Jack Abbott MP: speeches

I beg to move, That this House has considered access to endometriosis services. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister to her place. Many people will recognise that she is a long-time champion of women and women’s health, so it is especially fitting that she is responding today. I am particularly grateful to have secured a debate during Endometriosis Awareness Month to discuss, as a matter of deep importance to women in Ipswich and across the country, access to local specialist endometriosis services. Endometriosis affects one in 10 women. That means that more than 1.5 million women in the UK are living with a condition that causes chronic pain and infertility, and has profound effects on mental health. Yet for women in Ipswich, specialist care is out of reach. There is no specialist endometriosis clinic at Ipswich hospital, so women who are already living with debilitating pain and who have often waited years for a diagnosis, never mind treatment, are forced to travel to access the care that they desperately need. That is clearly wrong on so many levels. I want to share the story of one of my constituents, Monica Thomas, who is here with us in the Public Gallery—that sounds very formal, but Monica was in the year below me at Earl Soham primary school 25 years ago. She has battled symptoms for nearly that long; it was 17 years before she finally got a diagnosis. She is now waiting for lung surgery due to having thoracic—as well as pelvic—endometriosis. Despite years of chest pain and breathing difficulties, she was refused referrals to a thoracic specialist and ended up seeking a private opinion. She lives in daily pelvic and chest pain, constantly deals with breathlessness and spends many days bedbound—thankfully not today, Monica. Monica took her suffering and turned it into determination, resilience and strength. She founded Women’s Health Hope, an award-winning charity dedicated to supporting, advocating for and educating people about women’s health. It shines a light on the unique challenges that women face and creates a safe space in which no one feels alone on their journey. Monica really is a powerhouse and we should all be inspired by her, but also by all the women who have come down from Ipswich today, including Faye Ramsey and so many others. They are battling not just for themselves, but for so many of their friends and family members and many women yet to come—thank you for making the journey here today. An almost unifying experience for women with endometriosis is having their symptoms overlooked, ignored and dismissed. They are told that they are overreacting and that pain is normal for women. A recent survey by Endometriosis UK found that 82% of respondents had been told by a healthcare practitioner that they were making a fuss about nothing, or had heard similar comments. It takes on average 10 visits to a GP before someone mentions endometriosis. In England, the average waiting time from first visiting a GP with symptoms to getting an endometriosis diagnosis is nine years and four months. Let that sink in: it takes nearly a decade just to get a diagnosis, never mind treatment. Women are waiting to be diagnosed with a relatively common reproductive health condition and are suffering preventable adverse effects. A key reason for that is the normalisation of symptoms of reproductive ill health and particularly of severe period pain, the severity of which is often not believed. From a young age, women are taught to expect painful, heavy periods and that experiencing severe pain is nothing noteworthy and just par for the course—part of being a woman. We live in a society in which women are told to suck it up and endure pain that interferes with every aspect of their daily lives. Women learn from a young age to hide their pain away because they must be overreacting and to feign headaches and stomach pains, migraines and food poisoning. More than 1 million women mask period pain sick days every year, because they feel unable to tell their boss the true reason. The systemic normalisation of symptoms means that women do not solicit medical help when they need it. Indeed, studies have shown that less than half of women with severe reproductive health conditions seek help. The lack of specialist endometriosis services at Ipswich hospital is symbolic of how women’s pain has historically been deprioritised. Unsurprisingly, gynaecology has the largest waiting list of any specialty for working-age adults. As of January 2026, more than half a million women were waiting for gynaecological care. When specialist services are left to a postcode lottery, care for women in places such as Ipswich becomes even further out of reach. It deepens health inequalities, delays treatment and adds unnecessary barriers to accessing essential services.

I thank the Minister for her detailed speech. I look forward to working with her over the coming months and years on these important issues. I thank everybody who has contributed and shared not just the experiences of their constituents—as awful and harrowing as they often are—but some deeply personal stories. It is not often in this Chamber that we have the time to do so, and it was welcome that we were able to today. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Tulip Siddiq) for plugging the film showing next door—I was also just about to do that. It is called “This is Endometriosis” and it starts at 4.30 pm. It is free of charge, although I do not know whether the Minister is going to be on the doors herself. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Ms Oppong-Asare) for hosting us there. I give final thanks to all the women who have joined us today in the Public Gallery. I thank Monica Thomas for her fearless advocacy for so many women locally. Faye Ramsey has collected nearly 100 stories from women who have been badly failed for so long locally, and she is also pushing for greater education in schools and far better practice in the workplace—I thank Faye for all of her work. I also thank Zoe Wright, Evie Lapworth, Evie Niblock, Siana Lynch, Kelly Harris-Flatt, Sanju, and Monica’s partner, Aaron. They should all be incredibly proud of their advocacy for so many women locally. I know that they, like me, will not be satisfied by just shining a light on the issue; they want to shift the dial too. I will stand side by side with them, as will many other Members, to ensure that every woman has access to the services that they need, ultimately changing lives for the better. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered access to endometriosis services.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) for securing this debate and for his ongoing commitment to tackling the challenges facing men and boys. Let me begin with the reality in my constituency. As has been said, some of the inequalities that we see today are baked in before school starts. One in three boys in Ipswich starts school without the foundation skills that they need to succeed. Those young boys are full of potential, yet they struggle early with reading, numeracy and social and emotional development—issues only exacerbated by the pandemic. At the very start of their lives, they are already facing a steep uphill climb that threatens to define not only their entire educational journey but their life chances.

Allegedly—I think I did say that, and I apologise if I did not use that word, Mr Twigg, but that is what our Crown prosecutors have charged him with. It is terrifying that many young boys look at someone like him as a potential role model. I do not believe that there are no role models out there—the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth mentioned people such as Gareth Southgate. There are many footballers and the wonderful actors we saw at the BAFTAs, but why not start at home? My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Maya Ellis) spoke about the role of parents. A new Labour Group for Men and Boys has been established in partnership with The Dad Shift and Movember and vital campaigners on these issues. One of its latest campaigns is on paternity leave in this country, which is the worst in Europe—just two weeks at half the minimum wage, or nothing if someone is self-employed. We have to recognise that to develop strong children into strong men later in life, they need role models at home. That is about equal parenting and making sure that men are present in their child’s life at the earliest possible stage. Statistics show that if they are there as decent, active and present role models in a child’s early development, they will be later in life as well. Measures such as those I have described are how we will ensure that boys in Ipswich do not just survive school and their education, but thrive and go on to live fulfilling, secure and productive lives.

