partytracker.uk — a sourced record of what Britain's political parties say and do, party by party, with every entry linked to a primary source

Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,832 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Darren Paffey

   Kinship Carers: Statutory Paid Employment Leave

   I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) on her years of hard work on this issue and on securing this debate. The Government’s core mission is to provide stable, loving homes for every child. That policy happens to have come out of the Department for Education, but the issue we are discussing spans across the Department for Business, the Department for Work and Pensions, and so on. Does the Minister agree that this issue is a fantastic example of where proper cross-Government work, pulling in the same direction, could produce outcomes for young people that are greater than the sum of the different policy parts?

   Hansard source
2. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Darren Paffey

   Topical Questions

   The damning ITV News investigation of failings in disability care covered the case of Adam Crook, son of my constituent Joanna, who raised serious allegations about alleged assault and unexplained burns, yet these serious concerns remain unanswered. The care home still has not been inspected since 2021 and the provider has faced no sanctions. Will the Minister please ensure that this is investigated, that the CQC acts and that those responsible are held accountable?

   Hansard source
3. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Danny Beales

   Heathrow Airport Expansion

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) for securing this timely and important debate. She set out very well the issues that we are concerned about and grappling with. Heathrow expansion raises significant concerns among my constituents, given that my constituency neighbours the airport. As has been said, this is not a new issue. I was going to say that it has been going on since the ’90s, but apparently it was in 1983—before I was born at Hillingdon hospital—that the people took up the mantle and battled expansion. That explains why people are incredibly frustrated and jaded: the same questions are being asked yet again, but we are getting no answers to these decades-long problems. The Government have been explicit time and again about their commitment to the four tests, which I share. Does Heathrow expansion deliver economic growth in every region? Is it consistent with our climate change commitments? Will it undermine air quality progress? Will the plans properly manage, limit and mitigate the noise impact? If the expansion fails to meet those tests, it should not be allowed to go ahead. That was always my starting point, and to this day I have been consistent about that when looking at the proposals. To be frank, the numbers that we have seen are not reassuring. According to the Government’s own modelling, the impact on GDP is predicted to be just 0.03% to 0.05% by 2056—a reduction in the economic benefit set out in earlier estimates by a factor of 10. In addition, the Department’s modelling suggests that, once monetised costs and benefits are considered, expansion could impose greater costs than benefits over 60 years, with a negative net present value of between £20 billion and £60 billion to the economy. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said that there would potentially be benefits to consumers, but projections suggest that ticket prices could rise by £60 to £65, or £250 for a family of four, as the higher airline charges to fund the development will be passed on to passengers. Rather than extend air travel to more, it could price out ordinary families from travelling from Heathrow. That is why major airlines themselves are concerned about the proposals. Many Members have heard from them. I share the new Government’s ethos of delivering growth in every postcode, but the analysis shows that Heathrow would not be a silver bullet. Modelling suggests that