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 9 of 12.
“Human beings are amazing creatures, capable of so much. It is waste for people essentially to be kept away from society. We want to support them; that is what new clause 21 would do, by giving people the right to work after three months. I urge colleagues to support it. I will briefly address safe and legal routes. Ukraine has shown us that providing safe and legal routes takes away the people smuggling and illegal immigration. That is why I support Liberal Democrat new clauses 22 and 36, and SNP new clause 3. Those vital measures would tackle the root causes of dangerous crossings, and I hope that Members will support them. Critically, we talked in Committee about Interpol. We are turning our backs; we are not asking Europe to help us with this problem—the Government refuse to do so.”
“The Bill completely fails to lift the ban on asylum seekers working while they await a decision. That is why I support new clause 21. People spend years in limbo waiting for their application to be processed, with no right to contribute, no right to earn and no hope of building their lives. We heard in Committee that, as a result of the Conservative Government’s mishandling of the situation, 19 people have waited 10 years or more for their claim to be settled. They are capable adults who should have been contributing to the economy. Letting people work is the right thing to do. That is why Australia lets people work straightaway, why Canada allows refugees to apply for a work permit while their applications are being processed, and why the United States allows people seeking asylum to work after six months.”
“My constituency has a proud and long history of supporting those fleeing persecution. It was home to the Ockenden Venture, a trailblazing charity founded in the 1950s to help resettle refugees from post-war Europe, Vietnam and beyond. Humfrey Malins, the former Conservative MP for Woking even set up a national immigration service. That legacy reminds us of the best of British values. It is important, especially today, that we reflect on that and on what makes Britain great. However, this Bill falls far short of those values—it is not very great at all. I sat on the Public Bill Committee, where I tabled 15 amendments. Although I support the parts of the Bill that seek to tackle the cruel trade of people smuggling, I am deeply concerned that once again this Government are prioritising punitive-sounding headlines over practical solutions.”
“My heart goes out to the families of the 26 tourists who were killed last month, but my heart also goes out to the 26 civilians and children who were killed in Pakistan last night. I urge the Government to do all they can to de-escalate the situation. Will the Minister confirm when our Prime Minister will speak to the Indian and Pakistani Governments, in particular Prime Minister Modi?”
“In my constituency I am in touch with a family of a child who has complex needs and severe mental health issues, who has not been able to go to school for a whole year. The child’s deteriorating mental health needs are not being met, because they have not been given a school that fits their child and adolescent mental health services assessment. Has the Minister made an assessment of how the Department might best avoid situations such as that, which leave children without the services they need?”
“With 2,100 jobs set to go at the Cabinet Office by 2028, please can the Minister confirm what impact those cuts will have on his Department? What responsibilities might be transferred out of it?”
“The former chief executive of Woking borough council, Ray Morgan OBE, has been identified in a public interest report as the chief architect in bankrupting my council, leaving it with debts of £2 billion. Does the Leader of the House agree that the very least the Government could do is remove his OBE for services to local government, and will she agree to hold a debate in this House so that we can discuss Government policy on removing honours when wrongdoing has been committed?”
“The previous Government’s harm panel report stated that there is a crisis in family courts and that they are too pro-parental contact, despite there being concerns about the child’s safety. As with many things under the previous Government, the Conservatives did nothing about the report. Will this Government and the Minister commit to reversing the parental presumption where there are concerns about child abuse?”
“The Defence Secretary has acknowledged MPs from across the House who have visited Ukraine. I wanted to briefly share my experience. When I visited a Ukrainian hospital, I met a man who was suffering from a chemical weapons attack, and doctors were struggling to treat him because they did not know what chemical weapons had been used. Can the Secretary of State please confirm what monitoring the MOD does of chemical weapons and other war crimes in Ukraine, and how is the UK raising that with international partners?”
“The car industry will be hardest hit by Trump’s tariffs, as my constituency knows better than most; our single largest employer, McLaren, sells 42% of its product to the US. Will the Minister consider retaliatory tariffs, particularly against Tesla, to protect British jobs and show that tariffs have consequences?”
“I was on one of those delegations that the Minister has just spoken about, and unlike my friends on the Government Benches, we were able to visit the area without a problem from the Israeli Government. However, we did have an incident with Israeli settlers. Is the Minister concerned, and what will he do about this sliding from what is supposed to be a democratic country, undermining the rule of law and stopping British politicians from seeing what is happening in the occupied territories?”
