety of sectors. They are being used as investments, stores for value and tokens of identity and ownership by more and more people than ever before—recent figures from the Financial Conduct Authority indicate that nearly 12% of UK adults now hold crypto assets, a figure that has more than doubled since 2021. However, victims of fraud, those seeking restitution in cases of insolvency, or simply those wishing to assert ownership over what they rightfully hold have been operating in a murky legal landscape. This Bill leaves room for common law to develop in that sphere of property.”
“However, we live in an ever-changing digital world, in which everything is much more based on digital than that common-law approach allows for. Digital assets, which cannot be physically possessed and often do not constitute a claim against another person, do not fall into the two traditional categories. Without clarity about the law, we risk undermining individual rights and weakening legal solutions in cases involving crypto assets, non-fungible tokens and other digital holdings. That is why this Bill matters; it ensures that digital things are not denied property status simply because they do not fall into the two normal categories. That is why the Liberal Democrats welcome the Government’s decision to accept the Law Commission’s recommendations.”
“I rise in support of the Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill, which stands to bring our legal framework into the 21st century and better equip it to meet the challenges and opportunities of the digital age. This Bill is firmly rooted in the rigorous work of the Law Commission, which was followed by careful scrutiny in the other place. I thank peers for their work on the Bill, particularly Lord Tim Clement-Jones for scrutinising it on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. This Bill confronts the long-standing legal ambiguity about how our common law system treats digital assets. As the Minister explained, and as I vaguely remember from my days at law school, the law as it stands recognises two primary forms of personal property—things in possession and things in action.”
“The Minister mentioned family hubs, which I welcome, but he stated that they will be delivered by local authority area. In my area of Surrey, we are going through local government reorganisation. How will the roll-out be impacted by that reorganisation? Does he expect to roll out a plan over the next couple of years, and then to reorganise it after a new council has been created?”
“Pubs are much more than just businesses; they are hubs in our high streets and the centres of community life. Why 50p? The answer lies with the new extended producer responsibility scheme. In May, MPs were talking at great length in this Chamber about how brewers currently make around 5% on the average bottle of beer. Under EPR, brewers will lose around 3p a bottle, unless they raise prices or the Government step in. The economics simply do not add up. Without action, brewers will barely make a profit on bottled beer. By reducing beer duty by 50p, the Government would offset the cost of EPR for not just producers, but the entire supply chain, and, ultimately, consumers. All the people—from farmers in their fields to brewers in their brew houses, to the people drinking in pubs—are our constituents. It is our duty to reduce beer duty.”
“I beg to move, That this House has considered beer duty. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. We are here this afternoon to discuss beer. I love beer, and so does Great Britain. I secured this debate to acknowledge calls from constituents, brewers and the pub sector to call on the Government to reduce beer duty by 50p. That call makes economic sense and is backed up by the industry. My Woking constituency is home to a great little brewery called Thurstons in Horsell and Asahi’s UK headquarters—a huge brand that covers Fuller’s, Peroni and Cornish Orchards, to name just a few. The beer and pub sector in Woking supports over 1,800 jobs and contributes £100 million to our local economy, yet customers and the industry across the whole country are struggling.”
“This debate, at its heart, is a political response to that bad economics. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs seems determined to push ahead with EPR, despite legitimate concerns raised in the Department. Meanwhile, the campaign to reduce beer duty, which has long been led by the Campaign for Real Ale and others, enjoys wide support across the industry.”
“I completely agree with my hon. Friend. We were in this Chamber talking about EPR several months back; she is a fine advocate for her whole constituency, and particularly the Somerset cider industry. I talked about our need to reduce beer duty. The Chancellor announced a 1.7% reduction in alcohol duty on draught beer and cider in the previous Budget—I will give the Government that. However, the standard rate of duty on non-draught products is set to rise by 3.6%. When combined with the cost of EPR, that will seriously threaten the brewing and bottle industry in terms of growth and investment. The Government are finding catchy headlines to say at the Dispatch Box, but the economic picture painted is this: the Labour Government are giving with one hand and taking with the other.”
“It has committed to the industry to find a solution, but no fix has yet been delivered, and it has pressed on with the scheme regardless. Reducing beer duty would mean less tax per pint in principle, but, in practice, it would bring a great benefit.”
