Paul Kohler MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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.

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

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) on securing this important debate. I recognise that I am new to this portfolio, and those who have spoken before me know far more about it than I do, so I am still in listening mode. I have found many of the arguments compelling, if contradictory. I invite the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna) to intervene on me to explain her answer to the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister), if she wants to do so, because I would have liked to hear her answer. Maybe she can do so later. I begin by reaffirming the Liberal Democrats’ full, unwavering support for the Good Friday agreement. It transformed Northern Ireland by establishing institutions robust enough to bridge the deep sectarian divisions, an achievement that endures today. The Northern Ireland of today is not the Northern Ireland of 30 years ago, but maintaining the agreement does not mean preserving those institutions in aspic—quite the opposite, in fact. As a former sub-dean at University College London’s faculty of laws, I feel compelled to cite the warnings of its constitution unit, which in its recent work on Stormont reform highlighted how the current arrangements make institutional collapse all too possible and any recovery politically costly. The question we are therefore compelled to ask is whether strand 1 institutions are still fit for purpose in today’s Northern Ireland, and, if not, what reforms are necessary. Time does not permit an exhaustive list of the potential merits of reform, but three stand out clearly. The first is greater stability. Allowing the formation of the Executive to proceed when a party entitled to nominate the First Minister or Deputy First Minister refuses to do so would prevent a single party from vetoing Government altogether. That principle already applies to other ministerial posts, and would strengthen, not weaken, devolution and power sharing. The second is more effective decision making. Continued use of parallel consent and an overly lax triggering mechanism for a petition of concern has repeatedly blocked budgets, the election of a Speaker and legislation, even where there is overwhelming Assembly support. Replacing parallel consent with a weighted majority and restricting petitions of concern to their original purpose of protecting vital interests would still provide minority safeguards, absent the danger of deadlock. I would like someone to intervene on me on that point to explain why weighted majority does not give protection to minorities—because surely it does give some protection.

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

  More

  I entirely agree. Compelling as many of the arguments are from all sides, a situation in which governance is not happening cannot be right and cannot be the solution. Surely, compromise must be reached.

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

  More

  I do not know. I would like to hear from the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim. I am happy for him to intervene. Retaining the current arrangements comes at a real cost, both socially and economically. Political deadlock has hindered reforms in health and social care, while the ongoing divisions drain public finances through duplicated services, higher policing costs and lost investment. Those pressures have been compounded by Brexit. Northern Ireland did not vote to leave the EU, yet the previous Conservative Government’s approach has created persistent problems along the border, in Stormont and across the economy—

• 7 Jan 2026 · Northern Ireland Troubles Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Happy new year, Mr Speaker. The Secretary of State was sitting alongside the Minister for the Armed Forces on Monday, when I asked him whether he was listening to the concerns of veterans regarding the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. The Minister convinced me that he is listening, and we just heard the Secretary of State do likewise, but is anyone acting on those concerns? Before Christmas, at the Dispatch Box, the Secretary of State promised to write to me detailing which veterans groups he had met, but I have heard nothing since. I also wrote to the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to request a meeting to discuss veterans’ ongoing concerns, but I have heard nothing since. Will the Secretary of State please detail all the veterans groups he has met, and meet me to discuss their continuing concerns?

• 5 Jan 2026 · Northern Ireland Troubles Bill: Armed Forces Recruitment and Retention · Hansard source

  More

  I am supportive of the Government’s desire to move beyond the Tories’ failed legacy Act, provided that the legitimate concerns of our veterans are met. However, I am not convinced that the Northern Ireland Office is even listening to, let alone acting upon, those concerns. Can the Minister tell the House what discussions he has had with the Northern Ireland Office to address veteran concerns? What would he say to veterans dissatisfied with the safeguards in the Bill?

• 9 Dec 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles: Operation Kenova · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) for his question, and I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. I have three questions. First, do the Government accept the Operation Kenova report’s findings of “serious organisational failure” on the part of MI5, and if so, what concrete steps will they take to address those failures? Secondly, is the Secretary of State satisfied that his proposed legacy legislation contains adequate safeguards to ensure that honourable former service personnel who served lawfully and with integrity and followed orders in good faith do not fear persecution on the basis of the unlawful actions of either rogue individuals or the state? Thirdly, does the Secretary of State agree that the “neither confirm nor deny” policy must be exercised in a proportionate and necessary manner, and should not be used to protect agents who commit gross serious crime or to hide any serious misdeeds of the state?

• 8 Dec 2025 · Restriction of Jury Trials · Hansard source

  More

  I have some sympathy for the Minister. We all know that the Tories fiddled, leaving our criminal justice system to burn. As the Law Society president noted earlier this year, we are still not using our courts efficiently, despite what the Minister says. What steps have been taken to increase court sitting days and make better use of our under-utilised courtrooms?

• 24 Nov 2025 · Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban · Hansard source

  More

  According to the response to the Home Affairs Committee by the West Midlands police and crime commissioner, the Home Office was fully briefed in advance on the likely recommendation to ban visiting fans from the match, so can the Minister explain why the Government failed to offer additional support for the match to go ahead until after the ban was finalised?

• 19 Nov 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 · Hansard source

  More

  As I hope that the Secretary of State knows, my party and I are hugely supportive of his efforts to move beyond the Tories’ failed legacy Act, provided the legitimate concerns of our veterans are fully met. Will he detail specifically, either now or in writing, which veterans’ groups he has consulted on the wording of the Bill, and which ones have expressed acceptance of the Bill as drafted?