“Some 400 aid workers have been killed in Gaza over the past 500 days, and we are now a year and a day on from the awful attack on the World Central Kitchen. How many British aid workers are in Gaza, and what tangible action will the Government ask Israel to take to guarantee their safety?”
“Earlier this year, I visited the west bank with colleagues in the Chamber as part of a parliamentary delegation, where I saw the awful Israeli illegal violence in Hebron and Susya. We ran into two Israeli settlers who clearly wanted us off the area that they had burned down. Will the Foreign Secretary go further than he has in condemning that violence by agreeing to full sanctions and an embargo on all Israeli illegal settlements? Owing to the position of the City of London, that could have a profound impact and stop the violence.”
“Fly-tipping is a real concern in my constituency of Woking, but I understand that the previous Government introduced new powers that enabled Woking borough council and other local authorities to strengthen their actions against people who fly-tip. What impact have those measures had?”
“In Surrey alone there are 1,500 cases waiting to be heard in our Crown court, including 166 sexual offences against women and girls. Prosecutors have been telling victims that they have between two and five years to wait to get their day in court. That is appalling. Will the Solicitor General talk to the Ministry of Justice to reopen Woking’s court complex, which was closed by the Conservative Government, to provide greater legal capacity in Surrey?”
“This is a very different hon. Member for Stockton West speaking now from the one who spoke last week, when he spoke against and voted against the Liberal Democrat amendment to allow and encourage asylum seekers to work so that they could benefit our economy. Does he not remember last week? Where was his concern for the taxpayer then?”
“It is not about preventing parents from reasonably reprimanding their children; it is about closing a legal loophole that abusers have regularly used or attempted to use to evade justice. We saw it in the case of Sara, whose father Urfan sought to use such a defence to avoid accountability for the terrible suffering tantamount to torture—that is what the judge said—that he inflicted. No child should endure such brutality. No perpetrator should be able to hide behind awful outdated legal justifications. We should standardise child protection in this country and close the loopholes that currently exist that abusers can exploit. The Bill, if correctly amended, gives us the chance to do that. Let us take that opportunity and protect vulnerable children.”
“New clause 33 is about accountability, consistency and, most importantly, protection. We cannot continue to accept a system where a child’s safety depends on geography and resource rather than need. I think MPs from across the House, particularly Government Members, have a moral duty to protect vulnerable children and there are so many children out there who are still in danger. I hope new clause 33 is accepted. If it is not, I hope the Government will consider it in the other place. I wish to draw the House’s attention to new clause 8, which has been referred to, tabled by the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato). It ensures that corporal punishment cannot be used as a defence in court if it is being used to hide grievous harm to a child.”
“There are moments of profound instability for a child in such cases, yet without clear national standards and a proactive approach, too many slip through the cracks. My constituent Sara slipped through the cracks. In January, when I asked the Prime Minister if he would call for an inquiry into the failings of the state surrounding the death of Sara, he said the Government would look into it, but we are still waiting for him to update the House. The proposed changes would set expectations about how frequently a child’s situation should be reviewed. Cases like Sara’s remind us that it is not enough to assess a child once and then step away; their needs must be updated and reviewed regularly. The risks can escalate quickly. There are warning signs and if regular checks are not in place, intervention comes too late with morbid consequences.”
“Would clearer national guidance with stronger thresholds for intervention have made a difference? In my opinion, yes. Would automatic referrals such as those proposed in this new clause have ensured that professionals had the opportunity to intervene before it was too late? In my view, yes. New clause 33 calls for a review of the variation in the support that children in need receive across the country, and critically, it requires the Government to establish national standards for when and how children should receive help. It sets out clear triggers for automatic referral to children’s social care, such as when a primary caregiver enters custody or becomes an in-patient for mental healthcare, or when a child is arrested.”
“We need to look at the devastating case of Sara to understand the consequences of having a system that lacks consistency and clear national standards. I do not think we can put a price on a child’s life and decide to step in only on the basis of resources, but that is how the current system works. It is clear that social services over the years have struggled with deep cuts to funding and services, and the Liberal Democrats and I are not yet confident that the new Government will fully fund local authorities. Sara was just 10 years old when she was brutally murdered after, sadly, years of torture and slavery at the hands of those who were supposed to love her. She was known to social services, yet the response was not sufficient to protect her.”