between 72% and 92% of the benefits of the expansion would be concentrated in London and the south-east, and research by the New Economics Foundation suggests that up to 15,000 jobs could be displaced from regions outside London and the south-east, harming regional airport capacity. Many Members are rightly fighting for such growth in their regions. It was previously claimed that expansion could be funded entirely from private investment, but that is simply not the case. There are real concerns about burdens on taxpayers. Just last week, Heathrow told the Transport Committee that it does not intend to cover the full cost of rail infrastructure. Time and again, we see taxpayers in London and elsewhere in the UK pick up the price for Heathrow-related travel. The new Elizabeth line trains, which are being built and will be rolled out soon, will not serve West Drayton, my constituents or constituents between Reading and Maidenhead, because the capacity is going to serve Heathrow, but the airport is providing no money. The headlines about expansion tell us one thing, but Heathrow bosses admit to another. We risk pressing ahead with an incredibly expensive and financially dubious infrastructure project not because it offers a credible path to growth but because it has become a symbol of whether we are committed to growth in an abstract form. We saw that with HS2. Although rail expansion and capacity are undoubtedly needed in the country, we pushed ahead with a project that was poorly scoped, poorly costed and poorly specced, and it led to decades of underperformance and cost inflation. As Members have said, the evidence falls flat on the other tests too. On the noise impact, a huge number of people will be pulled into increased noise and disruption across London, although the flight paths are still uncertain, so we cannot be sure about the exact scope and extent. The costs of mitigating noise impacts, with secondary glazing or replacement housing, are potentially exponential, and we still do not know how they will be paid or who will pay for them. The Climate Change Committee’s work, published last month, found that aviation emissions had more than doubled since 1990, and that Heathrow currently accounted for half of all UK aviation emissions. It concluded there is no credible pathway for Heathrow expansion to be compatible with the UK’s vital climate commitments under current policies. Meanwhile, on air pollution, serious concerns remain over the reliability of modelling and whether the impact of the latest expansion proposals has been sufficiently assessed. Frankly, there is no point standing on a commitment to these four tests as criteria for shaping the future of Heathrow, if the moment they are not met, we abandon them. It is not something I can do while looking my constituents squarely in the face. For many of us, Heathrow expansion is a perennial issue that should be dealt with, so we do not have to keep on talking about it. For residents in Hillingdon and London, the impacts will be profound, with the case as shaky now as it has ever been. That has been compounded by what can only be described as an incredibly poor consultation process, which failed to engage properly with the strength of feeling on the issue, with consultations taking place in August, despite many stakeholders, including me, outlining the difficulty of securing proper engagement over the summer. Heathrow’s own consultation that is taking place as we speak, with have no events in my constituency, despite its neighbouring the airport. Perhaps Heathrow does not want to hear questions because, as we have seen time and again, it does not have the answer to meeting the four tests. We must take our time and think fully about the implications of expansion. We must have access to proper data that is thought through. I echo my hon. Friend the Member for Putney in calling for a proper national strategy about our aviation needs, which thinks holistically about every region and every aspect of our nation’s aviation needs. We must think again on Heathrow expansion.

