Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Will Forster Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Olivia Bailey]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that important intervention; I will turn to that matter in due course.

The Government cannot support Lords amendment 44 on principle. Extending the consent requirement would risk discouraging families from seeking or continuing to receive help or support. The amendment suggests that a child’s or a family’s circumstances can never change.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

On that point, will the Minister give way?

[Olivia Bailey]

I am sorry but I am going to make some progress.

I will now turn to the amendments relating to looked-after children and deprivation of liberty. Lords amendment 16 concerns a proposed review of the level of funding for the adoption and special guardianship support fund. We all know the importance of effective support for the success of adoptive families. That is why the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), announced £55 million for the fund in 2026-27 and confirmed that the fund will continue in 2027-28. He also announced a 12-week consultation on adoption support, including the ASGSF. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that it is important that we do not undermine the integrity of the consultation by undertaking a separate review.

Lords amendment 17 intends to strengthen relationships between looked-after children and their siblings. In practice, it would require local authorities to record in the care plan any contact arrangements made between looked-after children and any sibling they are not living with.

I am proud that this Government have set out the biggest reforms to the children’s social care system in a generation. In particular, we are implementing changes to expand fostering, creating 10,000 additional places for children, and resetting the system to back kinship care, so that more children can grow up safely with people who already know and love them. These changes will allow many more children who grow up in care to spend time with their brothers or sisters.

--- Later in debate ---

[Laura Trott]

The whole point is whether it is compulsory or not—that is the whole point of uniform, and I was reading directly from the guidance. It makes absolutely no sense; how is a child wearing something that they have been given for free going to increase costs for parents? If the “not invented here” syndrome were not running so rampant in the Department for Education, the change made by Lords amendment 41 would already have been made.

The same is true of Lords amendment 44. We all know the horrific case of Sara Sharif, which was used as a rationale for bringing forward many of the positive child protection measures in the Bill. The serious case review published at the end of last year set out multiple failings that led to Sara falling out of the system. That review states that, while well intentioned, this legislation would not have helped Sara, so we have brought forward amendment 44 to fix that. It ensures that consent would need to be sought from the local authority to homeschool any child who has ever had a child protection plan. That would mean that the Bill would have helped Sara, which is the Government’s stated aim, but guess what, Madam Deputy Speaker? The Government are now opposing that amendment. We are diligently doing the work an Opposition should do to improve the legislation, but it is being shrugged off by the Government—not on its merits, but because they do not want to accept anything from this side of the House. It is not good enough.

[Mr Forster]

I thank the shadow Minister for raising the case of Sara Sharif from my constituency. The safeguarding review that she has referred to highlighted failings in Surrey county council and failings in the law. That review recommended three quite detailed things, which are not included in the Lords amendment—the amendment is separate. Would it not be better for Surrey to be put under special measures and for the Government to implement the safeguarding review in full, immediately?

[Laura Trott]

The hon. Gentleman is arguing for things that are outside the scope of the Bill. What we know is that the change made by Lords amendment 44 would have helped Sara in a way that the unamended Bill would not have done.

I am not going to push Lords amendments 2 and 21 to a vote this evening, but I reserve the right to come back to them if the Government do not engage constructively in the other place. I am grateful to the noble Lady Baroness Barran for her brilliant work on those amendments and on the wider Bill.

Turning to phones, I really want Members to understand how bad things have got with phones in schools, and why a statutory ban is necessary. I know that the Government have issued revised guidance and have asked Ofsted to enforce it, but Ofsted’s guidance on this topic still allows phones to be present in schools. I cannot overstate to Members how damaging and dangerous that is. I was thinking about how to communicate this most effectively, and given that the Government are not listening to me, to parents or to teachers, I thought that first-hand testimony from a young person might get through.

I warn you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the following account from a former pupil involves some graphic content that I sincerely wish I did not have to talk about. However, I refuse to shy away from it, because if we are exposing 13-year-olds to such content in schools, we need to be able to talk about it in this Chamber. This is testimony from a girl who was at an outstanding girls’ school that had a “not seen, not heard” phone policy. Such policies are common in many schools across the country and count as a phone ban under the Government’s definition. The Minister says that children’s voices are rarely heard—well, I hope she listens to this testimony today.

“When I was around 13 or 14 years old, one of my classmates would pull out her laptop at lunch times. She would connect her laptop through her phone’s hotspot, because the school wi-fi would block any social media, and launch up social media, because some thought it was funny to see how long it took to find an old man wanking—it was never long—or how long it took for somebody to ask them their age, and when they replied with ‘14’, they would send their Snapchat for you to add. The teachers never knew, because we were alone in our forms.

