Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

Debate between Nusrat Ghani and Paul Kohler

Committee of the whole House & 3rd reading
Tuesday 20th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

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. 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.

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. 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. 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. 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.

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. 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.

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.

Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

Debate between Nusrat Ghani and Paul Kohler

Committee of the whole House
Monday 19th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

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. 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. 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. 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.

Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

Debate between Nusrat Ghani and Paul Kohler

2nd reading
Tuesday 18th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Before Mr Kohler resumes his speech, let me say that we must keep interventions short. Many Members wish to contribute.

[Mr Kohler]

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.

Zero Emission Vehicle Mandate

Debate between Nusrat Ghani and Paul Kohler

Monday 7th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, and for advance sight of it. Let me also congratulate the shadow Secretary of State on his birthday, and note that he is much younger than the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

It is clear that the Government must take urgent steps to help the car industry make the switch to electric vehicles. Although increasing flexibility in the mandate is welcome, voices across the industry have made it clear that we also need to bolster demand by lowering the barriers for individuals and businesses to purchase electric vehicles. As the Secretary of State knows, the recent surge in demand to which she referred was a result of significant discounting to promote sales. It is crucial that, as well as improving the charging network, we end the inequality between public and private charging by bringing the VAT rate for public charging into line with that for home charging, at 5% rather than 20%. Not only is the present system damaging demand, but it is wrong to penalise those who have no access to private charging. Ministers should also postpone the increase in vehicle tax on electric cars, and explore the possibility of reintroducing the plug-in car grant.

As the Secretary of State made clear on the media round this morning, the spectre of Trump’s tariffs also looms large over the industry. If the Government are serious about protecting car manufacturing in the UK, the Prime Minister must continue to work with our allies in Europe and around the world on a co-ordinated response. The only way to tackle Trump is to negotiate from a position of strength, and to show that the UK is not alone and will not be bullied.

May I ask the Secretary of State three questions? First, what conversations has she had with the Chancellor about lowering the public charging rate to 5%, and what other measures are the Government considering to strengthen EV demand? Secondly, can she confirm that the measures announced today are a response to the ZEV consultation that ended in February, and tell us what, if any, additional measures are being considered in respect of the tariffs that have since been announced? Thirdly, will the Government start negotiations with the EU about the formation of a UK-EU custom union, to cut red tape not only for vehicle manufacturers but for all UK industries?

Respect Orders and Antisocial Behaviour

Debate between Nusrat Ghani and Paul Kohler

Wednesday 27th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call a member of the Home Affairs Committee.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for her statement and warmly welcome it. She is right to mention neighbourhood policing. Does she agree with the Met commissioner, Mark Rowley, that local police stations are critical to neighbourhood policing, and whether she will pledge to stop the closure of local police stations that occurred under the Conservatives and under previous Labour Administrations? That includes Wimbledon police station, which remains under threat six years after I won my judicial review, stopping its closure.

Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill

Debate between Nusrat Ghani and Paul Kohler

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 19th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

Our current railway system is simply not fit for purpose, and I know I speak for everyone in this Chamber when I say that has to change. If we are serious about growth, we have to get serious about rail. After years of Tory neglect, we must get our network back on track and put the passenger first. Across the world, there are examples of both publicly and privately owned train companies that do exactly that. Because of that, we need not be ideological about ownership; rather, we can take a pragmatic approach. That is why the Lib Dems have been, and remain, agnostic about the ownership model adopted.

As the Government have themselves admitted, nationalisation is not a silver bullet. It will not automatically deliver cheaper fares, a more reliable and frequent service, or a better passenger experience. While nationalisation might offer economies of scale, it comes with new dangers—those of us in this Chamber old enough to remember the travails of travelling on British Rail are unlikely to become misty-eyed at the prospect of going back to that future, although we might well shed a tear.

In short, nationalisation alone will not fix the mess that the Government inherited from the Conservatives. The devil, as so often, is in the detail, and I eagerly await publication of the forthcoming rail reform Bill, which we will scrutinise keenly to ensure that it does not succumb to the same demons that held back rail in this country for decades, whether it was in public or private hands.

Rail Performance

Debate between Nusrat Ghani and Paul Kohler

Monday 11th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement. I also welcome the new shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), to his position.

The Lib Dems welcome the Secretary of State’s statement that performance is improved, and commuters and businesses are relieved that industrial action has been curtailed. It is disappointing, however, that the unions were not required to agree any meaningful improvements to productivity as part of the settlement. Clearly, we are not yet out of the woods—or perhaps I should say the tunnel. Under the Conservatives, delays, cancellations and overcrowding became commonplace. Last year, more than 55,000 rush hour trains were either partly or fully cancelled—a 10% rise on the previous year, and the worst of any year since 2019. Although the latest news is welcome, there are many miles left to go on this journey. The Government’s policy of nationalisation is, as the Secretary of State herself concedes, no silver bullet. Earlier this year, the Office of Rail and Road found that four of the eight least reliable operators, with the highest cancellation rates, were public, while the three most reliable operators, with the lowest cancellation rates, were private.

I have three questions for the Secretary of State. First, what steps is she taking to ensure that the worst, rather than the best, private operators are nationalised first? Secondly, where a private operator’s performance is of a higher standard than that in the public sector, will she consider extending its contract? Finally, given the still shocking level of accessibility on much of the network, will she urgently provide an update on when the stalled Access for All programme will be back on track?