Immigration Reforms

Will Forster Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer.

I thank the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) for securing the debate. He and I served together on the Committee that considered the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025, where we proposed amendments to lift the ban on refugees working, and to provide for humanitarian visas to introduce safe and legal routes. I am pleased to work in partnership with him again to support our vulnerable refugees.

I want to start with what the Law Society says about the Government’s proposals:

“The Home Secretary’s proposals to increase the time for migrants to be eligible for settlement from five to ten years lack clarity, risks unfairness and may undermine rule-of-law principles.

The changes must not be applied retrospectively to those already in the UK in a way that would disadvantage them. To do so would run counter to the rule of law, undermine business planning and reduce flexibility and movement in the labour market.

The proposed changes are impacting businesses now, with our member law firms reporting that international hires are declining job offers. This is due to the uncertainty over their plans to build a life in the UK for them and their family. Our members who practice immigration law are left unable to advise clients with any certainty.

These changes risk the UK’s reputation as a centre for global talent and undermine business’s ability to recruit the best people for the job. In an increasingly competitive global services market, it is imperative that the UK can stay ahead and be an attractive destination for talent.”

I would welcome the Minister’s response to the Law Society’s damning assessment of the Government’s immigration reforms.

I will admit that this Government have inherited an absolute mess and a chaotic asylum and immigration system from the Conservatives, who deliberately did not process asylum applications in order to put people off coming to this country. That was a failure both for taxpayers and for putting immigrants off coming here. It means that we spend £6 million a day on asylum hotels.

However, another party is responsible for this mess: Reform. Last week, when we debated immigration, Reform MPs were not here; today, when we are debating immigration, they are not here. Brexit boats now cross the channel, resulting in deaths. Reform’s pursuit of Brexit has resulted in that, yet its MPs are absent from the debate. They need to be held to account for what they have done. The Dublin regulation has already been mentioned: we used not to have these channel crossings, and we used to be able to solve this problem by working with European partners, and it is vital that we get back to that situation.

There are huge benefits to immigration, which some colleagues have talked about, but some have tried to undermine this afternoon. Immigrants are statistically more likely to be employed in the health and social care, hospitality and agriculture sectors. Foreign-born individuals are more likely to be in work than UK-born citizens. Those remarks are not from a “woke” institution, but from the House of Commons Library. Immigrants make this country better financially and culturally, and we need to stand up for the benefits that immigration brings.

I will highlight agriculture. My right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) warned that the Home Office’s decision to end visas for around 75 specialist overseas sheep shearers risks up to 1.5 million sheep going unshorn, creating both an animal welfare problem and a food shortage. The Home Office had no answer to that warning by my right hon. Friend, as Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. I hope the Minister will be able to respond to it this afternoon—or if not, take it away. It is a crisis of the Government’s own making, and it needs to be corrected.

I will take in turn some of the particular issues that the Government are introducing. ILR should not be retrospective, and I would welcome the Minister’s views on what assessment the Government have made of the legal challenges if it were made retrospective. I am pleased that the Government have done yet another U-turn and agreed to lift the ban on asylum seekers and refugees working—but, despite the fact they are so in love with the rules of Denmark, they have made the rule one year rather than six months. Why have they not followed Denmark?

I also want to talk about the Government’s proposal to review refugee status for every refugee, every two and a half years, for 20 years. The Government do not seem to be able to make a decision on applicants and then cope with the appeals, yet they are adding more work for themselves. Can the Minister give me a cast-iron guarantee that the Home Office can cope?

I want to briefly mention student visas. In Afghanistan, women and girls have been persecuted just because of their gender. Last year, the Home Office closed safe and legal routes for Afghan women, and this month it closed them for women studying. What does the Minister, who I know has a heart and soul, say to that?

Finally, I was last in this Chamber to talk about homeless people, and I want to mention homeless refugees, and particularly their families. The Government have changed the rules on move-on rights, and that has had a profound impact. There have been exemptions for pregnant women and disabled and elderly people; will the Minister agree to ensure that the move-on rate is changed to exempt families with children?

Immigration Policy

Will Forster Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

It is deeply disappointing that these changes were pushed through without an explanation in this Chamber. The same Home Secretary who emphasised the importance of scrutiny from MPs at the Institute for Public Policy Research has denied this House the chance to question her reforms. That is not good enough. Does the Minister think that reviewing each refugee’s status every two and a half years for 20 years will really fix the asylum system? That is estimated to cost £725 million over the next decade, so what plans do the Government have to fund this, and can they give a cast-iron guarantee that it will not cause the asylum backlog to further increase? Taxpayers are paying £6 million a day for asylum hotels—a legacy of the Conservative Government. Will the Minister back Liberal Democrat plans to end the processing through faster claims, such as Nightingale processing centres, or set out their own plan? Finally, will the Government confirm their plan for lifting the ban on asylum seekers working? Why have they chosen a year, not six months?

