Asylum Seekers: MOD Housing

Paul Kohler Excerpts

Wednesday 29th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Norris]

My hon. Friend raises the crucial part of the equation. Over the past year, we have made significant inroads in our efforts to disrupt organised crime and the people who use this model to prey on others. We have done 350 disruptions—an increase of 40% on what we inherited. These are embedded gangs who have had a six-year head start on this Government thanks to the Conservatives. That work is vital, but underpinning the gangs’ business model is the attraction of this country. We have to remove the hotels and illegal working to make sure we are not so attractive.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

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?

[Alex Norris]

We have to work within the parameters of the contracts that we inherited from the Conservatives, but I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that we have reduced that bill by £1 billion, including £500 million from hotels. We are looking further at the profit-sharing elements of those contracts, and are recouping money for the taxpayer by making sure we get the best deal possible.

Asylum Seekers: Support and Accommodation

Paul Kohler Excerpts

Monday 20th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Kohler Excerpts

Monday 15th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

We need to ensure that our police officers are given the best support that they can be given through the Police Federation, which is the vehicle by which they are supported through any incidents they have. I will be working very closely with it to ensure that it is doing the right thing on behalf of its members.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

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?

[Sarah Jones]

I am very sorry to hear about the hon. Gentleman’s incident; that must have been absolutely terrifying. We need to ensure that our neighbourhood police are responsive and are there when we need them most, which is why we are targeting the resources we have to ensure that we have neighbourhood policing. The response teams must be there when we need them through any means of getting in touch with them, whether it is on the phone, online or in person, and we need to ensure that they are there.

Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill

Paul Kohler Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 25th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Linsey Farnsworth]

The hon. Member is absolutely correct that in the modern day not many people have paper tickets. The Bill will apply equally to the electronic version, so I am grateful to him for allowing me to clarify.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I have read paragraph 19 of the explanatory notes, but given the physicality of the description in the Bill, what is the legal justification for saying that it also covers electronic tickets? We can assume that it does, but I can see a defence barrister making a lot of the physicality in the description in proposed new section 1A(4) of the 1991 Act. There must be some legal reason why we can say absolutely that that description includes electronic tickets.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers—it feels a bit like a reunion of the Backbench Business Committee. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley for bringing the Bill back to the House. As has been mentioned, the issue was raised in the previous Parliament, and I am hopeful that we can continue to have cross-party agreement on it.

I declare an interest, as a supporter not of a premier league team or even a championship team, but of a non-league football team, my beloved Harlow Town, both at home and away. Not all football clubs are full of cash to make multimillion-pound signings, and people jumping barriers can have a huge impact on a club’s finances—notice that I use the word “people”, and not “fans”.

Although support for the Bill ultimately comes down to a question of safety, as my hon. Friend has correctly outlined, I want to talk briefly about the issue of fairness. There should absolutely be consequences for those who try to enter a football ground without a valid ticket. Many people in Harlow and beyond pay good money for football tickets. They work hard all week and going to watch a football game is something that they, like me, enjoy. They should be able to do so in a fair way, and it is not fair that others do so without paying for a ticket.

Even non-league football clubs impose a maximum capacity, and they do so for safety reasons. It is important that clubs know how many people are at a game and can stop people entering, particularly those who have previously displayed poor or unacceptable behaviour.

I will keep my remarks short, but once again I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley for bringing the Bill forward. I hope it will give confidence—to those who give up their time, voluntarily in non-league cases, to man the turnstiles and do all the other things at football grounds that bring the community together—that people will not be able to get away with tailgating, and that only those with a correct ticket will be able to enter the ground.

[Mr Kohler]

I raise the point, quietly, that the definition in the Bill does not include electronic tickets.

[Linsey Farnsworth]

I think I have got to the bottom of it. The Bill that has been printed for the Committee today is the old Bill, which has since been slightly amended to deal with that very point. That is why there is confusion, because I have a copy of the new version of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kohler]

I do not have an objection, but I do have a question about the change of wording in proposed new section 1A(3), if that is possible.

[The Chair]

Under the circumstances, I am sure that we can seek to clarify that.

[Mr Kohler]

In the original drafting of proposed new section 1A(3), it was not a defence to knowingly use a ticket that had already been used. However, under the new wording of subsection (3), it is a defence if someone uses a ticket that has already been used, even if they know about it. Is that deliberate or a flaw in the drafting?

[The Chair]

Linsey Farnsworth, can you respond?

[Linsey Farnsworth]

A ticket that has already been used? I am trying to remember; I think it goes back to the purpose of this change in the law and the desired effect of increased safety. If there is a valid ticket, there is a reserved seat, which is what I think the defence is getting at. The offence is being introduced to prevent overcrowding.

