Paul Kohler MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 25 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  But would you support reducing the percentage even more in Canada? Doug Downey: We have an anachronism here in Canada with civil juries, which you got rid of quite some time ago. I am supportive of dealing with those civil juries, largely for the same reason.

• 25 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am, because you are doing away with them in certain cases. Given the efficiencies, can you remind me why juries are a good thing in any case? Clement Goldstone: We have already dealt with that. That was the very first question.

• 25 Mar 2026 · Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation · Hansard source

  More

  On a recent visit to Northern Ireland, I met with numerous stakeholders, including veterans, victims and survivors, all of whom are seeking justice. Yet I fear that both the former legacy Act and the current troubles Bill conceive of justice too narrowly, while the constricting lens of lawyers is preoccupied with criminal sanctions and civil compensation. Stakeholders want answers, not retribution. That is why I have tabled amendments to the troubles Bill to formally provide the option of a restorative justice pathway for the many victims of the troubles who simply want to know what happened. Does the Secretary of State agree that restorative justice has an important role to play in reconciliation, and will he meet me to discuss supporting my amendments?

• 19 Mar 2026 · Northern Ireland: Legacy of the Past · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I congratulate the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) on securing this debate. I begin by warmly acknowledging the men and women who served during Operation Banner. Everyone knows—even the Tories, in their more candid moments—that the Conservatives’ legacy Act was a profound mistake, granting immunity to terrorists, creating a shameful moral equivalence between paramilitaries hellbent on breaking the law and our brave veterans who risked, and in many cases lost, their lives upholding the very rule of law that the legacy Act undermined. In the Dillon case, the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal was clear: core provisions of the Act were incompatible with the European convention on human rights. Yes, the new Government abandoned the appeal on that point in the Supreme Court, but with no faith in the position, they were right to do so. That is why the remedial order mattered. It was a necessary step to bring the UK back within its legal obligations, and to restore a measure of trust for those who have waited decades for truth and accountability. The Conservatives, however, treated the order as a political opportunity, rather than as a moment for sober reflection. To use the plight of our veterans to rage against the ECHR and the Human Rights Act 1998 and to play destructive party politics is something that has not gone unnoticed among the many veterans organisations with whom I have been working— [ Interruption. ] I will give way.