“My hon. Friend is right to promote his amazing community hub and pub in Barnstaple. I pass on my best wishes to Beer Matters for its award. A lot of us have concerns about the EPR rules. Under the current EPR rules, glass packaging used in pubs is wrongly classified as household waste, even though it is collected and recycled via private commercial contractors. EPR is meant to fund the cost of removing packaging from household waste streams—not from businesses that already pay for their recycling. This means that brewers and pubs face duplicate charges for the same glass, despite it never entering the household. DEFRA has acknowledged that the policy is wrong and that it was never intended to be implemented in this way.”
“I agree. There is an economic argument for a small reduction in beer duty per pint, but, as she highlights, there are wider public community benefits as well. I have talked about trying to grow the economy and the fact that less tax per pint has better economic benefits. One of Labour’s key economic election promises was to grow the economy, so why are the Government ignoring calls from the industry to help deliver one of their key missions?”
“They are woven into the fabric of our lives, yet pubs continue to face immense pressures. The British Beer and Pub Association estimates that 378 pubs will close in 2025 alone, risking over 5,600 jobs. That is more than one pub a day.”
“My hon. Friend is completely right. If the Government reviewed and cut beer duty, as I am requesting, the hospitality sector would see increased growth. Consumers would enjoy cheaper beer, and the industry would have more capital to invest, growing our economy when we need that most. Most critically, there would likely be an uptick in sales due to lower prices. All of that could lead to overall higher tax receipts, counteracting the flawed economics of the EPR policy. Beyond the industry numbers, this is about people, communities and our British way of life. As my hon. Friends have highlighted, pubs are vital cultural and social centres. They bring people together, help combat loneliness and support the mental health of the nation. Many of us have personal stories that connect us to our local pubs.”
“Higher beer duty has wider consequences, such as increasing prices for consumers, reducing investment, fewer choices on the shelf and making the UK less attractive for international brewers. Even with some recent reforms, the burden remains far too high and continues to threaten the viability of local pubs and breweries. Reducing beer duty is an economic argument, yet it is also about protecting British culture, supporting local jobs, encouraging investment in communities and helping people with the cost of living. I hope that the Minister will recognise that, as some of his colleagues have, and agree to review beer duty to ensure that the level that is set grows our economy and protects jobs. Let us act before the damage to the British way of life becomes irreversible.”
“It supports around 1 million jobs from grain to glass. The UK has the second-highest beer duty in the whole of Europe. The highest is Finland, where alcohol can be bought only in state-owned shops or licensed bars and restaurants. It is one of the two European countries that effectively has an alcohol monopoly. On a European level, Finland’s alcohol prices are considered extreme compared with other countries, but even now, the Finnish Government are aiming to reform their policies to bring them more into line with others in Europe. Bizarrely, we are more like Finland in regard to our alcohol laws, when we should be more in line with countries such as France and Germany, which have similar drinking traditions to us. So I ask the Minister: when will the UK take the same approach?”
“It will be interesting to see what the Government make of my persuasive speech, but I thank the hon. Member for his kind words. I am sure he will not be told off for saying that from his side of the Chamber. I am happy to look into what he said about changing the pub code. One of the things I am highlighting is that we want a thriving independent sector that supports small businesses, and reviewing the code could help. I am really concerned that, effectively, one pub has closed every day in this country this year. Nationally, hospitality employs 3.5 million people. That is 10% of all UK jobs, and the concentration is even higher in coastal areas, such as those represented by some colleagues who have spoken today. The beer and pub sector contributes £34.3 billion to the UK economy and generates £18 billion in tax.”
“I know he has not committed to a review today, but were the Government to review beer duty in advance of the next Budget, it could have both financial and community benefits that I hope he will ponder over his next pint. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered beer duty.”
“From hearing colleagues’ contributions, it is clear that communities across the country would benefit from a review of, and hopefully a cut in, beer duty. There is appetite—quite frankly, thirst—for the Government to look at this. Growth in the economy is vital, and we are offering a solution to try to grow the economy and support local communities. I hope the Minister asks his officials in the Treasury to redouble their efforts to work with the industry, improve EPR, and ensure that we have a thriving hospitality sector. I do have some sympathy for the Minister, who was wheeled out to outline the winter fuel allowance U-turn and now again to try to defend taxing pubs more than we should. He talks about the financial impact, but when he goes back to a pub in Swansea, I hope he considers the benefits of a review.”
