Paul Kohler MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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?

• 14 Oct 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. As this is my first statement as the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for Northern Ireland, I want to begin by recognising the deep scars left by the troubles on families and communities across the island of Ireland and these islands. The pain, loss and legacy of that conflict remain deeply felt to this day. Although the Liberal Democrats welcome the recent agreement between the British and Irish Governments, the true test of this deal will lie in the detail of the legislation that follows. The Government’s stated intention—to promote an honest attempt at reconciliation and to draw a line under decades of division—is one that every Member of this House can understand. Victims’ families deserve truth, justice and closure. Equally, our veterans deserve and must be afforded fairness and protection from injustice. As the Secretary of State has said, the legacy Act, introduced by the Conservatives, failed to gain the support of any of the parties in Stormont, victims groups or the Irish Government. This lack of consensus speaks volumes but is not loud enough, it seems, for His Majesty’s official Opposition. I look forward to examining the contents of the new Bill in detail and to tabling constructive amendments. My party will engage fully with the Government, as lasting reconciliation depends on transparency, fairness and independent oversight. That means an effective information retrieval body with statutory disclosure powers, meaningful participation for victims, and safeguards to uphold both justice and compassion for veterans and victims alike. I have three questions for the Secretary of State. First, how will this Bill ensure that reconciliation is not imposed from above, but built from the ground up? Secondly, based on the many meetings my party has had with veterans and their representatives, what specific safeguards will the Government include to ensure fairness, proportionality and proper protections for those who serve with integrity? Lastly, how will this Government ensure that prosecution under the law, or the possibility of it, can never be used to harm, oppress or discredit those who fought for our country, regardless of the final verdict?

• 16 Sept 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Lord Chancellor agree with my concerns that neither the Bill nor the excellent report that preceded it make any mention of restorative justice—a process that truly puts the victim at the heart of the criminal justice process? Will he pledge in future legislation to address that omission?

• 15 Sept 2025 · Children with SEND: Assessments and Support · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I congratulate the many petitioners from Wimbledon and beyond, and my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for securing this important debate. As we have heard throughout the debate, children with special educational needs are navigating a system in crisis. In Merton, the borough that covers most of my Wimbledon constituency, the pressures on the SEND system are stark and growing. Almost 2,500 children currently receive support—that is 50% above the national average. Only 24% of them attend a state-funded special school—that is below the national average—while 13%, which is more than double the national average and one of the highest rates in the entire country, are placed in expensive independent or non-maintained schools. SEND provision in Merton continues to remain problematic. One constituent told me how her son, who has ADHD, spent almost a year out of school because no suitable place could be found, despite their applying to 15 schools. Another constituent was told that the school would not even apply for an EHCP because the borough had already reached its so-called quota, although that claim has no basis in law. Despite the obstacles placed in parents’ paths, since 2018 Merton has spent more than its high needs block allocation, creating a substantial accumulated deficit. The council consequently entered the safety valve programme and received £26 million to reduce the deficit, but the high needs budget remains under strain. Let me be crystal clear: the Liberal Democrats believe that SEND reform is unavoidable. But reform must strengthen rights and deliver real capacity, as my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) will outline. After years of Conservative neglect, SEND reform is overdue, but it must be rooted in the rights and needs of children, not in short-term financial decisions.

• 15 Sept 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I would not be here today without Wimbledon police station; in 2014, two brave officers from that station saved me from a murderous attack. Wimbledon police station is now under threat, with its front counter due to close. Does the Home Secretary agree that local police stations such as Wimbledon’s are critical to neighbourhood policing and community safety?

• 11 Sept 2025 · Bus Services · Hansard source

  More

  As I am sure the Minister knows and agrees, improving bus services must include making them safer for women and girls. Concerningly, sexual offences on the UK bus network have increased in recent years; for example, they increased by 13% on London buses in the first six months of this year. What is his Department doing to ensure that women and girls feel safe using the bus network, and can he share with the House any more information on the work being led by the Confederation of Passenger Transport, which he alluded to in yesterday’s debate on the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill?

