Immigration and Asylum Bill (First sitting)

Paul Kohler Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Public Bill Committees

[The Minister of State, Home Department (Anna Turley)]

Q Thank you all for coming to give evidence to us. More than a third of our charter returns that fail to go ahead have involved a modern slavery referral raised after the return arrangements have been made. Can you give us some indication of why you think that is and, building on your previous answer, what would help to challenge that?

Eleanor Lyons: Thank you, Minister, for your engagement so far on the Bill. It is very much appreciated. Building on what I was saying, we really need a system that allows for early identification and support of victims of exploitation. That includes all victims of exploitation, UK nationals and non-UK nationals. When I first came into my role three years ago, the big conversation was about what mandatory training would look like for first responder organisations, so that they would know how to spot a potential victim of modern slavery. Many victims themselves do not even recognise that they are being exploited. To introduce early support into the system would make a huge change on that side of things.

I am concerned about the Home Office data on already high-risk flights. Less than 2% of the total number in the national referral mechanism are on those flights. The Home Office has five days to make a “reasonable grounds” decision. It only protects a victim of modern slavery for five days if they are referred into the national referral mechanism. If the Government decide that, actually, they do not think that there are grounds for those people being a victim of modern slavery, after that point they do not get any extra enhancements for indefinite leave to remain, so I do not think that that provides extra protection for victims. All we try to do in that period is to provide them with the support and care they need in their recovery period, if they need it.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

Q Would you reject the view that the referral system is exploited?

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

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

Q If I understand this correctly, the central point that you are making, Eleanor Lyons and Will Prescott, is that the issues that the Bill seeks to address are with not, in your view, so much the law as it stands, but the administration of that law—training, interpretation and the exercise of functions by all sorts of officials. If there are any issues, that is where they lie, rather than the substance of the law as it stands. Is that a fair summary of what you are saying?

Dr Prescott: We have talked about this in our report. You have to be very careful about the sequence in which you do this. At the moment, there are all sorts of gaps in identifying modern slavery victims. A lot of people in first responder organisations—as Eleanor mentioned, you cannot refer yourself into the NRM—are not aware of their responsibilities. There is no dedicated modern slavery lead and, because there is no dedicated lead, everyone is responsible, which in practice means that no one is responsible.

A lot of victims also do not necessarily realise that they are a victim of modern slavery. They obviously do not understand what their rights are. In particular, if they are in an unfamiliar environment and speaking to unfamiliar officials, they will not necessarily be comfortable discussing certain practices that have happened to them. If you are going to tighten the criteria, you really need to fix the gaps in the existing system first, before you look to a much tougher approach.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Turley]

Q I pass on my thanks to everyone at the NCA for their excellent work. We know how important it is for disrupting the organised, industrial crime that is taking place across borders. It is critical that we intervene and prevent dangerous crossings as early as possible. I wanted to put my thanks on the record for everything that the agency does.

You mentioned the importance of deterrence. That is critical, and it is one of the key things that we want to achieve in the Bill. Could you say a little more about how you think the measures in the Bill will help to deter people and make interventions earlier in the process of illegal immigration?

Helen Rance: In terms of deterrence, we are obviously a law enforcement agency, and we would not make specific definitive judgments on the different effects that the measures will have on deterring crossings or immigration. We very much think that deterrence is about a combination of factors, and is, ultimately, a matter for Government policy. However, we believe that the measures contribute to a system that is seen as firm, fair and less susceptible to exploitation by organised crime groups. It is likely that that will help the overall deterrent effect. The changes to appeals, protection status, asylum arrangements and the removal process might contribute to making the UK a less attractive target for the criminal networks that facilitate illegal immigration.

[Mr Kohler]

Q I sit on the Home Affairs Committee and have spoken to your colleagues about smashing the gangs. The NCA has been trying to smash the drug gangs for half a century. Is there anything missing from the Bill that would help you to smash the gangs? What is your view on how far the NCA has progressed in smashing the gangs?

Helen Rance: If “smashing the gangs” means reducing small boat crossings, crossings are down this year compared with last year, and the number—

[Mr Kohler]

Q Do you think that is because the gangs have been smashed? Do you think that is why the reduction has happened?