[Alex Norris]

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not remember the statement in November on these very issues. I can assure him that one of his Front-Bench colleagues remembers it well and thinks about it quite a bit.

On the 30 months, let me be clear about how the system will work. We do not want people to come to the country and get that good news of their claim for refuge being accepted, and then be at home and not take part in British life. We are saying that if people do that, their claims will be assessed every 30 months. However, they will be offered the chance to move to a protected work and study route, which means that if they are taking part in work or study, learning the language and not committing crimes, they are outwith that. I do not recognise the points on how many decisions would have to be made or the spend—that is not accurate.

The hon. Gentleman talks about quicker decisions. Last year was the best year since records began on initial decisions, so we are operating that system effectively. Nevertheless, significant demand issues mean that applications are down significantly across the EU and up significantly in the UK. Until and unless those issues are addressed, any process changes would simply be overwhelmed.

Electronic Travel Authorisation: Dual Nationals

Will Forster Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

I congratulate and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella) for securing this urgent question. The Government’s lack of planning and haphazard communications over these changes are totally unacceptable. Countless dual British nationals have found themselves in heartbreaking circumstances, unable to visit family members or attend weddings or funerals, or having to stump up huge sums of money and face long waits just to get back home.

Take Nick from my constituency. He found out about these regulations by chance. Had he not found out in good time, his two daughters—dual nationals—would have faced the real prospect of being stranded in France. That is a dangerous situation for someone’s children to be in. More urgently, his niece and nephew, aged just two and four, were born in Canada. They are British by descent. They do not currently have UK passports and have not yet registered with the UK passport system. These rules are literally tearing families apart. The Minister’s solution is a drop-in event a week after the fact—that is not good enough. Will the Minister explain why the Government continue to refuse a grace period for families like Nick’s? If the Minister refuses to take steps to introduce a transition or grace period, will he compensate those who are losing out?

[Mike Tapp]

I find the framing of this absolutely absurd—it is nonsense. There have been years in planning from the officials and Ministers. As I said, this has been in the public domain for some years. For those looking to travel for emergencies, there are emergency travel documents, and I urge them to explore that through the Government website to see if they are eligible. It is great that the hon. Member’s constituent found out in good time. That says to me that the communications in that instance did work. On the specifics of that case, I ask him to visit the drop-in with officials on Monday and we can go into that further. We should all be very proud to hold a British passport.

Draft Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2026

Will Forster Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 General Committees

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Mrs Hobhouse. The Liberal Democrats and I are broadly supportive of this statutory instrument. The plans to put the fees up are broadly in line with inflation and the cost of providing the service, so we have no major concerns about the principal part of the order. However, I am concerned about the entry requirements and fees charged to dual British nationals. Will the Minister look into this matter urgently, and agree to consider a grace or transition period for British nationals stuck abroad, and to hold a meeting with MPs to listen to our concerns and take things forward?

Indefinite Leave to Remain

Will Forster Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell.

The Liberal Democrats and I are completely opposed to these sudden and retrospective changes to entitlement to indefinite leave to remain. Families who have worked hard, paid taxes and integrated into British society should not face more years of insecurity and additional costs.

[Munira Wilson]

As well as the uncertainty caused by the extension from five to 10 years of the qualifying period for ILR, many families in my constituency have contacted me with another concern: where, at the moment, one parent stays at home to look after the children, if they are forced to go out to work in order to meet the £12,500 minimum threshold for permanent residence, they will face massive childcare costs. Does my hon. Friend agree that they are right to be concerned?

[Mr Forster]

I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting that issue. She is a strong advocate for children and families, and she is right to highlight how the Government have not thought this policy through. It has a disproportionate impact, particularly when childcare costs are so significant. I will come on to talk about the unacceptable changes to the income thresholds.

As I said, the Liberal Democrats and I oppose the changes, which move the goalposts and change the rules of the game after we have kicked off. They go against the fundamental British value of fairness. I thank the organisers of the two petitions and all those who signed them, including and especially the 218 and 444 of my constituents in Woking.

