Jack Abbott MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 9 Dec 2025 · Support for Entrepreneurs · Hansard source

  More

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

• 9 Dec 2025 · Support for Entrepreneurs · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 2 Dec 2025 · Pandemics: Support for People with Autism · Hansard source

  More

  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groups who received online deliveries in the early stages of the pandemic was entirely medicalised, based on an outdated medical model of disability.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.

• 2 Dec 2025 · Pandemics: Support for People with Autism · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 2 Dec 2025 · Pandemics: Support for People with Autism · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 2 Dec 2025 · Pandemics: Support for People with Autism · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 2 Dec 2025 · Pandemics: Support for People with Autism · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 2 Dec 2025 · Pandemics: Support for People with Autism · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Right to Trial by Jury · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 21 Oct 2025 · Co-operative Sector: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 15 Sept 2025 · Children with SEND: Assessments and Support · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the 150,000 people who signed the petition. As I have said in previous speeches in this place, although SEND is very much now a national issue, we have been battling this crisis in Ipswich and Suffolk for a decade. Just last month, at my public event, I sat with desperate families who told me heartbreaking stories of their children being failed time and again. I welcome the early changes that our Government have made in looking to address some of the problems in Suffolk. They have approved more than 100 new specialist places in our county, including through the building of a brand-new hub at Ipswich academy. That is in addition to the multimillion pound uplift to the core funding and a near £10 million settlement, meaning that even more specialist places can be created. However, while extra funding is incredibly encouraging, it is just one element that needs to be resolved. I want to highlight a few areas that require attention. The first is the extortionate and unregulated private provision that was allowed to grow and prosper under the previous Conservative Government. The problem is not just that the provision is grossly expensive, driving up costs for local authorities; it is also incredibly poor. Secondly, while we desperately need more SEND places, they have to differentiate according to need. We cannot keep shoehorning kids into the few settings that are available, regardless of whether the provision is right for them. That effort must include special schools, but it should also involve specialist hubs within mainstream schools. I have seen that work so effectively, most recently at Hillside primary school, and it was a cornerstone of the plans that I helped to deliver in Suffolk when we created 800 new places. Hubs provide the specialist support that meets the needs of many children, while keeping them close to home in a local setting. The last thing I want to mention is teacher training. As a former teaching assistant, I worked with some brilliant teachers who knew how to be inclusive and to differentiate, but I also know that it is still a postcode lottery. There is a lot of good practice, but we have to be honest: we do not have an education system that allows every child with SEND to thrive. In my view, making SEND training mandatory for teachers is long overdue, and I hope the Government can strongly consider that in the upcoming White Paper, because every teacher must be a SEND teacher.

