Mr Paul Kohler
MP for Wimbledon · Liberal Democrat · United Kingdom
“(4) For the purposes of seeking to prevent homelessness among asylum seekers and refugees, the Taskforce must— (a) work to ensure that the work of different services involved in facilitating the transition out of asylum support of asylum seekers and refugees is coordinated; (b) work to ensure that asylum seekers and refugees granted core…”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“According to it, allowing those who have been waiting more than six months for a decision to work would save the Government £4.4 billion a year, increase tax revenue by £800 million and add £1 billion to GDP. Time spent being prevented from working has a scarring effect on refugees’ future likelihood of being in work.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In June, the House of Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee noted “with disappointment that no strategy for integration in England was written following the publication of Indicators for Integration.” The Committee said: “We welcome the commitment to develop an effective cross-government integration strategy but are concerned that the…”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As I made clear in a previous sitting, I have serious concerns about the use of the independent immigration appeals authority to handle first-tier tribunal cases, in particular because Australia trialled something similar and found that non-judicial tribunal panels often took more time to reach decisions because their members struggled wi…”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am, for my many sins, a member of the Home Affairs Committee. Time and again, we see that the Home Office does not have the bandwidth to deal with every issue that it has to confront. I am still bemused by the point made by the hon.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“(5) The Secretary of State must, no later than twelve months after the establishment of the Taskforce, and annually thereafter, lay before Parliament a report on— (a) the work of the Taskforce; (b) the evidence considered under subsection (4)(d) on the move-on period, and any recommendations made by the Taskforce; and (c) any changes made…”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
The complete record
780 held · 711 searchable for Mr Paul Kohler. The searchable lines are below in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 10.
This is not an official version of UK Parliament proceedings. It reproduces the published record and links to it; the official version is the one UK Parliament publishes.
“According to it, allowing those who have been waiting more than six months for a decision to work would save the Government £4.4 billion a year, increase tax revenue by £800 million and add £1 billion to GDP. Time spent being prevented from working has a scarring effect on refugees’ future likelihood of being in work. These effects are well documented; the longer someone is out of a job, the harder it is for them to get one. A study of Swiss asylum seekers found that, for each year they are prevented from working, their future employment rate falls by 4 to 5 percentage points. Furthermore, preventing refugees from working only drives greater numbers of people towards the black economy. Instead of pursuing policies that improve prospects for asylum seekers, the current path serves only to increase state dependency and enrich criminality.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Our proposal to allow refugees to begin working after three months waiting for a decision would generate five times more revenue than the misguided debt levied on asylum seekers by earlier provisions in the Bill. It would have an instantaneous effect and generate a much more positive financial outcome than that immiserating proposal, both for the Home Office budget, which is under strain from the ballooning asylum bill, and for the Treasury’s tax receipts. In 2022, the Labour party acknowledged that the current 12-month waiting period should be halved, yet the Government refuse to pursue this common-sense policy. The National Institute of Economic and Social Research has modelled the macroeconomic effects of lifting the ban.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am saddened—as I suspect are many Labour Members in their hearts—that the Government will not concede the point. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am saddened that the Minister will not move on that point. The Labour party, when out of power, supported this proposal. As my party knows, supporting something when out of power, but not when in power, is not a good message to send to the electorate. The dignity of labour is important, and work is important to the ability to integrate into the community. The new clause would also make money for the Treasury. Why is work a pull factor for the UK but not for every other country? Why are we such an outlier? No answer has been given. The existing policy simply excludes migrants from society. It makes them vulnerable to the black economy and the criminals who frequent it, and simply does nothing to improve the lives of people, many of whom will be granted asylum.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. Clause 35 will allow nominated public authorities to make reasonable and conclusive grounds decisions in relation to children. That has been welcomed by the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, who notes, as the Minister did, that this has “been successfully piloted and has demonstrated stronger identification and support where local authority partners such as social care workers can contribute to decision-making.” My party consequently supports clause 35.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I ask the Minister to reflect on those figures and explain why she wants to continue with this cliff edge. I call upon the Government not to pursue clause stand part.