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

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

Q You are right to say that boat crossings are down 43% this year. Do you feel that the NCA has the resources it needs to continue that trend and go further by implementing the proposals in the Bill?

Helen Rance: Yes. We have very much moved our operational capacity towards immigration crime. Of course, like all agencies, we have a finite budget, but we are focusing it on the disruption of the highest-harm organised immigration crime, individuals and networks. I do not think we would ever say that we have enough money, because more money could always be spent on increased intelligence capability and unique capabilities that we utilise, but we have certainly done a major pivot over the last 18 months towards organised immigration crime, and we have had some excellent results with that pivot.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kohler]

Q I would like to turn to the Independent Immigration Appeals Authority. I was in Denmark last week—hardly a slouch when it comes to asylum claims. People there were astounded that we were moving from a judicial to an administrative process for judging these matters. What is your view on the Independent Immigration Appeals Authority?

Dr Casey: I think that if you want to help bring down the quite large backlog in the tribunal system, you will need more first-instance appellate decision makers. Numbers are hard to come by, but I think there are 90 salaried judges in the first tier tribunal and then an indeterminate number of part-time judges. I think the full number might not be more than 200 or 250—so not a lot when it comes to processing tens of thousands of appeals.

If you were to expand the pool of decision makers by requiring less onerous legal qualifications, it would stand to reason that you could recruit more people to process the backlog. That is the positive picture that I imagine the Home Secretary would articulate, and there is a lot to be said for it. But as I see it the risk is that on the current design you just risk moving the backlog. If you have a large pool of people without legal training applying a complicated body of law—extraordinarily complicated: ECHR law, UK domestic law, immigration rules, statutes—they will be more likely to make mistakes and errors of law. Then there would be a right of appeal to the upper tribunal, where there will still be judges. They may then grant more leave to appeal. So you might just relocate the backlog from the first-instance appeal level up to the upper tribunal. That is the risk.

I am loath to say things on the hoof about complicated points of designing institutions, but it might not be a choice between having no legal qualifications and being fit for judicial office with over 12 years’ experience. You could simply require some level of legal qualification, and that would still keep the pool of possible decision makers much broader than it is with the first-tier tribunal. Those are just some initial thoughts on that part of the Bill.

Professor Ekins: For my part, I think it is too strong to say this is a move from a judicial process to an administrative process. It is certainly a change and, if enacted and put in practice, it moves us closer to a model of departmental adjudication. However, that is still not departmental adjudication, as the relevant adjudicators will be at some distance from the Home Secretary, and they will be adjudicating claims appeals and so on.

I think there could be some advantages in the proposed change, namely trying to integrate the process of reviewing particular cases more closely to the immigration and asylum system, and making the public interest in the enforcement of migration law a more pressing consideration. However, there certainly are considerable risks—not least of which, as my colleague has pointed out, is the sheer complexity of this body of law.

To my mind, part of the problem with the body of law is the fact that sometimes, in some critical respects, its application turns on the relevant adjudicator’s individuated assessment of the relevant harshness, proportionality, fairness or otherwise of removing this person who is in violation of migration law. That makes things unpredictable, and it makes the disposition of the relevant adjudicators awfully important, which I think will result in more litigation and appeals.

Changing the persons who are doing that kind of individuated assessment might well result in a different set of outcomes. I do not know who will be recruited for this, but it is conceivable, for example, that former police officers would constitute persons for appointment. They might well—I do not know—take a different view on the fairness or otherwise of removing some persons whose claims come before them from the view taken by the existing cadre of first-tier tribunal judges. However, the same body of law is being applied, and it is complex—that is certainly true—so I think one can expect a lot of appeals.

In addition to that—this a crucial point for the Committee to bear in mind—I think there could be considerable collateral litigation to challenge decisions of the new adjudicative body, and those challenges might be at a high level. If the Bill proceeds into law, when the Home Secretary comes to promulgating secondary legislation and making critical decisions about the structure and operation of the adjudicative body, many of those decisions will be challenged by judicial review. When the adjudicative body is under way, particular decisions will be challenged by way of judicial review, as well as by appeal to the upper tribunal.