• 2 Sept 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Devolution and local government reorganisation must not simply be a sticking plaster over the problems of today; instead, we must determine what we want the coming decade to look like for our local communities. We must ensure that people in places such as Ipswich and Suffolk have the resources, powers and trust to determine our own futures. We can end the fragmentation of services and decision making that has at times hampered progress and instead usher in a new era of energy, ambition and delivery. It has been really encouraging to see all Suffolk’s district and borough councils, led by different political parties, working collaboratively and with compromise to form a forward-facing submission. However, there is a stark and disappointing contrast with Suffolk county council. It has been really concerning to see that more time is being spent on aiming to discredit alternative ideas and proposals, rather than promoting why the plans are right for our county. Tactics have at times been bizarre, but there is a serious point here. Residents are entitled to proper information, not a spin-heavy PR campaign. I fully accept that turkeys do not vote for Christmas, but I expect local authorities to hold themselves to a higher standard. While running such a misleading campaign betrays a lack of confidence in their own proposals, it does them a disservice and, more crucially, treats local residents with a lack of respect and no little disdain. Residents will question why the Conservatives at Suffolk county council are spending so much money and resources on such an overwhelmingly negative campaign at a time when our potholes go unfilled and our children with special educational needs are so badly failed, all the while raising council tax by its maximum level every single year. Suffolk county council looks not like an authority that is ready to grasp the future, but like one that looks to keep power and status for itself. Alongside the investment in our communities by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, this Bill and the wider efforts of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister offer Ipswich, Suffolk and East Anglia a once-in-a-generation chance to turbocharge investment, growth and opportunity, giving us the chance to determine our own future. While I am supportive of the Bill for the transformative effect it will have on our country, on a local level, a Greater Ipswich council could do far more than just regenerate our town and the surrounding area. It could become a nationally leading economic powerhouse, and our friends and neighbours in east and west Suffolk would also greatly benefit from being able to set the direction of their local communities. This is not just my personal view; it is a view shared by every district and borough council in Suffolk, as well as by political parties of all stripes across Ipswich. From my discussions with local residents, including at my recent town hall event, it seems to be the option that they favour, too. A Greater Ipswich will renew our area’s economic foundations and deliver the infrastructure we need after years of neglect. Lowestoft and the energy coast will be able to power new jobs and investment for their area, and Bury St Edmunds will be better able to align itself with the opportunities offered by the growth around Cambridge and Peterborough. People want their councils to deliver public services effectively, responsibly and accessibly, which is why I believe our devolution settlement needs to produce unitary authorities of sufficient scale to achieve that. However, people rightly also want their councillors and councils to be rooted in their local community so that they can listen, understand, and act in their best interests. I believe that three unitary authorities in Suffolk, working alongside a Mayor for East Anglia, would achieve that balance. This is not about loosening the fabric that holds our county together—it is about strengthening it. I moved to Suffolk when I was 10 years old, a quarter of a century ago. It is my home, and I care deeply about what happens next. For a long time, we have been ill served as a town and a county by short-termism and a do-nothing approach. Every day I have entered this job, I have thought about all the ways in which we can leverage the change we need to set us on a new path. The Bill we are debating today will be the driving force behind how we do that. As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has set out time and again, the goal of devolution must not be to tinker around the edges of our current system, sticking with a system that is not working for anyone. Instead, we should look to the future and take this opportunity to transform local government, our public services and our communities for the better. I proudly support this Bill, and in doing so, I will continue to work for an ambitious devolution settlement that meets the needs of people in Ipswich, Suffolk and East Anglia.

• 8 Jul 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T9. In a recent report, the Victims Commissioner said that she feared that the delay in victims getting justice “will drive some victims to give up on seeking justice altogether—a second injustice compounding the first.”This is completely unacceptable, and at Ipswich Crown court the backlog of open cases has more than doubled since 2016. What are Ministers doing to reverse the harm inflicted by the Conservatives not only on the justice system itself but on victims’ confidence that justice will be served at all?