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Such decisions are not perfect, and removing the recovery period for those with a negative decision means that people who have been trafficked will, in many cases, face being left without protection. The statistics are stark. Since 2023, the proportion of reconsidered decisions that turn positive has been higher than the proportion of initial positive decisions at the reasonable grounds and conclusive grounds stages. At the reasonable grounds stage, positive outcomes after reconsideration ran between 62% and 82% between 2021 and 2025, while initial positive rates fell as low as 53% in 2024. Between January 2021 and June 2025, of those won a reconsideration of a negative reasonable grounds decision, 646—or 70% of that group—went on to get a positive conclusive grounds decision, too.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Under section 61 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, a person is entitled to a minimum 30-day recovery period from the day on which they receive a positive reasonable grounds decision. Clause 37 amends section 61 so that, in the event that a person receives a negative conclusive grounds decision within the 30-day period, the recovery period and its associated protections come to an end. It also makes similar provision enabling an equivalent outcome with regard to any additional recovery period under section 62. This cliff edge risks placing vulnerable people in the way of future harm. A report published by the Modern Slavery and Human Rights Policy and Evidence Centre, led by the University of Oxford, describes the overturn rate of negative NRM decisions as extremely high.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I know I am a voice in the wilderness, but I wish Parliament would use these Committee sessions to try to improve legislation instead of collapsing into the pantomime of the Chamber. That is not a criticism of the hon. Lady by any means, or any of the contributions I have heard, but sometimes we fall into political discourse when we should be trying to improve things.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“UNHCR therefore encourages the Government to reconsider this provision.” If a refugee is not lawfully staying under these provisions, but cannot be removed for other purposes, what is their status? Are they lawfully present or do they have no status whatsoever?”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Particularly where removal is not possible, including because of other applicable non-refoulement obligations under international human rights law, a refugee may remain authorised to stay in the UK under domestic law. At a minimum, such a person would remain ‘lawfully present’ in the UK for the purposes of the Refugee Convention. Accordingly, they would continue to be entitled to those rights and standards of treatment under the Refugee Convention that are contingent upon ‘lawful presence’ in the territory. Whether they also remain ‘lawfully staying’ is likely to depend on the nature of the leave granted and the extent to which it provides a sufficiently stable and durable basis for residence.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will read a paragraph from its critique as I would like to hear what the Minister has to say about it: “The proposed provision conflates two distinct concepts within the Refugee Convention: whether a refugee falls within the exception to non-refoulement contained in Article 33(2), and whether that refugee is ‘lawfully staying’ in the territory of a Contracting State. While a finding within the meaning of Article 33(2) that a refugee constitutes a danger to national security or, having been convicted of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community may give rise to removal proceedings, it does not, in itself, determine whether they are lawfully staying for the purposes of the Refugee Convention.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That was not an attack on the hon. Lady at all. I have been in the Chamber on the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill Committee for the last few sittings, which is why I have not been here. I still think we should try to work together on improving legislation, but I am a voice in the wilderness, as I said— [ Interruption. ] Well, we do not; we turn it into a political debate where we just make points against the other side. We replicate Parliament. It should be more than that. The UNHCR has been critical of this provision—this is not a political point; I am asking a question.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am just trying to understand the hon. Lady’s point. When someone is in receipt of benefits because of poverty, we do not ask them to repay it, do we?”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Just to correct the record, I did not say that there is no point in scrutiny; I said that we need scrutiny. What we do not need is politicking, where you each stand up and say how wonderful you are and your position will not move. We need to move on as a Parliament. I know that none of you likes that, but that is what we should be doing.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We need them to become part of our community. Othering them in this way does no good.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Amendment 50 addresses the fact that, according to the clause, children will become indebted on their 18th birthday—we have heard an indicative amount of £10,000, but it might be more. Clearly, no child has contributed fiscally when they reach maturity to the benefits they have received from the state—be that benefits or education—but the clause is othering child refugees and seems wrong in principle and wrong in practice. I ask the Minister: does it apply to all child refugees who reach maturity while receiving asylum support? Does it apply to victims of trafficking, for example? This seems wholly wrong. As I say, if we want refugees to integrate, othering them in this way does no good whatsoever and simply fuels the frankly toxic debate in this country that refugees are somehow not part of our community.