Will Forster MP: speeches

Speeches

• 2 Jul 2026 · Commonhold and Leasehold Reform: Managing Agents · Hansard source

  More

  Leasehold is a con. We are one of the few countries that still has residential leasehold, and because of that, people are being sold a lie on home ownership. As Woking’s MP, I hear countless stories about it, and I will not use my time going through every single one, but I impress this point on the Government: we need to regulate these bureaucratic con artists. People have been scammed out of home ownership in place of leasehold. It is fleecehold. Dreams of home ownership have stayed dreams—far out of reach, and fast becoming nightmares. We hear far too often of leaseholders who have been distressed by poor service. These bad actors hide behind paperwork and avoid responsibility. Major firms such as FirstPort have, for far too long, been allowed to deliver an appalling service without consequences. The new leasehold reform Bill must put in place a regulator with the teeth to sanction these rogue agents with meaningful penalties. When that happens, MPs can end the wild west of property management agents. To see why leasehold reform is so urgent, we need only look at how managing agents such as FirstPort treat leaseholders. I had a situation involving a retirement development in Woking. It should be a lovely place to live that gives peace of mind to vulnerable, elderly residents, but when people fell over, the safety systems that FirstPort put in place did not work. Elderly residents were left lying on the floor, having called for help. FirstPort should have fixed that, and it did not. People were left in those distressing situations, but because of the lack of regulation, we cannot hold those responsible accountable. FirstPort also managed the Clock Tower building in Maybury. It has spent years causing misery to leaseholders, because of the failure to deliver minimum levels of service, and people are trapped. I have written to the Minister on numerous occasions about that case. Leaseholders have few rights, and cannot sell their homes or control who manages the development. The leaseholders of Bramwell Place, another development in Woking, know those problems all too well. They are trapped in their homes, due to frequent stalling and lack of communication. The developer completed the necessary fire safety investigation a year ago, but refused to release critical reports, burying them in an internal review. Lenders have denied the people in those homes mortgages, buyers are walking away, and innocent residents are left struggling. I am on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, and I have been proud to work on its report that pushes the Government to go further, faster. I thank the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) for her leadership, and our Committee Clerks for their excellent support. I hope the Government listen to our cross-party calls today. We recommended significant changes to the commonhold and leasehold reform Bill. The Bill is a step in the right direction, but does not deliver what we want. It is mind-boggling that the Bill does not deliver on the promises in the Labour manifesto. We recommended that the Bill deliver an independent regulator to end the wild west of property management agents. If we do that, FirstPort and others will not get away with the appalling treatment that my constituents and others face. It is heartbreaking that so many people in Woking and across the country have worked hard to get on the property ladder, but have seen their home ownership dream turn into a nightmare. Successive Governments have failed to tackle ground rents and leasehold reform. We want to put homeowners in control of the management of their buildings. I urge the Minister to implement the Select Committee report in full. Let us leave a lasting legacy on leasehold reform.

• 1 Jul 2026 · Packaging Manufacturers: Extended Producer Responsibility · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for being so generous with her time. I remember her making the same points in her Westminster Hall debate on the EPR back in May 2025. I made similar points in my Westminster Hall debate on beer tax—draught duty—in which we also talked about the EPR. Does the hon. Lady agree that it is really disappointing that a year on, the Government, and DEFRA in particular, have not listened to our concerns?

• 1 Jul 2026 · Packaging Manufacturers: Extended Producer Responsibility · Hansard source

  More

  I wanted to give the hon. Lady a chance to get back into the swing of things before intervening, but as she is talking about a valuable business in her constituency, let me say that the pub and brewery sector in Woking represents £100 million and 1,800 jobs to our local economy; those numbers used to be higher but, sadly our small brewery, Thurstons, had to close. The EPR was one of several factors that hit that brewery. Does she agree that we need a change from the Government on the EPR, as well as wider support for the sector?

