Jack Abbott MP: speeches

Speeches

• 21 Jan 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation: Referendums · Hansard source

  More

  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—

• 21 Jan 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation: Referendums · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 21 Jan 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation: Referendums · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 21 Jan 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation: Referendums · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Member give way?

• 21 Jan 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation: Referendums · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 21 Jan 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation: Referendums · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 20 Jan 2026 · ADHD Diagnosis · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 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?