The Government’s consultation document states that from April 2026, anyone who does not have ILR status—even if their application is going through the process—will be affected. That is subject to the final outcome of the consultation, which invites views on whether there should be transitional arrangements to exempt some people already in the UK. The Government press release suggests that such arrangements might be considered for “borderline cases”. Will the Minister expand on that, and perhaps explain, without the use of euphemism or vague language, what it means in practice for our constituents? We owe it to the people of Hong Kong, Ukraine and other war-torn parts of the world who have sought refuge in Britain to respect their wish to take part in our society and allow them peace of mind to plan for the long term.

[James Naish]

The hon. Gentleman mentions Ukraine. Obviously, most Ukrainians will not be eligible for ILR as we are discussing it, and this may be an area where we do need rule changes. A lot of young people who have come over from Ukraine with their families will now know nothing other than our education system and our ways of life. Does he agree that it would be good if the Minister looked carefully at the approach we take with Ukrainians?

[Mr Forster]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I will talk a bit more about Ukraine in a minute. I thought I would be generous to him, compared with some of his colleagues, who were a bit less keen to hear from him this evening—a little more cross-party working is in order.

I want particularly to talk about Hongkongers. Several elements of the earned settlement proposals are causing serious concern for the Hong Kong community in my constituency, in particular vulnerable BNO families and young Hong Kong pro-democracy activists who have been forced to seek asylum here. Many BNO arrivals are full-time students, retirees, stay-at-home parents—as my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) mentioned—or family carers who do not meet the conventional salary thresholds. Any new sustained or measurable economic contribution test or minimum income rule risks permanently excluding those entirely legitimate residents, who are already fully integrated into our communities and contributing to British society.

Tens of thousands of BNO visa holders will reach the five-year point and be eligible for settlement in 2026. It is appalling that that is the point that the Government have chosen for the rules to come in. A sudden increase in the language requirement to B2 level without adequate notice or transition arrangements will throw many of those vulnerable individuals off balance and deny permanent status to people who have lived, worked and put down roots here for a decade. That would be yet another betrayal of Hongkongers, after the Government’s recent approval of the Chinese mega-embassy.

The hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) mentioned Ukraine. The Liberal Democrats urge the Government to take necessary steps to provide Ukrainian refugees in the UK with the stability and security they deserve by establishing a clear pathway to ILR. Later this month, it will be four years since the appalling and unwarranted invasion of Ukraine by Russia, and many Ukrainian families have built meaningful lives here, yet their futures remain precarious because of the temporary nature of their current settled status.

Reports suggest that Ukrainians are missing out on job opportunities, loans, mortgages or lease renewals because they do not have a pathway to permanent settlement. Not only does that put them at a material disadvantage, but the pressures of securing housing or financial security under the current visa system put refugees through huge anxiety. Their country is already at war, and it is deeply unfair to put our allies through further stress. The Ukrainian scheme is the only humanitarian scheme that does not include a pathway for settlement. Ukrainians in this country should not be in that position at all. Yes, we need control, but we need to have a fair and robust system, and a frank discussion about who stays and how we support our friends and allies.

The Liberal Democrats are particularly concerned that elements of Labour’s proposed changes to ILR risk adding unworkable red tape for businesses and for people who came here legally, undermining integration and damaging our economy. Britain is already becoming a less competitive place for science and innovation. The five-year global talent visa now costs £6,000—around 20 times more than in our competitor countries. Cancer Research UK alone spends almost £1 million a year on visas. I know where I want its money being invested, and it is not in visas for the Home Office. Any changes aimed at control must go hand in hand with a serious plan to boost domestic skills and get more people into the jobs that our NHS, social care system and economy desperately need.

Before I come to my asks for the Minister and a summary, I want to mention the elephant in the room—or not in the room. Where are the Reform Members? They are missing yet another debate on immigration. The Government want to change ILR requirements to look tough on immigration because they are running scared of Reform. I urge the Minister and the Government to speak up for our immigrant communities, highlight the benefits of immigration and agree that our constituents are much more likely to be seen by an immigrant in the NHS than to be behind one in the queue.

What assessment has the Minister made of the economic costs and the social costs of these changes? Does he think they will make Britain a more competitive place when it comes to securing the workforce on which our NHS and social care system are so dependent? Has he considered how they may damage community cohesion and integration? Does he agree that retrospectively extending indefinite leave to remain, without the provision of any specific transitional arrangements, will hurt the many hard-working members of our society who have played by the rules and contributed greatly to our economy and culture?