I am delighted to do that. I know that my hon. Friend is a great mum to her little children. I will come to the really important issues that she highlights later in my speech. As has been said, we need co-ordinated, well-funded action across Departments, across Government and across our country. We must confront the real challenges in educational attainment. By the age of five, children are assessed against the early years foundation stage framework. A good level of development involves meeting milestones in communication, literacy and mathematics. That foundation is essential for primary success, GCSEs and, eventually, securing stable employment. If a child is behind at five and is struggling to communicate or manage emotions, they are far more likely to fall even further behind. That gap affects their confidence and shapes what they believe, whether they feel that university or a high-skilled apprenticeship is within reach, and whether they feel equipped to navigate the world of work. In 2024, a Suffolk county council report showed that only 62% of boys—less than two thirds—achieve a good level of development by the age of five, compared with 79% of girls. Boys are more likely to start school struggling with the skills that underpin all later learning. Although it is important to note that girls absolutely face their own challenges, we must provide targeted interventions so that every child can thrive. As a child progresses, the gaps continue. By key stage 2, boys from disadvantaged backgrounds are disproportionately represented among those failing to reach the expected standards. In Suffolk, that manifests in a worrying 14.6% rate of persistent absenteeism in secondary schools. When boys disengage from the classroom, they lose the sense of belonging and the structure that school provides, which often leads to a cycle of isolation. In Ipswich, the deprivation gap has hit nearly two years: people from lower income backgrounds at GCSE are nearly two years behind their peers. But it all starts in early years: by the time they enter reception, at the age of four, they are already six months behind. We need a strategy that understands how class, place and gender can collide to hold our young people back. The solutions lie in practical, evidence-based action. Early intervention, targeted literacy support, mentoring for at-risk boys and mental health initiatives are all vital, but we must act decisively. The Government have already taken steps to address the root causes of disengagement, starting with the men’s health strategy, released towards the end of last year. It is not just a policy document; it is the first strategy to recognise that a boy’s physical health and mental resilience are the primary drivers of his ability to concentrate in a classroom. By tackling health inequalities early, we can ensure that young boys’ underdiagnosed anxiety or physical development delays do not become lifelong barriers to their education. Similarly, our expanded early years provision and family hubs are transforming school readiness. In Ipswich, they will act as a vital one-stop shop, providing parents with speech and language therapy and parental support before a child reaches his first day at school. For a young boy who might otherwise start reception unable to communicate his needs, leading to frustration, such hubs provide early intervention that can prevent a cycle of exclusion. These measures offer some sort of stability. They ensure that school readiness is a reality, not a slogan, by supporting the home environment and the child simultaneously. They demonstrate precisely why the solution lies in ensuring that policies are co-ordinated, well-resourced and effectively delivered in communities such as Ipswich. It has been said, rightly, by Members across the Chamber that boys in themselves are not the problem, but we have to recognise and be honest with ourselves about the dangers they are facing at the moment, particularly online. Andrew Tate was mentioned just a moment ago. I am loath to repeat his name too often, but we have to remember that he has been charged by not just our country’s Crown Prosecution Service, but authorities in many other countries around the world. He is charged with rape, actual bodily harm and human trafficking. I know how many young boys at the moment look to him as some sort of—

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) for securing this important debate. This issue comes up repeatedly with my local residents, who want to feel safe in our town—whether that is walking, shopping, eating or enjoying public spaces. Women and girls should feel safe at night. Families should be able to enjoy our town centre free from the fear of antisocial behaviour. As has already been mentioned, shop workers should not have the threat of retail crime hanging over them. I am really pleased that, after years of campaigning by the Co-operative party, that was included as a standalone offence in the Crime and Policing Bill. We have made real progress in Ipswich over the past couple of years through a combination of Government initiatives in partnership with our hard-working police force. For example, the Clear, Hold, Build initiative has removed weapons and drugs from our streets, led to over 100 arrests, and resulted in charges and convictions totalling nearly 43 years. Other initiatives, such as Operation Spotlight over the summer, meant that police spent more than 1,700 extra hours patrolling the town centre in July and August, so there is real progress. We have seen crime fall in the last few years by 13%. I look forward to further legislation, which will make it much easier for councils to bring empty shops back into use and protect our high streets from unwanted businesses. There has been real progress in tackling some of those problems. Although tackling crime is absolutely a priority, we cannot arrest our way out of the problems that we see on our high streets. That is why we are working hard in Ipswich to bring good, well-paid and secure jobs to the town. Whether it is at Sizewell C or Halo, hundreds of jobs will be created, and we are increasing footfall in our town centre—it has increased by 15%—by attracting people in. We are making progress, but there is much more to do. I thank the Government, and look forward to the Minister’s comments.

I was actually referring to the number of Opposition Members defending this policy here today. I do not think there is a single person in the country who will defend keeping hundreds of thousands more children in poverty. That is what we are getting rid of today, and that is what the hon. Gentleman’s party is defending. It is difficult to think of another policy in modern Britain that is so stark in its design and so devastating in its impact. This policy, for nearly a decade, has quietly and cruelly shaped and limited the life chances of children across this country. Poverty impacts children before they are even born, and its effects continue to be felt in myriad ways at every stage of life after that. Children growing up in poverty are more likely to experience mental and physical health issues and to do worse in school. They are more likely to be unemployed, earn less or be in low-skilled work than their peers, and they are more likely to experience homelessness and poor health. The shadow Secretary of State said that it is a trap for worklessness. No, this policy is a trap for worklessness, which is exactly what it has achieved over the previous few years. The consequences of poverty are severe and long-lasting, with children born into poverty ultimately having lower life expectancies. Life is shorter because of poverty, and poverty exists in its extreme because of this policy. For children growing up in a low-income household in my county of Suffolk, education disadvantage starts before they even begin school, and it compounds at every stage of their education. The latest figures from the Education Policy Institute’s 2025 disadvantage report shows that, before kids even enter primary school, they are almost half a year behind their peers. By the time they finish key stage 3, as they choose their options, they are a staggering 21.7 months behind—that is nearly two full school years before they even begin studying for their GCSEs. The translation of this deprivation gap over every stage of a child’s education to their examination results is tangible and stark: disadvantaged students in Suffolk are 4.4 grades behind at the age of 16. I remember being a councillor during the pandemic, and I saw the enormous impact that this had on so many families, as many Members will remember. Never mind huddling around a kitchen or dining room table trying to work, many families did not have a kitchen or dining room table. Indeed, many disadvantaged students in places like Ipswich were left without electronic devices, such as laptops, for many months. I had hoped that that would be a watershed moment in how we view the link between education and poverty. Instead, what I saw in opposition, as a county councillor in Suffolk, was more cuts to children’s centres and more than a halving of health visitors, yet we wonder why we have such problems now when young children enter education for the first time. It is an absolute disgrace that even now—even after the impact we have seen and all the evidence we have seen—the Conservatives cannot bring themselves to support measures that reduce child poverty. I am proud to support this Bill, because scrapping the two-child limit will have one of the greatest impacts on driving down child poverty. That one action will lift 450,000 children across our country out of poverty, including more than 3,000 in my town of Ipswich. Through this action, alongside an enormous package of other actions that our Government are taking, we will take over half a million children out of poverty—the largest reduction in a single Parliament since records began. The two-child limit is quite simply wrong. The number of brothers and sisters that a child has should never determine whether they go hungry or how well they do in school, and no child should be punished simply for existing. Tackling child poverty is in our Labour party’s DNA, and today I could not be prouder to be a Labour MP, because today this Labour Government are following in the footsteps of every Labour Government who came before them by lifting children out of poverty and transforming children’s lives.