“Some of my friends had access to Snapchat from very young, some even primary school, but I did not. I got Snapchat when I was 12 or 13, but I remember before, my friends talking about dick pics in the changing rooms, and one said she got at least 10 in the morning. She’d put up her phone and show us by scrolling through them, just because it was funny that they would just send it. This happened after she added someone on Snapchat that she didn’t know. Others had them too.

“Looking back now, I remember pretending to find everything funny, just to fit in, but actually I felt really confused and grossed out at some of the content being shared. All of this happened at school, and we probably should have talked to a teacher, but as an 11 to 14-year-old girl, you’re not going to tell your male form tutor that people were being sent dick pics in school, or that your classmates were sending porn in the form group chat. I didn’t even tell my parents until recently, because I was embarrassed, or maybe because it just seemed normal, but my mum was already pretty strict with my phone usage and if I told her what was being sent around at school, I felt like I would be in trouble and she’d take the phone away. The phone was how everyone connected, so I needed to protect it. Over time, all the sexually explicit stuff just became normal.”

I remind Members that this is happening at school and, in this case, at an outstanding girls’ school. It is so far from being an isolated incident—in fact, it is the opposite. It is approaching a norm.

SEND Provision: Local Authorities

Will Forster Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Georgia Gould]

Following the letters that the hon. Member and others wrote to the Secretary of State, she instructed further intensive activity in Surrey, including a number of deep dives into the issues that were raised, which will report back shortly. There are SEND advisers going in, and there is very close monitoring of what is happening in Surrey and the progress being made, but I take the wider point that families have made to me and Members across the Chamber that there needs to be greater accountability for local authorities. We recognise the challenging circumstances that local authorities have been in, but more investment is going in, and with that investment has to come stronger monitoring, accountability and intervention when there is failure.

As is set out in the schools White Paper, we are strengthening what we are able to do in a number of areas. We are very clear that if there is repeated and long-term failure, we will take SEND from local authorities. Working with the Disabled Children’s Partnership, we are setting out new conditions under which local authorities will need to learn from tribunal judgments, publish action plans on the back of them and show much greater transparency and action.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for giving way, and I particularly thank my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dorking and Horley (Chris Coghlan) for securing the debate and for the manner in which he introduced it. Since he has been in this place, he has been a strong advocate for SEND families, and I thank him for that.

The Minister has heard me talk about Sara Sharif before, and my hon. Friend has talked about her during the debate. We are clearly very concerned about children’s services in Surrey county council and I hope that we have shown that intervention is needed. The Minister may disagree, but I beg her to take away that we want to ensure that the culture of children’s services at Surrey county council is not transferred to West Surrey council or East Surrey council in the future. If the Government agree with my assessment that intervention is needed now, they need to intervene to ensure that that culture is not transferred, so that we have the fresh start that vulnerable children in our constituencies so desperately need.

[Georgia Gould]

As I set out, we have appointed a SEND adviser who is offering that challenge to Surrey county council. We will continue to monitor the situation very carefully and I await the outcomes of the deep dives. I will be meeting parents, along with the hon. Member for Dorking and Horley, to hear directly from them. I am committed to continuing to work with all the relevant MPs to ensure that children are getting the support that they need in Surrey. More generally, I am committed to ensuring that there is strong accountability and monitoring of performance, as well as putting in new investment and support.

I want to address the concern mentioned by the hon. Member for Dorking and Horley that some young people who had previously had support will no longer get that support under the new system. I refer colleagues to the draft annexes that set out the specialist provision packages. I hope that those annexes reassure them that, as well as looking at children who have physical disabilities and complex learning difficulties, two of the specialist provision packages focus on social and emotional needs, and the interface with mental health.

Local Authority Children’s Services

Will Forster Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

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. 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.

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. 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. 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. 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.

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

My hon. Friend is speaking about very serious issues, and I commend him for not apportioning blame to one side or the other; he understands that, in different circumstances, there are different reasons to blame. The Government’s removal of the funding uplift for the most remote authorities will have an effect on children’s services, as it will on SEND provision and a whole range of council services. In Somerset, for example, it is 53% more expensive to provide home-to-school transport than in an average authority, yet the funding uplift has been removed. Does he agree that that is a shocking way to treat our most remote authorities?

