Train Services: Extreme Weather

Will Forster Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2026 Westminster Hall

[Josh Newbury]

Having grown up in Leicestershire, I am familiar with the line that the hon. Gentleman talks about. There we have another example of how hot weather can affect train journeys. I will describe in detail how it affects my constituency, but he is right to raise how it affects his constituents. It massively impacts those who need to stop off on that line, at somewhere such as Loughborough, and can really affect their lives.

I wanted to make sure that my constituents’ experiences were heard directly in this debate, so my office ran a survey of people who use the Chase line regularly. The responses covered all sorts of journeys: people going to work, students getting to college, and families trying to get their children where they need to be. I want to share details of a few of those experiences.

Rosie told us about her regular 8 am journey from Hednesford to Walsall for college. She said that delays and cancellations have meant arriving late and missing lessons. Replacement buses make the journey much longer and on some occasions she has had to spend around £22 on an Uber just to arrive on time. She told us that she sometimes found out about cancellations only after buying her ticket and then struggled to get a refund.

Another respondent told us about their son’s travelling to college in Stafford. There is no direct bus from where they live, so the train is only practical way for him to get there. Both parents work so they cannot drop everything to drive their son when the train is cancelled. Emma also highlighted the importance of the Hednesford to Rugeley Trent Valley connection for children who travel on to Stafford. There is no direct bus alternative for that journey, either. Without the train, how are those students supposed to get to college? What do those aborted journeys mean for their futures?

The impact on people travelling to work is just as clear. Jack commutes from Cannock or Hednesford to Birmingham New Street. He described repeated delays and serious overcrowding, particularly at peak times. He told me that during hot weather two train-loads of passengers were often squeezed on to one service. He wants more frequent services during the morning and evening peaks—a fair request.

Angela told us about travelling from Rugeley to work at Birmingham’s Queen Elizabeth hospital. She uses the train to avoid the difficulty of parking, but the lack of reliability has made train journeys increasingly difficult. On one occasion her outward journey was cancelled so she had to drive to another station. On her return she found that she could not get back to Rugeley, where her car was parked. Lewis, who also commutes from Rugeley to Birmingham, has recently secured a major career opportunity after years of study and hard work, but constant delays and cancellations make it difficult to know whether he will get to work—and, just as importantly, get home. His commute costs him around £100 a month. We know how difficult it is at the moment for young people to get a foothold in their chosen career. Lewis should be able to concentrate on making the most of his opportunities, rather than worrying about whether the train will get him there. His role is hybrid, which helps, but not everybody has that flexibility.

Kris told us that after repeatedly being stranded at work, they stopped going to the station altogether. On some occasions, they had to travel via Wolverhampton and arrange a lift or find another bus because no replacement transport was even provided. Susan described a similar problem on her journey from Rugeley towards Birmingham. Her return service terminated at Hednesford; with no replacement bus, she had to pay for a separate bus outside Tesco just to get her home. Lee described repeated summer cancellations and the explanations that he has been given about infrastructure and signalling. He said that the stretch between Hednesford and Rugeley must have a world-unique microclimate because it is so consistently affected. I am not sure we can scientifically back that one up, but as a Chase line passenger myself, I am very much with him in that frustration.

The survey that we ran also showed how much the uncertainty can affect people’s working lives. I have heard from constituents who have suffered migraines from the stress of their commute, and others who have had to take annual leave because of cancellations. I do not think anybody expects a railway to run completely without disruption. There will always be incidents and occasions when services have got to change—safety must come first, after all—but passengers are entitled to ask why hot weather keeps causing such serious problems and what is being done to address them.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for introducing this debate. Like him, I have surveyed my commuting constituents; as a result, I regularly complain about the unreliability of South Western Railway. It is particularly unreliable whenever there is hot or cold weather. Does he agree that the Government should deliver an investment plan to improve our railway network so that it can adapt to climate change, including by introducing air conditioning on all train services?

[Josh Newbury]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise that issue. Extremes in temperature are increasingly affecting our railways. In many cases our lines were not designed to run at temperatures into the high 30s or even below minus 10°, although they are increasingly having to endure those conditions. Those conditions are not going to get any easier—milder winters are not suddenly going to come back—so we absolutely need to make sure that the services in and out of the train are resilient to that reality.