It is true to say that the Conservative party has been right about one thing today: this is about choices, and I am incredibly proud to be making the one that we are making. The Conservative party did untold damage to our country, whether it was in hollowing out the criminal justice system, crumbling school buildings and hospitals, record NHS waiting lists or Liz Truss, but the most egregious part of its record was the harm it inflicted on our nation’s children. An entire generation was plunged into poverty. Poverty is not inevitable. The last Labour Government lifted 600,000 children out of poverty, but the Conservatives’ scorched-earth programme of austerity reversed that trend. Over their 14 years in power, the number of those in child poverty rose by 900,000, and 4.5 million children now live in poverty. In my constituency, thousands of children are growing up in poverty, which is around one in three. Those are not simply abstract statistics; they are the children and families I meet every week. The shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), said that families have difficult conversations around the kitchen table, and she is absolutely right. Parents are worried about whether they will be turning the heating on or skipping a meal; kids already feel the weight of the world on their shoulders before their 10th birthday; and—as was mentioned just a moment ago—parents working two jobs are still unable to make ends meet. It is cold bedrooms, missed meals and two small, patched-together school uniforms—these are scars that last a lifetime. Much of that hardship and suffering can be directly attributed to the two-child benefit limit. It is a failed, cruel policy experiment and—leaving aside the fact-free nonsense that we have heard previously from the Conservative party—it makes no difference to family sizes, and it does not drive up employment. Indeed, as has already been mentioned, almost 60% of affected families are in work. The two-child limit does not achieve the so-called goals that Tory ideologues pretend to lay out. Instead, it punishes children; all it does is make children poorer, and it is the single biggest driver of child poverty. Perhaps that is why there are so few Opposition Members prepared to sit and defend this morally, socially and economically bankrupt policy.

It is a pleasure to speak in support of the Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill. This Bill goes to the very heart of the future of our national health service—the doctors on whom our health service depends. It is about fairness, protecting taxpayers’ money, and building a home-grown NHS workforce that is sustainable in the long term. It is about making sure that those who have trained here have the opportunity to become the next generation of doctors working in our health service. Every year, it is becoming harder for graduates of UK medical schools to find a place on a foundation or specialty training programme. Since 2019, competition for postgraduate training places has increased by a staggering amount. In 2019, there were about 12,000 applicants for 9,000 places, but in 2025 the situation became even more stark. There are now more than 30,000 applicants, and over 12,000 UK-trained doctors and nearly 21,000 overseas doctors compete for fewer than 10,000 places. That is an enormous and unsustainable change. For some specialties, the competition is much fiercer. Aspiring neurosurgeons, for example, had to compete against 26 others to secure a place, and there were 737 applicants for just 10 cardiothoracic surgery training places. Those are not abstract statistics, and behind every number is a person who has spent years training, often at great personal and financial cost, only to find their opportunities for career progression drying up. Some take time out, some seek experience abroad and some leave medicine altogether. Many do not have a choice. They are forced by a system that has become so congested that getting a training post in something that they are passionate about and trained in is completely unattainable. Every time a doctor leaves the NHS, there is no guarantee that they will come back. The Secretary of State is incredibly committed to increasing medical school places, and we desperately need more doctors, but we have to be honest with ourselves: we cannot expand medical school places without addressing the growing crisis of competition for training places. It is within that context that the Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill must be understood. There has been a direct correlation between the lifting of visa restrictions in 2020 under the Conservatives and the dramatic rise in competition for foundation and specialty training posts. Maybe that was one of the Conservatives’ Brexit bonuses that they so eloquently talked about. This needs to be addressed, because otherwise we risk training doctors for a system that cannot support them. We are recruiting doctors from abroad at a time when there is already a substantial pool of eligible applicants who have trained in the UK or are already working in the NHS. That cannot be right. General practice is particularly reliant on international doctors, with half of first-year trainees having qualified outside the UK in 2024. Let me be clear, because this point matters enormously: international medical graduates have always played, and will continue to play, a vital role in our NHS. Many of our hospitals and services simply could not function without them. The Bill does not diminish that contribution, and neither does it seek to close the door to international talent, but it does ask fair and reasonable questions. When we are spending almost £4 billion every year to train doctors in the UK, is it right that those doctors are increasingly unable to access the very training posts that they need to progress? Is it right that huge amounts of taxpayers’ money is spent training doctors, only for that investment to be lost when doctors are forced out of the system or choose to go overseas or into the private sector? If we are honest with ourselves, how progressive is it that we poach doctors from countries that desperately need them, while we have our own brilliant and willing recruits who cannot get jobs here? If we are serious about building an NHS that is stable, resilient and fit for the future, we must also be serious about retention and recruitment, so we must ensure that those we train can stay, specialise and build careers here at home. What is the alternative? We train thousands of talented, hard-working young people at significant public expense, only for them to hit a wall, feel undervalued and leave either the NHS or medicine altogether. Every doctor we train in the UK who chooses to leave is an enormous loss for our health service and our country. It is such a waste of talent and money. We cannot afford to lose our next generation of doctors—the future of the NHS depends on it—yet that is where we are headed unless we do something now. It is urgent. Prioritisation is not about exclusion; it is about safeguarding public investment and guaranteeing the long-term sustainability of our NHS workforce. It is about ensuring that the NHS remains an attractive place for young doctors to build a career, and that doctors in this country feel valued, which the previous Conservative Government failed miserably on. The Bill sends an important signal to young people in this country considering a career in medicine that we want them to build a long and fruitful career right here in the UK, in our NHS. It says to those currently picking their A-level options or deciding whether a medical degree is right for them that their hard work will be rewarded and we want them to succeed. The Bill is not a silver bullet. It will not solve every workforce challenge facing our NHS overnight, but it is a sensible and necessary reform that will go a significant way towards dealing with a deeply concerning and growing problem. If we care about the future of our NHS, we must care about the doctors in it and the doctors who will sustain it in the years to come. For the sake of the future health and viability of our NHS, I therefore urge all Members to support the Bill.