• 11 Sept 2025 · Regional Transport Inequality · Hansard source

  More

  I was all too conscious at Transport questions this morning not only to ensure that I did not, after last night’s scolding, repeat the heresy of “you” or “yours”, Madam Deputy Speaker, but to keep my questions brief. Consequently, I did not have time to put on the record—for the third time in less than a year—a formal welcome on behalf of my party to the new shadow Transport Secretary. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden) is no longer in the Chamber, I formally congratulate him on his elevation. As former Transport Minister, the right hon. Gentleman knows all about the transformative effect of transport, having only recently hopped aboard the overnight shuttle from Durham to Basildon. On that tortuous journey from the north of England to the south-east, he would have glimpsed the huge inequalities in transport provision across our country. Be it trains or buses, roads or air travel, where people live or their business is situated has a massive effect on their mobility. Mobility—the ability to move from A to Z and all points in between—is key to a modern economy and a cohesive society. The statistics paint a stark picture of, to coin a phrase, a two-tier system. Last year, for example, transport spending in London was over £1,300 per head, compared with under £400 per head in the east midlands. New research from Transport for the North reveals that over 11 million people in England face a high risk of social exclusion specifically because of inadequate transport systems. That represents a 14% increase—an extra 2 million people—since 2019. In the north-east, well over 30% of residents face a high risk of transport-related social exclusion, compared with below 3% in London. And who are the excluded? It will come as no surprise that, as Transport for the North has highlighted, it is disproportionately low-income households, unpaid carers, the old and the disabled. The very people our transport system should be helping the most are the ones facing its greatest barriers. It is not just the north of England suffering from these inequalities. Minehead in Somerset, for example, is virtually cut off. The railway station closed in 1971, and my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) tells me that the No. 28 bus appears to run on a whim. In Stratford-upon-Avon, Stagecoach has stopped running buses in the evening and at weekends, and there is no direct train service between the home of Shakespeare and London, undermining the town’s tourist and cultural economy. Transport is, of course, key to our tourist industry. That is why in Cornwall, the new Lib Dem council has cancelled the previous Tory administration’s plans to sell off Newquay airport, but it now needs more help than is currently being offered by the Government to make the critical investment the airport so badly needs. Investment in transport is key. Even in London, where Transport for London is the envy of the rest of the country, more investment is needed. Repeated disruption on the District line is caused by some of the infrastructure being up to 130 years old, according to TfL. It sounds grim, but as my constituents are getting tired of hearing me say, we in Wimbledon and the rest of London do not know how lucky we are. Just imagine living in a region where services are sparse or non-existent, bus routes are cut, stations have been closed and the few trains running are routinely delayed. I am addressing my remarks to the Minister, for whom I have high regard and no little sympathy, because the problems with regional transport inequalities are clearly not of his making, nor his Government’s, but of the past Tory Administration’s. Take buses, for example, where deregulation allowed private operators to cream off the profitable routes and abandon the rest. Between 2015 and 2023, over 1 billion passenger journeys were lost. In the north-west alone, bus routes were reduced from nearly 3,500 in 2015 to half that number in 2024. Sadly, however, the problem still continues. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) in the south-east of England tells me that three bus services have been cancelled since last summer. In the south-west and north-east, 56% of small towns are now identified as transport deserts or at risk of becoming so. I do not doubt the Government’s good intentions, evidenced by the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill, but in some respects, things are getting worse. The Government’s decision to increase the bus fare cap from £2 to £3, for example, will only accelerate the decline in bus usage, hitting those who are already struggling the most. The Minister will rightly point to the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill and its many excellent provisions but, as with the soon-to-be-published rail Bill, no amount of legislation will solve the issue of regional transport inequality without the necessary investment. As we saw with High Speed 2 and, more recently, the spending review, those moneys are not forthcoming. The electrification of the midland main line from London to Sheffield has now been cancelled, while at Dawlish, the critical work to protect the vital Paddington to Penzance main line from the sea has been put on hold despite the very real risks to regional connectivity. The same is true of our road network, where, for example, the promised widening of the A12, which would have supported the creation of 55,000 new homes in the Chelmsford area, has been cancelled. As the Minister is fond of telling me, there is no magic money tree, which is why the only way to address regional transport inequality is to grow the economy—a growth that is impeded by the very inequality that growth would help to address. That is why the pump must be primed with more investment in our transport system and a far more ambitious approach to growth, which can be achieved not by wishing on a star or by the PM tying himself in knots with his red lines over Europe but by boldly re-engaging with the EU and thereby completing the virtuous circle of an integrated transport system driven by and driving a dynamic and growing economy. I end by thanking the hon. Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) for securing this important debate and all Members for their excellent contributions.

• 11 Sept 2025 · Transport: Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  A transport system can support economic growth only if it provides a reliable service on which businesses and passengers can depend. According to the Evening Standard , there have been 149 incidents of industrial action on TfL since Sadiq Khan became Mayor, with millions of people inconvenienced and businesses disrupted again this week in yet another tube strike. Can the Secretary of State tell us what steps she is taking, as a senior Labour politician, to sort out the mess caused by the Labour Mayor of London’s failure to reach an agreement with his Labour friends in the RMT, a union that has given hundreds of thousands of pounds to their comrades on the Government Benches in recent years?

• 10 Sept 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  And the Government’s failure to address the awful scourge of headphone dodgers. Most fundamentally, the Bill will not work unless it is properly funded. At the moment it is not, and the Government cannot hide behind localism when it needs proper funding. However, we will support the Bill.

• 10 Sept 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Does the shadow Minister accept that I made the point to him in Committee that he was being too narrowly lawyerly? Does he also accept that when I raised the issue at Prime Minister’s questions, the Conservative Benches jeered almost unanimously on this point?