   Hansard source
4. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Danny Beales

   Heathrow Airport Expansion

   The right hon. Gentleman has presented the clarity in the Opposition’s position, but my understanding is that the Conservative party is quite divided on this matter. The local Conservative-led council in Hillingdon opposes it, as do many MPs. The position that he put forward had quite a big “if” caveat: they would support it “if” there were no costs and additional measures. Those measures are not clear. As many have said, the costs are not being covered. The taxpayer would have to foot the bill for significant transport improvements and mitigation measures, which are not being funded. What price are the Opposition willing to have taxpayers pay for Heathrow to go ahead?

   Hansard source
5. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Daniel Francis

   Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL] (First sitting)

   Similarly, I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group for wheelchair users, and clearly the Bill covers some aspects of that work.

   Hansard source
6. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Daniel Francis

   Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL] (First sitting)

   Shortly after the election, the Government set up the aviation accessibility task and finish group. Clearly, a lot of work in the Bill builds on that. Disabled passenger groups want to see those measures introduced, so can the Minister confirm that clause 2 will require a consultation to be carried out within 12 months of the Bill being passed, and that he will then publish the outcome of that consultation so that we can continue to build on the work of the task and finish group?

   Hansard source
7. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Daniel Francis

   Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL] (First sitting)

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. Shortly after my election the year before last, I was delighted to introduce my private Member’s Bill, the Aviation (Accessibility) Bill, and I welcome the fact that this Bill—and, in particular, the clauses that we have been debating—encompasses a number of its measures. Accessibility in air travel is not just a matter of convenience; it is a matter of rights, dignity and equality. It is about ensuring that everyone, regardless of their mobility or physical condition, can enjoy the freedom to travel. I pay tribute to my fellow chair of the all-party parliamentary group for wheelchair users, Baroness Grey-Thompson, for the work that she has done on the Bill in the Lords, and for her work as chair of the aviation accessibility task and finish group, which this Government set up shortly after our election to ensure that the work on these safeguards started, and which reported back last year. As Members know, as well as being chair of the APPG I am the parent of a wheelchair user, so I live and see that lived experience on a daily basis. If you will allow me, Mr Turner, I want to place on the record my thanks to Sophie Morgan, Christopher Wood, who is with us in the Gallery, and their colleagues at the Rights On Flights campaign for their work to raise awareness of the issues that have led us to this place. The clauses that we have already discussed will require Ministers to give due regard to strengthening passenger rights, but clause 4 will, vitally, remove the compensation limit for wheelchairs, mobility aids and other assistive devices. At present, the limit can be around £1,500, and someone can be required to battle for several months through the courts, with no real understanding of their legal rights. Many wheelchairs—even my 13-year-old’s—are worth more than £1,500 and, as I have said to the Minister, I am aware of a Member in the other place whose wheelchair is worth six times the current limit, so there really is a need to remove it. As well as causing complexity, the current arrangements do put people off flying. Unlike the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, my daughter has not flown for 12 years, because I dread the thought of going through the process, quite frankly. Strengthening these rights will not only help people during their journeys, but encourage people to undertake them again. I welcome the measures on compensation rights for lost, damaged or destroyed wheelchairs or mobility aids. Currently, airlines are not required to cover the full cost of repairs, and the limit for international flights will continue to be set in the Montreal convention; the limit in the Bill will be only for internal flights. There remains work to be done with regard to the Montreal and Warsaw conventions. Those longer flights fall outside the Bill, and there will continue to be some pressures for passengers travelling on them. The Minister knows I will continue to press the Government on working with international partners to press for compensation. We cannot, of course, encompass that in the Bill, but I would welcome the Minister’s comments on what we can do on that matter. The CAA is responsible for the regulation of aviation safety in the UK, but it has been inhibited by not having the power to take proper action against airlines. Taking businesses to court has been a lengthy process, so I strongly welcome the measures in clause 4. I concur with the Minister on new clause 13 from the Liberal Democrats. We have themes 3 and 4 of the report from the aviation task and finish group on mobility aids design and handling. We continue, through consultation and the Bill, to look at how those could be incorporated. I will not name airlines, but there are good examples of airlines that are following that guidance and that are ahead of the curve. Of course, there are also airlines that frankly need to step up to the plate. New clause 13 is well intentioned, but there is good practice out there. There is work stemming from theme 4 in the report submitted by the task and finish group. As the Minister said, there will be the consultation, as we saw in clause 2.

   Hansard source
8. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Daniel Francis

   Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL] (First sitting)

   I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s comments. There are themes within the aviation task and finish group report on that matter. Training is in theme 1, and passenger information is in theme 2. So there are recommendations there. There will be the consultation. We need to look at the good examples—as I said, I will not mention individual airlines, but I will tell the Minister later. We can feed that in and look at it. However, as the hon. Gentleman referred to, there is also complexity. Under the current arrangements, we would end up with that passport being used for internal flights and for flights leaving the United Kingdom, but it would not apply to people returning on a flight from overseas to the United Kingdom. As a user, I think that that would cause some confusion. As a London MP, I know my rights on a Transport for London bus, and I quote the big red book to bus drivers if they are not upholding the rights of a wheelchair user. I know my rights on the railway. I think it would be hugely confusing to have one set of rights for a flight leaving the UK and not the same set of rights for returning.

   Hansard source
9. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Daniel Francis

   Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL] (First sitting)

   The hon. Gentleman makes my point for me. It is the same as the issues within the Montreal convention. We cannot put those or the issues with IATA in the Bill. We need to leave it to Government and Ministers to consult and work to strengthen those rights. That is why I would not support them being in the Bill. I support the measures in clause 4, but I ask Ministers to go away, look at the Montreal convention, have conversations with IATA and continue to strengthen rights in this area.