• 1 Jul 2026 · Packaging Manufacturers: Extended Producer Responsibility · Hansard source

  More

  I might have been distracted in the last eight minutes—I do not know why. I remember hearing that the Minister said she has held a roundtable. I do remember that it was last year, and I am keen for her to meet the stakeholders again before this wider consultation and what happens next—hence my request.

• 1 Jul 2026 · Packaging Manufacturers: Extended Producer Responsibility · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for being generous with her time. I am sure she can probably understand why I, Asahi, which is based in Woking, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and others are not satisfied with her answers today. I have heard nothing of the double taxation, which is what EPR is. Will she agree to meet me, the hon. Member, other MPs and, more importantly, the businesses impacted to fully understand the impact and to work out a way forward?

• 29 Jun 2026 · Asylum Accommodation · Hansard source

  More

  I regret that the Labour Government still have not set out a credible plan to restore fairness and control in our immigration and asylum system. This announcement is another sideways step that fails to address the root cause of the problem. Simply moving asylum seekers from one form of expensive and unsuitable accommodation to another is not good enough, particularly when the costs are going up. At the Crowborough MOD site, which is currently in operation, accommodation costs around £160 per asylum seeker per night. That is more than the cost of the average asylum hotel place. The Government are choosing a more expensive option, adding an estimated £60,000 every night to the bill faced by taxpayers. How does the Minister justify that? Will he confirm whether this decision is driven by a desire to be seen to be closing asylum hotels, rather than securing the best value for taxpayers? The Government should instead be focusing on reducing the asylum backlog and ending the limbo that many asylum seekers are in. The overall asylum caseload is now higher than when Labour took office, while the appeals backlog has reached record levels. Will the Minister set out what he and his Department are doing to reduce that backlog and ensure that the Home Office gets more decisions right first time, avoiding unnecessary appeals? Finally, if we are to deliver the controlled and compassionate immigration and asylum system that my constituents in Woking and the whole of the British public want, it is essential that we tackle dangerous channel crossings. Will the Minister work with our European partners to establish a genuinely effective returns agreement that ensures that we can have controlled, legal routes and that those who arrive in small boats can be returned swiftly?

• 29 Jun 2026 · NHS Breast Screening · Hansard source

  More

  I am proud to have Walk The Walk—one of the country’s leading breast cancer charities, which has raised a huge amount of money and awareness—in my constituency. It is pushing for mammogram testing to be extended. Does the hon. Lady agree that extending it to the under-40s and the over-70s could have a notable effect on fighting this deadly cancer?

• 25 Jun 2026 · Home Ownership Affordability · Hansard source

  More

  My final answer is to thank the hon. Gentleman for attending a Westminster Hall debate; it is lovely to see him here. He highlighted that there is a slight age difference between us—the hon. Gentleman built a home and moved in 27 years ago; I moved into the first home that I have owned three years ago.

• 25 Jun 2026 · Home Ownership Affordability · Hansard source

  More

  It was 37 years ago—sorry, I lost 10 years for the hon. Gentleman. Our report focused on the affordability of home ownership where people genuinely own the full home. We have previously done inquiries on shared ownership, which I am happy to send to the hon. Gentleman. The key thing we want the Government to do is look at how they can lower the cost of building a home. Inflation has had a notable impact on the cost of home ownership. The costs of owning a home and building a new home are too unreasonable, and I hope that the Government look at this issue and tackles it. Backbench Business