I welcome this really significant additional support for pubs and music venues, on top of the £4.3 billion given to the wider sector at the Budget. I thank the Minister for all the conversations that he has had with me over the last few weeks, and I also thank Dan and Ness from the Greyhound, who have engaged so positively and constructively with me. It is fair to say that the business rates rebound inherited from the previous Government led to a mixed picture across Ipswich, but the Greyhound was particularly unfortunate. Could the Minister lay out his thinking behind the review of this process?

I thank the Minister for his genuinely groundbreaking statement. It feels like a little while ago that he visited Ipswich to talk to local people about the building safety crisis and leasehold. He was a shadow Minister and I was a parliamentary candidate at the time. Now we are capping ground rents, making it easier to move to commonhold, and scrapping leasehold for all new builds. Is this a case of a Labour Government keeping their promises and making a real change for many people up and down the country?

T8. This week has been an incredibly good one for jobs, investment and opportunity in Ipswich. Halo, one of the biggest tech firms in the UK, is moving its global HQ into the centre of town and creating 1,000 jobs, many of them for graduates. Sizewell C has unveiled plans for a new bus depot, which will create 400 jobs, some 75% of which will be from the local area. It has been a brilliant week, but there is much more to be done. Will the Secretary of State outline what extra steps he is taking to get young people back into training and employment?

My hon. Friend is completely right. What I was just about to say encapsulates what my hon. Friend says: stability at home underpins readiness, retention and morale. Readiness itself is another core theme of the Bill. In an increasingly uncertain world, with evolving threats, rapid technological change and heightened global instability, the measures relating to reserve forces reflect the reality of modern defence—that experience matters, that flexibility is essential, and that the boundary between regular and reserve service must be more permeable. By increasing the maximum age of recall, enabling seamless transfers between regular and reserve forces, and granting the Secretary of State power to authorise recall for warlike operations, the Bill strengthens our ability to respond to emerging threats while respecting the voluntary nature of reserve service through appropriate opt-outs. The provisions on uncrewed devices are similarly necessary. The threat posed by hostile drone activity around defence sites is real and growing, so granting defence personnel the power to use approved equipment to detect, prevent and defeat drone-related offences is not an expansion of power for its own sake, but a proportionate response to a changing and growing threat environment. From the radar pioneers at Bawdsey to the volunteers roasting coffee for Combat2Coffee in Ipswich and across Suffolk, our local contribution to the armed forces reminds us that defence is not simply confined to bases or battlefields; it lives in innovation, in service and in community. For those reasons, on behalf of the many serving personnel, veterans and families in Ipswich and right across Suffolk, I am proud to support the Bill.

It is a privilege to speak in this debate on the Armed Forces Bill. Every five years, Parliament is asked to renew its consent for the maintenance of our armed forces in peacetime. That constitutional requirement, dating back to the Bill of Rights in 1688, is more than a procedural necessity; it is about Parliament renewing the contract between the nation and those who serve it. This Bill reflects the changing nature of warfare, the evolving needs of our service personnel and their families, and our duty—collective and enduring—to ensure that those who defend our country are supported not only in uniform, but throughout their lives. As the Member of Parliament for Ipswich, I represent a town and a county deeply entwined with the story of our national defence. Suffolk’s contribution to the armed forces is profound and long-standing. From Bawdsey on our coast, where the world’s first operational radar station became a decisive force in the battle of Britain, to the air bases that have hosted generations of service personnel, our county has quietly but decisively shaped Britain’s security and, indeed, our history. The innovations developed in Suffolk saved lives, shortened the war and changed the course of our history. That legacy reminds us of the fundamental truth that our national security is rooted in people, places and communities, and this Bill recognises that by placing people, service personnel and their families at its heart. At this point, I would like to reflect on President Trump’s comments last week. Ipswich’s Aaron McClure, of 1st Battalion, the Royal Anglian Regiment, died alongside two colleagues on active service in Afghanistan. He was just 19 years old. His mother, Lorraine, was right when she said that President Trump’s comments were an insult to his legacy and that of his colleagues. Turning to the armed forces covenant, the Bill fulfils a clear manifesto commitment by fully enshrining the covenant in law. It extends the covenant’s legal duty beyond local authorities and public bodies to include central Government Departments and the devolved Administrations, and it broadens the range of policy areas to which due regard must be given. This matters deeply. The covenant is a promise from the nation that those who serve or have served and their families will be treated with fairness and respect, and will face no disadvantage because of their service. For far too long, that promise has been honoured inconsistently: veterans have struggled to access healthcare, families have faced disruption in their education, and housing standards have far too often fallen short of what is acceptable. By strengthening this legal duty, the Bill moves the covenant from an aspiration to accountability, it embeds fairness in decision making, and it ensures that public bodies right across our country take responsibility for delivering it. That legal framework is vital, but legislation alone is not enough. Covenant delivery also depends on strong community institutions. In Ipswich, one such institution is Combat2Coffee, a community interest company, founded by ex-soldier Nigel Seaman, that has become a national model of veteran-led support. Combat2Coffee exists to improve the mental health and wellbeing of the armed forces community and their families. It does so through something deceptively simple: connection. Through coffee mornings, outreach, volunteering and employment pathways, it rebuilds the sense of belonging that many veterans lose when they leave uniform. In 2025 alone, Combat2Coffee supported more than 200 veterans through outreach activities, with more than 2,000 people attending armed forces community coffee mornings. Earlier this year, the organisation’s volunteers were awarded the King’s award for voluntary service, which is the highest honour a voluntary group can receive. That recognition reflects not only the scale of their impact, but the depth of their understanding that mental health is not a niche issue but a continuum, and that early community-based support saves lives. During Armed Forces Week, I was proud to attend Combat2Coffee’s “Bigger Breakfast” in Ipswich, alongside the Armed Forces Minister and the former Ipswich Town and England captain, Terry Butcher. Terry has long been a passionate advocate for veterans’ wellbeing, informed by his own family’s experience, and his support for this work underlines why strong, compassionate mental health provision for veterans truly matters. Hundreds of serving personnel, veterans and cadets came together not for speeches or ceremonies, but to talk, connect and support one another. My hon. and gallant friend the Armed Forces Minister is a highly decorated individual, but should he so wish, I am sure he would have the title of chief barista. Housing is also critical. The establishment of the Defence Housing Service through the Bill is long overdue. For decades, defence housing has suffered from under-investment, fragmented responsibility and a “fix on fail” culture that has eroded trust among service families. Last year’s defence housing strategy represents the biggest change in military housing in half a century. The Bill gives that strategy institutional form. The new Defence Housing Service will be responsible for improving quality, increasing availability, regenerating defence land and, crucially, placing a service ethos at the centre of housing provision. For families posted in Suffolk, that will mean homes that meet modern standards, transparent complaints processes and a system that recognises that housing is not a perk but an operational necessity.