[Mr Kohler]

If someone is using a ticket that has already been used, it is an overcrowding issue, so is there a flaw in that change? The previous drafting made sense: if two people had a photocopy of the same ticket, and knowingly attempted to enter using that same ticket, that was not a defence under the original drafting, unless they reasonably believed that the ticket had not already been used. That has been removed in the final version, and I wonder whether that is a mistake in the drafting—I cannot see the logic of that.

[The Chair]

I think I will call Linsey Farnsworth to wind up, and perhaps she could clarify the situation before we move to the vote.

Police Presence on High Streets

Paul Kohler Excerpts

Thursday 5th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton) on securing the debate and on her excellent speech. I once lived in Erdington, and her constituents have a wonderful advocate in her. I hope I can call her a friend.

As all hon. Members agree, a visible police presence is essential to tackling crime on our streets and high streets. That is why I took the Mayor of London to court and stopped him from closing my local police station in the heart of Wimbledon, and why my constituents are still concerned about its long-term future. After a recent stabbing near a Co-op in Wimbledon, I received a letter from Jack, a pupil at Holy Trinity primary, who wrote:

“The relationship between local police officers and the community they serve is built on proximity and familiarity, and losing this presence could erode the sense of security we currently enjoy.”

When a young person feels the need to write to their MP about such matters, we should all take notice.

Years of cuts have eroded the link between the police and the public. Despite an increase in Government funding in the current police grant, it still falls short of the minimum that chief constables said they needed. For example, the Met, which serves Wimbledon, faces a £130 million shortfall. Just this week, Sir Mark Rowley and other police chiefs wrote to the Prime Minister to warn that, without proper funding, there will be “far-reaching consequences”. In short, these funding shortfalls risk undermining public confidence and the police’s ability to deter everyday crime.

Admittedly, the Home Secretary tried to reassure the Home Affairs Committee, on which I sit, two days ago that neighbourhood policing in London was safe, but sadly we have heard such reassurances before. It has now emerged that neighbourhood policing figures were artificially inflated under the Tories, with the Home Office now admitting that it over-reported numbers. In fact, England and Wales have more than 6,000 fewer neighbourhood officers than the Home Office previously claimed. Our communities were told they were better protected, but they knew that they were not. Nowhere is that more visible than on our high streets. In Wimbledon, there is now no dedicated town centre team, only a neighbourhood team stretched across a larger area. Without visible and trusted neighbourhood policing, crime flourishes and communities are left exposed.

We know that the demands of a busy town centre, retail crime, antisocial behaviour and the night-time economy exceed those of a residential neighbourhood, yet under the Met’s new ward shake up, there is still no confirmed timescale for when police teams will be redeployed, and there is no guarantee that high streets like Wimbledon’s will have dedicated officers. That is why the Liberal Democrat councillors in my area are campaigning for a dedicated town centre policing team in Wimbledon and a local policing hub in Old Malden, along with initiatives such as a town centre pop-up on Friday and Saturday nights and a night-time safety street stall. Those practical steps would restore safety, visibility and trust, but so far nothing has been done by the Labour-run Merton council to address Wimbledon’s policing needs.

I hope that Jack’s words ring loudly in the ears of the Government. If a child is asking who will protect them on their local high street and we cannot give them a clear answer, the system is broken and we must fix it together.

Modern Slavery Act 2015: 10th Anniversary

Paul Kohler Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

I thank the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley) for securing this important debate. As Members, we are all united by our desire to do as much as we can to tackle the scourge of modern slavery.

My constituency is known for many things, but perhaps less well known for its connection to one of the greatest battles for human dignity: the abolition of slavery. More than 200 years ago, William Wilberforce, a champion for the abolition of the transatlantic slave trade, lived in Wimbledon. Just as Wilberforce rejected inhumanity in his time, we must renew our commitment to eradicating that injustice in ours, and though his efforts were huge, we stand here on the 10th anniversary of the Modern Slavery Act, aware that the fight is far from over.

Whether in the form of human trafficking, domestic servitude, or criminal, forced or sexual labour, modern slavery pervades our society, treating people as commodities for criminal gain. The introduction of the Modern Slavery Act in 2015 was a watershed moment, hailed as innovative and world-leading, echoing the UK’s leadership in abolishing the transatlantic slave trade in the 19th century. The Act was designed to protect victims, prosecute offenders and prevent exploitation at its roots.

Of the nearly 50 million people around the world estimated to be trapped in modern slavery, some 120,000 of them are thought to be resident in the UK. In 2024, over 19,000 potential victims of modern slavery were referred to the Home Office through the national referral mechanism—a 30% increase on the previous year. Horrifyingly, 31% of all referrals last year were children.