• 25 Jun 2026 · Home Ownership Affordability · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Sir Alec. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for this statement on the second report of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee. I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Committee in place of my colleague, the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi). Our report is on the affordability of home ownership in England, a topic that affects so many people across the country. Some have suggested that in the current market, affordability of home ownership is a contradiction in terms. Everyone who has tried to buy a home recently, or knows someone who has, knows how difficult and expensive it has become. Housing affordability has been getting worse for decades. The majority of British people still want to own their own home, but fewer of them can do so. Over 20 years, the rate of home ownership has dropped from 71% to 63%. It is even worse for young adults: the rate of home ownership for 27-year-olds fell from 43% to 25% over not 20 years, but 10. It is deeply unfair that someone’s chance of owning a home is more dependent on whether their parents own a home than their own earnings. That is unacceptable and needs to change. Of course, affordability is exceptionally complicated. House prices have risen while incomes have stagnated. Mortgages have been hard to obtain and there are systemic barriers that slow down the whole home buying process. Successive Governments have tried to tackle the problem, but have failed to measurably improve the situation. The current Government must not fail as well. What, then, are the Government to do? First, as we know, more homes are needed. The Government are right to address the historical undersupply of homes, and we support their target to provide 1.5 million new homes by the end of the Parliament. At the same time, we are concerned that they might not meet that target and, even if they do, that 1.5 million new homes may not be enough. The last time homes in this country were built at the pace required to hit that Government target was over 50 years ago. Back then, 40% of homes were built by councils, but those days are long gone. Now, 75% of home building is done by private developers, which are facing their own challenges. The costs of building are rising, and if private developers cannot make a profit, they will not build the homes in the first place. We are seeing that happen across the country, with developers such as the Berkeley Group scaling back operations because of the volatility caused by the conflict in the middle east. In my constituency of Woking, over 2,000 homes in and around the town centre alone have got permission, but none is even under construction. The Government are right to encourage councils to build again, including through their social and affordable homes programme, but private developers are vital to building the homes we need. We have asked the Ministry to write to us twice a year about its actions and progress on increasing home building rates by developers. The Government could do more, however, including using the hundreds of thousands of homes around the country that are lying empty. Those homes are an unused stockpile, representing a significant chunk of the 1.5 million new homes the Government want to build. Councils already have some powers to take control of vacant homes, but those powers carry risks and are rarely used. We concluded that the Government need to make existing powers easier to understand and use, and to provide new powers where necessary. The evidence we saw during our inquiry shows that high loan-to-value ratio mortgages are important for first-time buyers, so it is good news that such mortgages are becoming more available because of the prudential and financial regulations affecting the property market. But there is more to be done, and we need to encourage lenders to change their affordability assessments so they are fair and mortgages are accessible to those who need them most. For example, it should never be the case that a renter is turned down for a mortgage because they cannot afford the repayments, when those repayments are less than what they are already paying in rent. Other financial products besides mortgages can also be put towards the cost of a new home. Some products are even backed by the Government, such as the lifetime ISA. I will not go over all the problems with lifetime ISAs now; as part of our inquiry, we sat jointly with the Treasury Committee, which has published a separate report. Suffice it to say, the Government have promised to replace the lifetime ISA with a new product that is specifically designed for first-time buyers, and we support them in doing so. The new first-time buyer ISA will be introduced in 2028. The Government launched a consultation on its design just two days ago. We are glad that, in line with our recommendations, the design is geared specifically towards first-time buyers and does not have a withdrawal charge that could cost people their initial investment. However, we also recommended that the Government should avoid a static property price cap that could make the product useless in some parts of the country. The Government have not yet set out the details of their property price cap for the new ISA, so we are still waiting to see how they will ensure that the product remains useful over time and in every region of the country. As well as publishing our inquiry report, we also wrote to the Minister on 29 April to set out our concerns relating to the home buying and selling process. We found that it is a painful experience that reduces people’s motivation to move and slows down the housing market. Barriers and unnecessary costs should be eliminated to encourage more people to move, to increase the day-to-day supply of homes on the market and to reduce the number of transactions that fall through. In particular, we recommend that the Ministry should mandate that necessary property information is provided earlier in the process, that conditional contracts should be used to make transaction agreements binding at an earlier stage and that there should be stronger regulation of property agents. The Government promised to address the first two of these in their reform road map, which was published last week. Although the Government have stopped short of regulating property agents, they have promised to publish a code of practice for them by the end of the year. I hope that, with the political instability, that is not lost. Lastly, I turn to the stamp duty land tax. Stamp duty directly reduces the affordability of home ownership by increasing how much people need to pay to buy a home. More than that, it slows the property market, stops people relocating for work or downsizing, and ultimately damages the economy. I wish I could say that stamp duty was an isolated problem, but all property taxes in this country, including business rates and council tax, are a mess. Similarly to a previous report, which recommended that the Government should make changes to council tax, we recommend that stamp duty should be overhauled and replaced. It is fundamentally unfair and damages our economy. Those two taxes need to be changed, and I hope the new Government take that opportunity. Stamp duty provides £14 billion of Government revenue each year, so the Government cannot just get rid of it outright, but we have called on them to consult by the end of the year on alternative to the current form of stamp duty, including replacing it with a revenue-neutral alternative, such as an annual property tax; reducing rates to stimulate more transactions; tying tax bands more closely to local house prices; and updating reliefs to better meet Government goals. I know the new Prime Minister is keen on a land value tax, and I hope this is a priority for his new Government. It was on this day three years ago that I moved into the first home I have owned by myself, but for so many people, home ownership is beyond reach. In my constituency of Woking, more people are having to leave their home town to buy their first home, and some cannot buy a home at all. That is not acceptable. To address housing affordability and to ensure that our young constituents can get a foot on the housing ladder, we need the Government to go much further and much faster. We need them to use a range of approaches to improve the supply of homes and the effective demand for those homes. We welcome the steps that they are taking in some areas, but in others they must be bolder to enact the policies that we have set out in our report, which can lead to real and long-lasting improvement in the affordability of home ownership for first-time buyers in this country.