   Hansard source
10. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Damien Egan

    Topical Questions

    T6. The steps towards expanding access to NHS dental treatment that the Minister outlined earlier are very welcome, but too many of my constituents still report that they cannot see an NHS dentist when they need one. Can the Minister therefore tell us what specific steps are being taken to improve dental services across the Bristol region?

    Hansard source
11. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dame Diana Johnson

    Primary Care

    We now have the highest number of fully qualified GPs since 2015, and almost 16 million more GP appointments were delivered in the last year than in the 12 months before the election. As a result of that investment, 77% of people now say that they have a good local service. We know that there is more to do, especially in rural and remote areas, but there is clear progress against our 10-year plan.

    Hansard source
12. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dame Diana Johnson

    Primary Care

    I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman. I have looked at the issue around Oak Park community clinic and I know that he has met the integrated care board. I am told that all options are being considered to provide a sustainable and accessible solution for diagnostics at the Oak Park site, but I am happy to meet him.

    Hansard source
13. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dame Diana Johnson

    Primary Care

    I understand the concerns that my hon. Friend has raised, particularly with regard to vulnerable patients, but it is important that GP lists are as accurate as possible. We think that there are around 6 million more registrations than England’s population and most people flagged are confirmed to have moved abroad. Strong safeguards are in place, including no patient being removed on the basis of a single indicator or because they failed to respond to one piece of correspondence. Overall, it takes more than five months from identifying a patient who may no longer reside to deregistering them from a practice system. I am always happy to meet my hon. Friend.

    Hansard source
14. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dame Diana Johnson

    Primary Care

    I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this. He will appreciate that I am relatively new in post, but I am going to find out and I will write to him with the specific answers to the questions he has posed today.

    Hansard source
15. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dame Diana Johnson

    Primary Care

    My hon. Friend is a doughty champion for her local area and for ensuring that we have services close to populations and close to where people live. I am very happy to meet her to discuss this.

    Hansard source
16. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dame Diana Johnson

    Diethylstibesterol

    I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for all her campaigning on diethylstilbesterol and to her constituent Jan Hall and her family. We recognise the serious intergenerational effects of exposure to DES, including increased cancer risks and reproductive complications, and we have asked NHS England and clinical networks to improve awareness of those issues and the people affected by them. We have commissioned an evidence review of the intergenerational effects of DES, which will inform our efforts to strengthen support in this area.

    Hansard source
17. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dame Diana Johnson

    Diethylstibesterol

    I recognise that some women exposed to DES still face difficulties accessing advice, monitoring and referral. Clinicians should consider individual medical histories, symptoms and risk factors. I had a look at the letter that was sent on 12 December explaining what more should be done by clinicians. I will again ask officials to look at whether we need to reissue that letter or whether we need to take any other action to ensure that the information about DES is spread as widely as possible among clinicians.

    Hansard source
18. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dame Diana Johnson

    Diethylstibesterol

    As I just said, the Government are improving identification and support for people affected by DES by raising awareness among clinicians and strengthening the dissemination of existing NHS guidance. There are considerable challenges associated with recalling records from the 1940s to the 1970s, particularly because of the record-keeping practices of that era and the fact that the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency had not yet been established at that time, but I am mindful of the point that the hon. Member makes.

    Hansard source
19. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dame Diana Johnson

    Continuity of Care in the NHS

    One of the reasons the Government committed to bring back the family doctor was the importance of maintaining continuity of care for patients. I am pleased to say that the proportion of patients who say they are able to see their preferred clinician when they make a GP appointment has risen from 61% to 68% since the election, but we recognise that there is more to do, and this remains an important priority for the Government.