“I thank all hon. Members for contributing to the debate. I welcome the cross-party support for the change to and a review of beer duty. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) and for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean), the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), my hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke), the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash), my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Ian Roome), the hon. Members for North West Norfolk (James Wild) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and my hon. Friends the Members for West Dorset (Edward Morello) and for Wokingham (Clive Jones) for their contributions. Overall, the debate was relatively good-spirited and cross-party, with the occasional breakout of political disagreement.”
“Instead, we should have a fair and effective asylum system that upholds our obligations and treats people with dignity. Banning refugees from citizenship is not one of those things. The Liberal Democrats urge the Government to think again, change their approach and show that Britain is still great at standing up for the values of compassion, fairness and the rule of law.”
“Let us acknowledge that international law is fundamental to refugees. Those seeking asylum who have no choice but to enter a country irregularly should not be punished: that is what the 1951 refugee convention says. We are at risk of falling foul of that international law. Many refugees who have been granted citizenship describe it as one of the proudest moments of their lives—a hugely amazing moment that they share with their friends and family. Yet we risk depriving them of that opportunity. If we strip away that possibility, we risk deepening divisions in our society, effectively telling thousands of our newest residents and constituents that they do not and will never fully belong. That is not the Britain that I know and love or the one I want to represent in Parliament.”
“That guidance currently states that anyone who entered the UK illegally, no matter how long ago or what the circumstances, will normally be refused citizenship if they apply after 10 February 2025. Our amendment would have ensured that illegal entry was disregarded as a factor when assessing whether someone meets the so-called good character requirement for naturalisation. We believe that to be fair and reasonable: human beings should be judged on their merit, not their status. Refugees are not criminals because of the way they arrive. They are often in desperate situations, fleeing torture, conflict or persecution. Many are fleeing death. We have heard that this new Government wish to preserve the rule of international law in making policy decisions. That is why, they say, they made the Chagos Islands decision: to uphold such claims.”
“I fear that the Labour party is going the same way. The Liberal Democrats are strongly critical of the Government’s move to permanently bar refugees who have arrived here by irregular routes from ever obtaining British citizenship. Giving a hard, bureaucratic “no” to people in such situations, which are incredibly varied and complex, is wrong. It means, in effect, that refugees who have fled persecution and sought sanctuary are condemned to live as second-class citizens for the rest of their lives—never truly able to belong, assimilate or become British. Earlier this year, the Liberal Democrats tabled a new clause to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill that would have required the Home Secretary to change the Home Office guidance.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler. I start by complimenting the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) not only on securing the debate but on how he introduced it; his speech was excellent. I am proud to represent Woking for many reasons, and one is our long history as a constituency of supporting and welcoming refugees. Ockenden International, originally Ockenden Venture, one of the first refugee organisations set up after the second world war, started in Woking. I used to live on the road where it once existed. We have since welcomed Afghans, Syrians and Ukrainians. One of the former MPs for Woking, a Conservative, set up the immigration advice service that a lot of my constituents, and I imagine others, have used. Where has that moderate, compassionate conservatism gone?”
“Will he agree to lobby the Government to bring forward their social care review, so that it does not report in three years’ time? It urgently needs to report much sooner, so that we can tackle the social care crisis, which is causing a problem for our NHS, and particularly for local government. Finally, on special educational needs, we MPs hear from so many families that the system is not working. We hear from councils that it is putting them on the brink of insolvency. Does the Minister agree that the Government White Paper and the reforms in the autumn should come with a proper funding solution that supports our vulnerable children and ensures that councils will be financially solvent?”
“The Local Government Association says that there will be an £8 billion funding gap by the end of this Parliament as a result of that financial settlement. That is unacceptable. The Government’s answer to that is to put up council tax by 5% every year for this Parliament. That is unreasonable. We know that council tax is not fair. It is an out-of-date system for funding our local authorities. The fact that it is based on early 1990s property values is not acceptable. Buckingham Palace has a smaller council tax bill than the average three-bedroom semi-detached in Blackpool. I will ask the Minister three questions. Will he commit to reforming the council tax system to ensure that local government is properly funded, and to ensure that funding is not based on that unfair system? Local government is struggling because of social care.”