“The sad reality is that the level of support a child receives too often depends not on their needs, but on where they live and the thresholds the council has for stepping in and saving a child from abuse and neglect. There is an unacceptable inequality in how local authorities interpret thresholds for an intervention under section 17 of the Children Act 1989. That means children at risk in one council area may receive early help and intervention if a family is in crisis, yet in another they are left without the intervention that could protect them, if not save their life. Every child in this country has in effect been entered into a postcode lottery, and we are gambling with their lives by not attempting to repair that flaw.”
“Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak on this important Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. I wish to focus my attention on two new clauses. First, I am calling my new clause 33 Sara’s law, after Sara Sharif, my murdered constituent. This comes out of the findings of the recent review conducted by the Children’s Commissioner. I thank the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and others that have suggested a raft of great changes to the Bill when it comes to improving how we look after children in the UK. The list is never-ending, with so many great contributions from many. Given what happened to Sara Sharif, we know that the system is not protecting vulnerable children as it should. It failed her, so I am hoping to untie that fundamental knot in the children’s social care system.”
“I am happy to support the new clause tabled by my friend the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire. I will also speak to new clause 13, which does essentially the same thing. This issue is about fairness and reasonableness. Ensuring that effectively no refugee or asylum seeker can get citizenship is not reasonable. Refugees will forever become second-class citizens if we allow that to go ahead. I am concerned that that would deepen divisions within society by disenfranchising our newest constituents and residents. The refugees I have spoken to in my constituency of Woking are so proud when they get citizenship, and it encourages integration. Banning them from citizenship, which is what current guidance amounts to, is wrong. I am happy to support both new clauses.”
“I will be relatively brief. The three new clauses concern Europol, and the Liberal Democrats and I think that they are vital to ensuring that the Bill goes further and is more effective. Cross-border co-operation is key to reducing small boat crossings—something that the former Government made it harder for our country to do. However, the Bill misses the opportunity to better tackle them. We believe that this Government should strive for greater cross-border co-operation, including by working with Europol. Including that as part of the Bill seems a sensible step.”
“(2) Employment undertaken pursuant to subsection (1) is subject to the following restrictions— (a) employment may only be taken up in a post which is, at the time an offer of employment is accepted, included in Appendix Immigration Salary List; (b) there must be no work in a self-employed capacity; and (c) there must be no engagement in setting up a business.”— (Mr Forster.) This new clause would remove the restriction on working for asylum seekers, if it has been over three months since they applied. Brought up, and read the First time .”
“New Clause 11 Removal of restrictions on asylum seekers engaging in employment “(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the date on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a statement of changes in the rules (the ‘immigration rules’) under section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971 (general provisions for regulation and control) to make provision for asylum applicants to take up employment whilst their application is being determined, if it has been over three months since the application was made, with no decision made.”
“I do not quite get the reasoning that says that we do not need the amendment in order to work with Europol because we already work with Europol. The amendment is about empowering Parliament and making the Executive act, which is what we are keen to do. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause. Clause, by leave, withdrawn.”
“I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The new clause is about allowing asylum seekers to work. It is commonly raised, by a lot of people, that this country discourages asylum seekers from working. It seems that it is viewed as being tough on them, but what it does is encourage an unacceptable welfare bill. We have a lot of research on it from the Lift the Ban coalition. Several years ago, it said that, actually, the fiscal gains from such a change would be significant. Originally it said that the gains would be £97.8 million a year, but that figure was later revised up to £108.8 million. I think the new clause would encourage work, lower the benefits bill for the taxpayer and ensure better integration.”
“I do agree with that. The system was broken by the previous Government; that is one of the very few things that the hon. Member and I completely agree on. We know that the system is broken, but we leave people stuck in limbo. Until the system has been fixed, let us enable them to work and use their skills to benefit our constituencies. If there were a quick decision in a matter of weeks, there would be no need for the new clause. But we know that is not going to happen. That has consistently failed to be implemented. In the meantime, we should let and encourage asylum seekers to work, for their benefit, the benefit of their families and the benefit of our constituents.”
“I will start with some examples of best practice from elsewhere. In Australia, most asylum seekers have the right to work straight away, even though it is temporary. In Canada, they can apply for a work permit while their asylum application is being processed. The US allows asylum seekers to work after around six months. From June next year, the EU will require member states to let asylum seekers work after nine months. Some go further—Sweden allow them to work straight away. With a one-year restriction, we are out of kilter with the rest of the western world. That is why the new clause has been tabled. I would appreciate the Minister taking away the question about the last time we reviewed the one-year limit and the restrictions on it. How often is it reviewed? An answer to that would be useful.”
