Paul Kohler MP: speeches

Speeches

• 15 Sept 2026 · Immigration and Asylum Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Do you think that is because the gangs have been smashed? Do you think that is why the reduction has happened? Helen Rance: There is a combination of factors. The law enforcement approach to reducing small boat equipment, to working closely with international partners and to using our international intelligence reach has certainly contributed to that. We would not claim that the work is complete or that we have fixed this, but our efforts have certainly contributed to the reduction in crossings.

• 15 Sept 2026 · Immigration and Asylum Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Would you reject the view that the referral system is exploited? Eleanor Lyons: I would say that, from the evidence that we have seen—this has been looked at across the years by different Select Committees and academics—there is no evidence of widespread misuse of the system. Of the flights that did not go ahead in 2025 after 3 pm, that is less than 1% of the number of potential victims of modern slavery whom we identified in the UK last year. As I mentioned, if you make these sweeping changes in the legislation, you will also have a negative impact on all victims of modern slavery, in particular cases where we have taken too long to identify them. For example, the survivors of al-Fayed have reached out to me, and they have serious concerns, because we failed them; we did not identify them when we should have done. The Bill would have a negative impact on them, too.

• 15 Sept 2026 · Immigration and Asylum Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I sit on the Home Affairs Committee and have spoken to your colleagues about smashing the gangs. The NCA has been trying to smash the drug gangs for half a century. Is there anything missing from the Bill that would help you to smash the gangs? What is your view on how far the NCA has progressed in smashing the gangs? Helen Rance: If “smashing the gangs” means reducing small boat crossings, crossings are down this year compared with last year, and the number—

• 15 Sept 2026 · Immigration and Asylum Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Are there examples of other jurisdictions that have tried this? I am thinking of Australia. Professor Ekins: I cannot answer that question offhand, I am afraid. It is certainly the case that different common law and civil law countries take different views, especially those outside the ECHR, of the relevant role of the Department in deciding cases, and the role of courts in reviewing claims about the nature of decision making. Certainly, if you go back not that long ago in our history, you would have had the Home Office making decisions about the application of the relevant migration law. Those decisions would have been subject to judicial supervision, but that would have been supervision with the court thinking, “Has something gone fundamentally wrong here? Is this a misconstrual of the legislation or a perverse decision, which sometimes happens?” What we have now, and have had, effectively, since a pivotal judgment in 2007, is the relevant judicial body thinking that it is its job to decide on the proportionality, fairness or justice of removal, not the Home Secretary’s. The Home Secretary takes her view, but the judge and the court take their view, and it is the court’s view that prevails. That is a different model, and it does not have to be that way.

• 15 Sept 2026 · Immigration and Asylum Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I would like to turn to the Independent Immigration Appeals Authority. I was in Denmark last week—hardly a slouch when it comes to asylum claims. People there were astounded that we were moving from a judicial to an administrative process for judging these matters. What is your view on the Independent Immigration Appeals Authority? Dr Casey: I think that if you want to help bring down the quite large backlog in the tribunal system, you will need more first-instance appellate decision makers. Numbers are hard to come by, but I think there are 90 salaried judges in the first tier tribunal and then an indeterminate number of part-time judges. I think the full number might not be more than 200 or 250—so not a lot when it comes to processing tens of thousands of appeals. If you were to expand the pool of decision makers by requiring less onerous legal qualifications, it would stand to reason that you could recruit more people to process the backlog. That is the positive picture that I imagine the Home Secretary would articulate, and there is a lot to be said for it. But as I see it the risk is that on the current design you just risk moving the backlog. If you have a large pool of people without legal training applying a complicated body of law—extraordinarily complicated: ECHR law, UK domestic law, immigration rules, statutes—they will be more likely to make mistakes and errors of law. Then there would be a right of appeal to the upper tribunal, where there will still be judges. They may then grant more leave to appeal. So you might just relocate the backlog from the first-instance appeal level up to the upper tribunal. That is the risk. I am loath to say things on the hoof about complicated points of designing institutions, but it might not be a choice between having no legal qualifications and being fit for judicial office with over 12 years’ experience. You could simply require some level of legal qualification, and that would still keep the pool of possible decision makers much broader than it is with the first-tier tribunal. Those are just some initial thoughts on that part of the Bill. Professor Ekins: For my part, I think it is too strong to say this is a move from a judicial process to an administrative process. It is certainly a change and, if enacted and put in practice, it moves us closer to a model of departmental adjudication. However, that is still not departmental adjudication, as the relevant adjudicators will be at some distance from the Home Secretary, and they will be adjudicating claims appeals and so on. I think there could be some advantages in the proposed change, namely trying to integrate the process of reviewing particular cases more closely to the immigration and asylum system, and making the public interest in the enforcement of migration law a more pressing consideration. However, there certainly are considerable risks—not least of which, as my colleague has pointed out, is the sheer complexity of this body of law. To my mind, part of the problem with the body of law is the fact that sometimes, in some critical respects, its application turns on the relevant adjudicator’s individuated assessment of the relevant harshness, proportionality, fairness or otherwise of removing this person who is in violation of migration law. That makes things unpredictable, and it makes the disposition of the relevant adjudicators awfully important, which I think will result in more litigation and appeals. Changing the persons who are doing that kind of individuated assessment might well result in a different set of outcomes. I do not know who will be recruited for this, but it is conceivable, for example, that former police officers would constitute persons for appointment. They might well—I do not know—take a different view on the fairness or otherwise of removing some persons whose claims come before them from the view taken by the existing cadre of first-tier tribunal judges. However, the same body of law is being applied, and it is complex—that is certainly true—so I think one can expect a lot of appeals. In addition to that—this a crucial point for the Committee to bear in mind—I think there could be considerable collateral litigation to challenge decisions of the new adjudicative body, and those challenges might be at a high level. If the Bill proceeds into law, when the Home Secretary comes to promulgating secondary legislation and making critical decisions about the structure and operation of the adjudicative body, many of those decisions will be challenged by judicial review. When the adjudicative body is under way, particular decisions will be challenged by way of judicial review, as well as by appeal to the upper tribunal. Clause 1(8) looks like an attempt to limit the judicial involvement in decisions of the adjudicative body to appeals to the upper tribunal only. If that is the intention, with respect, I think it is going to fail. That is not an effective ouster clause. You can certainly expect—and I do—much litigation and ordinary judicial review proceedings challenging particular decisions of the adjudicative body. Although more adjudicative capacity is certainly welcome, and you need that if you are going to deal with the existing and growing backlog, you have to reckon with the risk that it is not quite as straightforward as is hoped.