[Mr Forster]

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.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making an important speech on behalf of his most vulnerable constituents. Does he agree that rural and sparsely populated authorities can deliver good-quality children’s services only if special educational needs provision, health integration and transportation are treated as national responsibilities and not afterthoughts, as they so often are? On the funding piece, Westmorland and Furness council is receiving funding of £535 per head this year. In three years’ time, it will be £380 per head—a 29% cut in three years. Does he share my fear that that puts the safety of our children, particularly our most vulnerable ones, at risk?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Forster]

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. 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. 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.

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. 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. 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. 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.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Forster]

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 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.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Will Forster Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jamie Stone]

It will be interesting to see what the Minister says on that. Perhaps there is a little bit of misunderstanding on that issue. Let us leave it at that.

Teachers, parents and local authorities often know best what their children need—far more than we in Westminster ever could. They understand their communities and deserve to be trusted and, I believe, properly consulted.

The Bill also reaches into the world of home education, with measures such as a national register of children not in school, requirements for local authority consent to home school in certain cases and powers for councils to intervene if a home environment is deemed unsuitable.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend for the way he is introducing this petition. I am sure he is aware of the case of my murdered constituent, Sara Sharif from Woking, who was abused, tortured and murdered. The safeguarding report that came out last month highlighted the failings in the home schooling system and the fact that a register is needed. Does he agree that parents should lose the right to home school in the event of child safeguarding concerns?

[Jamie Stone]

In proceeding with a Bill of this nature, that precise point has to be taken into account and weighed in the balance, because it is a matter of getting it right. That is precisely the reason behind the petition. I stress that many people think that we are not getting it right at this stage, but improvements can be made.

It is a fact that more families than ever are turning to home schooling. Some do it because the nearest school is miles away or parents deem it to be teaching to an inadequate standard; others because their child thrives better with one-on-one attention and teaching, perhaps for special needs that a standard classroom cannot accommodate. Campaigners for home education—some of whom I heard from in preparation for the debate—fear that the Bill amounts to an attack on their parental rights.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Forster]

The hon. Member heard me talk earlier about safeguarding concerns. Although home education can have huge benefits to families, does he agree with the Children’s Commissioner, who has said that the proper oversight of children being educated at home is important, and that councils should be required to sign off on home education requests for the most vulnerable children?

[Bradley Thomas]

The hon. Gentleman makes an incredibly valuable point that none of us can disagree with in principle. Safeguarding has to be a foundation of the education system. The point is that the Bill attempts to provide a one-size-fits-all approach, but it does not quite strike the right balance. In the process, many families feel they are being stigmatised.

It is not disputed that stronger safeguards for vulnerable children are essential. It is a tragic reality that many children in abusive or neglectful homes are safer at school than they are at home, but to push all home educating families into that category is not only an insult to the vast majority of responsible, caring families who turned to home education because of failures in state schooling, but a potentially greater safeguarding risk, as it stretches already limited resources even further. Requiring local authorities continually to assess and investigate perfectly safe environments diverts time and resources from children in genuine danger and urgent need of protection. BBC reports reveal that local authorities are set to face a funding shortfall of more than £5.7 billion by 2026-27. The Children’s Commissioner has warned that this crisis poses a direct threat to the wellbeing of children and young adults.

Meanwhile, the number of school pupils with education, health and care plans surged by 71% between 2018 and 2024. Consequently, local authorities have amassed severe deficits in their high needs budgets, with the Institute for Fiscal Studies estimating a total shortfall of at least £3.3 billion at the end of last year. The Bill risks compounding the problem by stretching already overstretched resources, deepening financial pressures and weakening the fight against safeguarding risks. Thousands more children could be forced into placements within overcrowded schools, further exacerbating the crisis.

A Public Accounts Committee report published at the start of this year concluded that the special educational needs system is inconsistent, inequitable and not delivering in line with expectations, which inevitably undermines parents’ confidence in it. The Office for National Statistics predicts that 1.5 million children aged 10 to 15 experience in-person bullying. Which of the figures I have outlined offers any reassurance that children and young adults with complex needs or traumatic pasts would be properly cared for if removed from safe, personalised learning environments?

--- Later in debate ---

[Olivia Bailey]

I take everything that the right hon. Gentleman has said on board. I will come to the topics he raises in more detail in my speech.

The Government will also introduce new multi-agency child protection teams in every local area to make sure that agencies work together to protect children from harm as quickly as possible. We will also require local authorities to maintain registers of children not in school in their areas, such as home educated children and children missing education. Parents of home educated children will have a duty to provide information about them. That will help to ensure that local authorities can identify all children not in school living in their areas so that they can fulfil their existing duties to ensure that those children are receiving a safe, suitable education.

