Jack Abbott MP: speeches 2025

129 published records · newest first.

Speeches

5 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Eighteenth sitting) · Hansard source
More
On a point of order, Mr Dowd. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley said that if amendment (a) and amendment 186 are agreed to, that will negate the need for amendment 340. I seek clarity on whether that is the case.
5 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Nineteeth sitting) · Hansard source
More
On the point about almost doubling the time of the so-called reflection period, I think we have been very fixated on the Committee, and rightly so, on the six-month limit for the terminal diagnosis, but we recognise that for many people it will be much less than that. A reflection period of two months for someone with a terminal diagnosis of three months is a critical problem.
5 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Nineteeth sitting) · Hansard source
More
A lot of the conversations we have had in Committee have been about eliminating the lottery that exists in our healthcare system. What the hon. Gentleman is suggesting will be exactly that: a lottery according to each individual clinician and doctor.
5 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Nineteeth sitting) · Hansard source
More
The problem with the amendment, which has been mentioned before—I will not go as far as my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley and say that it would essentially nullify the Bill—is that it is entirely subjective. It is not guidance or a clear point of reference; it is entirely subjective to each individual doctor.
26 Feb 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Fifteenth sitting) · Hansard source
More
I apologise for the length of this intervention, Mrs Harris. The central point is that we have to recognise that this is an incredibly important piece of legislation and there is nothing wrong with being absolutely clear and stating the procedures that would have to be undertaken to pursue this.
26 Feb 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Fifteenth sitting) · Hansard source
More
My hon. Friend makes the case that some people will not be given the full range of medical options available to them. Presumably, though, the amendment would limit that even further, because they will not be able to understand assisted dying fully unless they have raised it themselves. We are actually restricting the full range of medical options for those people.
26 Feb 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Fifteenth sitting) · Hansard source
More
I completely hear everything my hon. Friend is saying, but we also to have accept that this is not like any other legislation. This is arguably one of the most seismic societal changes that we, as parliamentarians, are going to be passing. In my view, amendment 50 would not set a precedent that, for all future health legislation, we have to set out the clear procedures—
26 Feb 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Fifteenth sitting) · Hansard source
More
Potentially. There are certain words and clauses on which everyone will come to very different conclusions. This has been the case throughout the entire Committee process, which is approaching its 16th sitting now. It has already been said that this provision could be tightened up, and I welcome the Ministers’ input in helping us to understand their position on aspects like this. In my view, there is nothing in amendment 50 that specifically says, “This would be an intrusive look at someone’s personal finances.” The measure—on the advice that would have to be given—is a proportionate one. Yes, it could be reasonably argued that proposed new subsection (2)(c) to clause 3, as set out in amendment 50, has already been covered under things that we have discussed extensively, such as coercive control and pressure. Equally, I do not think that any of the language in the amendment would necessarily overrule any other issues or make them more ambiguous. From that point of view, I will be supporting the amendment. I do not think there is anything in it that would override or lead to complications with any other part of the Bill, but it does put in black and white on the face of the Bill some of the very basic processes that should be happening. I appreciate that many of the points in amendment 50 are already happening or feature directly or implicitly in the Bill. However, I do not think there is any harm in the amendment; in fact, given the nature of what we are talking about and the fact that this legislation is unprecedented in this country, we should be very clear and direct. I do not think it will lead to confusion for our medical profession. These are straightforward and common-sense asks. On that basis, I will be supporting this amendment.
26 Feb 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Fifteenth sitting) · Hansard source
More
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, but I would gently point out, as has been said already this afternoon, that the conversations between doctor and patient will not be that straightforward. A range of options will be presented to the patients. I do not think it would be a case of “Here is the option of assisted dying. This is your only option.” There will be a huge range of options on the table, as is right and proper.
26 Feb 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Fifteenth sitting) · Hansard source
More
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I will speak specifically to amendment 50. I fully appreciate and accept the points made on a number of occasions during this debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud—that many proposed changes either already feature in the Bill or are the current course of practice for doctors and other medical professionals. As I have said previously, I am not generally in the business of supporting amendments that, in my view, overcomplicate issues, are ambiguous and could lead to other consequences or are simply repetitious, but I do not think that amendment 50 would do those things. Some proposed amendments are featured in the Bill, either directly or implicitly, but I do not see how amendment 50 would overcomplicate or lead to ambiguity. It is a quite direct and, dare I say, common-sense ask that we should all support. I take the point made by the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire on proposed new subsection (2)(f) of clause 3, as inserted by amendment 50, though I confess I did not read it in the same way that he did. I read it as saying that anyone looking to go down this route should be made aware of the legal consequences. That is a sensible suggestion. I do not expect a doctor would be going into people’s bank accounts or deeply understanding their legal affairs, but due consideration, advice and information should be imparted to the person who is applying. That is how I read it; I did not think it would be a hugely intrusive, in-depth study into a person’s personal finances.
26 Feb 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Fourteenth sitting) · Hansard source
More