The hon. Gentleman leads me perfectly on to my next point. We know that high temperatures affect the railways. Rails expand in the heat, signalling equipment can overheat and overhead lines can also be affected. Network Rail already takes steps to manage those risks, including through track inspections, painting rails white to reduce heat absorption, and monitoring infrastructure during hot weather. I recognise the hard work that railway staff do to keep services safe in difficult conditions, and I sincerely thank them.

I want to know what more can be done to make the Chase line more resilient. We should not be having to have the same conversations every summer. We all know that hotter and hotter weather will be coming. Passengers need to know that lessons are being learned and that the work is happening before the next heatwave.

Local Government Reorganisation

Will Forster Excerpts

Thursday 29th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon]

Obviously, we were delighted to announce the devolution agreement yesterday. That will definitely bring new resources and powers to my hon. Friend’s area, but it has to be built on a strong foundation of local government that can be sustained. As for how MPs can engage, the “minded to” process for when decisions are issued gives us a window in which MPs and other interested parties can make representations.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

The two local authorities that serve my constituency are due to be abolished next year as part of the first phase of local government reorganisation, and now we hear that Surrey is likely to have a mayor. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will let Surrey choose whether or not to have a mayor via a public consultation and a vote of councillors?

[Jim McMahon]

As with LGR, devolution is locally led, so it is for local areas to come to Government to say, “We have a broad agreement that we want to be in talks about devolution.” We then bring that into a programme and speak to the Treasury about financing that programme, which is where we got to yesterday, so this is great news for the 10 areas that are in scope. The next stage is a consultation, probably around December, and then local authorities will be taking local decisions to form the strategic authority, probably in February and March. Once they have done that, we will move the statutory instruments—the legislation—here in the House.

Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill

Will Forster Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 27th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

Before I speak about the Bill and wider issues in the construction industry, let me say that my thoughts and prayers are with the loved ones of the 72 people who lost their lives in the Grenfell fire. Earlier today the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee was carrying out a review of fire and rescue services, and, unsurprisingly, building safety and Grenfell were covered., I appreciate that the Bill focuses on building and construction practices—among other issues—and not really on fire services, but I was surprised and disappointed to hear earlier today from the head of His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services that it had not been consulted about it at all. Firefighters put their lives in danger to cope with and tackle the failures in the construction industry, and I hope that the Minister will agree to consult the inspectorate on the Bill to ensure that any amendments are approved by it. That would also give the inspectorate an opportunity to suggest amendments.

My constituency of Woking has been plagued by three big building safety and construction issues. In 2023, 100 residents of the Eastgate building in Woking were evacuated from their homes after structural defects were found. To this day, Eastgate stands empty—a visual reminder of how our building safety system has failed. Southern Housing, which manages Eastgate, says that it is structurally unsafe, and Barratt, which built it, says that it is safe. After the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and I became involved last year, independent testing was carried out, and I am grateful to the Government for supporting me in that effort. The new testing on the building was completed many months ago, but the results have still not been released. There is no way that both sides can be right in that situation. I do not know what they are hiding, but this needs to be resolved immediately. Residents deserve to know what is going on. Either residents need to be allowed back in, or the developer needs to rebuild Eastgate and pay compensation. Will the Minister meet me and force the results of the testing to be released?

Sadly, Woking’s building safety issues and construction failures go beyond our homes. The Victoria Square development, which is a new shopping centre with residential towers and a hotel, was built by Sir Robert McAlpine several years ago. It was due to open in October 2020, but following problems with broken cladding fixtures on the Hilton hotel, it finally opened four years after that. The main A road that goes through Woking town centre had to repeatedly close due to the cladding failures, and this caused significant financial losses to local businesses and residents. Thankfully, the road has now reopened, and the cladding panels have been properly secured. Under the common law on negligence, purely economic losses are not recoverable. The formerly Conservative-run borough council could have ensured that this was covered through contract law, but it did not do so. Why is that not standard practice for building projects? Will the Minister amend the Bill, so that any losses consequent on dangerous cladding failures, such as those experienced by businesses and residents in Woking, are paid for by developers like Sir Robert McAlpine?