• 25 Jun 2026 · Home Ownership Affordability · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend thanks me for the Committee’s work. In return, I thank him for choosing housing as the topic of his private Member’s Bill. It will really improve things on the housing front, and I am thankful that he is putting the topic high on the agenda. The Committee and I will look to speak as much as we can in favour of his Bill, and I hope that the Minister will work constructively with him on its passing. Even if it does not pass, the Government may take its provisions into other legislation. In answer to my hon. Friend’s point about how the viability of developments can reduce the amount of affordable housing, I am concerned that we are seeing that across the country. In my Woking constituency, brownfield developments do not include any affordable housing contributions at all because they are classed as unviable—and they are still not being built. We need to ensure that developers make contributions on affordable housing, which is why the Government’s social and affordable homes programme is essential to cover that lack of viability. The Committee has also raised concerns with the Government about changing the requirements of the Public Works Loan Board. That would ensure that councils, via their housing revenue accounts, could invest in not only maintaining properties, but building new homes, which is exactly what we need.

• 25 Jun 2026 · Home Ownership Affordability · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s concerns. I want to thank him for his work on the APPG. In the report, we highlighted that the Government should review and update the definition of affordable housing. We are particularly concerned about those cross-cutting issues, and we have worked with the Treasury Committee, as mentioned in the report. This is not just an MHCLG issue, but a Treasury issue. The hon. Gentleman said nice words about the Minister, who I know will be appearing before the Committee soon. The Minister knows his subject and explains it in a plain-spoken way. It is important that we do not have another change of Housing Minister; we need that certainty. I am looking forward to holding the Minister to account while he—we—delivers the draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill and deliver the homes we need.

• 22 Jun 2026 · Children of Military Families: Educational Support · Hansard source

  More

  5. What assessment she has made of the adequacy of educational support provided to the children of military families.

• 22 Jun 2026 · Children of Military Families: Educational Support · Hansard source

  More

  Brookwood primary school in Woking educates a significant number of military children because Army Training Centre Pirbright is nearby. Those children have their education disrupted because of the nature of their parents’ vital work in the armed forces. In this Armed Forces Week, will the Government look at what further support they can give, including by increasing the service pupil premium, which has gone up by just £20 in two years?