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Will refugees who are unable to work through no fault of their own, for example due to medical conditions or care responsibilities, still be able to qualify for settlement? I would also like to hear an answer on that from the Minister.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“How will the Home Office ensure that the asylum support repayment system does not leave refugees vulnerable to exploitation if they are struggling the repay their debt? Hon. Members raised questions on clause 23(5). As the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion said, affordability is very different from destitution—destitution is such a high bar. If people are trying to integrate into society and they cannot afford these repayments, what will happen? They will become vulnerable to loan sharks. That is the kind of problem they will face. I would also like to focus on the consequences of non-repayment. If refugees are required to fully repay their debt before being eligible for settlement, that risks leaving the most vulnerable with prolonged insecure status. Can the Minister clarify that point?”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As we have heard, the Bill offers little detail on how the asylum support repayment system will work in practice, such as how repayments will be made, the exact amount that refugees will be expected to pay back, and how much refugees need to earn before they are required to make repayments. Can the Minister commit to a timeline for bringing forward those crucial details? Requiring refugees to pay back their asylum support is likely to create barriers to integration, leaving refugees in debt at exactly the point where they should be focused on rebuilding their lives. How will the Home Office ensure that this proposal does not undermine wider Government objectives on improving social cohesion? The Red Cross questioned that in its evidence.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I wish to make two swift points about what the Minister has just said. First, does the tax system not allow people to contribute—is that not the whole point? When people are integrated, they contribute via the tax system. Othering refugees because they came to us as refugees strikes me as completely the wrong approach, and one that we do not apply to other forms of state help. Secondly, I am no doubt being obtuse here, but can the Minister point me to the consequences for non-payment? I am still not clear on that.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Minister mentions the health surcharge, but it is different for somebody who comes to the country on a work visa and goes in with their eyes open about what the deal is, how they will be paid and how the market assesses costs to them. We are talking here about supporting people who are desperate and have come to us for help, and then saying, “Oh, by the way, you now owe us a vast amount of money.” What we should want is for them to contribute by integrating into society and paying their taxes.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Is the list now identical in Northern Ireland? I just looked it up, and in England someone can have a blind person’s badge issued in Northern Ireland, but that does not appear to be on the Northern Ireland list. Are the lists identical—and if not, why not?”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As the Secretary of State said, the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill has now passed to the other place, notwithstanding the continuing concerns of senior generals and veterans associations; more still needs to be done. I than him for his sustained engagement and openness with veterans organisations, including the SAS Regimental Association, with whom I have been working closely. We must avoid any adversarial framing of the relationship between veterans and victims, as I remain convinced that a compromise to ensure proper protections for veterans can be achieved while delivering justice for victims. Will he commit to continuing to work with the SAS Regimental Association and its lawyers to ensure that the Bill delivers the vital safeguards that our veterans need?”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I appreciate that ICRIR and its successor, the legacy commission, have information recovery functions, but they could be doing far more to promote reconciliation in Northern Ireland. In a letter to me, the Secretary of State places great emphasis on measures in the legacy Act, referring to oral histories. I do not doubt that those will have a role to play in reconciliation, but oral histories alone are not enough. The Bill presents a unique opportunity to review our approaches to reconciliation, and to try to make a more active approach, and broader our understanding of justice.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Information and answers give families restored faith. The process built trust, and even though they did not get what they wanted from Jon Boutcher at the outset, they all spoke highly of the process, which helped with the healing. Information retrieval is a powerful thing. We saw that in the recent report into Rory O’Kelly’s murder by an IRA gunman, which provided catharsis to his two children. Anne Frances O’Kelly described the process as “something sacred and transformative”. The report did not reveal the identity of the killer—it could not—and it did not lead to the prosecution of a terrorist for a heinous crime, but it provided closure all the same. I share, as I hope we all do, Anne’s hope that as many families as possible will be able to engage in that process, which has such a key role to play in reconciliation.