There is one final building safety issue in Woking that I wish to speak about, and it involves the estate where I grew up. Lakeview in Goldsworth Park is made up of mainly four-storey maisonettes. Woking borough council recently discovered that the cladding is dangerous, and quickly took steps to make it as safe as possible. The council created a plan for a comprehensive refurbishment and a long-term solution to the cladding problems on the estate. I congratulate and thank the council, especially the portfolio holder for housing, Councillor Ian Johnson, and the strategic director for housing, Louise Strongitharm, for their tireless work on this issue.

Although we are getting the right result in Lakeview, what happened on my old estate shows why we as a country need to take building safety much more seriously, and need to agree to legislative changes. Most properties in Lakeview are council homes, but there are almost 100 privately owned leasehold properties in the area. Leaseholders will be charged for the refurbishment but, quite rightly, not for the cladding works. That construction work and refurbishment is planned to start in early January. If it was a private development, leaseholders would slowly pay into a sinking fund, but local authorities are banned from running such a fund. Will the Minister not only lift the ban on local authorities having a sinking fund, but mandate them to have one, so that what happened to leaseholders in Lakeview does not happen again?

Those three examples from Woking show that this Bill does not go far or fast enough, and it is not fit for purpose. As my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) said, we will not support it, but we will propose more amendments, to ensure that we genuinely tackle all the building safety issues facing Woking and constituencies across the country.

Rough Sleeping and Good Growth Funds

Will Forster Excerpts

Monday 26th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Florence Eshalomi]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that really important question. The Routes off the Street initiative has to be tailored to a person’s individual circumstances—that could mean accommodation, support or both. Support could include things around mental health, substance misuse, employment or training, or support to access and maintain accommodation. One comment I heard at the summit was about someone who had been sleeping rough for many years who, even when offered accommodation, chose to sleep in a sleeping bag. We have to recognise that for many people, this is not just about securing accommodation; we have to take a tailored and individual approach to how we help people, with many of them suffering long-term trauma and needing additional support. It is vital that we continue to work with colleagues across the NHS and the Department of Health and Social Care in looking at the additional support that will help people to stay off the streets.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

The Prime Minister has said that wider society, especially the faith and voluntary sectors, will need to play their part in ending rough sleeping, but voluntary groups such as Woking’s homeless shelter, the York Road Project, are already overstretched and underfunded. How will the Minister ensure that the voluntary sector is supported and funded to end rough sleeping both this year and in future years in the long term?

[Florence Eshalomi]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that important question. He is right that many voluntary groups, including faith groups, have been doing this for many years, with little or, in some cases, no funding. Many have been driving national fundraising campaigns, many have been crowdfunding, and especially as we get closer to Christmas, many will be asking their members, their congregation and their supporters to campaign and donate. What we are doing with this national drive is bringing together different resources and perspectives to share those best practices and learning, and looking at how we can unlock more progress by building an alliance and healthy coalitions. As I mentioned, this issue will not be solved by the Government alone; it is also about working with groups that have a long history in this area and ensuring that they are adequately supported. That is one of the areas we will be looking at.

Heathrow Airport Expansion

Will Forster Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair this afternoon, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) for securing the debate, and for the way in which she introduced it. I know that my two Liberal Democrat colleagues from south-west London, my hon. Friends the Members for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), will completely agree with her. They have a long history of standing up against the unreasonable plan to expand Heathrow.

I want to talk about my Woking constituents’ point of view. Despite Woking being the busiest railway station in Surrey and less than 20 miles away from the airport, we have no rail link to Heathrow. I say to the Minister that if Heathrow airport is to expand, the Government must ensure that southern rail access is paid for by the airport so that my constituents in Woking, and the whole southern region under Heathrow, can have proper access. It is not reasonable that we cannot access it at the moment via any form of public transport.

Thankfully, Heathrow Southern Railway Ltd, a private company with which I recently chaired a roundtable, has put together a business case to ensure that we can have southern rail access. It would also enable Woking and the broader west Surrey area to have a second route to London via Heathrow, and then on to Paddington. Has the Minister met with Heathrow Southern Railway Ltd? If not, will he or a ministerial colleague do so?