“A further new clause tabled by the Liberal Democrats would put a legislative framework around the system, to try to improve it. If the Government are so concerned about allowing asylum seekers to work, I hope they will support that new clause. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 14 Report on impact of carers’ minimum wage on net migration “The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a report on the impact of introducing a minimum wage for carers on levels of net migration.”— (Mr Forster.) This new clause would require the Government to publish a report on the impact of implementing a carers’ minimum wage on levels of net migration. Brought up, and read the First time.”
“I am happy to have given the hon. Member the chance to mention Liz Truss and attack the Conservative economic record. I take the point. If Government Members like the spirit of the new clause but do not like the detail, why have they not suggested that it should apply only to existing asylum seekers caught up in the backlog rather than new asylum seekers? I have not made that distinction. You are implying that there should be that distinction; you are not implying that, Dame Siobhain, obviously—the Government are implying that. I have not used “yous” for a while; I am afraid I did that time. We will talk about this in a debate on a new clause that is still to come. The Government have identified that they need to improve the system. I completely agree. They have inherited a completely broken system.”
“I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. This is a minor new clause that would require the publication of a report on the impact of implementing the carers minimum wage on the level of net migration. As MPs, we want to understand the data and facts to enable us to scrutinise the Government. Without the data, we cannot do our job properly—it is as simple as that.”
“I am happy to take the Minister up on that suggestion. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 15 A three-month service standard for asylum casework “(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, implement a three-month service standard for asylum casework. (2) The service standard must specify that 98% of initial decisions on all asylum claims should be made before the end of three months after the date of claim.”— (Mr Forster.) This new clause would require UK Visas and Immigration to reintroduce a three-month service standard for decisions on asylum cases. Brought up, and read the First time.”
“I think that setting a stretch target—the Government are setting several, such as the 1.5 million homes target—is appropriate.”
“I beg to move, That the cause be read a Second time. I highlighted this proposed new clause in a previous speech. The clause would ensure a three-month service standard for asylum casework, so that the Government can tackle the backlogs that they inherited. It would require UK Visas and Immigration to introduce that three-month service standard for decisions on asylum claims, to benefit both asylum seekers and the British taxpayer. The service standard “must specify that 98% of initial decisions on all asylum claims should be made before the end of three months after the date of claim.” That would help the Government as they rectify the mess they inherited. If the Government suggest that the period I have chosen—three months—should be six months, I am happy to talk about that.”
“An Opposition Member and a Minister are not normally meant to agree this much, but I think we do. We probably will not vote the same way, but we generally agree. Last year, there was an asylum seeker who had waited 16 years for a decision on their claim. At the same time, there were 19 people waiting 10 years or more for a decision. That is how broken the system is, and I do not envy the Minister her job. The new clause would support the Government’s work, and I hope that Members will support it. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.”
“I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. I am happy to introduce new clause 16, which involves an exemption for NHS workers from the immigration skills charge. This new clause would require the Secretary of State to exempt the NHS as an employer from having to pay the immigration skills charge when sponsoring skilled employees.”
“I will start with what I describe as the brass neck of the Conservatives for breaking the NHS, the immigration system and the social care system, and then criticising my proposal for tackling those problems. I find that extraordinary. We should reduce our reliance on foreign labour to support the workforce in the UK, including the NHS, but until we have done that, I do not believe we should make the NHS pay the immigration surcharge. That is the purpose of the new clause, and I hope some Members will support me. Question put , That the clause be read a Second time.”
“If they fail—based on my experience in the last hour, I think they might—I hope that Ministers and their officials will work with their teams on our immigration laws to make sure that no vulnerable person who has been a victim of human trafficking or modern slavery falls through the cracks.”
“We need to understand the impact of our immigration laws on victims of human trafficking and modern slavery. New clause 18 would require the Secretary of State to introduce legislation that incorporates into UK law the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings, and to report compliance with the convention. New clause 19 would prevent a public authority, in determining whether a person is a victim of slavery or human trafficking, from sharing information with immigration authorities or other public authorities that might result in deportation or prosecution for an immigration offence. I hope that the new clauses are taken in the spirit they are intended.”