I warmly welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. I would like to highlight two Government initiatives—Clear, Hold, Build and Operation Machinize—with our hard-working police force that are making a real difference in Ipswich. I can see parallels with some of the proposals that the Home Secretary has laid out for local policing. Although we received a welcome multimillion pound uplift in police funding, we have been majorly short-changed over the years, as one of the worst funded local authorities for more than a decade. Can the Home Secretary assure me that these changes will result in extra resources that we desperately need to continue the good progress that we have made in Ipswich and Suffolk?

As I asked earlier, when the hon. Member did not correct me, did he have an issue when his former leader—either his current former leader or the one before—delayed elections as Local Government Minister? Considering his recent conversion, did he also speak out when the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) postponed elections when he was Secretary of State for Local Government? Does he liken those individuals to dictators as well?

I think there is a short-term memory issue here. The hon. Gentleman talks about referendums, but the Conservative Government held a whole heap on mayoralties in 2012 and then ignored all the outcomes. He says he values local government, which is incredibly welcome, but his party hollowed out local government funding, and we have seen the cost of that. When the Conservatives were in power, they suspended a number of elections to consider local government reorganisation, including those involving the Leader of the Opposition—why has there suddenly been this volte-face in the last few weeks?

Absolutely. I agree wholeheartedly that unitarisation or local government reorganisation alone is not a magic bullet. The things the hon. Member describes are due to severe underfunding. Pothole and road maintenance funding fell to around £17 million a year, down from £20 million, although it crept up again. We are putting much more money into that. We saw bus services shredded in the previous 14 years, but we now have the biggest upgrade to bus services since 1998. Some of those things will help; I believe that unitarisation will help to deliver better public services, and provide more of a single point of accountability for voters, but change also comes down to leadership, culture and investment. In Suffolk there is a credible, detailed and ambitious alternative to the status quo. In my opinion, the proposal for three unitary councils put forward by all the district borough councils of Ipswich, Mid Suffolk, Babergh, East Suffolk and West Suffolk clearly shows that this is not a partisan project, but a set of proposals put forward by politicians of all stripes. It is a collaborative effort across political parties, grounding in evidence and focused on outcomes. I believe it would be simpler for residents: there would be a single point of contact, as mentioned earlier, and more accountability, ending the confusion over who is responsible for what. Anyone who has knocked on doors will have heard residents say, “I don’t care who it is—I just want the council to fix it.” That is a sentiment that is shared quite widely.

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point; there is a balancing act to be achieved, ensuring that we have the size and scale of councils to deliver public services efficiently, while also rooting them in their local communities. That is why I am backing a proposal for three unitary councils over the proposal from the Conservatives at Suffolk county council for a single unitary council. As part of the local government reorganisation, places such as Ipswich, which I hope will turn into a greater Ipswich authority, would still need to retain a town council, and the parish council element would be really strong. I used to be a parish councillor, so I recognise the value and importance of those communities and having that very local representation as part of this. Funnily enough, that leads me directly on to my next point: crucially, the three unitary councils proposal strikes the right balance: it is big enough to deliver but local enough to care. A greater Ipswich council, alongside strong East and West Suffolk authorities, would allow each area to play to its natural economic strengths, make faster decisions and champion its communities with strong local voices. Although this has been a constructive debate in my part of the world, the conduct of the county council has at times been deeply disappointing. Rather than making a positive case for its own proposal, it has repeatedly resorted to misleading and aggressive tactics. Nearly £50,000 of taxpayers’ money has reportedly been spent on social media advertising for its own single campaign, with further tens of thousands earmarked for so-called “Alice in Wonderland” leaflets, which seek to ridicule all alternative proposals. That is not engagement; it is propaganda, and I urge the Minister and the Department to look at it carefully. At a time when potholes are going unfilled and children with special educational needs are being failed by that same county council, voters and residents in my area are entitled to ask why public money is being spent on spin, rather than services. The council’s behaviour betrays a lack of confidence in its own case and a disregard for local people. Local government reorganisation must be about the future. It is about not just tomorrow, but the next 30, 40 or 50 years. It certainly cannot be about the preservation of power, status or the status quo. It must be about improving services, strengthening accountability and restoring trust. The Government have set the direction. We were elected with a mandate for change and we are delivering on that. Devolution is fundamentally about people, ensuring that communities such as Ipswich and Suffolk have the resources, powers and trust to determine their own futures. That is why referendums are not needed to delay or derail this progress. What we need is leadership, honesty and the courage to build a system that finally works for the people it serves.