I want to draw parallels with the planning requirements for Gatwick’s second runway. As a planning condition, the airport was required to ensure that a certain percentage of travellers could come via public transport, particularly trains. Will those requirements be applied to Heathrow, if it expands? If it does expand, it should have those requirements. I know that the Department for Transport was looking at this issue via the airports national policy statement review and the public transport requirements, but I hope it makes Southern Railway access a legal requirement if Heathrow expands. That would ensure that if the expansion happens—many colleagues do not want it—passengers will be able to get to Heathrow as sustainably as possible.

Grey Belt Land: Definition and Application

Will Forster Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Westminster Hall

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I thank the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) for introducing the debate. As the Member of Parliament for Woking, housing is the top issue in my inbox due to issues such as overcrowding, evictions, problems with bedbugs or mould, and problems with leasehold. We need more and better quality homes in Woking and across the country. There is planning permission for more than 2,000 homes in Woking town centre and the surrounding area, including 1,000 in the EcoWorld site on Goldsworth Road and the 100 in the former Greenfield school site on Brooklyn Road. All those 2,000 homes got planning permission before the pandemic, and none are under construction—absolutely none. None of them are financially viable for the developers, so they are sitting on that land.

Recently, the Secretary of State stated that there is a “slim chance” that the Government will hit their target of 1.5 million new homes by the end of this Parliament. The Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee has raised its concerns about that with the Government before. Instead of tackling the high construction costs that leave sites for new homes abandoned in Woking and across the country, the Government have adopted the concept of “grey belt” to encourage development to meet their housing targets. In one Surrey borough it is believed that 80% of its green belt would be reclassified as grey belt. Woking borough council is doing the same assessment to find out how the reclassification will impact my constituency. I agree with the right hon. and learned Member that the definition of grey belt is too broad. It has been described in a very specific way—with which even the average nimby would have no problem—but it has also been defined in a very broad manner that would, I worry, fundamentally damage our local environments.

Last year, I held a public meeting in Mayford to hear from residents about how a large proposed development would impact them. They do not want to see the fields north of Saunders Lane, which are used for recreation and agriculture, turned into a housing estate. People in Maybourne Rise in Mayford do not want to lose their fields either. Residents in Sutton Green are concerned about the green belt being lost there. Rather than unlock sustainable development in Woking and other brownfield locations, the Government have chosen to encourage development in less sustainable locations, where there is no or limited infrastructure. That will damage the local environment; that is what grey belt does. Rather than building in the places that we should be, we are targeting places for housing growth that should be protected for future generations.

I ask the Minister, will the Government seek action in the Budget to unlock the brownfield development sites that are stalled, to relieve pressure on nature and on our grey and green belt and build the homes we need? Are the Minister and his colleagues urging the Chancellor to go big in the forthcoming Budget to ensure that it unlocks those development sites? Are the Government looking at reducing tax on development on brownfield sites? Have they ruled out changing the community infrastructure or development contributions? Is everything on the table to try to unlock development, or have they not got that far and are happy to sit on empty construction sites while people on housing waiting lists wait for evermore?

If they have not thought about financial measures, will the Minister and the Government consider the Liberal Democrat proposal to introduce “use it or lose it” powers for long-term empty sites? My constituents do not want a town full of empty sites and people sitting on a housing waiting list, while the Government introduce grey belt and damage our environment. I am afraid that, without a change of course—remember that this Government have been happy to U-turn—that is what is going to happen.

Residential Buildings: Safety Remediation

Will Forster Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Westminster Hall

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton), for securing this debate.

In my Woking constituency, residents have been the direct victims of construction failures. The Victoria Square development, a new shopping centre with two residential towers and another tower containing a hotel, is a glaring example. It was all built by Sir Robert McAlpine. This development was meant to help my town grow and ensure that we can build new homes and grow our economy. Instead, it has put Woking on the map for all the wrong reasons.

The original opening date was meant to be October 2020. However, after cladding failures, it opened at Halloween 2024, and it has continued to be a horror ever since. Cladding panels fell off after the hotel opened, leading to road closures that disrupted local businesses and massively inconvenienced residents in their day-to-day lives. This was next to the town’s main road, an A road. One time the road was closed after being open for just 11 days, because another panel had fallen off.

