Paul Kohler MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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?

• 18 Nov 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree. We must go further and do more for veterans. The Bill does not go far enough at this stage. My party has always opposed the legacy Act, but we are clear that its replacement must address the legitimate concerns of veterans. As one can see from the joint statement issued last night by the veterans commissioners of the devolved nations, that is not currently the case. They have expressed concerns, which are shared on the Lib Dem Benches, that the Bill does not provide sufficient safeguards for veterans, nor does it provide sufficient safeguards against lawfare, historical narrative revision or disparities between how ex-security personnel and others will be treated. That is why my party has submitted a reasoned amendment, and will support the Conservative reasoned amendment, to deny Second Reading of the Bill until the fundamental issue of sufficient protection for veterans is addressed, along with enhanced parliamentary oversight, safeguarding of the independence of appointments, clarification on the role of the victims and survivors advisory group, and measures to ensure that no Government can use ministerial discretion to shut down the search for the truth. I realise that that will disappoint the Secretary of State, but I reiterate what I said at the beginning of my speech. My party commends him for all his hard work in seeking to move on from the Tories’ failed legacy Act. Its successor, however, must command genuine confidence across all communities while ensuring our veterans’ peace of mind. I pledge on behalf of my party to do all we can to help him to achieve that goal.

• 18 Nov 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree. We must never equate our armed forces with the paramilitaries and terrorists on both the nationalist and Unionist sides. Veterans deserve assurances that their service rights and data are treated fairly, securely and proportionately. That is why we call on the Government to come forward with binding statutory safeguards, including a clearer presumption against repeated investigations without objectively certified new and significant evidence; an expanded duty to consider operational context; strengthened welfare protections; and a presumption of remote participation. It is important that the voices of not just veterans, but all victims and survivors are heard. Clause 8 does that by establishing a group to advise both the Legacy Commission and the Secretary of State. However, its members will be appointed by the Secretary of State, with its numbers limited to as few as three and no more than seven, which risks its voice being limited and its independence being compromised. By concentrating sweeping powers in the hands of the Secretary of State, the Bill risks creating an opaque system that offers little genuine parliamentary oversight or scrutiny. As hon. Members are aware, there is already a Commission for Victims and Survivors, which has for almost two decades ensured that those most affected by the troubles are heard. There is a danger that the proposed victims and survivors ministerial advisory group, despite its separate function, might trespass into the existing forum’s domain, which, with its wide range of perspectives, including veterans from both Unionist and nationalist backgrounds and those who have served in the Crown forces, has the all-important cross-community legitimacy. Trust is so important. Capturing that breadth and establishing that trust in the newly proposed and much smaller advisory group will be difficult. I therefore ask the Government to clarify how the new advisory group will interact with the existing forum. Will the Commissioner for Victims and Survivors have a formal role in the advisory group? Otherwise, how will the voices of veterans and former security personnel, who are both victims and key stakeholders, be heard?