• 19 Mar 2026 · Northern Ireland: Legacy of the Past · Hansard source

  More

  I will now move on to consider the Government’s response to the more salient recommendations made by the Select Committee. Turning first to the treatment of sexual offences, the Government acknowledge that the previous Act created a de facto bar on investigating sexual offences not linked to death or serious injury, but their proposed split model raises concerns. Clause 32 limits investigations to what is deemed necessary for ECHR compliance, which will result in the commission handling some cases while others fall to the police to investigate, creating potential confusion. On the disclosure of reports, the commission is required to examine all circumstances while also considering specific family questions, but it is unclear how those duties will be balanced or the commission’s findings reported. When I visited the WAVE Trauma Centre, concerns were expressed that, by answering sometimes deeply personal questions, published reports could reveal issues and concerns that victims would not want made public. The chief commissioner, Sir Declan Morgan, has assured me that the commission will act with sensitivity in such circumstances, but victims’ families want something more tangible than that. That leads directly to the role and powers of the commission. The proposal to grant powers through established statutory procedures rather than enshrining them in the Bill risks opacity and reduced accountability. While a “small number of cases” where current powers fall short are acknowledged, it is far from clear how or if those gaps will be addressed. Alongside the topic of powers sits the question of resources. While the Government’s commitment to a £250 million total funding envelope for legacy mechanisms is welcome, there is widespread agreement that that is not enough. The PSNI chief constable, Jon Boutcher, has given compelling testimony that he has insufficient funding to address his legacy responsibilities. The Government suggest that PSNI funding is a matter for the Northern Ireland Department of Justice and the Executive. However, the costs of legacy, arising as they did under what occurred during direct rule, must surely be borne by the British state, not out of funds provided by the Province’s normal funding formula. The thorniest issue is, of course, the safeguards afforded to veterans. The Secretary of State has been at pains to stress the centrality of his six protections, but as he acknowledges, in their current form they “do not go far enough”. I know he has been in discussion with many veterans’ groups, and I have heard from many of them their gratitude for the time and consideration that he has given them. A date for the Bill Committee has still not been published, which I assume means that discussions within the Northern Ireland Office and the Ministry of Defence are still ongoing. While I have no desire to unduly rush the Secretary of State on this issue, I respectfully remind him that the many veterans’ groups to which he has been talking are anxious to know what extra safeguards will be included in the promised Government amendments to the Bill. Closely connected to victims’ safeguards is the question of disclosure and national security. A major concern is the Government’s refusal to introduce a merits-based appeal against ministerial denials of disclosure, and the reliance instead on judicial review, which considers procedural correctness rather than the merits of a decision. While the Government cite the primacy of the Executive, that principle does not sit comfortably within a legacy process that is aimed at restoring public trust and transparency. I have consequently tabled an amendment to the Bill that would require any decision to block disclosure on national security grounds to be referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee. That would ensure proper scrutiny and accountability to Parliament. Our goal is reconciliation. Whenever I ask about reconciliation, I am directed to part 4 of the legacy Act, which is not going to be repealed. Part 4 focuses on oral history and memorialisation. Those have an important role to play, but it is striking how little attention appears to be given to restorative justice in any meaningful sense, because reconciliation cannot be addressed through reports and archives alone. My primary concern is that justice is still being mediated through the narrow lens of lawyers, with criminal or civil actions given too great a prominence in the process. I have personally participated in the restorative justice process, and I know that it begins with the questions that many victims of the troubles are asking: “Why me?” or “Why my loved ones?” Restorative justice creates a space for answers, acknowledgment, and some form of resolution. The current Bill offers no meaningful avenue for restorative justice, which is why I have tabled amendments to incorporate that formally into the process, ensuring that victims and veterans have a voluntary, structured mechanism with which to engage and seek meaningful reconciliation. Without that, reconciliation risks being misconceived and incomplete. At its core, this process will command confidence only if victims feel heard, veterans are treated fairly, and the system delivers answers that are credible and transparent. Broad commitments alone are not enough. The Government must address the gaps highlighted by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. Without doing so, the process risks failing those who it is intended to serve, undermining trust and leaving decades of questions unanswered.

• 12 Mar 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Criterion Capital has recently embarked on a series of mass no-fault evictions in my borough of Merton, including Emerald House in my constituency. It is a shameless attempt to do so before the practice becomes illegal under the Renters’ Rights Act 2025. Section 21 notices have been accompanied by ostensibly fraudulent electrical safety reports issued by a company dissolved at the date of issue, after supposed visits that do not appear to have taken place. The owner of Criterion Capital is Mr Asif Aziz, who has given tens of thousands of pounds to the Labour party and to the Conservatives. Will the Leader of the House assist me in securing a debate in Government time on this rogue landlord? Does he agree that the Labour and Conservative parties should immediately return his donations?

• 11 Mar 2026 · Protest Policing · Hansard source

  More

  Notwithstanding my liberal instincts, I too agree with the Home Secretary’s decision to prohibit this march given Iran’s targeting of UK nationals abroad and our allies overseas. That targeting also occurs here in the UK. It occurred in my constituency with the stabbing of an Iranian dissident journalist two years ago. What specific steps is the Home Secretary taking to protect Iranian dissidents here in the UK who might be targeted by the Iranian state?

• 2 Mar 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  I applaud the Prime Minister’s judgment in this matter. I am in contact with British nationals trapped in a hotel in Qatar who are seeing missiles passing overhead, with more than 30 explosions just today. They texted me a few minutes ago to say there has been a lack of messaging from their Government. They are desperate for news on evacuation plans, but the consulate auto-reply is currently advising them on how best to enjoy Ramadan. Can the Prime Minister please ensure that our consulates redouble their efforts to give information and reassurance to our nationals across the region?

• 25 Feb 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q6. The Prime Minister recently stated:“we will not allow the powerful to treat justice as optional.” He was talking about Epstein’s enablers, but one of my constituents, who uses the pseudonym “Isabella”, has asked me to ask the Prime Minister whether his words also apply to those who assisted Britain’s Epstein, Mohammed al-Fayed, a monster who, with others, abused her and hundreds of other women and girls in a human trafficking scandal that the Met, unlike the French authorities, is still refusing to treat as such. Will the Prime Minister ensure that sufficient resources are committed to fully investigating this multi-perpetrator, multi-jurisdictional, multi-decade trafficking outrage, and will he meet Isabella and her fellow victims, in order to understand the terrible scale of this shocking crime?