    Hansard source
20. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dame Diana Johnson

    Continuity of Care in the NHS

    I recognise the enormous experience and knowledge of the former Secretary of State for Health and his work on this issue and patient safety more generally. The Department has started to look at expert advice, with a clinical working group, on how best to support continuity of care in modern general practice. I have not read the report that he referred to, but I am happy to go and have a look it. I am also happy to have a discussion with him, because it would be helpful to understand his thinking on what I know he considers to be a very important issue.

    Hansard source
21. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dame Diana Johnson

    Continuity of Care in the NHS

    Gosh, my hon. Friend made a very passionate statement there, and I absolutely agree with what she said. This work will be undertaken with the national maternity and neonatal taskforce, and we will look at all these issues. I hope my hon. Friend will feel able to contribute to that work if she wishes to.

    Hansard source
22. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dame Diana Johnson

    Continuity of Care in the NHS

    I will be mindful of your comment, Mr Speaker. What happened recently is totally unacceptable, and the Secretary of State has made that clear. My understanding is that those individuals who have accessed information about patients, and had no businesses to access it, have been suspended. Disciplinary action will follow, possibly with dismissals. Such actions are totally unacceptable.

    Hansard source
23. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dame Diana Johnson

    Continuity of Care in the NHS

    Times in A&E are being speeded up. The hon. Lady speaks with experience because she is a clinician, and I am happy to go away and look at that issue and write to her if there is information we need to let her have. My understanding is that we are speeding things up in A&E, and getting people through and on to the ward as quickly as possible.[Official Report, 28 October 2026; Vol. 792, c. 2WC.] (Correction)

    Hansard source
24. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dame Diana Johnson

    Pelvic Mesh and Sodium Valproate: Redress

    I am aware that a number of right hon. and hon. Members are very interested in this issue, and as the new Minister for Public Health and Patient Safety, I am driving the work and giving the report by the Patient Safety Commissioner the urgent and thorough consideration that it requires. As has been stated, the Government are committed to making meaningful progress in this Parliament, and we are advancing non-financial redress to improve health service support for those affected.

    Hansard source
25. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dame Diana Johnson

    Pelvic Mesh and Sodium Valproate: Redress

    I am very sorry to hear about Ruth’s experience and what she has gone through. Just last night, I watched the film that has been produced about the experience of a number of women—my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) provided a screening of it in Parliament last week—and the stories in it are harrowing. As I have said, I am looking at the issue. I am conscious that right hon. and hon. Members are interested in what the Government are going to do. The previous Secretary of State had made it clear that progress would be made by the end of this Parliament. That is as far as I can go today, but I am personally looking at this issue.

    Hansard source
26. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dame Diana Johnson

    Pelvic Mesh and Sodium Valproate: Redress

    My hon. Friend makes a very important point. That is why we have revised the women’s health strategy. It makes it very clear that medical misogyny is not acceptable and that women’s voices must be heard.

    Hansard source
27. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dame Diana Johnson

    Topical Questions

    There is money available for GP surgeries; as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) has already said, many of them were left in a terrible state under the previous Government. They were not invested in over many years. There is money available, and when I meet the hon. Gentleman, I will be happy to discuss that with him.

    Hansard source
28. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dame Diana Johnson

    Topical Questions

    We are clear that no surrogacy arrangements should place any party at the risk of exploitation, and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office provides guidance on the risks of overseas surrogacy and the steps that intended parents must take to return to the UK with their child. The Government have no current plans to legislate to prevent people domiciled in the UK from entering international surrogacy arrangements.

    Hansard source
29. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dame Diana Johnson

    Topical Questions

    The national position in England remains that gluten-free bread and mixes can be prescribed on the national health service for eligible people diagnosed with coeliac disease. As my hon. Friend says, ICBs can restrict or end the prescribing of gluten-free food, but I am happy to discuss this matter with her.