• 18 Nov 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Although I have not held this spokesperson role for long, I have met veterans, victims and survivors, academics and Members from across this House and the other place. Those conversations have been humbling and instructive, reminding me of the horror that Northern Ireland endured and the courage of those who lived through and served during the troubles. I begin by recognising the Secretary of State’s work in bringing forward this Bill. Dealing with the legacy of the past requires legislation and practical action that the public can trust. I want to make it clear that the Liberal Democrats welcome the intent to repeal and replace part 2, and certain aspects of part 3, of the Conservatives’ failed legacy Act. That legislation was a profound misjudgment. It commanded no confidence in Northern Ireland, was opposed by every major party and placed the UK in breach of its human rights obligations. Not only did the Tories provide conditional immunity for serious troubles-related crimes, but they offended victims and—the shadow Secretary of State seemed to forget this—alienated veterans by appearing to equate them with terrorists. This Bill rightly removes those provisions, ends immunity and restores the principle that no one is beyond the law. Clause 1 confirms that the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery will continue under a new name—the Legacy Commission—with reformed governance and functions. That recognises the need to rebuild the process to have one that the people of Northern Ireland can trust. We support the Government’s intention to reform the commission, but expectations are high and confidence is fragile. Any effective legacy process must also ensure that the narratives of the troubles remain accurate and that victims of terrorism are neither forgotten nor morally equated with perpetrators. At the same time, they were victims of lawful, and occasionally unlawful, acts by the state, whose right to truth is equally important. Only a system founded on transparency, independence and fairness can command confidence across all communities, which previous actions, such as the letters of comfort issued to paramilitaries in the past, did so much to undermine. Clause 3 sets out the Legacy Commission’s structures and functions, including investigating deaths and serious harm, holding inquisitorial proceedings, producing a full record of deaths and securing public confidence—a requirement I strongly welcome. It also establishes an oversight board to provide strategic direction and scrutiny, but with a board drawn from within the organisation, the real test of its effectiveness will lie in the independence and integrity of those appointed to lead the commission in the first place. Clauses 4 to 6 give the Secretary of State power to appoint commissioners, directors of investigation and judicial panel members. Even with the consultation requirements under clause 9, that concentration of powers risks undermining trust. Appointments through the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission or a similar independent mechanism would surely strengthen public confidence. My concern is heightened as the Secretary of State also appoints the victims and survivors advisory group under clause 8. When one person controls both the commission’s leadership and its advisory body, independence is difficult to discern. Turning to the fundamental issue of veterans protections under the Bill, those amount to the following. Unsolicited contact would be limited to official channels, which is clearly important. There will be an end to repeat investigations, but the undefined caveat of “unless it is essential to do so” leaves the scope unclear. Veterans will have the ability to seek anonymity, although a provision to that effect already exists under the Criminal Evidence (Witness Anonymity) Act 2008. Veterans will have the right to give evidence remotely, but there will not be a default presumption to do so. Veterans’ welfare will have to be considered, which is at best vague, and veterans will be represented on the ministerial advisory group, which while welcome does not in itself offer protection. Veterans are surely right in arguing that this is not enough. This has implications not just for them, but for our current service personnel and potential future recruits. As the nine four-star generals who wrote to The Times last week made clear, the provisions of the Bill have profound implications for both service morale and future recruitment.

• 18 Nov 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree. The Bill will have profound implications for both service morale and future recruitment, particularly with respect to our special forces. That is why it must go further. With more than 10% of the Lib Dem Benches made up of former members of the armed services, my parliamentary party is acutely aware of the risks that veterans talk about and the sacrifices they and their fallen comrades made. Our concern is fairness, not shielding wrongdoing. Under this Bill, many veterans will remain exposed to uncertainty, possible retrospective judgment and scrutiny of sensitive personal data and service records. That concern is heightened by the stark disparity in record keeping. The actions of veterans were documented in detail, whereas the activities of those engaged in terrorism were not. That results in an imbalance in documentary evidence that must be acknowledged and addressed. It is noteworthy that while the state has protected itself through the Secretary of State’s discretion over the handling of sensitive information, the Bill gives veterans no such safeguards.

• 17 Nov 2025 · Asylum Policy · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome a sizeable amount of what the Home Secretary has said and is trying to do. Earlier this year the immigration and asylum chamber of the upper tribunal in the case of IX reiterated the established administrative law requirements that Government decision making in asylum cases be proportionate and reasonable and not expose individuals to prolonged or indefinite uncertainty—something that the Home Office used to criticise, under the Tories in fact, as a lengthy limbo period. Can the Home Secretary clarify how her proposal to require a 20-year period before someone granted asylum may obtain a permanent right to remain complies with these fundamental principles?

• 5 Nov 2025 · Council of Europe and the European Convention on Human Rights · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles) on securing this debate. I am pleased to speak about the ECHR and the UK’s membership of the Council of Europe. Across the political spectrum, parties are flirting with withdrawal. It feels like Brexit déjà vu, with the same hollow promises of taking back control, the same disregard for facts and the same blindness to consequence. The siren voices who said leaving the EU would be easy are now saying the same about leaving the ECHR, and thereby the Council of Europe. Lord Wolfson’s recent report to the Conservative leader, for example, offers a threadbare fig leaf, based on an extremely narrow reading of the law that downplays the legal obstacles and, by his own admission, ignores the political ones. As Lord Wolfson knows, withdrawal would not be a technical exercise in legislative drafting, but a rupture in the constitutional fabric that binds these islands together. Reform, not rupture, should be our guiding principle; the convention can be updated to serve a modern democracy without sacrificing its founding principles. Two practical measures would command broad support. First, the UK could lead efforts to clarify the scope of key provisions, particularly article 8, so that domestic courts can apply them with greater predictability and closer regard to parliamentary intent. Secondly, rather than withdrawing, we could work with other Council of Europe members to update the living instrument doctrine, ensuring that the Court’s interpretation better reflects democratic consent and contemporary realities. Those would be acts not of retreat, but leadership, strengthening Britain’s international role as a principled champion of the rule of law. Despite what Lord Wolfson says, there are serious legal barriers to withdrawal. As the Liberal Democrat spokesperson on Northern Ireland, I must warn of the profound risks to peace at home. The ECHR is embedded in the Scotland Act 1998, the Wales Act 2017, the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and the Good Friday agreement. Removing it would require overhauling devolution and entail legislative chaos. Turning to Northern Ireland, withdrawal would breach our international commitments, destabilise all communities, betray those who built peace and force renegotiation of the UK-EU trade and co-operation agreement. I say this to the Tories, Reform and the Labour leadership: flirting with populism for political convenience endangers both our unity at home and our reputation abroad. As Brexit has shown, dismantling international commitments might sound easy and liberating—but, as we know to our cost, it is neither. It is a hugely damaging, expensive diversion that will only make our problems worse.