The Bill also introduces provisions requiring local authority consent for the most vulnerable children, or those with the highest needs, to be home educated. That includes those subject to child protection inquiries or plans and those enrolled in special schools. Home education can mean that children sometimes slip under the radar of services that are there to support them, so it is essential for those children that an additional check is undertaken before they are removed from school. That will help to ensure that home education is in their best interests and that they receive a suitable education.

[Mr Forster]

As the Minister will have heard, I am a bit more supportive of the Bill due to safeguarding concerns based on what happened with Sara Sharif in my constituency of Woking. However, I would also highlight the concerns about the way that Surrey county council failed to protect Sara. Although I am mindful of safeguarding concerns, does the Minister agree that the Government need to properly hold local authorities accountable and resource them to ensure that they can properly protect children? They are not doing that at the moment.

[Olivia Bailey]

I thank the hon. Member for his advocacy on this issue after the terrible events that led to Sara Sharif’s death. He has been doing an excellent job of that. I very much agree that the findings in the report on that case are appalling. The Government are taking them extremely seriously and will continue to work with local authorities to make sure that children are kept safe.

Lastly, the Bill helps to ensure consistently high standards in our schools. If I may quote the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) , we are indeed “striving for academic excellence”. Through our reforms to the academy system, we will give every family the certainty that they will be able to access a good local school for their child, delivered through excellent teaching and leadership, a rich, broad and high-quality curriculum and a pay floor for all teachers. We are designing a school system that supports and challenges all schools, allowing them to collaborate, innovate and drive excellence.

The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross talked about the issues raised by Michelle Zaher and the hon. Member for Twickenham talked about evidence. The Bill is built on a robust evidence base that the Government have taken time and care to produce. The children’s social care measures in the Bill build on extensive consultation over the last few years in response to three reviews calling for a transformation of children’s social care.

Despite the many strengths and practices that have driven improvements across our school system, including transformational changes in phonics, professional development and strong multi-academy trusts empowering schools to collaborate and innovate, the fact is that the school system is not working well enough for all children. Standards vary widely and there is a stark contrast between the experiences of children in the best and worst schools.

The hon. Member for Bromsgrove talked about the children not in school register. Every child has the right to a safe and suitable education, whether they are educated at school or otherwise. We recognise that parents have a right to home educate and we know that many parents work hard to provide a suitable education for their children. Local authorities must identify children who are not in school and are not receiving a suitable education, but that existing duty is undermined by parents having no obligation to inform their local authority that they are home educating.

Statutory registers of children not in school, along with duties on parents and out-of-school education providers to provide information, will support local authorities to identify all children not in school in their area, including those not receiving a suitable education or at risk of harm, and to take action where that is the case. This was raised earlier, but crucially, parents will also be able to access tailored advice and information from local authorities, thanks to the new duty on local authorities to provide support should parents request it.

The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) raised concerns about the single unique identifier and the information-sharing duty. For too long, poor information sharing has been identified as a contributory factor to serious child safeguarding incidents. As outlined in “Keeping Children Safe, Helping Families Thrive”, we are taking two important steps in the Bill to improve how services share information. First, we are introducing an identifier system for children to end misconceptions about the legal barriers to sharing information for the purposes of safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children. Alongside that, we are piloting the use of the NHS number as a SUI, starting with Wigan local authority. The pilot phase allows us to test the approach in practice, understand the implications fully and determine whether it should be mandated via future regulations.

Children with SEND: Assessments and Support

Will Forster Excerpts

Monday 15th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for introducing this important debate. It is not the first time that the Liberal Democrats have highlighted the serious issue of the SEND crisis, and the urgent need to solve it. Since being elected as the Member of Parliament for Woking, I have spoken to 68 parents and carers brought to the brink of despair by fighting tooth and nail every step of the way to ensure that their child gets an education. Their child has disabilities or special educational needs, and that means that the system tries to fight against them, but that is not acceptable.

[Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)]

Kent county council has spent over £1.1 billion, including in my constituency, on legal fees to fight families. That is nearly 80% of its yearly revenue. Does the hon. Member agree that, for parents and families up against that system, the money would be better spent on provision for their children?

[Mr Forster]

I completely agree with the hon. Member. The system that we have all inherited from the previous Government fails vulnerable children and their families, and it fails taxpayers as well. Education is a right; it should not have to be fought for.