• 11 Feb 2026 · Economic Impact of Government Policies · Hansard source

  More

  The Windsor framework was meant to give Northern Ireland the best of both worlds: unfettered access to the UK internal market and barrier-free access to the EU. Not so, according to a recent survey conducted by the Federation of Small Businesses, which reports that more than half those trading between Great Britain and Northern Ireland are having difficulties, with over a third having stopped trading altogether. The figures are stark. Fewer than one in six Northern Ireland businesses say that they benefit from dual market access, while nearly 80% rate Government support as poor or very poor. Will the Secretary of State commit himself to a specific time-bound plan to make dual market access work, or does he accept that Northern Ireland got the worst of both worlds?

• 21 Jan 2026 · Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation · Hansard source

  More

  We need more gravity in the House than this. The grandstanding, the jocularity, the jokes—this is not the way to approach such a serious situation.

• 21 Jan 2026 · Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation · Hansard source

  More

  The Government have a choice to make: whether to stand up for our international obligations. That is the right thing to do. At this time, of all times, surely we should stand up for our international obligations. Our amendments to the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill seek to put clear statutory definitions in place to strengthen safeguards against disproportionate legal action, to provide a presumption of remote participation, to protect anonymity and to establish independent oversight of how those safeguards operate in practice. Our approach is about recognising service, context and the cumulative impact of decades of investigation, not about shielding wrongdoing. The Liberal Democrats also recognise that reconciliation cannot be achieved by legal mechanisms alone.

• 21 Jan 2026 · Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, in other words, it is for our Government to stand up for our international obligations. Hon. Members should look about them; look at what is happening at the moment with Greenland. This is the time when we should stand up for our international obligations. It is a time for us to believe in the rule of law. There is a declaration of incompatibility and our Government should absolutely stand up for our international obligations.

• 21 Jan 2026 · Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation · Hansard source

  More

  We have a greater percentage, I think the hon. Gentleman will find— [ Interruption. ] I did say that.

• 21 Jan 2026 · Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation · Hansard source

  More

  If we are serious about moving towards a shared and stable future for Northern Ireland, legacy processes must be connected to a broader reconciliation strategy. That is why we propose a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to publish such a strategy, developed in consultation with victims, institutions and Parliament. Addressing the past and building the future must go hand in hand. Finally, a word about the European convention on human rights. The remedial order arises precisely because ECHR compliance matters. The Good Friday agreement is built on it and, as such, peace in Northern Ireland depends on it. Those who casually call for withdrawal are playing fast and loose with our history, our rights, our futures and our very Union. We will support this remedial order, oppose those who would block it for self-serving reasons and continue to work constructively with Members from across the House to fashion an appropriate legacy process.

• 21 Jan 2026 · Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation · Hansard source

  More

  No. Now it is just grandstanding, and I will not give in to more of that.

• 21 Jan 2026 · Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation · Hansard source

  More

  Listen to what I said.

• 21 Jan 2026 · Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation · Hansard source