Since taking office, this Government have performed many U-turns on high-profile issues, whether because they are financially foolish, morally wrong, or impossible to deliver because of a political rebellion. Unfairly and unreasonably changing the ILR rules retrospectively would meet all three of those reasons. I urge the Minister to announce today that the changes will not be retrospective, so that immigrant constituents of mine, his and everyone else in the room who have served our communities and fled conflict can sleep soundly at night without worrying about their future. That is what the Minister can do this evening. I urge him to do it.

West Midlands Police

Will Forster Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

The recommendation by West Midlands police to ban Maccabi Tel Aviv fans was clearly an incredibly serious mistake. That has been shown in evidence by Sir Andy Cooke’s damning report. Not just the decision but how it was made and the fact that misleading statements were covered up is damning. The latest examples of how artificial intelligence was used in coming to the decision, after multiple denials, beggar belief and risk seriously undermining public trust in the police, and not only in the west midlands but across the whole country.

The chief constable of West Midlands police does not have the Home Secretary’s confidence. He does not have mine, and I assume that he does not have that of most of the House. He needs to consider his position and go now. I am pleased that the Home Secretary went to quite unprecedented levels to say that he should go, and I am pleased that she has spoken to the House first. Will she meet the police and crime commissioner later today to call for the chief constable to go?

We need the Independent Office for Police Conduct to investigate what has gone on in West Midlands police. Will the Home Secretary ensure that takes place? We have already seen delays to the Hillsborough law and its duty of candour, including just this week. Does the Home Secretary agree that this incident shows the need to put the Hillsborough law on to the statute book as soon as possible? Finally, we need urgent transparency and clarity on the use of AI by police forces. Does the Home Secretary agree, and what plans does she have to ensure that guidance is given to police forces?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I thank the Lib Dem spokesperson for his remarks. I have, as a matter of courtesy, informed the police and crime commissioner in advance of making this statement that I would be saying that I do not have confidence in the chief constable of West Midlands police. I have also reiterated and made it clear that any statutory process, and any decision under the statutory process on further action against the chief constable, would be a matter for the police and crime commissioner himself. He must consider that on his own terms, and I am sure that he will be making his own statement once he has had a chance to absorb the findings of Sir Andy’s report. Given that there could be a statutory process, I will not be commenting on what may or may not be happening, in order to respect the independence and integrity of any future decisions.

On the IOPC, I expect that the police and crime commissioner will consider his position on this matter and approach the IOPC if he deems it necessary, but that is a judgment for him. I also expect the IOPC to consider whether these findings mean that it should use its own power of initiative to conduct an investigation. The hon. Member will know that it is independent, and it would be improper for me to seek to direct it in any way, but it does have those powers and I believe it has already indicated that it will consider the position again, once it has had a chance to absorb the findings of Sir Andy’s report.

I agree with the hon. Member that this case proves why we need a duty of candour on all public officials, and I look forward to the Hillsborough law becoming an Act of Parliament at the earliest opportunity. On the use of artificial intelligence by police forces, I will be returning to these matters when I publish—I will come to the House to make a statement—the policing reform White Paper. This is important because AI is an incredibly powerful tool that can and should be used by our police forces, but regulating it to make sure it is always accurate is a matter of legitimate concern to us all, and I will be saying more about that in due course.

Glasgow Safer Drug Consumption Facility

Will Forster Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers.

Every single death linked to drugs is a human tragedy, as we have heard from Members who have spoken already. It destroys families, shatters communities and places immense pressure on our health services and the emergency services. In my constituency, we had seven drug-related deaths in the last year for which figures were available. That is 5.4 deaths per 100,000 people. In Glasgow, there are 41.1 deaths per 100,000 people. That shows the scale of the problem in Scotland, but particularly in Glasgow. It means we need a different approach that meets the scale of the problem and the human tragedies that lie behind those numbers.

I commend the work of the hon. Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) and the way she introduced the debate, and everyone on the Scottish Affairs Committee for their work to understand drug use in Scotland. The Liberal Democrats welcome the work in Scotland to treat drug deaths as a public health issue, notably through the pilot of Glasgow’s safer drug consumption facility, the Thistle. We recognise the complexities of the devolved responsibility and emphasise that matters specific to Glasgow and Scotland are for the Scottish Government to address. However, what happens in Scotland can still offer lessons to all of us across the United Kingdom.