Clause 1(8) looks like an attempt to limit the judicial involvement in decisions of the adjudicative body to appeals to the upper tribunal only. If that is the intention, with respect, I think it is going to fail. That is not an effective ouster clause. You can certainly expect—and I do—much litigation and ordinary judicial review proceedings challenging particular decisions of the adjudicative body. Although more adjudicative capacity is certainly welcome, and you need that if you are going to deal with the existing and growing backlog, you have to reckon with the risk that it is not quite as straightforward as is hoped.

[Mr Kohler]

Q Are there examples of other jurisdictions that have tried this? I am thinking of Australia.

Professor Ekins: I cannot answer that question offhand, I am afraid. It is certainly the case that different common law and civil law countries take different views, especially those outside the ECHR, of the relevant role of the Department in deciding cases, and the role of courts in reviewing claims about the nature of decision making.

Certainly, if you go back not that long ago in our history, you would have had the Home Office making decisions about the application of the relevant migration law. Those decisions would have been subject to judicial supervision, but that would have been supervision with the court thinking, “Has something gone fundamentally wrong here? Is this a misconstrual of the legislation or a perverse decision, which sometimes happens?” What we have now, and have had, effectively, since a pivotal judgment in 2007, is the relevant judicial body thinking that it is its job to decide on the proportionality, fairness or justice of removal, not the Home Secretary’s. The Home Secretary takes her view, but the judge and the court take their view, and it is the court’s view that prevails. That is a different model, and it does not have to be that way.

European Entry and Exit System

Paul Kohler Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Norris]

I might contest the idea that we do not do very much European scrutiny in this place. That would be very difficult to say, because I do not recall ever standing at the Dispatch Box without talking about the European Union—it seems there are some colleagues who seek to talk about nothing else. We do have the chance to look at these plans adequately.

On the point about off-site infrastructure and similar matters, the issue is not with the infrastructure available. We can have the best infrastructure available, but if the technology that pulls through to it does not work, the system will not work. My absolute belief, which the hon. Gentleman will get to challenge in due course, is that when that tech is operational, the infrastructure will be in place and in the right parts of the ports, but we need the tech to work before we can properly test that.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

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

[Alex Norris]

On the point about alliances, I have always taken the view in this Chamber that if I agree with somebody, I say that I agree with them; if I disagree with them, I say that I disagree with them. It does not really matter which party or what part of the UK they come from. That is in the interests of all our constituents.

The hon. Gentleman has heard my answer to the point about Brexit. Whatever the well-meant and different positions we may hold, I know for certain that if we went tapping on the windows of people in queues to say, “By the way, do you know that this is about Brexit?”, they would not consider that a suitable or sufficient answer from their leaders.

I do not recognise the point about the French and schadenfreude. I have not heard that in this debate, and it is certainly not the view of the Government. We always see these things as shared challenges with our neighbours. We have what we think is a very important way forward, and we are having conversations with our neighbours.

Protest Policing

Paul Kohler Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

Any conditions that may or may not be placed on a static protest are matters for the police—those are operational matters. They have the powers available to them and I am sure they will make use of them, in the way they have been doing with protests that have been taking place across the capital for some time now. They would, of course, take into account many of the factors that the right hon. Gentleman raises in his question to me.

Let me caution a little on the description of the difference between a static protest and a moving procession of public assembly. It is not a loophole. The law deliberately treats the two things differently, because the policing challenges of a static protest are different in nature from the challenge of policing a march that is moving from one location to another. The Public Order Act recognises the difference between those two things. The police have the powers to place conditions on the way a static protest takes place. In my opinion, they have made use of those conditions very well to date and I am sure they will continue to do so.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

Notwithstanding my liberal instincts, I too agree with the Home Secretary’s decision to prohibit this march given Iran’s targeting of UK nationals abroad and our allies overseas. That targeting also occurs here in the UK. It occurred in my constituency with the stabbing of an Iranian dissident journalist two years ago. What specific steps is the Home Secretary taking to protect Iranian dissidents here in the UK who might be targeted by the Iranian state?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I will bank the fact that the hon. Gentleman agrees with my instincts on this one—perhaps I am not so authoritarian after all. He raises a more serious point about dissidents. We know the threat posed to dissidents here on UK soil by the Iranian regime. He rightly noted an earlier case. Let me assure him that we work very closely with Counter Terrorism policing and our security services on monitoring the threats posed to all individuals in the UK by foreign states. We are always ready to take any appropriate action. Indeed, the police and the security services take action every day.