The road was closed during Christmas, and we all know how important that time of year is for businesses. I asked town centre residents and businesses to tell me how this impacted them. One family-owned restaurant told me its bookings had dropped, and unfortunately it had to cut staff hours. A carers agency said its staff were constantly being delayed in delivering necessary care to vulnerable people, all because Sir Robert McAlpine did not build the building properly in the first place.

Thankfully, the road has now reopened and the cladding panels have now, only recently, been properly secured. Under the common law of negligence, according to the Chartered Institute of Building, purely economic losses are just not recoverable. However, this could be included under contract law. Why is that not standard practice for building projects? Will the Minister and her Department look at making it standard practice as part of forthcoming legislation?

Just a stone’s throw from Victoria Square is another building safety issue in Woking. The Eastgate building has sat abandoned since late 2023, when over 100 residents were evacuated after a report identified significant structural defects. It has been years since then, and the developer says the building is safe. The owner says otherwise. After I got involved last year, independent testing was carried out. Although the testing was completed many months ago, the results still have not been released. There is no way that both sides can be right in this situation. I do not know what they are hiding, but this needs to be resolved immediately. Residents deserve to know what is going on. Does the Minister agree with me that the results of the testing need to be released immediately and that one of the parties must admit it is wrong, whether that means residents being allowed back in and an explanation of why the original structural testing was wrong or the developer needing to rebuild Eastgate and pay compensation?

These two examples from my Woking constituency show the pressing need for stricter oversight, stronger retrospective enforcement and clear accountability for those that are responsible. We live in a country where a university degree is needed to become a lawyer or a teacher, and maybe two to be accredited, so it is shocking that I could go to B&Q, buy some materials and become a cowboy builder tomorrow, without a licence. The construction industry is an unregulated wild west. I know the Federation of Master Builders has been calling on the Government to introduce mandatory licensing and testing for UK construction firms. Does the Minister agree, and will the Government include it in forthcoming legislation? I urge the Government to listen.

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Mr Forster]

I had better not, given the timings.

I urge the Government to listen to Members present and take the necessary steps to deliver the building safety and accountability that people back home in Woking, and across the country, deserve.

Social Housing Bill [Lords]

Will Forster Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 10th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Gideon Amos]

No, the Duke of Wellington was not born in Britain—the hon. Gentleman needs to have a look at his history books—[Interruption.] Regardless of the history of the Duke of Wellington, attempts to use the Bill to pump up divisive culture-war claptrap does not deserve our attention. Rather than pointing the finger of blame at minorities, we should be talking about how to build more social homes, and that is exactly what I will go on to do.

The failure to replace social homes, among other factors, means that more and more people are in temporary accommodation. There are 132,000 households in temporary accommodation, and councils spent £2.8 billion on it last year. The scourge of poor-quality temporary accommodation exists for far too many children, and that is why we need a big public housing programme to match the scale of the challenge. If for no other reason, we must do that because it is incumbent on all of us in this House, across parties, to end the tragic loss of children’s lives. The Shared Health Foundation has highlighted that temporary accommodation was found by a coroner to be a contributing factor in the deaths of 104 children in the last five years.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

I have almost 180 families in Woking in temporary accommodation, and it is tragic for them. Some 20 of them are located outside the borough. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to ensure councils can locate people in temporary accommodation locally so that it does not devastate their lives as much as it does at the moment?

[Gideon Amos]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. People should be able to stay in their communities, and we need local, affordable housing and social housing at scale to deal with that issue.

Retirement Property Management Companies: Regulation

Will Forster Excerpts

Tuesday 8th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Homelessness, Democracy, Communities and Faith (Florence Eshalomi)]

May I congratulate the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) on securing the debate and thank him for his kind remarks on my appointment? I have fond memories of shadowing him when I was in opposition. I know that he has a breadth of knowledge across housing, communities and local government, and that this issue is close to his heart. I also thank the other Members for their contributions.

I want to start by reassuring the hon. Gentleman that although this area sits with my colleague the Minister for Housing and Planning, I have been looking at it and will feed back to him on the key issues. The contributions have highlighted a really important area: the many challenges that leaseholders across the country, and especially elderly leaseholders, are facing with management companies, with flagrant disregard for people who have worked so hard to secure their property and live independently.