• 17 Jun 2026 · Rural Pubs: Fiscal Support · Hansard source

  More

  At the weekend, I visited an excellent rural pub in my constituency—the Olive Tree in Sutton Green—and met the owner, Nigel, and his staff. They are doing a great job running a pub in very difficult times. Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the Government want to reset their relationship with rural pubs and help them, they should consider cutting beer duty or increasing the draught discount?

• 15 Jun 2026 · Local Plans · Hansard source

  More

  My local authority, Woking borough council, is doing exactly as the Minister asks: it is creating a local plan, which is where our democratically elected councillors decide where we will build the homes that local people need. Is there any point in local authorities pursuing local plans if planning reforms will render them toothless?

• 15 Jun 2026 · Local Plans · Hansard source

  More

  5. What steps he is taking to support local authorities in creating local plans.

• 11 Jun 2026 · Transport Decarbonisation · Hansard source

  More

  Can the Minister assure me that when the diesel trains that operate on the South Western Railway network are replaced with electric trains to decarbonise the network, there will be no reduction in service for my commuting constituents in Woking?

• 11 Jun 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  The Royal Mail is failing my constituents. Letters are arriving late, and as a result hospital appointments are being missed. We have even had travel documents arriving on the day of departure. When I raised those concerns with Royal Mail directly, it took five months to send me a wholly inadequate reply, and it was not even lost in the post. Will the Government please ensure that a statement is made announcing real consequences for Royal Mail for it failing in its statutory duties?

• 11 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T4. Delays and cancellations on the South Western Railway network are horrendous. Nationalisation has not gone to plan. Last week I asked the Leader of the House why that is the case, and he said that we do not need a debate on it because he expects things to improve. Please can the Secretary of State tell the House what key performance indicators the Government are using to measure success?

• 10 Jun 2026 · Child Contact Arrangements · Hansard source

  More

  I completely endorse the hon. Lady’s calls. I have talked about how we need reform to the family courts. Will she support my calls for the Government to support family contact centres? In my constituency, the Woking Family Contact Centre has been run by volunteers for 25 years, which is an amazing achievement. We need to ensure that children are well supported after a traumatic incident. Does the hon. Lady agree that the Government need to do much more to support family contact centres?

• 10 Jun 2026 · Local Government Reform · Hansard source

  More

  We missed the hon. Gentleman at yesterday’s meeting. I agree; I fear that it will not save any money. The lack of evidence and a business case is a concern for me and the Liberal Democrats, and we expressed that at the Committee yesterday. I am sure he will be able to do the same next week when he joins us.

• 10 Jun 2026 · Local Government Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I can do, but obviously I am going to pass over to the Minister in a bit. If there are to be such monumental changes to the way we operate and run our society, we need to consult local people. Repeatedly, through this entire process, local views have been disregarded. Back in April, hundreds of people staged a protest against plans that would split the New Forest area into two mega-councils, as has already been referred to. More than 13,000 unhappy residents signed a petition calling for New Forest district council to take legal advice and pursue a judicial review. Local government reorganisation should be driven by councils and local areas, not dictated to by London. We are told that LGR is about efficiency and a fresh start, but the reality on the ground looks like absolute chaos. If anything, it is a setback. We need look no further than Woking. Surrey county council was planning to make Arnold Road and Eve Road in Maybury safer and nicer, but the scheme has been kicked into the long grass and the council will not engage with me or the local residents it consulted about the plans. It has been palmed off on West Surrey council, which is being created next year. That is shocking. The situation is a prime example of how local government plans are grinding to a halt. Essential infrastructure is on pause as Ministers and civil servants reshuffle the system. LGR is causing delays and frustrating the lives of local people, who should not have to watch their community services decline while councils try to guess the future. That is all happening with no leadership or direction from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. The issues are rife elsewhere too. Shropshire council spends 80% of its budget on social care. It is a prime example of the financial pressure facing local services. Alongside underfunding, it has also had its funding cut. Care for the elderly is such a huge burden, because 25% of its population is over 65, and the lack of transport and other local services makes the provision of social care even harder. The Government’s LGR is making it more difficult for areas to build homes, as councils are having to concentrate on LGR rather than the national housing crisis. My local authority, Wokingham borough council, has just started to draft a new local plan where local people get to decide where we build the homes we need. But next year it will be abolished. Labour’s manifesto pledged to build 1.5 million homes. Now it is making it more difficult for local areas to build and risk reneging on that manifesto promise. Alongside the local plan, since coming to power in Woking, the Liberal Democrats have been trying to fix the mess left by others. Last year I helped secure a £500 million debt write-off from Woking’s debt that we inherited from the Conservatives.