What the right hon. Gentleman describes is already happening. Suffolk county council represents the entire county. The argument he is making is already playing out at the moment. We are having these conversations. This has already happened. We have rural councils making decisions about urban issues and vice versa. I do not think it is either/or.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms McVey. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) for securing this debate. It is always right that the House has the opportunity to discuss how local government works, how it can work better and how we ensure that it delivers for the people we represent. Although I do not believe that referendums are necessarily desirable in the context of the current local government reorganisations, for reasons I will come to shortly, I do believe that there is real value in debating these issues openly and transparently. Local government reorganisation is complex, consequential and long lasting, so it deserves serious consideration. It is true that the Conservative-led coalition Government conducted a round of referendums in 2012 across a huge swathe of our major cities. The issue is that when people were asked whether they would like a mayor, every city—bar one—said no, but only a few years later, they got one anyway. They did not seek to repeat that exercise. The referendums the Conservatives held were, in truth, little more than lip service. I think that most people here will think that mayoralties in the main—with honourable exceptions—have been a successful endeavour: they give power and autonomy to the places that have often been forgotten in the past. Of course, in recent years many places underwent local government reorganisation with no referendum at all. It is worth mentioning an elephant in the room when it comes to the postponement of elections by a year in places such as Suffolk, which I represent, until all-out elections in 2027 and mayoralty elections in 2028. The Conservative party’s new-found aversion to postponing elections is quite remarkable, not least because, as Local Government Minister, the Leader of the Opposition postponed elections in Cumbria, while the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), also made the decision, as Local Government Minister, to postpone all-out district elections before reorganisation in Buckinghamshire in 2019. And Robert Jenrick—remember him? I was going to say he was the latest recruit to Reform—

As I have already laid out, and as the hon. Gentleman will know from when he was a member of the Conservative party, postponing elections where a local government was undergoing reorganisation happened a number of times. I was not here, so I cannot remember whether he spoke out against his Government at the time for doing so. A number of local government Ministers decided to postpone those elections, and I presume that he fully endorsed those postponements at the time—although I am happy for him to correct the record on that point. The Government were elected on a mandate of change, and that included rebuilding and reforming local government as the foundation for meaningful devolution. The British people endorsed that programme at the ballot box, and it is our responsibility to deliver it. Our Government are embarking on the biggest transformation of local government in a generation. This is not change for change’s sake, but because the status quo has been failing far too many communities for far too long.

I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is slightly mistaken. In my own patch in Suffolk, for instance, the devolution proposed under the previous Government meant handing out a few more powers for a tiny bit of extra money. We are proposing unitarisation of places such as Essex, Suffolk and Norfolk, plus a mayoral candidate for the elections in 2028. What we are seeing is far more radical and significant; in fact, for my part of the world, it is the most significant change in local government for more than 50 years, so it is a big step change from what the previous Conservative Government proposed. For decades, power has been hoarded in Westminster and Whitehall while local councils were stripped of capacity, fragmented in structure and left struggling to meet rising demands after having their funding hollowed out. Nowhere is that failure clearer than in my home county of Suffolk. In a past life I was a county councillor, and I do not believe that the current status quo is working—I do not think many people living locally do, either. Although I accept that that is due to severe hollowing-out of funding over 15 years, a do-nothing approach is clearly not an option for us either. Those sorts of issues—pot holes left unrepaired, special educational needs provision in crisis, children and families passed from pillar to post and adult social care under unbearable strain—are not abstract problems. They affect people’s daily lives, their dignity and their trust in local democracy. The truth is that the current system is not working, and we needed to do something radical. As I said, a do-nothing approach is not a neutral option, but a decision not to change how local government is structured and empowered. It would simply condemn communities such as mine to more of the same. That is why the Government are choosing to devolve and not dictate through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. We are rebuilding local government so that it has the strength, scale and capability to deliver— [ Interruption. ] We hear chortling on the Conservative Benches, but the Conservative Suffolk county council requested this process and has also consulted with the public. People were able to put their views forward. Our county council has put forward an option for a single unitary authority, and all the district and borough councils have put forward an option for three unitary authorities, so there has been significant consultation at local level. Parties of all stripes, although they may disagree on which outcome they would like to see, have all engaged constructively in this process on the whole. We are looking to transfer power out of Westminster and into communities, and to give local leaders the tools to drive growth, create jobs and improve living standards. This is about rebalancing decades-old divides and, as I said, we have not seen this sort of reorganisation in my part of the world for more than 50 years.

Will the hon. Member give way?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that correction from a sedentary position. The right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), while Secretary of State for Local Government, when talking about postponements in places such as Cumbria, North Yorkshire and Somerset, said that elections in certain circumstances “risk confusing voters and would be hard to justify where members could be elected to serve shortened terms.” —[ Official Report , 22 February 2021; Vol. 689, c. 24WS.] It is an interesting volte-face for both Reform and the Conservative party. That is the previous Conservative leader, the current Conservative leader, and the right hon. Member for Newark, who, up until last week, was agitating to be the next one, so I will take with a pinch of salt the Conservatives’ new-found desire for referendums or postponements—not least because one particular referendum was arguably the start of a psychodrama that continues to envelop them nearly a decade later. We did have a referendum in 2024: we had a general election. Local government reorganisation was a clear and explicit part of our Government’s manifesto. I know that, under the Conservative party, delivering on manifesto commitments fell out of fashion—they were little more than vibes, at best, by the end. But we were elected on a mandate of change, and that included rebuilding and reforming local government as the foundation for meaningful devolution. The British people endorsed that programme at the ballot box, and it is our responsibility to deliver it.

We are sitting here with a parliamentary party of more than 400 MPs. That is an overwhelming mandate under the electoral system that we have been operating under for centuries. The Conservative party can probably reflect on that, if we are talking about numbers.

Thank you, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) for securing this important debate. He spoke powerfully about the long and agonising waits that many people have to endure to get an ADHD diagnosis, but I want to focus on what happens next. For many people, receiving a diagnosis is not the end of the fight; in many cases, it is the start of a new one. Time and again I hear from people who, after finally securing that elusive diagnosis, encounter a set of new barriers that prevent them from accessing the treatment they are entitled to. In January 2025, local medical committees in Suffolk and Essex advised GPs to stop delivering ADHD treatment under shared care agreements. A survey by Healthwatch Suffolk of people’s experience of the changes to shared care found that only 40% had received prescriptions or monitoring from their GP. Of those, 69% said that their GP had already stopped or would soon stop providing support. Most received only two or three months’ notice that their shared care agreement was ending; some had no notice at all. Patients are left in limbo: they have been diagnosed, and maybe even stabilised on medication, and they are suddenly told that their shared care agreement is ending. In some instances, people are left with no access to medication whatsoever. I have received letters from terrified parents and families, panic-stricken at the prospect of being left without the medicine that they need to function every day. I look forward to hearing the Goernment’s response to the ADHD taskforce recommendations and I welcome the launch of the independent review into the prevalence of and support for mental health conditions, ADHD and autism. Reducing waiting times for an assessment and diagnosis is critical, but that work will be rendered futile if we do not also address the crisis of timely access to medication and support. For too many of my constituents—and I am sure for the constituents of many Members across the room—the hardest part of their ADHD journey did not end with diagnosis; it simply began there.

8. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to support entrepreneurs.

Over the last 18 months I have been working hard to drive investment into my town, county and region, and I was proud to unveil the east of England’s £4 billion investment prospectus at the UK’s Real Estate Investment and Infrastructure Forum earlier this year. I am also keen to encourage our own home-grown entrepreneurs in Ipswich and Suffolk so that we can better support innovative and high-growth businesses. Can the Minister outline how the three-year stamp duty exemption on shares, alongside other measures in the Budget, will seek to do that?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. We also saw severe cuts to early intervention support during the pandemic in my home area of Ipswich and Suffolk. At the height of the pandemic, children’s centres were closed and the number of visits by health visitors was slashed. I absolutely echo his call for more funding, which is why I am really pleased that the Government provided £1 billion in extra funding for special educational needs and disability in comparison with the previous year. In Suffolk, £10 million of that will be spent on specialist places. I absolutely echo and support what the hon. Gentleman said. Data reporting on disabled people during the pandemic was also woefully inadequate. In October 2020, it was noted that data on disability across the Government was “fragmented” and did “not allow comparisons to be made across Departments.” The information mainly came from anecdotal reports or charity sector surveys. Departments were tasked with improving the collection of data on disabled people. Needless to say, however, nothing much improved and no preparations were made for communicating properly with disabled people in appropriate formats. For example, for a significant period, there was no British Sign Language interpreter on Government broadcasts. The list of clinically extremely vulnerable groups who received online deliveries in the early stages of the pandemic was entirely medicalised, based on an outdated medical model of disability. Thousands of disabled people with mental distress, mobility challenges, energy limitations, sensory impairments and learning disabilities were not placed on that list for online deliveries, even though many of them could not visit supermarkets or other important outlets in person. According to the chief executive of Disability UK, that was “one stark example of the abandonment of the Social Model of Disability.” That model, which was developed by disabled people, says that people are disabled by barriers in society, rather than by their impairment or condition. It is widely accepted and has been the recommended model for all Government Departments for several years. The failures that we have heard about in the first two inquiry reports are utterly shameful. Between June and July 2020, the National Autistic Society ran an online survey looking at autistic people’s experience of coronavirus and the lockdown. Autistic people were seven times more likely to be lonely and six times more likely to have low life satisfaction; nine in 10 autistic people worried about their mental health during lockdown; and one in five family members had to reduce work because of caring responsibilities. That is an appalling legacy. It cannot happen again, and our Government must ensure that it does not. I know that the Government are currently looking at the UK’s pandemic preparedness and recently concluded Exercise Pegasus, a pandemic simulation exercise assessing our ability to respond to another pandemic. One of the core objectives of the exercise was to explore the impact of inequalities and consideration of them during pandemic decision making. I look forward to seeing the results of that work. As the Government prepare the pandemic response plan, I am very glad that the impact on vulnerable people, including autistic people, and preventing such events from happening again are front and centre in that work; I look forward to the Minister outlining in more detail what steps the Government are taking to ensure that. What happened to Ivan is a tragedy and a gross injustice. He is still suffering today and might suffer for many years into the future. That cannot be undone, and the damage inflicted on him cannot be taken back—but, as we prepare for future pandemics, we must make sure we do better. I finish by thanking Ivan and his parents Jayne and Gary for their tireless work in raising awareness and campaigning so relentlessly and selflessly. Ivan’s resilience and commitment to fighting so that no one goes through the torment that he did and still suffers from is commendable. We should all be inspired by him. I will be frank, however: warm words of inspiration and thanks are simply not enough. We need to see lasting and permanent change, so that what Ivan went through can never happen again.

The hon. Lady is absolutely right that that had a huge impact on many autistic and vulnerable children, not least because of the lack of clear and consistent communication that I am outlining. I will not go into the issue of school closures—the Minister may touch on that in a moment—but of course they had a profound impact on all children, and we are seeing the effects of it.

My hon. Friend has done a huge amount of work in this area and he is absolutely right. I pay huge tribute to all the people in our charity sector, and the many organisations that played such a crucial role in supporting people during the pandemic. However, this was a failure of the Government at the time, and we should not just let charities pick up the pieces from that.

I beg to move, That this House has considered support for people with autism during pandemic-type events. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I am grateful for the opportunity to secure this debate, and to discuss a matter of deep importance for one of my Ipswich constituents, Ivan Ambrose, as well as thousands of people across our country who were failed during the pandemic. It is because of Ivan and his tireless campaigning that we are here today. He has given me permission to share his story. It is deeply personal to him, but tragically, it will be recognised and shared by many people. Ivan is a 41-year-old man who lives in Ipswich and has been housebound for the past four years. He has autism and severe mental health problems. Prior to the pandemic, Ivan had suffered multiple breakdowns, the most recent of which resulted in him being hospitalised for three weeks. However, he had gradually started to reach a more stable place. It had taken a long time, but he had begun to feel somewhat better. Ivan was on the road to recovery, but then the pandemic hit. Constantly changing rules left him confused and distressed. He was made extremely anxious by rules that were revised on a daily, and sometimes even hourly, basis. The mass bombardment of information in completely unsuitable formats left him overwhelmed and debilitated. His parents could not have the TV on around him, as he was unable to deal with the relentless stream of information about the pandemic, and none of that information was delivered in an autism-friendly way. No consideration was given to making information easier for autistic people to process and understand, and there was no guidance to help autistic people understand why the rules kept changing. Accessibility was simply not a concern. After the second lockdown, as pubs and restaurants reopened, no thought was given to housebound autistic people such as Ivan. While the relaxation of rules came as a relief to many of us as we enjoyed a greater sense of freedom, Ivan was not allowed to invite anyone home—not even his favourite aunt. Those years were incredibly difficult for many people.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I will come to some of that in a moment. I pay huge tribute to those who were working in Northern Ireland at the time. The pandemic was worldwide and the response hit all parts of our communities. The years of the pandemic were very difficult for many people, but for people like Ivan they were deeply and profoundly traumatic. Ivan still bears the scars of that time. He lives with post-traumatic stress disorder and continues to experience flashbacks. He has not left the house at all in four years, and to this day the TV stays off. I will be really blunt: Ivan and those like him were betrayed by the previous Conservative Government. They utterly failed him, along with so many other autistic and neurodivergent people.