Data from the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman shows that the number of complaints and inquiries about SEND has surged in the last few years. There is a national crisis, whether that is in the lack of school places, support or just not keeping up with demand. Things are especially bad in my constituency of Woking. The Conservatives running Surrey county council are the worst offenders, according to the ombudsman. It has received an unacceptable 348 complaints about my local county council, which is the highest number in England over six years. It is a failing institution.

That level of complaint, whether in Surrey or across the country, shows why parents must have a legal right—the importance of having an ECHP has already been highlighted, and I will say a bit more—and why they feel they need that right to fight the system. They are really worried that their right will be revoked or restricted by upcoming legislation. Whatever the changes introduced by the new Government look like, they must give families the right they deserve, and a choice and hope for the education of their child.

[Manuela Perteghella]

SEND families in Stratford-on-Avon want to work in partnership with schools and councils, but too often they are left without the support they need. They are battling an adversarial system. Does my hon. Friend agree that any reforms should strengthen, not weaken, co-operation between families, schools, health services and local authorities?

[Mr Forster]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. We need a duty to co-operate to support vulnerable children. One of my constituents has two children, both with SEND. Her youngest has an EHCP, which is a battle that took years. That child should have started school in September 2024, but they still have no specialist school place and no alternative provision. They have missed a whole year of education. In exchange, they are offered one hour of remote learning. That is not acceptable.

I dealt with a case this week of a parent being offered a school place that both they and the school do not think will meet their child’s needs. The parent has been told that they can appeal, but that it will not be heard until October—not next month, but next year. That is not acceptable, and that is a failure of the previous Government and my county council. That is a sad state of affairs.

The SEND crisis was created by the Conservatives. I hope that the Labour Government live up to the hope of my constituents, and others across the country, by solving it. We need leadership to tackle it. We cannot allow another generation of children to be failed by inaction. These children deserve a school place, support and, above all, hope for their future. To the Government: please change the system and invest in it, but do not take away parents’ rights.

Giving Every Child the Best Start in Life

Will Forster Excerpts

Wednesday 16th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Stephen Morgan)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of giving every child the best start in life.

This Government have a mission to break down the barriers to opportunity for children and young people, so that background does not determine a child’s future and successes. After 14 dark years under the Conservative party, we are restoring to our communities the hope that, in too many places and for too many families, simply faded away. What this Government inherited was a truly shameful legacy. The Conservatives had 14 years in government, and their record speaks for itself: 1,300 children’s centres closed or hollowed out, early years childcare costs spiralling way above the rate of inflation, and providers closing year on year. I know that Conservative Members, very few of whom are present, will bleat that in their manifesto they promised better, but the people of Britain judge politicians by what they deliver, not what they promise.

At the heart of Labour’s ambition for a better Britain is bringing change to the first few years of every life, so that opportunity is not the privilege of a few but is common to us all. Children’s early years are crucial to their development, health and life chances, and it is there that we can make the biggest difference. On average, 40% of the overall gap between disadvantaged 16-year-olds and their peers has already emerged by the age of five. It is in those early years that so much of the inequality that today disfigures our society is entrenched. If we want to build the fairer and more equal society that Labour Members want to see, that is where we lay the foundations. If we want to see change—change for good—the transformation that we seek to bring must be part of a wider approach that covers every aspect of education and health, and every facet of opportunity.

That is why the Government have published our vision for the future of early years. This landmark strategy, which will bring together early years and family services, and will put children’s first years at the heart of work to improve life chances, is backed by nearly £1.5 billion over the next three years to raise quality, close gaps and break down the barriers to opportunity for every child.

“Giving every child the best start in life” sets out the first steps to delivering on our plan for change commitment for a record number of children to be ready to start school by 2028. We will make early education and childcare more accessible and affordable, improve quality in the early years and reception, and expand and strengthen family services. This builds on the progress that we are already making: funding new and expanded school-based nurseries across the country, funding new breakfast clubs in 750 early adopter schools and offering places to nearly 180,000 children, including 79,000 pupils from schools in the most deprived parts of the country.

From September we will be rolling out 30 hours of funded childcare for working parents, saving eligible parents using their full entitlement an average of £7,500 a year. It should be the case that all parents who want it can obtain the high-quality early education and childcare that they need, yet four in 10 parents with children under five say that there are not enough places locally. Disadvantaged children and those with special educational needs and disabilities have the most to gain from high-quality early education, yet more affluent areas often have more places.