• 17 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will be speaking to a number of new clauses, but I will start by setting out a tiny bit of context and saying why the Bill is so important for my town. At the heart of Ipswich is a community—neighbours who support each other, and small businesses that serve us in the town centre and that are seeing real shoots of recovery. However, there is no doubt that when I was proudly elected as its MP, we were arguably at our lowest ebb for generations. Regenerating our town is not just about economics; it is about rebuilding our community, and that is exactly what the Bill helps to deliver. I welcome the Government’s new clauses and amendments, which strengthen the Bill further. This has been a good conversation and cross-party debate, but I say gently to the shadow Minister, who tried to claim credit for a number of the changes, that I do not think the argument “If only we’d had 15 years, rather than 14” will wash with many of the people watching. The challenges that we have spoken about did not happen overnight; they were years in the making. Although I appreciate the conversations that we have had today, we must acknowledge the years of suffering that many of our residents, businesses and emergency services—I will come to them in a moment—have faced. With those years behind us, I welcome the amendments that introduce important provisions to help turn that tide. The Bill gives the police the power they need to tackle mobile phone thefts and recover stolen goods. As has been said, we are scrapping the £200 shoplifting threshold, which has disproportionately hit small and independent businesses in my town and across the country. It also introduces tough new respect orders to tackle the worst antisocial behaviour offenders, so that our town centre is no longer blighted by the same offenders again and again. Any retail worker in any corner of our town will be able to list a shocking litany of abuse, harassment and sometimes even violence. As has been said, USDAW and the Co-operative party have done incredible work in that area, but such abuse is not part of the job, which is why the Bill creates the specific offence of assaulting a shop worker. New clause 52 will introduce a new offence of trespassing with intent to commit a criminal offence. It will give the police the necessary powers to act when individuals enter a premises with the intention of committing serious criminal acts, be that burglary, theft, assault or criminal damage. For businesses in towns such as Ipswich, that matters hugely. I speak regularly with local shop owners, small business owners, and retail workers who are proud to serve their communities but who have seen at first hand the impact of rising theft, vandalism, break-ins and antisocial behaviour on our high streets. The new clause gives our police a tool to intervene early before harm is done and when there is clear intent to commit a crime. The amendments also extend protection to those who protect us. That is why I strongly support new clauses 60 to 62, which strengthen the law to ensure that emergency workers are properly protected from the threats, intimidation and abuse that they all too often face while simply doing their jobs to serve the public. Too many of our frontline police officers, paramedics, NHS staff and firefighters have faced unacceptable abuse. Let me be frank: it is utterly disgusting that those serving our communities and country, who keep us safe, sometimes with great sacrifice and selflessness, all too often suffer such unacceptable behaviour. I am sure that everyone in the Chamber has heard awful stories of emergency workers who have endured abuse on account of their race or religion, and the new clauses make clear the consequences for an individual if they engage in such bigotry. As I said earlier, we should never accept such things as simply being part of the job. The new measures ensure that when people threaten or insult those emergency workers, there are clear criminal consequences. To our frontline workers, I say this directly: “This House stands with you. You deserve not just our gratitude, but our full support. You protect us, so we will protect you.” Another sad indictment of the last few years is the absolute impunity for violence against women and girls. I speak to so many women in Ipswich who feel uncomfortable, particularly at night. Women have been told to keep an eye on their drinks for fear of spiking, and victims of other heinous crimes have felt that they are fighting not just the perpetrator, but a system stacked against them. I therefore strongly support stronger stalking protection orders and the new spiking offence. However, the Bill is about more than new laws; it is also about faster justice, stronger protections, and proper accountability for police and councils when victims are let down. That is why I support new clause 59, which rightly removes time limits for civil claims in child sexual abuse cases. The law should never compound the trauma of victims by closing the doors to justice simply because too much time has passed. New clauses 54 and 56 also apply much stronger protections for children and young people. The abuse and coercion of children is a grotesque crime, and the cowards using children to carry out their criminal operations should face the full force of the law. We know this abuse can be pernicious, and the tactics that are used are constantly evolving, but these new clauses and other parts of the Bill seek to tackle the issue head-on. Like the Bill, the new clauses also put victims where they should always have been—at the heart of the legal system. The Bill sends a clear message: we will no longer tolerate survivors being shut out by the technicalities of the system. Their voices matter, their experiences matter and their right to seek justice matters. Public confidence does not just rest on tough talk or new offences; it rests also on a system that people trust—trust that the police will respond, victims will be supported, those who commit crimes will be held to account, and powers granted will be used fairly, proportionately and with accountability. The safety of our communities cannot rest on central Government alone. I welcome this Bill’s focus on partnership—not passing problems between agencies, but solving them together. The national initiative matches our local initiative in Ipswich. I have been working with Labour-led Ipswich borough council to put in place a groundbreaking partnership with Ipswich Central to tackle street drinking in our town centre. The Bill is proof that if we work together, we can deliver at every level. While we bring forward fully formed and fully costed plans to make a difference to the lives of people in my town, and in others, I am only too aware that some people still want to divide communities such as ours in Ipswich. They rarely offer real solutions, policies or change. Instead, they simply want to feed resentment, and pit neighbour against neighbour. I know that we are stronger when we stand together—not divided by fear or set against each other, but united in our determination to make our town and our country safer, fairer and more secure for everyone. That is exactly what the Bill will give us.

• 11 Jun 2025 · Spending Review 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the huge raft of announcements today, not least the announcement that we will expand free school meals, which will benefit 6,500 children in Ipswich. I also want to celebrate the enormous, multibillion-pound green light for Sizewell C. We all know its national importance, from energy security to powering 6 million homes, but I cannot overstate the difference it will make in Ipswich and Suffolk, particularly to our young people, who now have the promise of a skilled, secure and well-paid job. I thank the Chancellor from the bottom of my heart for the investment in my town and county. Can she expand on how else the new age of nuclear will benefit our whole country?

• 5 Jun 2025 · Battery Energy Storage Sites: Safety Regulations · Hansard source

  More

  It’s exactly what you did!