I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman. In February 2021, Ivan’s parents, Jayne and Gary, wrote to the then Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, describing how their son was struggling and pleading with him for help. Ivan sent me a copy of the letter a few months ago, and it is truly heartbreaking; you can hear Jayne and Gary’s desperation, helplessness and heartbreak as they watched their son in immense pain, powerless to help. They did finally receive a response, but it was a full 13 months later. It is not lost on me that illegal parties were likely taking place in No. 10 at the very time the Ambroses’ letter arrived. I have met Ivan several times and I think he is a hugely inspirational person. He has turned his trauma and suffering into incredible determination, and he has spent the last four years campaigning and fighting to make sure that no one has to go through what he did. He launched an online petition in 2022 calling for autistic people’s needs to be met in a future pandemic response. Although he failed to get the 10,000 signatures for a Government response, he persisted none the less. He has featured across our local media, trying to raise awareness, and over the last few years his campaign has had a real impact. Recently, he was asked to submit evidence to the House of Lords Select Committee on the Autism Act 2009 and his evidence features in the Committee’s report. I know he is very proud of that, as he absolutely should be. We hope and pray that pandemic-type events never occur again, but hope and prayers alone are not a responsible strategy. If this sort of tragedy should occur again, we need to make sure that autistic people, neurodivergent people and all vulnerable people are properly considered and supported. The UK covid-19 inquiry recently published its module 2 report of its investigation into the previous Government’s response to the pandemic. The verdict was clear: that Government did not adequately consider the needs of disabled people. Neither the Minister with responsibility for disabled people nor the disability unit played a direct role in the Government’s initial strategy from January to March 2020. Neither had any part in the discussions about whether to implement lockdown, or how the effects of that decision might be mitigated. It was not until 21 May 2020, two whole months after the country went into lockdown, that the position of disabled people was even considered at interministerial level. Disabled people were an afterthought; their needs and how the Government response to the pandemic might affect them were not considered. Ivan and thousands of other autistic and neurodivergent people across the country bear the consequences of that negligence today.

Is it not extraordinary that the Conservative party is still pretending to be the party of law and order, despite being the party that slashed police numbers, hollowed out our criminal justice system and failed victims time and again? In the years prior to covid, the Conservatives artificially capped sitting days, with allocations declining from 109,000 in 2015-16 to a record low of 83,150 in 2019-20, the year leading up to the pandemic. Is it not the case that that reckless decision led to a growing court backlog even before covid struck?

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I, too, thank my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon) for securing this important debate, and Joe Fortune, general secretary of the Co-op party, in the Gallery. My hon. Friend has been a tireless champion for the co-operative movement, and rightly so. This part of our economy combines purpose with productivity, and values with tangible social value. I am wearing my hybrid Labour and Co-operative tie—it is not official merch, although the general secretary might want to consider that. I am incredibly proud to stand here as the Labour and Co-operative MP for Ipswich, and to represent a town and region where the co-operative movement runs deep. The East of England co-operative began in 1861, when a group of people in our region decided to trade fairly, work together and reinvest profits for the common good. From one small store, the movement has grown into a network of more than 200 businesses across Suffolk —including many in and around Ipswich—Norfolk and Essex, providing jobs, training and investment where they are needed most. That legacy still shapes our community today. Co-operatives are rooted in their places. They keep wealth local, invest for the long term and give people a genuine stake in success. Those are principles that this Government proudly celebrate and learn from as we seek to build a fairer and more resilient economy. The co-operative spirit is also alive and well in Parliament, as we can see here this afternoon. There are now dozens of Labour and Co-operative MPs, including Ministers across Government, from the Treasury to the Department for Education and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. Fairness, participation and local ownership run deep in this Government’s approach to growth, local empowerment and building an economy that truly works for everyone. In Ipswich, the spirit of shared ownership and civic pride is something we see every single day. For too long under the previous Conservative Government, our town centre was allowed to decline, but local people never gave up on it. That is why I am so pleased that our Labour Government’s Pride in Place programme is investing £1.5 million in Ipswich, plus millions of pounds across our region and our country, to revitalise our high streets, bringing empty buildings back into use and empowering communities to take control of the spaces that mean most to them. That is more than simply a regeneration grant; it is co-operation in practice. Pride in Place is built on the same principles that drive the co-operative movement: local decision making, long-term stewardship and reinvestment for community benefits. It is designed so that local people, local councils and local businesses can come together to shape projects, not have them imposed from Westminster. That means supporting community ownership of assets, backing partnerships that keep wealth circulating locally, and giving neighbourhoods the tools to plan and deliver the change they want to see. Whether refurbishing an empty shop for social enterprise or helping a community group take over a much-loved building through a co-op or trust, this policy puts power and pride back into local hands and connects directly with the other work the Government are doing to grow our towns more fairly and sustainably, from the community ownership fund to the local skills improvement plan and the growth mission fund. Those are all examples of looking to boost growth, yes, but also sustain it. Together those policies form a clear picture of what co-operative economics looks like in action: growth that is built with communities at the centre. Ipswich is leading the way with projects that bring long-empty buildings back to life, and with community groups exploring new co-operative models to run venues and services that matter to them. There is a genuine sense of momentum in our town, a belief that when we work together we can shape the future of Ipswich ourselves. Although there is much to do, progress is being made. Co-operatives and community enterprises are essential partners in building a stronger, fairer economy that works for everyone. Ministers have rightly spoken about the need for economic growth, not simply seeking growth for growth’s sake, but the type of economic growth that serves people and places. The quality and distribution of growth matter just as much as its pace. Politics has been guilty of seeing communities as an afterthought or a nice-to-have, not as the serious policy tool they should be. The truth is that members have a direct stake in their co-operative’s success because they own it. In fact, they are more than businesses; they are routes to power, ownership, decision making and community. Ipswich’s story, from its proud co-operative roots to its renewed sense of local pride, shows exactly why that matters. True growth is achieved when local communities shape their own future, when we grow our economy from the grassroots and when we keep wealth and power local. That is why the future of our economy, our country and my town must have co-operation at its heart. That is what the Co-operative party’s Community Britain campaign is all about, and why I am proud to be a Co-operative MP.