Nationally, we need to move towards treating drug misuse as a health matter. That means moving leadership on drugs policy from the Home Office to the Department of Health and Social Care, and investing sustainably in more addiction services and rehabilitation support so that help is available before people take the misstep that costs a life. This approach is reflected in some excellent state and local private provision across the country. I commend the Priory in my Woking constituency, which I visited last year, for its outstanding work on mental health and rehabilitation related to substance misuse. We must bring drug recovery infrastructure into the 21st century. That means more trained professionals, better community support, more housing for people in recovery, and pathways into employment to rebuild hope and dignity.

[Patricia Ferguson]

One of the things that is advantageous about the Thistle is that it does not exist in a vacuum. It can refer people on to other services such as housing— many of the people being dealt with are homeless, unfortunately—and it can also address mental health issues and send people forward to the requisite services that they need to access. It can also do basic things such as allow people the opportunity to have a shower and get some clean clothes—the basic necessities that the rest of us take for granted. In that way, it does more than just address the relatively straightforward issue of injecting; it also tries to help people with the problems they experience day to day.

[Mr Forster]

I am a member of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, and we have found the Housing First programme—with which there are some parallels in this debate—very important and useful. As the hon. Lady said, it is not just about tackling drug use; we need to tackle homelessness for housing problems and we need to tackle drug use for drug problems, and we should do so as part of a package of support measures. I hope we can treat both those problems equally and in a comprehensive manner.

We need to lessen the taboos around drug consumption to allow us to tackle the issue in a far more humane way than we have previously as a country. The current system fails too many people. Far too many die when they are in contact with treatment services, and too many families are left grieving following an avoidable loss. Helping people to avoid that fate requires a fresh approach that prioritises health, harm reduction, social support and rehabilitation, as much as law enforcement.

We must recognise that outdated drug laws are no longer protecting people, especially young people, from harm. The reform of cannabis legislation would take power away from criminal gangs, regulate quality and potency, and provide safer access for adults while protecting the young. This pragmatic, evidence-based approach should inform our decisions, and we should learn the lessons from what other countries have done.

Drug-related deaths across our country remain unacceptably high, particularly in Scotland and Glasgow, where the situation requires urgent, radical thinking. We must invest more in treatment, rehabilitation, support labs and services to reduce harm, and promote public health leadership that brings us into the 21st century. Above all, we must honour the lives lost by making the change that prevents others from dying needlessly, by taking the evidence-based approach recommended by the Committee’s report.

Asylum Reforms: Protected Characteristics

Will Forster Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I thank the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) for securing this important debate and for the passionate way in which she introduced it; it is clear that this matter is close to her heart.

Refugees are some of the most vulnerable people on the planet. They are often fleeing their home following a civil war or being targeted by an authoritarian regime. Refugees with protected characteristics, such as disabled people, those who are pregnant, children and women, are especially vulnerable. That is why the Liberal Democrats believe that people seeking protection must be treated with dignity and humanity, according to their individual situation. Many asylum applicants already face hostility in the process, and disbelief from decision makers can have serious consequences for their safety if they are returned to the countries where they face persecution. No one should ever be expected to hide elements of their identity, like their sexuality, in order to avoid violence or discrimination. There are far too many countries in the world that are openly hostile to some protected characteristics.

This debate is calling for disabled people, those who are pregnant, women and children never to be detained or deported. Although I have a lot of sympathy with that, the entire detention system needs thorough reform. In previous debates, my Liberal Democrat colleagues and I have outlined what reforms we want in the system. Immigration detention should only be used as a last resort for anyone—absolutely anyone. It should be subject to clear time limits. We support a maximum of 28 days, with judicial oversight after 72 hours. We tabled amendments to the Conservatives’ Illegal Migration Bill to secure such reforms, including a ban on child detention and an end to indefinite detention. The Conservative Government rejected those amendments, but the Liberal Democrats remain committed to them.

The detention of children is particularly controversial. In the summer of 2010, honouring the Liberal Democrats’ election manifesto, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg announced that the UK would end its practice of child detention after years of strong criticism from current and former detainees, the voluntary sector, medical professionals, politicians, academics and legal professionals. My party and I are very proud of that.

There are particular risks for women and survivors of gender-based violence in the proposals that the Home Secretary announced recently. The plan to remove the legal duty to provide accommodation while asylum seekers remain banned from working risks pushing vulnerable people into destitution. Women fleeing persecution and domestic abuse are at heightened risk if support is unpredictable and, worse, if it is withdrawn entirely. The Liberal Democrats are committed to fully implementing the Istanbul convention, which Britain has signed, which contains a commitment to protect women and girls, regardless of their nationality or immigration status. Will the Minister tell us if and when the Government will sign up to the Istanbul convention? Women seeking asylum who have experienced gender-based violence need a system that understands the trauma that they have been through and responds according to that need. Any reforms that prioritise speed over safety will worsen the harm for those vulnerable people.