• 29 Oct 2025 · Asylum Seekers: MOD Housing · Hansard source

  More

  My colleague on the Home Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray) made an excellent point. The asylum accommodation contract signed under the previous Tory Government gifted scandalously high profits to private providers. Frankly, it is a PPE-type scandal. Clearsprings’ profits soared from £6,000 per employee in 2020 to £300,000 per employee in 2024, with its owner Graham King entering the Sunday Times rich list. Vast sums are still being wasted on asylum hotel accommodation under those same flawed arrangements, despite this Government having been in power for 16 months, and the numbers housed in hotels has increased by 8% over the past year. Will the Minister please explain how any new asylum accommodation will be provided in a cost-effective manner that does not allow private companies to make further obscene profits on the backs of the UK’s hard-working people?

• 27 Oct 2025 · Prisoner Release Checks · Hansard source

  More

  As the Justice Secretary admits, there is a staffing crisis in our prisons that his Government inherited from the brass-necked Tories. Over a third of prison officers now have less than two years’ experience. With too many officers leaving the profession and too few joining, is it any wonder that mistakes like this happen increasingly frequently? While the Ministry of Justice has sought to address the prison officer shortfall by recruiting overseas, the Home Office, as we have heard, is undermining those actions by raising the payment threshold for the skilled worker visa. I have a simple question. Is the Justice Secretary asking the Home Office to add prison officers to the skills shortage list—yes or no?

• 27 Oct 2025 · Victims and Courts Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Well, of course, restorative justice is not right for every victim. I have said to the hon. Member that it is right for many victims, including myself. I do not begin to understand why he finds that a difficult point to understand. As I know from personal experience, when my wife, eldest daughter and I met one of the attackers who subjected me to a murderous attack in my home and terrorised my family, restorative justice is not about forgiveness, although that often happens as a by-product, but in giving the victim time and space to move on from the crime. My daughter, who moved out of the family home following the attack, moved back in after the restorative justice meeting. It allowed her to demythologise the perpetrator: no longer a monster, but a deeply flawed human being who she could look straight in the eye and cast from her nightmares. That meeting transformed our family and her life. Yet for far too many victims, restorative justice remains out of reach. Sadly, only one in 20 adult victims with a known offender are routinely told about it. That is why new clause 15 is so crucial: it would create a statutory right to a meaningful referral to restorative justice services; not a token leaflet or tick-box exercise, but a proper referral made as soon as reasonably practicable once the offender is identified, and offered subsequently at appropriate times during the criminal justice process. I emphasise again that participation would always be voluntary, but every victim would have the right to be informed and supported to decide for themselves—what is wrong with that? The Government may argue that they are considering strengthening the victims code; indeed, clause 8 enhances the Victims’ Commissioner’s reporting. That is welcome, but not enough. The commissioner can report only on what exists. New clause 15 would ensure that there is something meaningful to measure: a statutory right to referral. Without it, access to restorative justice will remain inconsistent and uncertain. While new clause 15 would establish a meaningful statutory right, new clause 16 would ensure a meaningful review process by requiring the Secretary of State to report on the uptake of restorative justice and to make recommendations to improve access. If the Government truly value restorative justice, let them prove it with evidence—let Parliament see the data and the plan to expand its use. The reporting duty would complement the commissioner’s powers while they review compliance with the code. The new clause goes further, reporting on usage, barriers and ways to increase participation. Together, they create both the right and the oversight that victims deserve. These new clauses carry no cost implications. It is about co-ordination, not cash. The infrastructure already exists; what it is missing is the statutory backbone to ensure that every victim, wherever they live, has equal access to restorative justice. Let us not forget that while restorative justice is all about putting the victims at the heart of the criminal justice process, it also has the proven added advantage of cutting rates of recidivism. The Government often speak about tackling the causes of reoffending—employment, housing, addiction—but restorative justice tackles the psychology of criminality. It changes behaviour by confronting offenders with the human consequences of their actions—not every offender, of course, but a significant number. If the Government truly stand with victims and want to cut reoffending, they must not simply make meek promises to review the code or commission another pilot; they must make access to restorative justice meaningful and real. They must support new clauses 15 and 16—if not today, then in the other place—and allow restorative justice to do what punishment alone cannot: heal the victim, reform the offender and mend the system on which we all depend.