The hon. Gentleman highlighted the key areas where management companies continue to let people down, including issues with transparency, accountability, communication, responding to issues, raising complaints and unaudited accounts. Those are basic things that management companies should be doing. I think about elderly leaseholders and how, for many of them, if they do not have a network of family support helping them to navigate this, it can feel predatory, as the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) highlighted. When someone receives those letters with demands, it can be quite scary.

We recognise the hugely important role that the older people’s housing sector plays—I do think there is a role for it—in ensuring people have independence in later life. We want to be able to make sure of that. We are keeping people out of hospital, and that can only happen if they have a safe and secure home of their own to go back to. The Government are committed to enhancing provisions and choice across the residential market, including for older people, and that means both increasing the supply of homes to older people and, most importantly, improving their experience in their own homes.

Many residents of retirement homes have made a significant financial and, in some cases, personal contribution to their homes, and they should have the confidence that when they raise valid concerns, those should be addressed promptly and in a timely manner. When they challenge bad practice, they should get a response and they should not have to come to their Members of Parliament. Yet we are seeing so many people resorting to raising issues and parliamentarians having to name and shame management companies until any action is taken. That should not be the way that things are happening.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

I am delighted to see the Minister in her place. I am sure she will remember that the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee recently scrutinised the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill. We found it wanting; it did not go far or fast enough. The solution to the problems outlined in this debate is to properly regulate property managing agents and especially those that run retirement homes for the vulnerable elderly. Does the Minister agree that the Bill needs to come back urgently with that regulation?

[Florence Eshalomi]

I hope the Select Committee is going very well. The hon. Gentleman will know that this is an issue that we championed on the Committee to the point that, if he recalls, in many senses I harassed the former Prime Minister and the Minister for Housing, saying “When will we see the Bill? The Bill has to come before the House. It is an issue that comes into many parliamentarians’ inboxes, it is a cross-party issue and we want to see the Government act on that and make good on that commitment.”

I want to highlight that there are many good managing agents out there. This is not about saying that the issue of managing agents is all bad. There are good ones who are responsible, who respond on time and who are responsible for providing safe and secure homes for their residents. However, we know that far too often, the poor and unscrupulous managing agents let the sector down.

Managing agents play an important role in the maintenance of a wide range of multi-occupancy buildings and freehold estates. Their importance will only increase as we transition towards a commonhold future, so it is essential that we take action to drive up the standards within the sector. As the hon. Member for North Dorset and other hon. Members will know, the previous Government committed to regulating managing agents in 2018 and asked a working group chaired by Lord Best to advise them on how to do that. Yet, they failed to respond to the group’s final report, which was published in July 2019. We have moved on from that. It is about how we now take those recommendations and bring an outcome for so many people, and the Government are ready to take forward a number of those recommendations.

The retirement sector has some specific arrangements in place. Many retirement housing managing agents already operate under the Association of Retirement Housing Managers’ code of practice, which sets the standards on transparency and complaints handling, but as we have heard this evening that does not seem to be working and it is about how we ensure that we are enforcing some of those key areas. Elsewhere in the sector, similar consumer protection standards are promoted through the Associated Retirement Community Operators’ consumer code for its members. I stress again: we recognise the concerns that remain in parts of the sector and are considering how we can protect consumers and residents to strengthen that and have a consistent approach.

In the recent consultation on strengthening leaseholder protections over charges and services, we consulted on powers to appoint a manager or to replace a managing agent, as well as on mandatory professional qualifications for managing agents in England. The Government will consult on the introduction of qualifications for estate and letting agents next year. We have also made it clear that we plan to introduce a code of practice this year setting out the minimum standards expected of all residential property agents. This includes estate, letting and managing agents. The Government are considering Lord Best’s report in full, and we will set out our overarching position on the regulation of estate, letting and managing agents in due course, but this has to come at a timely pace.

Local Government Reform

Will Forster Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

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.

[Lewis Cocking]

I, too, sit on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the reason the Government are struggling to answer that question is that local government reorganisation will not save a single penny?

[Mr Forster]

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.

[The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)]

Would the hon. Gentleman like to continue with the rest of what I said?

[Mr Forster]

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.

[Damian Hinds]

Half a billion pounds?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Forster]

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.