The Government’s plans to overhaul modern slavery rules also create serious dangers. Forcing victims to disclose everything at the point at which they arrive risks playing directly into the hands of traffickers and organised criminal groups. Many victims remain under gang control when they first come forward. I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on that. Has he met domestic worker charities to understand the impact that the proposals could have on vulnerable hidden workers in our society?

Recent announcements from the Home Secretary include temporary refugee status, more frequent reviews, restrictions on rights-based appeals and the removal of guarantees on housing, benefits and support. Those changes will fall hardest on those with protected characteristics and those already facing discrimination. People fleeing persecution due to race, religion or nationality may find themselves at increased risk before safety is secured. Disabled applicants and those with serious health conditions may struggle with the accelerated deadlines that the Government want to introduce. Women with children, and pregnant women in particular, may face hardship if safe accommodation is no longer guaranteed—yet again, it could be withdrawn entirely. The proposals also include controversial tools for age assessment and a reduction in access to legal aid.

Those changes risk harming children and young people, and will make the system even harder for them to navigate as they cope with their mental health and the trauma issues that they bring with them. A shift to long-term permissions with no clear path to settlement will entrench insecurity for already vulnerable people and will completely undermine the Government’s integration plans. The Liberal Democrats believe that there is a better way forward. The previous Conservative Government allowed our asylum system to fall into ruins and permitted a backlog to grow. The answer to the crisis is competent decision making and efficient administration, not punitive actions against some of the most vulnerable people on the planet.

The Government are clearly concerned about trying to persuade Reform voters back into their fold. The fact that there is not a representative of Reform here today suggests that they want to shout about immigration, but they have no solutions. There is an immigration problem in this country: the Conservatives wrecked the system and deliberately ran up an asylum backlog of 90,000 to put people off. That has cost taxpayers dearly and is hurting people, but the solution is not going after the vulnerable and chasing hateful rhetoric. I hope the Minister is sympathetic and understands that, and is a quiet voice in his Department trying to change his bosses’ minds.

The Liberal Democrats have set out a practical plan to fix the system while protecting vulnerable people with protected characteristics. We would clear the backlog within six months by using Nightingale-style processing centres. We would allow asylum seekers to work after three months. We would maintain our commitment to the European convention on human rights, which protects dignity, fairness and the rule of law. Above all, we would focus on accurate and timely decisions so that people are not left in limbo for years.

In this debate, we are discussing individuals with protected characteristics who are at real risk if the system fails them. These reforms must not weaken rights or increase harm; they must not create barriers for women, survivors of trauma, children, disabled applicants or victims of trafficking. I urge the Government to reconsider their approach. A safe and functioning, humane asylum system is achievable, and they must deliver it.

Violence against Women and Girls Strategy

Will Forster Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

Last year, over 50,000 women and girls in Surrey were affected by violence against women and girls, yet 49% of respondents to a recent survey about the issue in Surrey said they had never reported the issue to the police or other authorities. Will the Minister confirm how the Government’s new strategy will ensure that women and girls in my constituency are empowered to report these appalling violent crimes?

[Jess Phillips]

I was in Woking looking at the multi-agency services offered there, and I have to say that I was incredibly impressed by what is on offer in Surrey, both for victims who wish to go through the criminal justice system and those who do not. While I would much prefer it if that figure was less adrift, we must ensure that we do not just focus on criminal justice outcomes as lots of women will want other outcomes.

Grooming Gangs: Independent Inquiry

Will Forster Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

Let me say yes to my hon. Friend on both those counts and give him the reassurance that he has sought. It is the case that as new information or evidence comes to light, the inquiry will be able to pursue that and work closely with law enforcement and others to make sure that happens. He is right; sadly and devastatingly, it is undoubtedly the case that working-class children are today, once again, being let down and being hurt because those who should have kept them safe are not doing so. That is why we will never stop in our work across Government to keep the children of our country safe.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement and the progress on this inquiry. My local authority, Surrey county council, has at best been slow to acknowledge its failures in child abuse and child safeguarding in the case of Sara Sharif from Woking. How will the Government ensure that both police forces and local authorities fully co-operate with this inquiry, particularly in areas with a history of under-reporting, cover-up and a lack of openness and transparency?