  More

  I have listened carefully to those who have spoken before me, and while there are clear differences across the House, I hope there is a shared recognition of the gravity of the issues we are debating and the responsibility that rests on Parliament to approach them with care. I will begin, as I have done previously in debates on this matter, by recognising the deep and enduring scars left by the troubles. For victims, survivors, veterans, families and communities across Northern Ireland and beyond, the issues we are considering reflect lived experience and demand seriousness and humility, not grandstanding. That does not preclude our making clear that the Conservatives’ legacy Act was a failure—in fact, it requires it. It failed victims, it failed survivors and it failed veterans. That is not just the opinion of the Liberal Democrats; it is the view of every major party in Northern Ireland, as well as victims’ organisations, the vast majority of veterans I have met and, ultimately, the courts. The Northern Ireland Court of Appeal was clear in 2024 that core provisions of the Act were incompatible with the European convention on human rights. Parliament cannot simply shrug its shoulders at that judgment, and there is no more apposite time than now to confirm that we are a country governed by the rule of law, not by wishful thinking or culture war rhetoric. For that reason, the Liberal Democrats welcome the remedial order, and I remind the House that there is a greater percentage of veterans in my parliamentary party than in any other party in this House. Our gallant cohort would agree to nothing that will let down our veterans and believes that the remedial order is necessary because it removes the most egregious provisions of the Act, including immunity that extended to terrorists and bars on civil actions. Those measures were corrosive to trust and created an abhorrent moral equivalence between those who served the state and those who sought to destroy it. The remedial order must consequently be seen as a prerequisite to any credible legacy process, not as a concession to apologists and terrorists. That is why it is difficult to understand those who argue that the House should vote against the remedial order. To do so would be to defend legislation that the courts have ruled to be unlawful and to prolong uncertainty for victims and veterans alike. It would leave us knowingly in breach of our international obligations and would further undermine confidence in the institutions tasked with dealing with the past. It is simply wrong, both in principle and in practice. To those who argue that the remedial order should be delayed until the judgment in the Dillon case is handed down, I would simply say that I concur with the Secretary of State. Put simply, notwithstanding paragraph 710 of the Court of Appeal judgment, the declaration of incompatibility will remain whether or not the Government win their appeal on article 2 of the Windsor framework. Although the Secretary of State will doubtless welcome our support, I do not wish to lull him into a false sense of security. We welcome the remedial order, but that does not mean that we are declaring the job done. Serious deficiencies in the forthcoming Northern Ireland Troubles Bill remain, and they must be addressed if any new framework is to command confidence across communities. That is why my party has tabled constructive amendments and new clauses—not to wreck the legislation, but to save it. In particular, we remain deeply concerned about protections for veterans. Veterans are not asking for immunity; they tell me repeatedly that they do not want immunity. They are asking for fairness, proportionality and an end to the fear that the process of investigation becomes an instrument of persecution.

• 21 Jan 2026 · Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation · Hansard source

  More

  No, I will not give way.

• 15 Jan 2026 · Covid-19: Financial Support · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella) on securing this important debate. During the pandemic, the state quite rightly intervened on an unprecedented scale. Hospitality businesses received grants, employees were furloughed and billions were distributed through schemes that were fast, generous and non-repayable. Yet alongside that, there existed a shadow group who did not fit into neat categories: new starters, new businesses, PAYE freelancers, many directors of limited companies and numerous other groups, as we have heard. Millions of people saw their work vanish overnight. Their income collapsed, and when they applied for help, they were told bluntly, “Computer says no.” Meanwhile, the Conservative Government’s handling of PPE contracts left taxpayers out of pocket to the tune of billions. An interim Government report found that defective PPE contracts cost the British taxpayer at least £1.4 billion. VIP lanes and fast-track deals with Tory friends and supporters led to waste, inefficiency and fraud. This was money that could have kept millions of small businesses and self-employed people afloat, yet it was instead mismanaged at the hands of well-connected insiders. The vast majority of those excluded earned under £50,000 per year before the pandemic, working in trades, retail, education, the creative industries, hospitality and events. They were economically active, often running microbusinesses that supported local jobs and sustained vital supply chains. As we have heard, 3.8 million people were excluded—roughly one in 10 of the UK workforce. While their neighbours received thousands of pounds to stay afloat, they were left with nothing. As a cabaret bar owner, I saw for myself what that meant in practice. My freelance artists, the musicians, the singers, the burlesque dancers, the drag queens and the self-employed performers received no help from the state. Years later, many are still living with the debts, which did not end when the lockdowns did. For those who were excluded, be they freelancers, sole traders or small businesses, survival often meant borrowing through bounce back loans, credit cards, overdrafts and personal loans. Many are still repaying those loans today, at a time when rising energy prices, inflation, supply chain pressures and the cost of living crisis make every repayment a struggle. What makes this hard to accept is that the exclusion was not inevitable; Treasury-ready solutions existed. Analysis by ExcludedUK shows that fully costed, low-fraud proposals based on HMRC data could have reached the vast majority of those excluded. Those solutions had backing from across the political spectrum and were supported by business groups and experts, yet Ministers in the Conservative Government chose not to act, unlike the Northern Ireland Executive, who worked with HMRC to deliver targeted grants to newly self-employed people and limited company directors who were excluded from UK-wide schemes. If it could be done in Northern Ireland, why could it not be done in the rest of the UK? The Government are rightly pursuing the fraudsters where money was wrongly paid out, but they cannot ignore the money that was wrongly withheld. The recently published final report of the covid counter-fraud commissioner makes it clear that weakness in preparedness, data sharing and oversight was the reason why millions were excluded. It is incumbent on the House to acknowledge that those who were excluded were wronged; it was a serious policy failure with lasting consequences, and we must address its legacy. That means looking seriously at debt relief or redress for those forced into borrowing to survive. It means learning from what worked in Northern Ireland and ensuring that in any future crisis, support is inclusive by default, so that no group of taxpayers are ever again told, “The computer says no.”