• 20 May 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T6. Labour-led Ipswich borough council recently announced investment to reopen the iconic Grimwades building in our town centre, which has been left vacant for more than a decade. This local ambition matches the Government’s national initiatives, but challenges remain, so what steps are the Government taking to go even further and reform the unfair business rates system for good?

• 7 May 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q4. I refer the House to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. For young people in Ipswich, there is no shortage of ambition, just a need for greater opportunities. That is why last autumn I was proud to sign an agreement with Sizewell C to guarantee 500 jobs for people in my town, alongside additional investment for Suffolk New college’s courses on welding, engineering and fabrication, so that kids in my town can access the well-paid, secure, skilled jobs on offer. May I therefore urge the Prime Minister to support a final investment decision for Sizewell C, not just for our country’s energy security, but for the once-in-a-generation opportunities for young people in Ipswich and Suffolk?

• 2 Apr 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q10. Stone Lodge academy, a special school in Ipswich, will be one of the first schools in the country to benefit from a new breakfast club this month. That is an important step in tackling Suffolk’s decades-long special educational needs and disabilities crisis, as is the multimillion-pound funding settlement given to opening new specialist places across the county. Will the Prime Minister outline what steps he will be taking to break down the barriers to opportunity further for all children as part of our plan for change?

• 25 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  At this point, I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Penistone and Stocksbridge and for Bexleyheath and Crayford. They have consistently tabled really important amendments that are very close to my heart, measurably improving the Bill. I am briefly speaking in favour of new clause 35. We have had a number of good amendments about ensuring proper representation for vulnerable people during the process. We have also had a lot of discussion about the very important need to regularly monitor and report back on the Bill. This new clause brings all this together, ensuring that there is real oversight, with real thrust and a point to it. It is not good enough just to report back some statistics; the question is what we do with them. Having this sort of panel, with expertise and life experience, would be a significant step forward for people with disabilities, learning needs and anything else that might be included. Once again, I pay tribute to my hon. Friends for this work. I am fully supportive of the new clause.

• 25 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I appreciate the points made by the Minister and by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley. “Family member” is a relatively non-specific description, but I think the thrust of the new clause is clear. Clearly, it is directed particularly at couples. I fully understand why my hon. Friend does not want people to have to go through a huge number of extra layers; I have said at length several times that I do not want people at the end of their life to go through an awful period of sitting in endless meetings, assessments or courtrooms. However, I reiterate that although they would be relatively exceptional, there will be situations in which coercion and other sorts of pressure are potentially at play. I agree that that may be an incredibly rare scenario and that two people may just want to go through the stages towards the end of life together, but extra checks may need to happen at some point to ensure absolutely that there is nothing untoward such as other sorts of pressure or coercion, rare as that might be.

• 25 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. I am minded not to press the new clause to a vote, but I have a few brief remarks to make. The new clause does what it says on the tin. It applies to the rare—I underline the word “rare”—cases in which two family members, particularly a couple, both receive a terminal diagnosis within a relatively short space of time and would therefore qualify under the Bill. For very many couples, there would be absolutely nothing untoward. Many people will make a decision in their best interests, particularly if they have been married or partners for a significant period. The new clause stipulates that if any medical or healthcare professional receives any indication that a patient is seeking an assisted death at the same time as one of their family members, especially a partner, both the co-ordinating doctor and a registered medical practitioner from the person’s GP practice must be notified and the patient must be referred both for a psychiatric assessment and for an assessment by a social worker. The assessing doctor would then have to take into account any opinion provided by the psychiatrist and social worker and share it with the assessing doctor. I appreciate that the new clause may be a little too prescriptive at this stage, but I would like the matter to be considered on Report and to be given further deliberation by the Government if the Act is passed and goes into the implementation phase. I think all Committee members can appreciate why such a scenario, rare as it may be, needs to be considered for the reasons we have discussed today in relation to coercion or other sorts of abuse, whether it is obvious or more pernicious. We know that in certain situations there will be people, particularly if they are married or in a long-term partnership, for whom such aspects may be at play. I am sure that they are a rare minority of cases, but I hope that these things are considered. Greater scrutiny is probably needed in these scenarios. Essentially, the new clause would allow for a more comprehensive and thorough assessment of people’s wellbeing and social context, including their relationship. I am not minded to press it to a vote at this stage.