    Hansard source
30. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dame Diana Johnson

    Topical Questions

    Absolutely. That is a core part of the neighbourhood health offer that this Government are making. We have already announced, in wave 1, a number of neighbourhood health centres; wave 2 will be announced shortly. This is absolutely key to keeping people out of hospital and providing healthcare in local communities.

    Hansard source
31. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Connor Naismith

    Manufacturing Skills

    My hon. Friend mentions some fantastic local businesses in his area, leading the way on the transition to clean power and net zero. Crewe and Nantwich is home to Bentley Motors, one of the area’s largest manufacturing employers. The company recently announced 93 early-career opportunities, including 29 apprenticeships, 15 graduate positions and 49 industrial placements, investing directly in the skills of the next generation of workers. Does my hon. Friend agree that employers such as Bentley are demonstrating the long-term commitment to skills we need to see across the country?

    Hansard source
32. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Vince

    Radiotherapy Satellite Units

    Under this Government 250,000 people are being diagnosed within 28 days, which we should welcome, but we must recognise that there is more to be done. This morning I met representatives of Prostate Cancer UK. In fact, I played football against them—

    Hansard source
33. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Vince

    Radiotherapy Satellite Units

    That is true, although we did win. They made the point that so many men in this country are still dying of prostate cancer because they are not coming forward soon enough, and we know that the impact is even greater on the black, Asian and minority ethnic community. What can the Government do to support wonderful charities such as Prostate Cancer UK to cut the number of men dying of prostate cancer?

    Hansard source
34. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Bryant

    Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

    One day more, Ms Ghani. Today we are debating parts 6 to 9 of the Bill. Part 6 sets up on a pilot basis the Independent Commission on Information Retrieval, as originally proposed in the Stormont House agreement. The commission will be an international body established jointly with the Irish Government to give families an additional means to retrieve information about troubles-related deaths. Part 7 covers the restoration of a limited number of troubles-related inquests. Part 8 covers further provisions, including the lifting of the prohibition set out in the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 on investigations by the police of other troubles-related offences, including sexual offences, ensuring that there is no bar to investigating crimes based on when they took place. It also covers the provisions regarding interim custody orders. I will turn first to inquests. I understand the strength of feeling across the House in respect of inquests, as evidenced by the large number of amendments that have been tabled by right hon. and hon. Members. The Bill does not establish any new inquests. However, when the legacy Act abruptly halted a number of inquests on 1 May 2024, we committed in opposition to restoring some of them, as we knew the hurt and anxiety it caused many families in both Northern Ireland and Great Britain. As we said at that time, it marked a very painful day for families of troubles victims, who felt that 1 May marked a door being shut in their faces, in particular for those who had been involved in inquests. The truth is that many families have received answers through inquests, and only through inquests. I rather agreed with my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn) when he said yesterday that he had been brought up to expect an inquest whenever there was a suspicious death. That is why the Bill strikes a balance on how to take this issue forward. It enables the resumption of the small number of inquests that were cut off midway on 1 May 2024. We believe that those families deserve to have that process continue, as we have said from the outset. For inquests that have been directed but not started, the Bill requires the Solicitor General to sift whether they would be best handled by the legacy commission or a coroner based on clear criteria, including a statutory presumption in favour of the commission for cases involving sensitive material, owing to the greater powers of the commission to take such material into account in producing reports. This is covered directly in clause 84. There are understandable concerns about how we ensure that veterans are treated with dignity and respect within the coronial process. That is exactly why we have introduced safeguards to protect veterans from cold calling, to ensure that they do not have to travel to or within Northern Ireland to give evidence, and to ensure that the operational context in which they served is fully recognised. Let me repeat: these also apply to inquests, not just to the legacy commission. The Bill also amends coronial law so that inquests cannot repeat processes that have already been undergone elsewhere unless essential. Let me turn to the matter of when this process comes to an end, which is something that has been raised with me by many veterans and others. Earlier this year, the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) tabled amendment 50, which sought to remove clause 85. I agree with him, so I have added my name to the amendment—it is now a Government amendment. This means that no new legacy inquests can be directed when the commission comes to an end. In practice, it means that we will simply vote for clause 85 not to stand part of the Bill, when we get to that moment. I believe that this will provide a clear end to troubles-related inquests and certainty for all those involved. I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for tabling the amendment, and for his gratitude when I rang him to tell him that I was adding my name to it. I want to make it absolutely clear that this will mean no additional inquests—full stop, punto final. As several Members pointed out yesterday, addressing the legacy of the troubles is a responsibility for both the UK and Irish Governments. A unilateral approach simply cannot work, as was demonstrated by the legacy Act. As Sir Declan Morgan, the chief commissioner of the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery, has repeatedly made clear to me, my predecessor—my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South—and the public, co-operation from the Garda and other Irish authorities will be essential to the commission’s ability to find answers for families. That is why my predecessor negotiated the joint framework, and it is why we are committed to implementing it. Let us be clear about what that means. Records held by the Irish authorities may well contain crucial information or answers about how UK civilians and service personnel died. I have heard many people make the point that while the British Army kept records, paramilitaries certainly did not. However, we know that the Irish authorities may well have crucial information that is vital to this process.