The Act introduced several key measures, including section 42 to establish the role of the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner to encourage best practice in the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of modern slavery and to support victims. However, for a staggering 18 months through 2022 and 2023, while we had three Conservative Prime Ministers, we had no Anti-Slavery Commissioner. During that time, engagement between the modern slavery unit and key non-governmental organisations declined. The Government’s ministerial strategy groups—once critical to tackling modern slavery—were disbanded. It is for that reason that the Lib Dems advocate for Parliament to have a power to appoint an Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner should the post remain unfilled for three months.

We need to do more than simply ensure that the commissioner role is not left vacant. Challenges persist in the effectiveness of the commissioner due to inadequate resources and limited capacity. Despite the current commissioner’s efforts since inheriting a “dormant office”, the Department remains underfunded and under- resourced. Without appropriate funding and resources, the commissioner’s ability to fulfil their legal obligations is clearly compromised.

The Modern Slavery Act was praised for introducing provisions aimed at greater transparency in supply chains, with the goal of protecting workers and compelling large commercial organisations to eliminate modern slavery from their operations. Section 54 requires companies supplying goods or services and operating in the UK with a turnover of £36 million or more to produce an annual slavery and human trafficking statement. Though welcome, section 54 only mandates businesses to report on their efforts to address forced labour in supply chains; it does not require them to act. In fact, simply reporting no action seems to be all they need to do to comply with the Act. Despite the Secretary of State’s authority to seek injunctions on non-compliant organisations, none have been issued.

In 2022, 29% of eligible organisations failed to submit a modern slavery statement. Additionally, the number of statements recorded the following year dropped by almost 50%, indicating that businesses are deprioritising compliance. While previous Governments have expressed their intentions to strengthen section 54 by introducing mandatory reporting requirements and specific penalties for non-compliance, no changes have been implemented to date.

Too often, victims are hidden in plain sight. It is sobering to think that many of us may have encountered them without even realising. Recently, for example, the care sector has become a focal point for modern slavery. The inclusion of care workers and home carers on the shortage occupation list made them eligible for the health and care visa. From 2022 to 2023, the number of health and care visas granted skyrocketed, reflecting the sector’s increased reliance on foreign workers. But alongside that growth came a disturbing increase in exploitation, with over 600% more care sector modern slavery cases reported. Evidence given to the Modern Slavery Act Committee last year reported that by the end of 2023, an alarming 21% of the 1,300 NHS suppliers were identified as being at “high risk” of modern slavery.

The types of exploitation vary, but one common theme is the charging of illegal recruitment fees. Victims are often forced to pay as much as £30,000 for visa applications and supposed training courses—amounts so large that workers often have no choice but to stay trapped in abusive conditions. The care sector continues to grapple with systemic issues, including low pay and poor working conditions, which are exacerbated by fragmented regulatory oversight spread across agencies such as the Care Quality Commission and the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate. That lack of co-ordination hampers effective enforcement.

The Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority holds modern slavery investigation powers in England and Wales, and receives referrals from the CQC, but its remit does not specifically cover the care sector. Despite prioritising the sector, the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority struggles with insufficient funding and a low inspector-to-worker ratio, and falls below international standards. As a result, proactive inspections are rare, while many workers fear potential reprisals from reporting exploitation.

The 2022 report of the former special representative of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe highlighted the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority’s effectiveness in preventing and investigating labour exploitation and protecting vulnerable workers, but stressed its need for greater financial support to fully realise its capacity. The Liberal Democrats have consistently called for a powerful new worker protection enforcement authority to safeguard those in precarious work through intelligence-led enforcement and a firewall that separates labour standards enforcement from border control.

The UK’s current immigration system exacerbates the vulnerabilities of migrant workers. The previous Home Affairs Select Committee described a

“de-prioritisation of human trafficking in favour of attention on irregular migration”

under the policies of the previous Conservative Government. I warmly acknowledge the fact that the Border Security, Asylum, and Immigration Bill seeks to repeal many of the modern slavery provisions of the Illegal Migration Act 2023.

I will conclude where I began. Today, we inherit not only Wilberforce’s legacy but his responsibility. Modern slavery may adopt new forms, but its cruelty remains the same. It thrives in the shadows of all our communities, in the exploitation of the vulnerable and in the complacency of indifference. Let us pledge not only to celebrate how far we have come, but to redouble our efforts, as there is still far to go. For in remembering Wilberforce’s endeavours, we must find the courage to shape a future in which his campaign to entirely abolish slavery finally achieves its aim.