• 19 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  We all know that inequitable access to good quality health and palliative care is a massive issue across the country. People in certain communities—for example, those living in areas of high deprivation, those from black, Asian and minority ethnic communities and those from inclusion health groups, such as the homeless—already experience significant challenges in accessing quality care. We have a duty to ensure that anyone meeting the eligibility criteria who wishes to seek an assisted death under the Bill can do so. We must therefore ensure that the requirements for which forms of proof of identity are acceptable do not exacerbate existing inequalities of access and prevent those who would otherwise meet the eligibility criteria from seeking an assisted death should they choose to. The question of which forms of proof of identity are acceptable is therefore essential, as we know that photo ID requirements can present additional barriers to certain demographics and communities. Data from the Electoral Commission following the 2023 local elections found that while only 3% of all non-voters said that they did not vote because they did not have the required ID, that figure was 8% for unemployed non-voters and 9% for disabled non-voters who reported being “limited a lot” by their disability or health condition. The data also found that awareness of ID requirements was lower among those without an accepted form of ID—only 74%, in contrast with 92% of the population overall. Awareness of the requirement was also lower among young people and those from black and ethnic minority communities. Clearly, a photo ID requirement could present barriers to equitable access to assisted dying. We must ensure that requirements about which forms of proof of identity are acceptable do not create new inequalities of access. The requirement for proof of identity has been included in the Bill for a good reason, because it is a necessity and a critical safeguard. Ensuring that the Bill has the requisite safeguards for assisted dying to be safely implemented is essential to what the Committee is doing. It is therefore important to get right the question of what forms of proof of identity are acceptable for someone to access assisted dying under the Bill. We must also ensure equity of access to the service without diluting critical safeguards. Clause 6 says that the regulations regarding the forms of proof of identity that are acceptable are subject to the negative procedure, but the issue is too important to be left to that negative procedure without sufficient parliamentary scrutiny. By including the requirements for which forms of proof of identity are acceptable in clause 30, the amendment would rectify that. It would entail that the regulations pertaining to which forms of proof of identity are acceptable under clause 6 are subject to the affirmative procedure and that, prior to the Secretary of State issuing a code of practice in relation to the question, they would have to consult such persons as they considered appropriate. By agreeing the amendment, we would guarantee that the question of which forms of proof of identity are acceptable is given the requisite consideration. That would ensure that the requirements do not act as a barrier to equitable access to assisted dying, without diluting the safeguards that the requirement inserts into the Bill.

• 19 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I realise that we could be called away to vote at any moment, but I rise to speak to amendment 534. It is relatively small, and I appreciate that what it seeks may already be covered by regulations, but it would ensure that it is also put in a code of practice. Anybody seeking an assisted death under the Bill who meets the eligibility criteria should be able to access it. However, there is a risk that the requirement that patients provide two forms of proof of identification could present challenges for certain groups, causing inequalities of access— [ Interruption. ]

• 19 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I was not planning to speak on this group either, but the debate speaks to a number of the things that we have talked about in the past few weeks. I add the caveat that all hon. Members present acknowledge that the promoter of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, has repeatedly made it clear that data collection is essential to what we are proposing. I am also sympathetic to what my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central said about not necessarily needing to put everything in the Bill. Without trying to sound like a broken record, however—I have made this point several times over the past few weeks—it is critical that in certain situations, although there may be some regulations or inferences that exist that may lead to certain outcomes that we on this Committee would all like to see, there is nothing necessarily wrong with putting them explicitly in writing. Hon. Members have used different stats from different jurisdictions in their own way to lend weight to their arguments, and although many of those stats are relatively consistent in a number of areas, they are not necessarily decisive. I cited a stat yesterday when speaking to an amendment that around 10% of people using the assisted dying route have complications during the final stages, but as I said then, that came from an incredibly small sample size of just over 100 people. It is therefore critical that, if the Bill is passed and we go down this path, we pursue robust and expansive data gathering in a number of different areas, and I am sure that any Government would look to do so. As long as it does not create any loopholes or unintended consequences, that sort of evidence gathering should be in the Bill because, at the very least, that would provide reassurance that it will happen if the Bill is passed.