• 27 Oct 2025 · Victims and Courts Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My new clauses 15 and 16 concern restorative justice. They are supported by the charities Why Me?, for whom I am an ambassador, and Calm Mediation, as well as the Restorative Justice Council and others who work every day with victims and offenders. I thank hon. Members from my own party and from the Labour and Conservative Benches, who asked me to add their names in support. The need for these clauses could not be clearer. After years of Conservative failure, our justice system stands at breaking point, with unacceptable delays. Our courts are clogged, witnesses drift away or begin to forget, and our prisons are stretched beyond breaking point. The Tories have left us with a legacy of neglect, and the people who suffer most are the victims, whose voices are too frequently ignored. We must do more to put the victim at the heart of the criminal justice process, rather than simply as one of the pieces of evidence to be heard in court. Victims are more than just witnesses to the crime, but too often that is their only role in court proceedings. Increasingly, when we talk about justice for victims, the debate collapses into retributive justice, as if all victims want is to lock the door and throw away the key. Even David Gauke, the most liberal Lord Chancellor in my political lifetime, in his recent and mostly excellent sentencing review falls into this error with a chapter on victims focusing keeping them better informed about their sometimes unrealistic expectations concerning the severity of punishment. His review, like today’s Bill, makes no mention of restorative justice, which should be at the heart of giving victims access to justice. Victims of crime do not want retribution but closure, and giving them the opportunity to enter into a process that allows them to share their feelings concerning the crime with others, often culminating in a meeting with the perpetrator, has repeatedly been shown to achieve just that.

• 21 Oct 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Government new clause 1 seeks to strengthen the deportation framework by making it available to those given a suspended sentence. I urge the House to pause before we simply nod it through. It may be politically attractive to say that we are toughening deportation powers, but in practice the change risks blurring the distinction between the offenders who pose a genuine threat to the public and those who do not. A suspended sentence is imposed precisely where the court believes that immediate custody is not necessary for justice or public safety. To treat those individuals like those who have served time in prison lacks logic and may well invite legal challenge. My concern is that we are legislating in haste, as seen in today’s Committee of the whole House, and layering new powers on a system that already fails to use effectively those that it already has. Instead of focusing on headline-grabbing amendments, we should be fixing the operational chaos in the Home Office that allows people to slip through the cracks in the first place, as we have seen in my constituency; the notorious Wimbledon prowler has recently been released but not deported, despite the Home Office vowing to deport him when he was sent down in 2019. What assessment have the Government made of the likely number of offenders who will be deported under the expanded definition, and how will the Home Office ensure that deportation decisions made under the broader power remain compliant with article 8 rights and do not clog up the courts with appeals that could delay the removal of genuinely dangerous offenders?

• 21 Oct 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Could the hon. Lady tell us why a judge would suspend the sentence?

• 21 Oct 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 21 Oct 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I say to the right hon. Gentleman and many hon. Members that the prison population is a supply-led industry. If we build more prisons, we will just get more prisoners. It does not address the issue. All history tells us that—look at America. We imprison more people in this country than is done in Europe, yet we have a higher rate of criminality. More people are imprisoned in America than here, yet America has a higher rate of criminality. Building prisons is a fool’s errand.