We will improve the system, setting out a long-term vision for improving access to early years education and childcare to ensure that all families can benefit. We will create tens of thousands more places in new and expanded school-based nurseries, backed by more than £400 million of investment. We will roll out the expansion of funded childcare hours available to working parents, saving eligible families an average of £7,500 a year. We will work closely with local authorities to increase the take-up of the 15-hour entitlements, so that children from low-income families, those with SEND and those in care receive the support they need.

As a result of the decisions made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Government will soon be funding about 80% of the early education and childcare hours in England. Whenever the Government buy a service, they have an obligation to use that purchasing power in the public interest, to shape the market, improve standards, and support and develop the workforce. That is what Labour believes, and that is what we will do. We think we could do more to guarantee the benefits of that investment, and to ensure that they are realised where they are needed. We will look across the early education and childcare support provided by Departments to find ways in which to make it simpler, to improve access, and to increase the overall impact of Government spending on children and families.

I have the privilege of being able to see at first hand the impact that our passionate early years staff have in many settings across the country during my regular visits. They have worked brilliantly to deliver for families at every stage of the expansion of Government-funded childcare, and they continue to do so ahead of September. Families know the difference that access to a place that meets their needs can make. That is why we are investing more than £9 billion in early education and childcare, and why a diverse and thriving early years sector with a brilliant and valued workforce is absolutely key. We will work with the early years sector to support brilliant settings to grow and spread their expertise, and that will include working alongside philanthropists and social investors to encourage new not-for-profit providers to open.

We want early years careers to be ones that people are proud to start and that are rewarding to pursue. That means having more opportunities to gain qualifications, enter the workforce and build fulfilling careers. Childminders play an integral role in our early years landscape and are treasured by many families, which is why we will keep working with Jobcentre Plus to encourage people to become childminders. However, having listened to the sector, we will also make sure that childminders and other providers can be paid monthly for funded hours, making their income more stable. Alongside a strong market, we want to drive higher standards through a strengthened improvement and accountability system that supports and drives high-quality provision for settings and families. That includes funding for Ofsted to inspect settings more often and to inspect new settings within 18 months of opening.

The early years workforce is at the heart of this Government’s mission to give every child the best start in life. We are making sure that a high-quality start transitions into starting school by making reception year a national priority for the regional improvement for standards and excellence—RISE—teams. We want high-quality evidence to underpin the training, support and development of people working in early years settings, from the baby room to the reception year. This will mean that passionate people can grow their skills and careers, and help every child to thrive.

Together with educators and leaders, we will drive high and rising standards by working with providers and schools to equip to them with the tools, training and support that they need to meet every child’s needs. Alongside raising the standards of early years educators by introducing a professional register, we will increase the number of qualified early years teachers, and we aim to more than double the number of funded early years initial teacher training places by 2028. We will also offer financial incentives to attract and keep early years teachers in nurseries serving the most disadvantaged communities, so that every child, no matter where they live, can benefit from high-quality early education.

The SEND system we inherited from the Conservative party has totally lost the confidence of families, and this Labour Government are absolutely committed to restoring that confidence. The last Conservative Education Secretary labelled the system that she left behind as “lose, lose, lose”, while current shadow Ministers say that they did not do enough on SEND and should hang their heads in shame. We agree—the difference is that we are doing something about it.

We will make inclusive practice standard practice in the early years by embedding an inclusive approach in our workforce education, training and leadership opportunities, and by funding evidence-based programmes that are proven to improve children’s development. We will drive improvements in the quality of teaching in reception and ensure that schools have access to the right tools and tailored improvement, including by helping each parent to play their part and be confident in their child’s progress.

This renewed vision for the early years goes hand in hand with a national approach to family services—one that brings together health, education and social care around the needs of families, children and babies. That is why I am proud that this Government have established Best Start family hubs that will be funded across all local authorities, building on the best of Sure Start, family hubs and Start for Life approaches.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

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?

[Stephen Morgan]

We are obviously working through the detail of our commitments as I speak, but I will certainly take his point back to the Department—I know that officials are working very closely with colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. What is really powerful is the fact that we will roll out family hubs to every local authority in the country to make sure that they make a real difference to every child’s life.

We are investing over £500 million to expand Best Start family hubs to every local authority in England, ensuring that wherever they live, families can access joined-up, high-quality support from pregnancy through to the early years. As part of this investment, we are providing dedicated funding to deliver evidence-based support for the home learning environment, with a particular focus on disadvantaged families and the quality of parent-child relationships. We want to support parents to create rich and nurturing home environments by encouraging them to chat, play and read more with their children, because we know that those everyday interactions are the building blocks of early development.