“When the Chancellor gave her spending review statement, I was very disappointed that she did not use the words “local authority” or “council” once. Worse still, she granted the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government a tiny increase that we all know does not meet the challenge. It is an unfair deal to those who need housing and those who rely on council services. I know that as the MP for Woking. Sadly, I am the MP for the most indebted bankrupt council in the country. I fear that more councils will follow suit; 25 have said that they may soon issue a section 114 notice, which effectively means bankruptcy. Local government needs investment, so that we can shape our local places and our constituencies to ensure that vulnerable people are protected. I do not want more councils to follow Woking borough council’s route.”
“As the MP for Woking, I represent the most bankrupt and indebted local authority in the country. I was very disappointed, therefore, that it appeared that the Chancellor did not mention councils or local government once in her statement. I am more disappointed, having listened to the detail of the statement, that the Government are investing only an extra 1.1% in local government next year and the year after. What does the Chancellor say to councils across the country and to my constituents in Woking to justify that lack of investment?”
“My constituency is home to a growing number of people from Hong Kong who have been forced to flee their homeland as a result of actions by China. I appreciate what the Minister says about this being a quasi-legal matter, and the fact that a Foreign Office Minister is sat next to him speaks volumes about how this is not just a planning issue. Does he agree that this country owes a debt to Hongkongers, whom we need to protect from the Chinese interference that they consider this super-embassy would enable?”
“I welcome this Government’s U-turn. Countless pensioners in Woking suffered last winter, so I am pleased that that will not continue. The Minister stated that £36,000 is the threshold that he and the Government have chosen because it is the average earnings. Will the Government commit to increasing that threshold going forward when average earnings rise?”
“With a third of customers’ bills going to service Thames Water’s debt, my constituents are fed up of paying higher bills for Thames Water’s mistakes. Will the Government agree to put Thames Water into special measures to save my constituents and bill payers money? It is only a matter of time for Thames Water; will the Secretary of State act now and save people money?”
“Applying more pressure on the United States, via our special relationship, is key. It is time for the UK to take a stronger line. Our Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary should not be afraid to challenge President Donald Trump, to ensure the release of the thousands of children stolen from Ukraine. Trump’s appalling bromance with Putin is disgusting, but if we have that special relationship with the United States, we should be asking and demanding that the US do something. Will the Minister confirm whether either the Prime Minister or the Foreign Office has raised this issue with the United States, how many times they have done so and what the United States has said in return?”
“In response, the Government said: “The UK has supported ‘Save Ukraine’…and ‘Bring Kids Back UA’ through The Partnership Fund for a Resilient Ukraine.” They noted the return of children through Qatari mediation last September and expressed gratitude to Qatar for that. But let us be honest. Our Government’s support was lacking in detail, lacking in scale and particularly lacking in urgency. It made no mention of the United States or a broader international agreement and broader international pressure to bring these children home. It is clear that the current UK efforts just have not been enough. They have not met the significant challenge. We need to support the work of the Bring Kids Back initiative and the Yale Humanitarian Research Lab, but we also need to go beyond that.”
“Research in the same report shows high levels of post-traumatic stress disorder among displaced children, with trauma linked not only to conflict exposure but to family separation, loss, property damage, economic hardship and disrupted education. The findings emphasise the psychological toll that the war is taking. It extends beyond the battlefield and will be particularly profound for the children abducted by the Russian state. For them, the risk of PTSD will rise significantly. Back in March, I tabled a written question asking the Foreign Secretary what steps the UK Government were taking to provide funding to track and return the kidnapped children, particularly following the appalling decision of President Donald Trump to withdraw funding from the Yale Humanitarian Research Lab.”
“Each story of a child being removed from their Ukrainian family, where they belong, to be taken to Russia, is moving and appalling, but let me give an example to illustrate the scale of what is happening. There are around 20,000 children in my Woking constituency; imagine if every child in my constituency, or in most of the constituencies of other Members present, was taken overnight. Imagine if they vanished—they just went. That is the scale of what we are dealing with. It is the theft of a generation, and standing up to that will define us. According to research by Queen Mary University of London, it is estimated that clinically significant psychological trauma is present among 35% of adolescents in Ukraine.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. First, I want to thank—genuinely, from the bottom of my heart—the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) for her leadership on this deeply distressing issue. Her introductory speech was emotional, powerful and passionate; there were not many dry eyes in this Chamber when she was speaking. I was on the Ukraine trip with her and other colleagues for the three-year anniversary, and it was very moving to see for myself what has happened and is happening in Ukraine. The thing that stuck out for her and for me was the appalling actions of the Russian Government in removing a generation of children from Ukraine, which is what this debate is about.”