• 20 Oct 2025 · Asylum Seekers: Support and Accommodation · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) on leading this important debate. I begin by declaring an interest: a previous donor to my election campaign has an interest in Stay Belvedere Hotels, a sub-contractor of Clearsprings, which is one of the three principal providers of asylum accommodation under the Home Office contract. I am also a member of the Home Affairs Committee, which recently completed an inquiry into asylum accommodation and will be issuing its report later this month. Although I will not be speaking in my capacity as a member of that Committee or revealing conclusions from the forthcoming report, I will make reference during my speech to evidence given to the Committee in open session that is already in the public domain. As we have heard, the British taxpayer is wasting obscene amounts of money on the provision of asylum accommodation, not through generosity, but because of the incompetence and cynicism of the previous Conservative Government and the failure of the current Labour Administration, I am afraid, to address those deficiencies. The processing of applications was deliberately delayed under the Tories as they sought to make political capital from their flawed Rwanda scheme. According to the latest figures, nearly 90,000 applications are outstanding in respect of 110,000 people, with 60% having waited over six months and one third over a year. That represents a huge waste of public money, which is why my party is calling for the establishment of nightingale processing centres to clear the backlog within a year, paid for by an immediate and dramatic reduction in accommodation costs, which are far too high, particularly in respect of hotels. Why are hotel costs so high? As I have seen, it is not as if the accommodation is luxurious, with two or three to a room in hotels that have turned into overcrowded hostels. The cost is so high because the Conservative Government agreed contracts that gave the three principal providers of asylum accommodation huge incentives to house applicants in hotels. The profit clawback clause in the contract was based on a fixed percentage of the cost of the accommodation provided. As the base cost of a hotel accommodation is up to eight times more expensive than other accommodation, providers could make up to eight times the profit before the clause kicked in. The private providers consequently had a huge disincentive to move applicants out of hotels after the pandemic ended, and that is why more than 30,000 are still in hotels. Despite what the Government say in the media, those numbers are again on the rise, with the latest figures showing an 8% increase in the number of applicants housed in hotels in the last 12 months. The flawed accommodation contract is the reason why Clearsprings’ profits rose from £6,000 per employee in 2020 to a staggering £300,000 per employee in 2024. Yet, when I asked about the profit clawback clause during a Home Affairs Committee evidence session, it was clear that neither the Minister—not this Minister, I hasten to add, but his predecessor—nor her senior officials even knew how the profit clawback clause worked. Neither did they show any appetite for renegotiating the provision or any great enthusiasm for exiting the contracts, despite a break clause that becomes operative from next year. In addition to the hugely inflated costs of providing accommodation, asylum seekers are an excessive drain on the public purse because, unlike in other countries, those awaiting a decision in the UK are banned from working for at least a year. In contrast, Canada allows applicants to begin working immediately, and Germany after three months. The UK stands as an absolute outlier in taking such a restrictive approach, despite evidence showing that early work boosts integration and the economy, reduces dependency, restores dignity and saves taxpayers money. The UK’s current position is indefensible, which is why the Lib Dems have joined with many groups in civil society in calling for an end to the ban. The asylum system is failing both those who seek refuge and the public who fund it. Endless delays, costly hotels and flawed contracts provide neither justice nor value for money. We need faster processing, an end to the ban and an accommodation system that does not allow the private sector to make obscene profits. Finally, I remind hon. Members that undocumented migrants became an issue only with the advent of Brexit. Under the Dublin accord, would-be applicants could be returned to their first point of entry into the EU. In answer to the point that the Tories have kept making this afternoon, it acted as a huge disincentive to crossing the channel. While the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) fathered Brexit, his friends in the Conservative party delivered it and Labour sadly chose to be its nursemaid. They vowed to make Brexit work, but it appears today, in reports from across the Atlantic, that the Chancellor is finally seeing that that might not be possible. I asked the UK Border Security Commander at the Home Affairs Committee last week if he could give me just one example of how Brexit had secured our borders, and he was unable to do so, as can be seen on TikTok. That is why the only way to properly secure our borders is to re-engage with Europe.

• 15 Oct 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 · Hansard source

  More

  Further to the Secretary of State’s comments on the adequacy of the legacy and reconciliation Act, I would like to turn to the role of the European convention on human rights. As he will be aware, the Leader of the Opposition seems more interested in the views of the Member for Mar-a-Lago and Moscow than the vision of her predecessor Winston Churchill and is now calling for withdrawal from the ECHR. May I therefore ask the Secretary of State what assessment his Department has made as to the effect that ceasing to be a signatory of the convention would have on the Good Friday agreement, the Windsor protocol, the new legacy framework and Northern Ireland’s institutions in general?