In order to help meet our ambition for 75% of children to achieve a good level of development by the age of five, we will fund more evidence-based parenting and home learning programmes so that more families can access those services before their children start school. That will be supported by a new national Best Start digital service, linked to “My Children” on the NHS app, which will bring together the trusted advice and guidance that all parents need in one place, and link families to their local services.

The Labour Government are committed to breaking down the barriers to opportunity, and the early years are where we do that most powerfully. Our ambition is clear: to make early years education the best it can be for children in all settings. This is the start of a decade of national renewal for families and the support that they receive. We will go further and faster to ensure that every child has the best start in life and the chance to achieve and to thrive.

Refugee Citizenship Rights

Will Forster Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

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? 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. 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. 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.

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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Will Forster Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Janet Daby]

We are very excited about what this Government are achieving for young people in our apprenticeship schemes. There are, of course, tough choices to take on how funding should be prioritised to generate opportunities for young people so that they can make a good start in fulfilling careers going forward. The Department has received a wide range of representations regarding level 7 apprenticeships, and we will communicate our decision going forward. We are absolutely committed to making sure that people are on the right apprenticeship courses and that we have a wide range of apprenticeships available.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

4. What steps her Department is taking to support the mental health and wellbeing of school students.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Stephen Morgan)]

This Government are committed to breaking down barriers to opportunity and helping pupils to achieve and thrive in education. We are providing access to specialist mental health professionals in every school so that every child and young person has access to early support, to address problems before they escalate.

[Mr Forster]

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?

[Stephen Morgan]

We will deliver on our commitment on mental health to make sure that it reaches every child. I am very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss the specific case that he raises.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Will Forster Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

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. 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.

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. 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. 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.

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. 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.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Very powerful indeed.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Ninth sitting)

Will Forster Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 13th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dame Angela Eagle]

Government amendments 23 and 24 add to the existing provision at clause 55(4):

“His Majesty may by Order in Council provide for any of the provisions…to extend…to the Isle of Man.”

Certain provisions are, as appropriate, excluded from extension. The amendments make the same provision to extend provisions by Order in Council to the Bailiwick of Guernsey and the Bailiwick of Jersey. That follows the Government receiving confirmation from the Bailiwick of Guernsey and the Bailiwick of Jersey that they wish for a permissive extent clause to be included in the Bill. I am grateful for the engagement of officials and the consideration by respective legislative assemblies on these matters. Confirmation from the Isle of Man has been received before the introduction of the Bill, hence provision already being made at introduction.

Government amendment 21 amends the list of provisions excluded from extension by Order in Council with the effect that clause 24, which amends the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, may not be extended. That is on the basis that that Act does not have an equivalent permissive extent clause, and any extension would therefore not be required or appropriate. That is a little tweak to the Bill.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

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?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that we certainly have considered those issues. The tweak with the Isle of Man relates to a technicality that was discovered after the Bill was drafted. The two other amendments, which extend certain provisions to the Bailiwicks of Guernsey and Jersey respectively, were added after work was done between our Parliament and those legislatures to ensure that they were happy for that extension and wanted a permissive extension clause to be added. That is what the amendments do.

Amendment 21 agreed to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Murray]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I have listened with interest to the points made by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire. We need to go back to the evidence we heard from the researcher from the Migration Observatory who I keep quoting. He said that demand for channel crossings is essentially “inelastic”. The hon. Gentleman is predicating his argument on tackling the demand side of the equation. We have been told by the experts that policy will have only a limited impact on the demand, and that is particularly salient when we think about safe routes.

The hon. Gentleman is quite correct; we already have safe routes in this country. We have the Afghan scheme, but because that is not available to everyone from Afghanistan, some of those who are not eligible come across on unsafe routes. Although the Ukrainian and Hong Kong schemes are not specifically refugee schemes —they are analogous, I accept that point—they are open to a much broader cohort of people. There are some 254,000 Ukrainians and 120,000 Hong Kongers in the UK right now. Those figures are off the top of my head; I am ready to be corrected. It is because of the comprehensiveness of that safe route that we see such high numbers in the declines in the channel.