Essentially, the amendment would require that if a person is autistic or has a learning disability, they must be given accessible information and sufficient time to consider it. Additionally, there must be at least either a supporter or an independent advocate there. That amendment was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford and will be discussed later.
26 Feb 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Fourteenth sitting) · Hansard source
More
Upcoming amendment 339 to clause 4 addresses that specific point. The hon. Gentleman has been asked this a number of times today, but would he be satisfied if that amendment was passed?
25 Feb 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twelfth sitting) · Hansard source
More
I say gently to the hon. Member that—particularly on the previous clause—I have been very sympathetic to several of the amendments. Candidly, however, with due respect to all the hon. Members across the House who submitted this, I do not think that they have been particularly well written. I think that they leave quite a lot of ambiguity in a lot of areas. We had a discussion in the week before the recess, on a number of areas, about the word “only”. I heard it suggested earlier that the principle is about the spirit in which things are taken. The reality is that I am very sympathetic to a lot of what is proposed, but a number of the amendments leave quite a lot of open ends. That has been a particular issue. I have been very open and have said that in principle I am supportive of assisted dying, but that I could not support it because the Bill was not strong enough in its current state. I do not think that the amendments tabled so far will strengthen the Bill; in fact, they might leave a lot of open ends, despite the very good intentions behind a lot of them.
25 Feb 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twelfth sitting) · Hansard source
More
I did articulate a number of times where I felt that some of the amendments were not tight enough in those areas.
25 Feb 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source
More
Most of the discussion on amendment 181 has centred on the word “only”. Just to get clarification on this point, would someone with an eating disorder who was later diagnosed with a terminal illness still be able to access an assisted death, if that were required under the amendment?
25 Feb 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source
More
A line has to be drawn in the sand somewhere. Will the hon. Member define what an adequate timeline would look like for him to be satisfied?
25 Feb 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source
More
Just to be absolutely clear for everyone in the room, and in case I was not specific enough, if that terminal illness is a result of the eating disorder, rather than, say, of that person also being diagnosed with a terminal illness such as cancer, would they be covered under amendment 181?
25 Feb 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source
More
Just as a point of clarification, I remember asking one of the witnesses at our oral evidence sessions about this very issue—Sir Nicholas Mostyn, an esteemed judge who has written and spoken about the issue extensively. We asked his views about neurodegenerative diseases and extending the time to 12 months, so it was something that we were aware of and discussed as a Committee. In fairness to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, it has not come completely out of the blue.
12 Feb 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source
More
To move away from the theoretical, like my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley I am sympathetic to what this amendment is trying to do. To give a practical example, let us say that I have been given a terminal diagnosis and say to the doctor, “I personally do not want to go through pain and agony over the next few months, but I am also thinking about my family—I do not want them to suffer alongside me.” I would therefore fall under the definition in this amendment—the hon. Member for Bradford West is shaking her head, but the reality is that I would—because I would also be acting for the benefit of others; I have cited that alongside my own physical pain as a potential reason that I want to do this. As I say, I am sympathetic to what the amendment is trying to do, but I feel that the way it is written would inadvertently include a huge amount of people who are doing it for their own motivations, but clearly the reality of life is that we consider other people as well.
12 Feb 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source
More
My hon. Friend mentions the word “only”, but that word does not appear in this amendment. That is the issue: we are opening this up. The amendment says: “acting for their own sake rather than for the benefit of others.” In my example, I cited the benefit of others as potential reason that I might seek this.
11 Feb 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source
More
I am grateful to the hon. Member; he has given way a number of times, and I am sure he wants to make some progress. To return to the scope of the debate—I am sure you will be delighted to hear that, Ms McVey—part of the rationale cited for making this change from “capacity” to “ability” is depression, and given what we are talking about, there is a very real possibility that someone will become depressed after diagnosis. In the hon. Member’s experience, are patients with a clinical diagnosis of depression currently deemed capable under the Mental Capacity Act of making potentially life-changing decisions about treatment or whatever it might be? Are there any scenarios in which he would offer or remove certain treatment because of their depressed state? What I am getting at is that there are a huge number of scales and considerations to factor in with depression, but does the Act allow us to look at those when it comes to depression?
11 Feb 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source
More
rose —
11 Feb 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source
More
We have spoken a lot today about further safeguards and provisions, beyond the Mental Capacity Act. However, I note that my hon. Friend has tabled amendment 339, which states that if a “person has a learning disability or is autistic” they “must be provided with accessible information and given sufficient time to consider it” and that, additionally, there must be a “supporter” or “advocate” with them. If that amendment was passed, would that satisfy some of my hon. Friend’s concerns about the Act?
11 Feb 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source
More
My hon. Friend said that the Mental Capacity Act is not tried and tested, and I was challenging the premise that we should apply a concept that is not tried and tested in this or any other country. She is saying, “I can’t support the Mental Capacity Act in its current form because it is not tried and tested,” but, following that argument, she would presumably not support this amendment or any others because what they propose is also not tried and tested.
11 Feb 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source
More
I was just following the argument.

Published records only — not a full account of an MP’s work. How we work →