“More than 60% of glass packaging in the UK is produced domestically, but the EPR scheme risks pushing manufacturers to abandon glass altogether in favour of cheaper, less sustainable materials, such as our old friend plastic. We have seen similar schemes in the United States drive glass manufacturers out altogether. In the UK, more than 6,000 people work in the glass sector, and penalising them is the wrong thing to do. I therefore ask, urge and implore the Minister to commit to reviewing EPR in order to support the food and drink sector, especially in my Woking constituency. The Liberal Democrats and I support environmental initiatives, but not at the cost of local jobs, economic growth or the viability of businesses that hold our communities together. The Government must rethink this scheme.”
“Why should a struggling local pub in Woking, or any other constituency for that matter, be forced to bear unnecessary costs for the next two years while the Government dither? It gets worse. The Office for Budget Responsibility has rightly classified EPR as a tax, yet businesses still lack the basic clarity around the final fees, the reporting rules or even whether they will be liable. Such uncertainty is paralysing for businesses already hurt by international or local events. How can small brewers or pubs make investment decisions when they do not know the rules of the game they will be playing or what the liabilities will be? The impact of EPR extends beyond hospitality. Let us talk about glass, as the hon. Member for Rotherham did.”
“Disastrously, this cost is also passed on to people going down the pub or buying a bottle of what they fancy from a shop. In Woking, it means a direct hit to ordinary people already struggling with the cost of living crisis. This issue extends beyond my constituency. What is worse, this scheme is supposed to apply only to household waste, but the way it is currently designed means that pubs are charged double. Despite already paying for commercial waste collection, they now face an additional £60 million burden across the sector, with some larger venues expected to pay up to £2,000 extra each year. Even the Government have acknowledged that that is a flaw, yet this will not be fixed until year three of the scheme. That delay is not acceptable.”
“The Government’s poorly designed EPR scheme is a production tax in all but name, placing more than £100 million of new annual costs on brewers for glass packaging alone. The Liberal Democrats support the goal of making packaging and manufacturing more sustainable. We have long advocated improved recycling and a well-designed deposit return scheme, but the current approach to EPR risks doing more harm than good. It heaps unpredictable and escalating costs on to producers great and small—whether that is Asahi or the small brewery in my constituency, Thurstons —without offering clarity or stability that businesses need to plan for the future. For local brewers or publicans already battling inflation and higher taxes, these additional costs affect jobs and investment.”
“They are hubs in our high streets and at the centre of our community life—places we go to watch a football match or take our grandparent on a Sunday afternoon to make sure they get out of the house. They are a fun place to drink pints with a few of your friends. Who here has been to the pub after a funeral, sharing stories about loved ones? I know I have, at The Cricketers in Horsell in my constituency. The core of what we are speaking about today is that pubs are really important places for people, and I am worried that the Government’s rules will undermine that. In grief or in happiness, the British pub is an integral institution and always there for us—or so we hope; but the future of the pub is under threat.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I start by thanking the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for securing this really important debate so that we can collectively put pressure on the Government. Times are hard. Things cost more and people are genuinely unhappy. What we do not want is to take away their beer or make it more expensive. The beer or pub sector in my constituency of Woking supports more than 1,800 jobs and contributes £100 million to Woking’s local economy. That is probably not surprising, as we are home to Asahi UK, a huge brand that covers Fuller’s, Peroni and Cornish Orchards, to name a few. Pubs are generally much more than just a business.”
“My constituents in Woking, particularly those of Indian and Pakistani descent, welcome the ceasefire. Will the Foreign Secretary urge both countries to accept that the solution to the Kashmir question is self-determination, not further violence?”
“Instead of isolating ourselves, we should be leading the efforts to tackle people-smuggling gangs. We cannot solve the global crisis without resolving those main issues, but we can do better. Britain has a proud history, and this Bill should be a lot better.”