If we followed the hon. Gentleman’s advice, we would fall into the same logical trap as the Conservatives did with the Rwanda scheme. With Rwanda, the so-called message to the migrants was, “Don’t get on a boat—there’s a 1% chance that you’ll be sent to Rwanda.” First, it was not credible. Secondly, it clearly had no impact on people’s decision making. The hon. Gentleman is proposing that we say, “Don’t get on a boat—there’s a 1% chance that you can come in on a safe route.” I would argue that that would have the same impact on people crossing the channel.

The only way we could have a safe routes phenomenon would be to open them to a select group of people from a select few countries. That would basically be deciding who we thought was the most deserving and who was not, which is not how the refugee system should work. People’s cases should be judged on their merits and on individual circumstances. People can come from ostensibly safe countries but face things such as LGBT discrimination. People could be from a country at war but ineligible because they are one of the perpetrators of that war. We need to judge people on their cases.

Finally, the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire said that safe routes are the only way to stop people getting on boats and freezing in the channel. Let us be really clear: that is the whole purpose of the Bill. However, the channel crossings are a new phenomenon. They were not happening five or 10 years ago, when we did not have safe routes either. The way to tackle people getting on those boats is by tackling the supply of boats and ways to cross the channel by tackling the gangs. Safe routes may have other values, but not for the purposes of stopping channel crossings.

[Mr Forster]

I am happy to support new clause 1—in fact, I enthusiastically support it. The challenge of speaking after the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire is that most of the things worth saying have already been said. In the evidence session I highlighted that safe and legal routes are a key part of us tackling the problem. The Ukrainian scheme is a clear example of success, as is the Hong Kong scheme, yet this Government, like the last one, seem reluctant to go down that route.

[Tom Hayes]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is important, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh was just saying, that we listen to the refugee voice and think more broadly about what asylum seekers and refugees actually want?

In a previous life, I worked for an international development charity where I led UK campaigning on safe and legal routes. In so doing I took away a major learning, which is that the UK cannot be overwhelmingly the country that receives refugees and asylum seekers via safe and legal routes. That is in part because the UK alone cannot be asked to shoulder such a large responsibility, but also because many asylum seekers and refugees wish to return home and therefore want to be located in a safe country that is nearer to their home country. Is it not right that we think about this in a broader and international sense, rather than assuming that the UK has to always be the country that shoulders the responsibility, when there are other ways that we can support?

[Mr Forster]

I have some sympathy for what the hon. Member says. We talked about listening to the refugee charities. One of the notes that I made of our evidence session is that they criticised the Bill as only being half the story—saying that it tackles the supply but not the demand. They said that we needed an integrated approach, and to them this Bill was not that; it was a blunt instrument. They were sympathetic to some of the Bill, but they said that it will not fully solve the things that we want to solve.

I have sympathy with the hon. Gentleman’s point that it might not be a full solution if the UK is the only country to agree safe and legal routes; but we made an agreement with Europe agreed about the Ukrainians. The hon. Member could have tried to amend the new clauses to say that the Government should be working with international partners to introduce safe and legal routes, but it seems that the Government want to dismiss any discussion of safe and legal routes whatsoever, even if working with partners.

[Tom Hayes]

Is it not the case that the Government do not think that primary legislation is the way to secure international negotiation about safe and legal routes? Actually, those conversations will be happening with the Government and partners. In fact, one of the highlights of having a new Government is a reset of our relationship with the European Union, which—in time, once it matures and restores—can help in negotiations for better routes for humanitarian assistance and support. Primary legislation is not needed for everything.

[Mr Forster]

I would really like to hear the Minister confirm that the Government are going to work with international partners to encourage a co-ordinated programme on safe and legal routes. One option, I would hope, is to agree to the new clause, but if the Government will not agree with this version, will they agree to consult on how to introduce safe and legal routes with partners? I am trying to be as moderate and practical as possible. A lot of requests from MPs do not require immediate action, but they do require the Government to consult. Is that something that the Minister would consider?

[Mike Tapp]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East for making a compelling argument around the balance between our decency and humanity and not creating a pull factor that will cause more risk. I draw the Committee’s attention to our work as a Government with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, which has resettled individuals from Ethiopia, Iraq, Sudan, Syria, Afghanistan, Eritrea, Somalia, South Sudan and Yemen. Combined with the other resettlement routes that we have in place, such as family reunion, the Afghan relocations and assistance policy, and the Hong Kong and Ukraine schemes, we have resettled over half a million individuals since 2015—I do not know the exact stats. There are ways to come here safely for people who need it.

When it comes to illegal migration, it is important that we take out the smuggling gangs. The Bill will help us do that with disruptive measures so we can get there first. This counter-terror approach is the right way.