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The one thing that nearly every victim wants is answers. In particular for those families still wondering about their murdered loved ones, the inevitable questions that come with a violent death still haunt them today: how, where, who and, most importantly, why? I wish to reflect on a meeting I had at the excellent WAVE centre when I visited Northern Ireland earlier this year. I met relatives of those who had been murdered by Stakeknife, and who had gone through the Operation Kenova process. They did not get what they initially wanted, which was prosecutions, but they were so thankful for the process, to Jon Boutcher who headed it for much of the time, and for the fact that someone was listening to their concerns, and they had the opportunity to speak to those involved and get answers to what had happened.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If we want to achieve reconciliation, we must broaden our conception of justice to move beyond the adversarial and recriminatory, and focus on establishing truth and finding answers. Yesterday I broadly focused on veterans. That is because my party and the constituencies we represent are home to many veterans, including many who served with courage in Northern Ireland. Their protection and welfare are hugely important to my party. In saying that, I do not wish to lose sight of who the Bill must deliver for, and the thousands of victims, survivors and families who lived through the troubles and still carry that weight today. As others have said, veterans and victims are not two separate groups. Those who served bravely as part of Operation Banner and their families are also victims of the troubles.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In these debates the notion of justice is often mediated through a lawyer’s narrow conception of the word, and in terms of criminal prosecution and civil liability—an essentially retributive concept. But justice is about more than just retribution. As I know from personal experience it also includes restorative justice, where truth and sometimes reconciliation are key. That broader more holistic view of justice is not at variance to truth and reconciliation, but a critical component. Mediating justice through the narrow lawyer’s lens risks preserving divisions and animosities, for healing will rarely be achieved through lengthy inquiries providing limited chances of prosecution.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I was hugely taken by the points raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) and the right hon. and gallant Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison). Their remarks on the passage of time, the fading of memory, and the vanishing chance of achieving justice were insightful. I think the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak went as far as to suggest, as I have heard some in the veteran community also say, that justice might not be possible and we should focus on truth and reconciliation. However, as the Secretary of State said a little later, one cannot have reconciliation without justice. Members will accuse me of being a typical Lib Dem, but I think both Members are correct. The key to resolving the apparent disagreement lies in how we define justice.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My party tabled an amendment that included a different certification process, as suggested by the SAS Regimental Association, whereby the director of investigations would issue a certificate and give reasons. The Government also had a fair point to make in their amendment 192: that the process should only begin after other sources of evidence have been fully explored. We all had something to bring to the table, and had we been discussing this in a sensible Committee upstairs, we would have improved the Bill. Please, for the future, can we think about having Committees upstairs, bringing in our Northern Ireland colleagues, on Bills such as this? As I said, yesterday we heard from Members across the Committee in powerful and often moving speeches that covered a wide array of views from the various communities impacted by the Bill.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Provided that we invited our Northern Ireland colleagues, a less formal Committee upstairs would have been more effective. I think we all want to avoid repeat investigations in the absence of compelling new evidence. My party supported the Tories’ new clause 21 to that effect, which was excellent in many respects. That included a certification process with a Supreme Court judge. The Secretary of State said he thought that was impracticable—I agree. I have known a few Supreme Court judges. They do not have the time, they do not have the inclination and, frankly, many of them do not have the evidential expertise to provide that function efficiently.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“May I begin by apologising to the Committee? Last week’s carry-over motion was a bad-tempered, partisan affair with lots of angry chuntering. I assumed that this week’s Committee of the whole House would be similar and said something to that effect at the beginning of my speech yesterday. I could not have been more wrong. There were so many profound and compelling speeches. I was here for almost eight hours listening to them, and I was in awe of the Members who spoke from all sides of the Committee. It was a wonderful moment that spoke so highly of this House, no matter how we agree and disagree. I still think we should have had a Committee upstairs, however, and I want to give an example from yesterday to prove my point.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Sadly, the Liberal Democrats will not be supporting the Bill, because it our view it still does not do enough to protect veterans or to promote reconciliation and justice for victims. For that reason, we hope that more will happen during the Bill’s passage in the other place. Much can be done to improve the Bill, and I hope the Government are still listening. Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I echo the words of the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart): it has been a huge honour to be part of this debate over the past two days. I have heard so many profound, moving and thoughtful speeches—it has said so much about this House. I thank the brave veterans who did so much during Operation Banner to preserve the rule of law and keep people safe. I also say this to every victim: I hope you find the solace you require, the truth you demand and the justice you deserve. Those things are utterly important. I thank the Secretary of State and his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn), for the constructive approach they have taken throughout. We often disagree, but he has always been helpful and constructive, which means a lot to everyone in this House.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“At the time, that was just collateral damage: a damning indictment of the Conservatives’ cavalier attitude to the rule of law and to our international obligations, but it has now become central to their ill-conceived plans to leave the ECHR, thereby fatally undermining the Good Friday agreement.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Sadly, the Tories opted for a barely conditional immunity principle that drew an abhorrent equivalence between those seeking to defend peace and uphold the rule of law, and the terrorists who sought to exploit sectarian division to murder, maim and intimidate. The Tory legacy Act failed to uphold our obligations to international human rights law under the European convention on human rights, the very convention that was so important to our soldiers—challenging inadequate equipment, unjust LGBT exclusion, and investigating sexual assault, bulling and welfare failures.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It has been more than a year of anxiety, uncertainty and anguish for former service members who feared being dragged back to Northern Ireland for further investigation. It has been more than a year in which veterans have found no solace in the vague, uncertain promises of improved protection through recognition of the reality of the circumstances in which they served. The issues that we face are by no means all the fault of the current Government. If the Conservatives had enacted a legacy Act that was fit for purpose and delivered a suitable mechanism for historical inquiries, this Bill would not have been necessary.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It has been more than a year since the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill was introduced to this House. In spite of the valiant efforts of the Secretary of State and his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn), to deal with the legacy left by the Conservatives, I fear that the Bill still does not achieve the admittedly difficult task of squaring the circle of enabling victims to find answers, while providing veterans with the protections that they need and deserve. It is important to begin by recognising the impact that the protracted gestation of this Bill has had on those who fought bravely, in difficult and dangerous circumstances, to uphold the rule of law and save lives during Operation Banner.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the Secretary of State for his intervention. I much prefer our amendments 123 to 129. I absolutely agree. That is exactly why we need a Committee to discuss these issues. We need to talk together about these issues. At the moment, I prefer what the Tories have submitted to what the Secretary of State has submitted, but I most certainly prefer amendment 123. But we need a Committee upstairs to discuss these things.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The only path forward is for the Secretary of State to show political leadership by withdrawing the Bill and entering into further dialogue with the various communities and stakeholders who must be satisfied to ensure that we achieve truth, justice and reconciliation across all the communities and stakeholders affected by the troubles.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The events of the past month in Drumcree have highlighted that divisions still exist. Concerted efforts must be made to heal the old animosities and ensure that current and future generations are able to grow up in a society characterised by mutual respect and tolerance— “A Northern Ireland where a unionist never has to apologise for being British. Where a nationalist never has to apologise for being Irish”, as the right hon. Member for Belfast East so eloquently put it. Despite the hundreds of Government amendments, I do not believe that the Bill delivers on its essential goals of protecting our veterans, promoting reconciliation and delivering answers to the families who have waited decades. General Parker and General Wall have concluded that no amount of “legal ingenuity” can fix the issues with the Bill.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As I said, I prefer our solution: amendment 123. But the Tories’ solution is better than the Secretary of State’s, which is simply far too vague. I strongly support our amendment 123, as does the SAS Regimental Association. My party will also support amendment 23, tabled by the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), to ensure that the Omagh bombing—the deadliest single attack of the troubles—is brought into the scope of the commission. I do not understand the Secretary of State’s reasons for not doing so. I am also proud to support amendment 4, tabled by the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann), that allows victims of sexual violence access to the legacy commission’s work. I sincerely hope that the Government will support that crucial amendment, to allow as many as possible to heal and move forward.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As we have seen throughout these debates, the Tories are still in denial about the legacy Act’s failings, just as they are in denial about their many other failings in government—from Brexit to their financial mismanagement. I am sorry to say that it is what we have come to expect from a once-great party. It is shameless, and they should be shame-faced.”