• 10 Jun 2026 · Local Government Reform · Hansard source

  More

  Half a billion pounds. We have had that debt write-off and we have also had exceptional financial support—known as EFS. The lack of understanding of that issue was apparent in yesterday’s Select Committee. The Minister says that they want to get through the fair funding review so that they have a better idea of what money local councils need, to fully enable local authorities to have multi-year funding settlements. I am fine with that, but it does not get rid of the need for cash and being aware of the lack of it. Referring to my earlier point that the Minister did not know how much money could be saved from reorganisation, it has already been mentioned by the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) that the Government do not have an assessment of how much this will save. That is not acceptable. Councils need money, but we cannot put the money we save from local government reform back into services if we do not know how much will be saved in the first place. Councils have not been properly supported for the transition and, try as they may, they are without leadership from London, mainly because, as the Minister says, Labour is not in full possession of the information that it needs to make a success of it. In Surrey we are the canary in the coalmine. The elderly, vulnerable and children are already suffering and Surrey county council is refusing requests under the guise of LGR. The whole system is breaking. The Minister and Government are making all this effort with these changes, yet are not actually addressing the problem. Ministers do not know how much to invest or what the savings will be. That is not solving a problem; it is creating new ones. I understand that they have their work cut out—it is a big job and it is never easy. However, in that discussion yesterday, there are critical questions that needed answers. Looking ahead, addressing those challenges will be essential for anyone hoping to secure a role under Andy Burnham. If the Mayor of Greater Manchester becomes Prime Minister, he will be looking for a Local Government Minister who can answer these questions. I was disappointed with the Minister’s answers yesterday, but we still do not have an answer on how much money local government reorganisation will save, or why the Government have bulldozed through local democracy. I wonder if the Minister will tell Parliament the answers to those questions right now.

• 10 Jun 2026 · Local Government Reform · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) for securing this important debate. It is obvious that LGR is the Government running before they can walk. On so many issues, we Liberal Democrats push the Government to go further and faster—but not on this. Even McLaren, from my constituency, would think that the Government are going too fast and too furious. Local government reorganisation has charged ahead without listening to councils and while ignoring residents. A layer of our local democracy is being removed and silenced. It very much feels as if Labour is reorganising local government for the sake of it, without rhyme or reason. Severe funding pressures are pushing local services to the brink. Vulnerable children, the elderly and the safety of our roads are suffering because of years of Conservative mismanagement and neglect, but rebranding and changing the face of the problem does not affect the way that something works—or, more importantly, the way it does not work. The Liberal Democrats believe that we need to fix our public services first and involve local people before we even think about redrawing lines on the map. Of course, we still do not know why the Government have chosen to push ahead with LGR. Organisations, whether charities or businesses, always have a fully costed business case; they do not change the way they do things without one. I sit on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, and it was clear from yesterday’s meeting that the Labour Government simply have not outlined their business case. What we have here is an overly ambitious plan to reform all local government by 2028. There seem to be no reason other than creating “efficiencies”. In the meeting yesterday, when I asked the Minister how much money reorganisation would save, she said, “It is challenging to answer that question,” and, “Unitary councils tend to be more effective. I can’t give a direct answer.” I was surprised to hear that. That was the answer for a flagship Labour policy that would involve the largest change to local government for over half a century.