• 14 Jan 2026 · West Midlands Police · Hansard source

  More

  As a member of the Home Affairs Committee, I asked Chief Constable Guildford on two occasions whether AI was used in the preparation of the police report and he denied it both times, so I am pleased the truth has emerged and he is now considering his position. However, may I press the Home Secretary on the use of AI? I hear what she said, but while we await the Home Office’s guidance, will she issue preliminary instructions to chief constables asking them not to use AI in such circumstances?

• 13 Jan 2026 · Chinese Embassy · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister has asked for a question about planning, so I will give him one. I am struggling to think of an innocent reason why important details would be redacted from the original application. Can he tell me what explanation has been given for those redactions?

• 13 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Indeed I do. It is death by a thousand cuts. Those who run hospitality businesses have been hit by cost after cost after cost. The Government must listen. Alcohol duty brought in about £12.5 billion in 2024-25. Hospitality, by contrast, contributed over £60 billion to the economy in 2023 and supported over 2.5 million jobs—over 7% of the workforce. Yet UKHospitality estimates that 89,000 jobs—nearly 100,000—were lost in the nine months after the October 2024 Budget. Official figures show that 366 pubs closed in the year to December 2025. That is one pub every single day. The roots of this crisis lie in years of Conservative mismanagement, Brexit labour shortages, a broken business rates system, energy price shocks, commodity price increases and a cost of living crisis. Many in the sector hoped that the change of Government would bring a change of direction, yet things have only got worse with the rise in employer national insurance contributions. The cumulative effect is undeniable: rising costs for shorter opening hours and fewer staff. Offering us easier or longer opening hours does not help if we do not have customers coming through the door. Investment is deferred, and too often doors close for good. When that happens, high streets lose more than businesses; they lose employment, footfall and the social infrastructure on which communities depend. That is why the Lib Dems are calling for an emergency cut in VAT for hospitality to 15% until April 2027, real reform of business rates and a proper review of the unworkable wine duty system. Such measures would protect jobs, support high streets and, in time, strengthen the public finances rather than weaken them. The hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), who is no longer in the Chamber, asked where the money will come from. We keep telling Labour: get rid of the red lines and negotiate a customs union with the EU, which would raise £25 billion a year for the Exchequer. Businesses in Wimbledon and across the country are not asking for our pity; they are asking for a tax system that reflects the pressures they actually face. If Ministers are serious about protecting jobs, strengthening high streets and growing the economy, they should reverse this tax increase and introduce an emergency VAT reduction for hospitality.

• 13 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The line about alcohol duty in clause 86 may look technical, and even innocuous, but outside the Chamber, in places such as my constituency of Wimbledon, it lands with a thud. Before I go further, I should declare an interest: I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the night time economy and the owner of a speakeasy, CellarDoor, in Covent Garden. I have owned CellarDoor for nearly two decades—through the financial crisis, Brexit and covid—yet nothing compares to the crisis that hospitality is now facing. One constituent, a Campaign for Real Ale supporter, wrote to me asking why pubs have been hit yet again through changes to business rates. Another told me that the rateable value of his small unit off Haydons Road in Wimbledon has risen from just over £15,000 to more than £22,000. Another constituent, who runs venues in London and Birmingham, thought the Budget would bring relief. Instead, he is facing sharp increases in operating costs in the years ahead. Admittedly, the Chancellor has belatedly indicated that she will offer some form of business rate relief to pubs, but what about the rest of hospitality—the restaurants, cafés, bars and music venues?

• 13 Jan 2026 · Northern Ireland Political Institutions: Reform · Hansard source

  More

  That is helpful. The current 60:40:40 system strikes me as one that does protect minorities, while the danger of the consensus is that you get tripped up by hold-outs. That is what I see happening from my perspective outside.