House of Commons13 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“At the time, that was just collateral damage, but now it has become central to the Conservatives’ ill-conceived plan to leave the ECHR, and thereby fatally undermine the Good Friday agreement and the Brexit deal of which they are so unjustly proud. The legacy Act failed the communities of Northern Ireland. No political party, be it from the Unionist, nationalist or non-aligned tradition, supports the Conservatives’ flawed legislation, which fundamentally failed to gain the support of those it was supposed to protect. Most devastatingly, it failed innocent victims and their families by barring the pathway to justice, truth and reconciliation.”
House of Commons13 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As has been said many times before, and ignored just as often by Conservative Members, the Tories’ legacy Act utterly failed our veterans, drawing an unacceptable equivalence between the actions of those seeking to defend peace and uphold the rule of law, and the terrorists who sought to undermine it by maiming, murdering and doing all they could to encourage sectarian division and hatred. Of course, the Conservatives are trying to argue that they are defending the interests of our brave veterans, when in reality they are cynically using them to score political points. That is why so many veterans organisations will have nothing to do with their grandstanding. The legacy Act failed to uphold our obligations under the European convention on human rights.”
House of Commons13 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Only today, I had to ask the Secretary of State to point me in the direction of one of the most important amendments.”
House of Commons13 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Anxiety about future threats of lawfare, and veterans being dragged through repeated investigations, has been at the heart of every conversation I have had. Against that background, clear and robust safeguards must be established. The original safeguards in the Bill were vague and did not go far enough to ensure that the process does not become the punishment. I commend both the Secretary of State and his predecessor for engaging with me on these issues. As they both promised, the Secretary of State has now published the aforementioned raft of 156 amendments. However, there is just a week before the Committee stage. That raises serious concerns about scrutiny, as we and the various veterans organisations wade through pages of bizarrely numbered and then re-numbered Government amendments. The devil, after all, is in the detail.”
House of Commons13 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Under the mysterious procedures of this place, we are simply revisiting the carry-over motion we passed before the end of the last parliamentary Session. I am sure there are good historic reasons for such repetition, but I trust that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) and his fellow trailblazers on the Modernisation Committee will give due consideration to reforming many of our time-wasting practices. The Bill we are considering today is the same one we considered the last time we debated it, so my party will again vote against the motion. I have worked closely with veterans organisations, such as the British Legion and the SAS Regimental Association, throughout my time as spokesperson on Northern Ireland.”
House of Commons13 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Labour party’s willingness to deal with these failings is most welcome. At this point, may I, with your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, give my brief thanks to the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn), who was the architect of the original Bill, for the courtesy and time he gave me when I first became my party’s spokesperson for Northern Ireland? I am pleased to acknowledge that it is an approach normally followed by the shadow Secretary of State, and followed by the new Secretary of State. Although 156 Government amendments landed with a thud in my inbox yesterday morning, we are not meant to be discussing them today.”
House of Commons13 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