Asylum Hotels and Illegal Channel Crossings

Paul Kohler Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I believe that people need to think about the language they use and the impressions of human beings they give when they talk about this very emotive issue. It raises huge concern, I know. As a Government, we have certainly got to do all we can to try to reassure people that we can get this system back under control, after finding a chaotic mess when we came into Government.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

I recently wrote to the Minister to request the estimated savings the Government expect from the closure of 10 asylum seeker hotels. In response, I was informed that while the Home Office publishes data on the number of people housed in hotels, it does not report on the number of rooms occupied. A hotel accommodating people in shared rooms incurs significantly different costs from one where individuals occupy separate rooms, yet that critical distinction is overlooked. Given that effective policy decisions must be based on clear evidence, will the Minister commit to publishing room occupancy data to ensure accountability and informed decision making?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I will write to the hon. Gentleman.

Police Grant Report

Paul Kohler Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

When it comes to the police, politicians are all too eager to demand more and more while giving less and less. Years of failure and ineffective resourcing from the previous Conservative Government have left police forces across the country overstretched, understaffed and unable to focus on the crimes that impact our communities the most. While the shadow Police Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), spoke about the 20,000 officers his Government finally restored, he did not mention the fact that they were funded by getting rid of 30,000 backroom staff, with officers required to do their jobs. It was no more than a disingenuous conjuring trick in search of headlines.

This funding settlement represents a welcome increase, but it is ultimately a missed opportunity. The National Police Chiefs’ Council estimates that the settlement still leaves a £1.3 billion funding gap over the next two years, so rather than improving police provision, it will in fact do no such thing. The situation facing the Met, which serves my Wimbledon constituency, is stark. I met the commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley, recently. He told me that he still faces a £130 million shortfall, and is determined to take a strategic approach to the inevitable cuts, rather than salami-slicing the entire service. What impact this will have on particular areas is currently unclear, but in Wimbledon we fear that our police station is again under threat. When I was attacked in my home, my life was saved by two brave officers from that station who arrived within eight minutes of my eldest daughter dialling 999. If Wimbledon police station had not been there, I would not be here. That is why, when the Mayor of London sought to close it in 2017, I took him to court and won.

Despite Baroness Casey’s review noting that the closure of 126 police stations had contributed to the reduction of frontline policing, the current basic command unit commander for south-west London, at a recent Merton council scrutiny session, was equivocal about whether Wimbledon police station’s long-term future could be guaranteed. I consequently raised its future with Sir Mark when we met, and while he recognised its importance, he was unable to offer any guarantees. It is clear, however, that if we are serious about community policing in my constituency, Wimbledon police station must be retained.

The settlement also fails to address a critical systemic issue. The police funding mechanism is not fit for purpose, as the Home Office acknowledged a decade ago when the previous Government announced plans to reform it but then—surprise, surprise—did nothing. The National Police Chiefs’ Council has described the current model as “outdated”, as it leads to large regional disparities in how particular police forces are funded, as we have heard. The Home Secretary should have seized this moment to reform how the mechanism works. Sadly, she looked the other way, just as her predecessors have done for the last 10 years.

Yesterday, when he appeared before the Home Affairs Committee, I asked the Home Office’s permanent secretary, Sir Matthew Rycroft, whether he had had any discussions with the Home Secretary about reforming the police funding mechanism. “Yes,” he said, but he then talked about picking the right moment, as there is clearly a lot of politics involved, before finally admitting that he is not sure when it will happen. Perhaps the Minister can tell us today.

To be clear, I welcome the settlement but remain concerned that the Home Secretary is not using the opportunity to address systemic issues, while continuing to fund follies such as the expensive and ineffective police and crime commissioner model. Politics is all about making hard choices, and I acknowledge that the Home Secretary has more than her fair share to make, but I remain unconvinced that she has made all the right choices on this occasion.

United Front Work Department

Paul Kohler Excerpts

Monday 16th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, and speaks with great authority on this matter. He will know that we have just appointed Baroness Hodge as the Government’s new anti-corruption champion. She will support the work that we do, looking very carefully at the impact of dirty money on politics. He is right that the Government will want to assure ourselves that the electoral laws that govern the conduct of elections are robust, and ensure that there are no opportunities for people from overseas to intervene in our political processes. That advice should be taken very seriously by all parties across the House.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

In my constituency there are many Hongkongers deeply concerned about surveillance from Chinese agents in this country. Can the Minister give my constituents any assurance that their legitimate fears are being addressed by the Government?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising the plight of his constituents. Yes, I can give him those assurances. The Government take very seriously the kinds of interventions he refers to. Through the defending democracy taskforce, we are looking carefully at the issue of transnational repression, and we will have more to say about it in due course.

Respect Orders and Antisocial Behaviour

Paul Kohler Excerpts

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.