“(9) For the purposes of this section— (a) ‘appropriate decision making’ means a person authorised by the Secretary of State by rules made under section 3 of the Immigration Act 1971 to grant an entry clearance under paragraph (1); (b) ‘entry clearance’ has the same meaning as in section 33(1) of the Immigration Act 1971; (c) ‘protection claim’, in relation to a person, means a claim that to remove them from or require them to leave the United Kingdom would be inconsistent with the United Kingdom’s obligations— (i) under the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees done at Geneva on 28th July 1951 and the Protocol to that Convention (‘the Refugee Convention’); (ii) in relation to persons entitled to a grant of humanitarian protection; or (iii) under Article 2 or 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms agreed by the Council of Europe at Rome on 4th November 1950 (‘the European Convention on Human Rights’); (d) ‘persecution’ is defined in accordance the Refugee Convention; and (e) ‘serious harm’ means treatment that, if it occurred within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, would be contrary to the United Kingdom’s obligations under Article 2 or 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (irrespective of where it will actually occur).”— (Mr Forster.) This new clause would create a new “humanitarian travel permit”.”
“(5) The requirements are— (a) any requirement prescribed (whether by immigration rules or otherwise) under section 50 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006; and (b) any requirement prescribed by regulations made under section 5, 6, 7 or 8 of the UK Borders Act 2007 (biometric registration). (6) No fee may be charged for the making of an application under subsection (1). (7) An entry clearance granted pursuant to subsection (1) has effect as leave to enter for such period, being not less than six months, and on such conditions as the Secretary of State may prescribe by order. (8) Upon a person entering the United Kingdom (within the meaning of section 11 of the Immigration Act 1971) pursuant to leave to enter given under subsection (7), that person is deemed to have made a protection claim in the United Kingdom.”
“(3) For the purposes of subsection (2)(c), in deciding whether there are such reasons why P’s protection claim should be considered in the United Kingdom, the appropriate decision-maker must take into account— (a) the extent of the risk that P will suffer persecution or serious harm if entry clearance is not granted; (b) the strength of P’s family and other ties to the United Kingdom; (c) P’s mental and physical health and any particular vulnerabilities that P has; and (d) any other matter that the decision-maker thinks relevant. (4) For the purposes of an application under subsection (1), the appropriate decision-maker must waive any of the requirements in subsection (5) if satisfied that P cannot reasonably be expected to comply with them.”
“I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 20 Humanitarian travel permit “(1) On an application by a person (‘P’) to the appropriate decision-maker for entry clearance, the appropriate decision-maker must grant P entry clearance if satisfied that P is a relevant person. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), P is a relevant person if— (a) P intends to make a protection claim in the United Kingdom; (b) P’s protection claim, if made in the United Kingdom, would have a realistic prospect of success; and (c) there are serious and compelling reasons why P’s protection claim should be considered in the United Kingdom.”
“I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. This is a comprehensive new clause, and I am tempted to be brief in my introduction to it. My Liberal Democrat colleagues would like to suggest the creation of a humanitarian travel permit to counter the gangs that the Government are seeking to attack and undermine through the Bill. We need to support those who genuinely need to travel here safely, and this new clause is an appropriate way forward. As I say, it is long and comprehensive. Hon. Members might want to ask questions about it, or they might want to take it apart, but it is a genuine suggestion about how we undermine the gangs and encourage people to come here safely.”
“The hon. Member for Stockton West highlighted that the scheme proposed by the new clause is not dissimilar to ones that the previous Government introduced for Ukrainians and people from Afghanistan, which I found an interesting comparison. If it is appropriate for some specific countries, why would it not be appropriate to have such a scheme on the legal shelf in case we were to need it, especially as the world is more dangerous than ever before?”
“I acknowledge that those schemes try to do that, but I do not think they are working—the exhibit for that is the number of small boats that we see and the number of people fleeing conflict. Those rules do not meet the framework that is currently required in the UK and in the world, hence this new clause. I am mindful of time, so I will be brief: I hope that hon. Members will support this new clause, which would be a good legal tool for attacking the gangs and protecting vulnerable people as they flee their homes in conflict. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.”
“I am surprised to be raising this issue and that I do not immediately know the answer. The Minister has raised issues with Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man, but that poses the question: what about our other overseas territories and areas such as the Falklands? The Government clearly considered the impact of our complicated relations with some places when drafting the Bill, but what about the others? Have the Government considered all those issues?”