West Midlands Police

Paul Kohler Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

The hon. Gentleman is presenting a particular picture of operational independence, which he knows is a difficult line to tread for all Home Secretaries and something that is guarded very closely by police. It would have been wholly inappropriate for me to try to carry out my own risk assessment, and if I were to challenge West Midlands police on the basis on which those decisions were made—as I was subsequently able to do once a decision was made—I would have been dependent on what they were telling me in the first place. I was not told that they would seek a ban on visiting fans; I was told that all options were on the table and that that was one of the things that was being considered. I was not told that it was going to be done. I refer the hon. Gentleman to Sir Andy’s letter: the first paragraph of the final page of that letter sets out what actually happened and I absolutely refute any suggestion that I was told definitively on 8 October in the way that the chief constable has suggested. That did not happen.

On contact between the Home Office and No. 10, that would have happened in the usual way, but the first any of us were aware of the decision being brought forward and being made earlier than anticipated and that a ban was going to be pursued was on 16 October. I was not aware of any intelligence about any planned armed attacks by local people; that was never put to me.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

As a member of the Home Affairs Committee, I asked Chief Constable Guildford on two occasions whether AI was used in the preparation of the police report and he denied it both times, so I am pleased the truth has emerged and he is now considering his position. However, may I press the Home Secretary on the use of AI? I hear what she said, but while we await the Home Office’s guidance, will she issue preliminary instructions to chief constables asking them not to use AI in such circumstances?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I thank the hon. Gentleman particularly for his assiduous work on the Home Affairs Committee in relation to the hearings on this matter. I would hope that all police leaders have heard loud and clear the issue in relation to AI. I do not think any of them would want to fall foul of an AI hallucination. At best that is a deeply embarrassing finding, but it is also pretty damning of the overall approach taken in this case, and I am sure all police chiefs will want to make sure they do not get into the same position. The Home Office will set out our broader vision for how AI should be used in policing, because it clearly has a role to play, and how the police should hold themselves to account and the regulations under which the use of AI should be monitored, so that we can all have confidence that it is being used appropriately.

Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban

Paul Kohler Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

The right hon. Member is right. I am very familiar with Sutton Coldfield—and my husband is a Villa season ticket holder, as are my twin boys. It is in some ways the bane of my life, because I never see them as they are always at Villa. It is worth saying that Villa fans are lovely and it is a lovely club. They are devastated that there would be any of this controversy. They just want to play football, watch football, support football, support their players and get on with it. Having talked to lots of them, I know that they have found the whole thing upsetting. They just want to watch the football.

As the right hon. Gentleman says, Birmingham is a great city. I pay tribute to the faith communities in his area and, I suspect, in many of our constituencies where the Faiths Together groups meet and bring different leaders together to ensure that we are all learning from each other and living side by side in peace.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

According to the response to the Home Affairs Committee by the West Midlands police and crime commissioner, the Home Office was fully briefed in advance on the likely recommendation to ban visiting fans from the match, so can the Minister explain why the Government failed to offer additional support for the match to go ahead until after the ban was finalised?

[Sarah Jones]

We were not fully briefed in advance of the decision; we were told when the decision was made. As we have already said, we knew that options were being considered. This is the way in which these processes work: a safety advisory group makes recommendations, and the local authority responds accordingly. In response to what has happened, we are asking the inspector to look at the safety advisory groups and tell us whether we need to make some changes.

Asylum Policy

Paul Kohler Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. Members will have seen how many Members are on their feet. I will need to finish this statement by 8 pm, so please bear that in mind, because I want to get everybody in.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

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?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I do believe it complies with those principles. At the moment at the end of the five years there is already supposed to be a safe country review. We will bring that forward and make the safe country review a real thing. As I have said, we will also create, alongside the core protection route, the protection work and study route, because we want to encourage people to make a contribution to this country.

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.