    Hansard source
35. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Bryant

    Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

    The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point. By the time we finish considering the Bill today, I cannot see any legitimate reason why the Irish state would continue with its inter-state case at all. I have already made that point robustly to my counterparts in Dublin. I very much hope that they will look again and think again and decide that not only did we win the case in the Dillon judgment, but the legislation that we are advancing today is fully human rights-compliant, and that there is therefore no argument for them maintaining their inter-state case.

    Hansard source
36. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Bryant

    Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

    Yes, to the first part. As I have just said, I have said this very robustly to Jim O’Callaghan and Helen McEntee on several occasions. They have kept their own counsel for the moment, but it seems to me inconceivable that, by the time the Bill gets to the House of Lords, there could be an argument for them maintaining the inter-state case, and I therefore hope that they will withdraw it. I am being as clear as I can with the hon. Gentleman. As he knows, he and I agree on many, many things, not least the fact that it is good to have power sharing in Northern Ireland and that I should not be running Northern Ireland.

    Hansard source
37. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Bryant

    Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

    The right hon. Gentleman makes a decent point. The question then is simply how one addresses that and ensures that one gets the future co-operation that has been promised and committed to by the Irish Government. I am more hopeful than he is, I guess—he may say that is because he has more scars on his back than I have in this regard. I think that between the two of us, with his scepticism and my hope, we might be able to get to a good set of outcomes. On the Omagh bombing, it is inevitable, I think, that we will end up having some of the same conversations today as we had yesterday, as Members understandably referred then to issues that we are voting on today. However, I would just say to the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire that with my understanding of the terms of reference of the Omagh inquiry, we slightly disagree on this matter. I think it will be perfectly possible for the Omagh inquiry to come to some fairly firm conclusions. More importantly, however, as I said yesterday, it is really important that the fullest possible co-operation is shown, and, where the chief counsel has already said that they are not happy with that co-operation, it is incumbent on the Irish Government to step up to the plate.

    Hansard source
38. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Bryant

    Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

    Yes, although this is all on one sentence, and it is the right hon. Gentleman’s second go.

    Hansard source
39. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Bryant

    Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

    You will be aware, Ms Ghani, that we not only had that debate yesterday, but voted on it last night. First, I want to make it absolutely clear that nobody drafted the Bill with the date of the Good Friday agreement in it in some sense to placate the Irish Government. That was not the consideration at all. I simply note that it is the same date that was used by the previous legislation, which was advanced by the Government that the right hon. Member served in. If he does not mind, I gently suggest that that is a better date to land on than another arbitrary date.

    Hansard source
40. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Bryant

    Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

    Well, all right.

    Hansard source