• 15 Sept 2026 · Reoffending Reduction Programmes · Hansard source

  More

  Restorative justice has a vital role to play in cutting reoffending and supporting victims. I would not be here today, after a violent attack in my home, were it not for a subsequent RJ session. I am consequently very concerned that the Prison and Probation Service has recently issued a protocol that would have denied access to RJ to my family, as well as the family of James Hodgkinson, on whom the play “Punch” is based. As I understand it, no Minister has yet been formally assigned the RJ role in the Ministry of Justice, but when they are, will they meet me and Jacob Dunne, the RJ campaigner and the perpetrator in “Punch”, to help reverse this retrograde step?

• 14 Sept 2026 · Robert Hamill Inquiry Report · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for giving me early sight of the report and the statement. I want to begin by echoing his tribute to the grace with which the family of Robert Hamill have faced a wait of nearly three decades for answers. Such a lengthy delay in justice is unacceptable, especially in the face of the heinous sectarian violence that resulted in Mr Hamill’s murder simply because he was a Catholic. The Secretary of State acknowledges that the delay in publication of this report was no fault of the inquiry, but because of the understandable decision to wait until proceedings that eventually resulted in the conviction of the former RUC officer, Mr Atkinson, had been concluded. However, I remain bemused by its taking 13 years for Mr Atkinson to be convicted for his despicable acts regarding the tip-off of one of the suspects in the murder and the subsequent cover-up. That is particularly hard to understand, given that the facts relating to his criminal behaviour were clearly established long before the report was finalised in 2011. Is the Secretary of State able to shed any light on why it took 13 years for these proceedings to be concluded? Furthermore, what actions will the Government take to ensure that future inquiries do not fall foul of procedural pitfalls, to ensure that grieving families are given answers in a timely fashion? Finally, the report identifies many failures of the Royal Ulster Constabulary with regard to negligence, a lack of due diligence and the failures of inexperienced, untrained officers; however, it also makes a number of recommendations relevant to the PSNI. As policing and justice is now a devolved matter, what role does the Secretary of State envisage for the Northern Ireland Office and himself personally in ensuring that those recommendations are implemented, and the PSNI embodies the values of accountability and transparency that all communities in Northern Ireland have a right to expect?

• 8 Jul 2026 · European Entry and Exit System · Hansard source

  More

  Despite the unholy alliance between the Minister and Members on the Tory Front Bench, this issue is clearly a product of Brexit. I visited Dover with the Home Affairs Committee last week. Dover has invested more than £40 million in infrastructure, but the software is not working, and there will be chaos unless the EES is suspended this summer. This is a Brexit dividend, but will the Minister emphasise to the French that, rather than enjoying the schadenfreude, they should know how much their economy will be damaged by the chaos that will ensue?

• 8 Jul 2026 · Troubles Legacy: Legislation · Hansard source

  More

  Back in March, the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) travelled to Belfast to address the Alliance party conference. In his speech, he warned that “it is too easy for the powers-that-be to write their own rules and cover up”. He was talking about the need for a Hillsborough law, which he said at the time “is currently stalled in Parliament due to an unacceptably wide carve-out for the security services.” We on the Liberal Democrat Benches are deeply concerned that exactly that issue now confronts veterans, who, under this Government’s draft troubles Bill, are exposed to investigation and prosecution while the state that gave the orders shelters behind similar carve-outs. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether he will support the Lib Dem amendment to the Bill requiring that any decision to block disclosure on national security grounds is referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee to ensure proper parliamentary scrutiny?